Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
downunderblue
Well-Known Member
Or a canoe?
I shouldnt be negative, really i shouldn't, but memories of David Johnston still linger in my mind.
SM-3 won't happen. These are the wrong platform for that. SM-3 requires multiple sensor platforms and sensor fusion to get a reliable shot. That would be the full aegis ships that do that.
Sm-6 sure. They have their own seekers now, its even easier, same with ESSM Blk II. Im not sure if Japan is intending to have significant SM-6 load outs, but Australia is. I would imagine the base mogami will carry just ESSM, but the new larger ships carry some SM-2/SM-6.
The potential is there, Civmec was very gunho when acquiring Forgacs, but it went quiet and nothing announce other than very minor commercial/infrastructure works etc. CIVMEC has sites, and commercial work. They are less focused on being a big international prime for ship building, but they want cutting, shaping, painting, fitout of steel to happen within their yards.
But the work needs to exist to do that. The CIVMEC model is a good one I think. They just need a mix of civil/commercial infrastructure and some military work to maintain busy status and make money. They don't always need a huge ship production, but can mix oil/gas, bridges, industrial, work with military ship building. If we are building a small sustainable amount of ships, they can use their workforce and space to continue with other projects at the same time.
Even with ship building the very natural of the work has peaks and toughs, for different skills at different times. So having a mix of projects is a good idea. They can also do maintenance and other work as well. They can cut, shape, weld steel, do pipe and major electrical work with their workforce. That's the bit they are after.
Ship building, even civilian is such a chaotic thing in Australia. Having civil/commercial infrastructure stuff, which uses the same machinery, the same trades, the same skills, is logical. Australia has a large amount of civil projects, and likely will for the next century.
They could even build the new GPF in Henderson, paint it, bare fitout, then tow/liftship it to Tomago for military fitout, thus freeing their yard in WA for more of the heavy metal stuff, and use the east coast base which has lots of military and other contractors for radars, combats etc. I doubt they are really interested in a completely separate production line on the east coast. Maybe if we were building 24 GPF that would be a possibility, but likely even that ambitious number could be accommodated more effectively a Henderson alone.
He achieved his aim, undermine public and official confidence in ASC to such a degree that there is no resistance moving work to WA.
This was done in regard to the Japan solution to submarines. It was policy, undermine ASC and confidence in a local build to get an overseas buy of submarines over the line, then maintain them in the west.
All the focus was on ASC when most of their issues were in WA, the worst SA availability on record was run by the WA project team.
Austal were producing excrement and it was being covered up, somehow painted as Canberra's fault for not controlling our borders when the question should have been, why on earth would we buy a design that breaks when operated in the waters it was bought to operate in.Anyway, here we are, huge amounts of work going to WA to set up to build ships that we used to build quite well in SA, Vic, NSW and QLD.
The WA mafia won, I just hope their performance grows to match their marketing
JV > Getting GPF to launch stage and handing it over to Austal would make more sense, an extension of the old Silveryachts shed perhaps could fit 2 frigates side by side.
GPF build begins 2029, 2030 or 2031(depends which article you read) so potential for LCH construction to be transferred later on (possibly to the tomago yard) -and it would fit down the river.
Future maintenance yard at Carrington or along North / South Hunter River channel for larger vessels.
I think that is more likely.
CIVMEC does the hull, and Austal does the fitout. They play to each ability. These are very big, very modern, yards. Along with Japanese, design, input and supply chain. It has an element of risk, but the japanese are giving us ships to buy time until the yard works itself out. The Japanese may be interested in getting those original ships back if Australia can build replacements. This may become some sort of incentive to get things moving. Its still a hodgepodge.
LCH at Tomago is an interesting idea. But we will have to see what actually eventuates. Honestly I don't think there will be any new ship building at Tomago. It's no longer a ship construction site. So it would be another brownfield restart or complete knock down rebuild yard restart for another short run project.
East coast has some challenges. Steel works, coal power, coal mining/export, aluminium smelters are all on life support with the apocalypse looming.
A note on this: The IRIS-T SLM launcher installation onboard F125 frigate Baden-Württemberg is ... well, less than ideal, showing nicely that even if "you have space for it" that space serves other purposes and is not meant to just drop in and hook up random equipment.
- Basically the installation for the firing test is in a place where usually two 20' ISO containers are carried - those usually hold extra supplies and spare parts for longer deployments. Except 90° turned so it fits somewhat. Still needs the entire space, because at the bottom of the picture there's a gantry structure so people can actually service the launcher.
- This gantry also serves as a standoff towards the superstructure. Because right behind the camera you have the main mast going up. Also a bit hard to see in this picture, but of course the electronics connections to the ship - running over this gantry and into the superstructure through an access hatch somewhere - aren't exactly seaworthy. I've also seen some rumours that some RAS (receiving) gear on the ship nearby had to be modified or uninstalled.
- The installation also entirely covers one of the main access hatches (stairs) to the weather deck from underneath - located right under the exhaust redirector to the right. The "undercarriage" itself in grey is required for ballast btw, because otherwise the whole thing would probably drop off into the ocean on firing.
- The exhaust redirector is also located such that it washes directly upon one of the MLG-27 medium gun mounts (located at the right edge of the picture, identical gun on opposite side in same location). They removed the gun and its housing from the mount for the test.
The original requirement by the Navy for the test was to carry two launchers in this space btw - with likely the (a bit naive) idea to just drop them in instead of the two containers.
Devil is in the details. The Mogamis have the ability on paper to fire pretty much anything already integrated in Mk 41 VLS.
But... between what can be done on paper and actually getting it done in real life is often a gap that can be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars for software integration, physical integration of dedicated servers, physical cabinets etc.
Just look at the USN's own Constellation FFGs which are currently unable to fire SM-6 and Tomahawk. They are waiting for a new virtualized computer infrastructure to replace the dedicated weapons control cabinets that have been used up to now. Will the Mogamis natively be able to adopt this virtual computer code to fire those missiles (once it's ready)? Will additional software or physical interfaces be required to talk between US-standard and Japanese-standard environments? Will additional Aegis modules be required to make the jump from local air defence (with ESSM) to area air defence (with SM-6), will that require additional computing power or dedicated hardware etc?
We don't know. Ministers can say what they want but all we know is that currently SM-6 integration hasn't been done - not on the Mogamis, and for that matter not on any other similar ESSM-equipped frigates. The Mogamis have an additional wild card which is that there's no public info on whether the New FFMs will integrate an S-band radar (there are big new radar panels on the mast which could be either S-band or C-band radar)... worth keeping in mind that the base Mogami have only an X-band radar and the previous Asahi class have C- & X- band radars which are the wrong bands both in terms of volume search and SM-2/6 guidance... the RAN would clearly need S-band but we don't know what the JMSDF selected).
Tomahawk integration appears to be less of a headache as it's been done on the Dutch LCFs, Astute SSNs etc... we know the physical TTCWS console and computer hardware aren't too cumbersome (though still apparently enough for the USN to pass on Tomahawk for its FFGs until virtualization is ready). There might however be some damage-control / vulnerability concerns from carrying such a big missile (in terms of fuel + warhead ignition risk) in a hull that may never have been designed for it... but I guess a waiver can always be signed if the bulkhead strengths, firefighting capacity, stability standards etc are not met.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Realistically, the Constellation-class itself cannot fire anything yet. The lead ship is still under construction and IMO using the class as an example is not all that great, since the programme itself is somewhat problematic, largely due to self-inflicted issues.
The US took an existing Euro design which has examples in service with several nations and then has been trying to modify the design to fit US kit. According to reporting, as of April of this year the lead ship was still only ~10% complete despite having been under construction for two years (first steel cut 31 August, 2022). Further, apparently the design itself has not been completed and currently only has ~15% commonality with the parent Italian FREMM design.
Not sure the the USN has gone completely the wrong way in terms of how to get a new class of frigates and designed and built, but it certainly does seem like it in many respects.
SM-6 doesn’t care what radar band its launch platform employs, what it cares about is the data feed from the CMS. Admittedly, that is a very specific requirement, but its source can be anything that provides it, which includes data links. And what it needs is very similar to what some mods of SM-2 need.
Because of its potential range it is likely that if the launch platform is providing firing data it will have to be sourced from S band (and of course the target will have to be above the radar horizon) but it is not essential. C Band radars are not all that common (basically because their frequency range is used for lots of other purposes) but they do have similar capabilities to S Band. Providing you are willing to accept the, relatively minor, differences in capacity they should be able to provide the required data stream for SM-6 at all but extreme ranges.
The real issue with the Mogamis (or any other platform) is whether the CMS can handle the provision of that data. Given the JMSDF has links with LockMart through their previouse AEGIS builds, and that they are an SM-6 user, it is one they may already have addressed. It shouldn't be all that difficult although, being LockMart, it might be expensive! Nobody has revealed a likely load out of a Mogami or its evolved sisters, the ones with 32 tubes, but it is very probable that it would be in the JMSDF's interests to integrate all the weapons they own which are capable of being launched from Mk 41, even if they have no immediate intention of deploying them on a particular platform. Versatility is not something to be sneezed at.
Because of its potential range it is likely that if the launch platform is providing firing data it will have to be sourced from S band (and of course the target will have to be above the radar horizon) but it is not essential. C Band radars are not all that common (basically because their frequency range is used for lots of other purposes) but they do have similar capabilities to S Band. Providing you are willing to accept the, relatively minor, differences in capacity they should be able to provide the required data stream for SM-6 at all but extreme ranges.
The real issue with the Mogamis (or any other platform) is whether the CMS can handle the provision of that data. Given the JMSDF has links with LockMart through their previouse AEGIS builds, and that they are an SM-6 user, it is one they may already have addressed. It shouldn't be all that difficult although, being LockMart, it might be expensive! Nobody has revealed a likely load out of a Mogami or its evolved sisters, the ones with 32 tubes, but it is very probable that it would be in the JMSDF's interests to integrate all the weapons they own which are capable of being launched from Mk 41, even if they have no immediate intention of deploying them on a particular platform. Versatility is not something to be sneezed at.
Last edited:
I take your point on the complexities of integrating new capabilities. It took us long enough to implement SM6 on our own Hobarts. It's possible that problems might occur during the project.
I'm not too familiar with the Constellation SM6 integration. I think however there are some specific items here. Constellation is in my understanding scheduled for Aegis Baseline 10, which is the same as the new AB flight 3s. The flight 3s come with SM6 and TLAM capability, so this is not an Aegis thing.
I suspect it is a (yet another) modification package that the USN wants to fit to the Constellations that was not in the original program. I get their reticence to add it in at the moment. So perhaps less that it can't be done, more they don't want the distraction on an already complex build. I could be wrong.
To your point, ministers can say what they want, and many do. I have however found Sen Conroy reasonably reliable with what he says. I would however be strongly of the view that if the upgraded Mogami is to have SM2/SM6 and Tomahawk capability it is because the Japanese want it in their own baseline design. It will not be an Australianisation.
If that is the case, then I imagine Lockheed Martin (who supply the underlying combat system, even though it has an MHI badge) will provide it as ready and fitted for this capability (the Japanese would have specified this in their original procurement for the upgraded Mogami several years ago). Still some complexities here, but one would think that LM know how to integrate SM2/6 into their own combat system via a Mk41. If they don't we are all in trouble. Again perhaps I am glass half full in my optimism and it may be misplaced.
In regards to the radar, my understanding is that the upgraded Mogami will be fitted with an updated OPY2 radar, the same as the classic. All the images I have seen indicate this. As such it will be a single X band, with no S, C or L band to go with it.
The new SM2/6 missiles do not require illumination, so the radar is less important. Even if it was, fire control radars are X band for the fidelity.
Having only a single band radar is a bit restrictive, however I think we have been spoilt by the enormus flexibility of the ceafar package on the ANZACs and planned for the Hunters. More radars means more cost, and I suspect that is one of the trade offs that comes with a cost optimised tier 2 frigate design.
If you have to pick only one radar however, the X band is a good allrounder. Contrary to popular opinion, it can adequately scan the horizon and line of sight beyond, (the US use X band for their sea based SBX platforms and also for THAAD ) and is OK in weather. The downside is it requires significantly more energy, so needs a larger power plant, and because of its high fidelity it requires a more capable processing computer to remove clutter. It also has some limitations in that most stealth designs are optimised for X band rather than C, S or L. That's where ceafar with its multiple channels has a big advantage.
Last edited:
Joe Black
Active Member
I do wonder if RAN can retrofit CEAFAR S-Band onto the Evolved Mogami at a later date after the initial service. It shouldn't be super hard to integrate CEAFAR radar into the Japanese CMS system. I would suspect Nulka decoys would also be added.
AFAIK Tomahawk was more or less an independent system with its own console that back in the day, had a plotter for mapping etc. Its integration into the whole CMS was fairly minimal.
FFG really didn't need tomahawk anyway, and they didn't have vertical cells, and the launcher wasn't rated for the tomhawk, on older platforms like the Iowas they were fired from box launchers.
The Japanese understand integration, I believe it was looking at how they handle Aegis that we got ideas for our own consoles for our destroyers, which also received a Aegis server upgrade, so pulling everything out to fire SM-6, but also all the upgrades they had to have to support the new servers and BMD etc.
At this stage the Mogamis intergration is a problem for the Japanese to handle. They have many ships, and their combat system. They believe they can do it. This is a huge international show piece for them. Japanese have always favored US weapons and munitions. While they have their own, they commonly use US supply chain because in an actual shooting war, Japan's industry won't last very long. It may not not be a priority, but they would have planned for it. 32vls has to be filled with something.
There is also the issue that the 32x cell Mogami FFM doesn’t exist yet and the original Mogamis with the 16x cell Mk.41 VLS only emerged first in April 2025, so they haven’t needed to integrate “anything” on them as yet as far as US sourced vertically launched systems are concerned, but they seemingly didn’t have any problem adding SeaRAM to their CMS, so I doubt other US based weapons will present a huge problem for them…
First Mogami-class FFM fitted with Mk 41 VLS emerges in Japan - Naval News
Japan has begun installing the first Mk 41 VLS for a planned fleet of 12 Mogami-class multirole frigates for the JMSDF.
www.navalnews.com
NUSHIP Pilbara rolled out.
Launch = end of the month.
www.civmec.com.au
Launch = end of the month.
NUSHIP Pilbara Rolled Out - Civmec
NUSHIP Pilbara is the third Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) being delivered under the SEA1180 Phase 1 project, following the commissioning of HMAS Arafura (OPV 1) in June and the acceptance of NUSHIP Eyre (OPV 2) in September. The Arafura Class OPVs will bring enhanced capabilities to the Royal...
www.civmec.com.au
Attachments
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Australian Submariners now making up a not insignificant part of the crew of some U.S. SSNs.
I've said before- lots of AUKUS in the popular news but behind the scenes, everything is moving at a fast pace imho. Even if the big ticket US subs don't come, the other part, having a trained workforce, submariners and facilities will be ready when we got our new UK built ones, even if it's in 2045
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
We will get the Virginias, it's only a matter of when. The fact that there are 13 trained Aussies on the USS Vermont, 10% of the crew, speaks volumes.
By the time the first boats arrive we'll have trained personnel all along the chain to support and crew them.
This is all the background work the media and public don't see.
Hopefully I'll be around to see Mogamis, Hunters and Virginias in the fleet.
Quite a substantial maintenance team as well.