Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

spoz said:

There is no such thing as an “as is” Meko when it comes to weapons systems. What there is is the last example built.

The whole concept is that there is a basic design, with a fairly standard HM&E, to which the customer adds their selected weapons and sensors within the deadweight capacity of the hull, and the power and cooling available. It’s not quite plug and play, but close to it. So without having seen what the TKMS offering is, there is no way of telling what it might be. About the best guess might be the various models they have shown recently.

Click to expand...

Underway said:

Exactly. People keep throwing around imaginary ships and modifications. Guess what, that's not the project.

The competition is now between the A200 as is and the Mogami 30 as is. With German/Japanese health and safety, ammo storage, fueling, fire fighting etc... and no Australian standards or modifications. No CEA radar system, no increased number of VLS (16 max), no Saab 9LV, etc...

This is a Tier 2 combatant. Its job is to defend itself, monitor air, surface and subsurface and patrol while the Tier 1's go and protect the maritime approaches, support amphib ops etc... It clears up the space for those operations. And because you want them quick and "cheap", changing the design will add cost and time. Australia can do that later when they eventually refit. They need the ships sooner than later. Enemy of good enough is perfect.

Click to expand...

Armchair said:

There is also the issue of modifications for Ships 7-11. That information was requested and presumably forms some part of the competition.
I don’t think it is correct to say there can be no modifications for Australian health and safety standards. As I understand it, If a noncompliant ship were to be selected and built it could not be taken into RAN service without legislative changes (always possible I guess).

Click to expand...

SammyC said:

Trump wants ally Australia to ‘stand up to China’

My apologies for a paywalled article, however with the Trump administration starting to form up, there is more information on its policy intents coming through. This was an interesting article that provides some early insight.

This summarises a number of comments and interviews with Marco Rubio (secretary of state) and Mike Waltz (national security advisor) particularly around AUKUS. Both are major China hawks, and from their comments, they see AUKUS as a platform that drives their agenda and aligns with their intent for the region. If anything there appears to be a doubling down on AUKUS as a allied model, and for us to commit more rapidly.

Provided we align with their narrative around China (which might have some interesting moments), we do our share of the heavy lifting, and we pay for our own defence, then I think programs such as AUKUS pilllar 1 remain on track and supported.

Click to expand...

Underway said:

Exactly. People keep throwing around imaginary ships and modifications. Guess what, that's not the project.

The competition is now between the A200 as is and the Mogami 30 as is. With German/Japanese health and safety, ammo storage, fueling, fire fighting etc... and no Australian standards or modifications. No CEA radar system, no increased number of VLS (16 max), no Saab 9LV, etc...

This is a Tier 2 combatant. Its job is to defend itself, monitor air, surface and subsurface and patrol while the Tier 1's go and protect the maritime approaches, support amphib ops etc... It clears up the space for those operations. And because you want them quick and "cheap", changing the design will add cost and time. Australia can do that later when they eventually refit. They need the ships sooner than later. Enemy of good enough is perfect.

Click to expand...

Volkodav said:

So long as they don't try and get us to buy Constellations .

It will be interesting, there may be pressure to buy additional Virginia's instead of building AUKUS, I hope not.

It will be interesting if the incoming US government decides to keep building Virginia's and Burke's instead of new designs.

Click to expand...

Underway said:

Exactly. People keep throwing around imaginary ships and modifications. Guess what, that's not the project.

The competition is now between the A200 as is and the Mogami 30 as is. With German/Japanese health and safety, ammo storage, fueling, fire fighting etc... and no Australian standards or modifications. No CEA radar system, no increased number of VLS (16 max), no Saab 9LV, etc...

This is a Tier 2 combatant. Its job is to defend itself, monitor air, surface and subsurface and patrol while the Tier 1's go and protect the maritime approaches, support amphib ops etc... It clears up the space for those operations. And because you want them quick and "cheap", changing the design will add cost and time. Australia can do that later when they eventually refit. They need the ships sooner than later. Enemy of good enough is perfect.

Click to expand...

SammyC said:

They have to build Constellations themselves first. Difficult to push a product that is not out of the yard.

I would be of the view Trump will ask us to put more money on the table for US SSN construction (squeeze some more out of us), and push us to commit to five Virginias (American jobs and manufacturing). It's just such an easy place to for him to make a deal, and it aligns with expectations for user pays and buy American principles. This might be what we need to do to ensure ongoing AUKUS commitment.

And note that any procurement and transfer of assets occurs well after the Trump administration finishes.

Click to expand...

Volkodav said:

Wrong, that's what some, including some of those in parliament may think and say, but it is not how it works.

The reason it doesn't work like that is because they and their predecessors decided the RAN had to comply to external requirements and processes.

Those external requirements and processes add complexity and design requirements that have nothing whatsoever to do with capability, let alone adding or incorporating existing systems that will improve capability.

I have seen many a principle engineers face turn purple as transverse requirements are explained to them. The best PEs, or in the old days, Chief Engineers, were the ones who understood this and ensured this work was done before steel was cut, not chasing it around at the last minute.

If you doubt me, just look at the Arafuras compared to the Capes or Armidales.

The Arafuras where an established, in service, overseas design, built by an experienced builder (first pair) to a high standard, and yet have suffered serious delays, not because of the build or the combat system integration, but because nobody was paying attention to transverse requirements, because it was an existing design.

The Capes and Armidales have both had serious performance, quality and safety issues, but had a very easy path into service because they were designed and built to class.

None of this was the RANs choosing.

Now we have armchair experts saying we should follow the project model, less the parts that worked, used on a project of concern, on a highly complex GP frigate and it will all be fine?

The more design input you have, the more aligned the designer, builder and operator are, the fewer miscommunications and surprises.

Simple as that.

The problem has never been the integration of different systems, it has always been lack of communication, lack of trust and change adverse decision makers, who lack the required information to make informed decisions.

The delays with the Hobart's weren't due to Australian changes, they were due to an incomplete, out of date design that was being updated by the builder as work was underway. Things improved dramatically when the designer was brought into the project proper instead of being a disinterested contractor.

The problems with FFGUP were because a third party, who was neither the designer or the builder, was selected to do the design and implementation work.

Ever heard of Dunning Kruger?

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills.

www.psychologytoday.com

I'm not saying the decision makers are stupid, I am saying their lack of knowledge, experience and aptitude is leading them to make incorrect decisions with impacts that continue for decades.

This is why we need to look in detail at old projects, not just the headlines and gut feelings. We need to look at what was done, but also what was not done.

There are no simple answers, and anyone who thinks there is, is deluding themselves.

Click to expand...

spoz said:

There is no such thing as an “as is” Meko when it comes to weapons systems. What there is is the last example built.

The whole concept is that there is a basic design, with a fairly standard HM&E, to which the customer adds their selected weapons and sensors within the deadweight capacity of the hull, and the power and cooling available. It’s not quite plug and play, but close to it. So without having seen what the TKMS offering is, there is no way of telling what it might be. About the best guess might be the various models they have shown recently.

Click to expand...

iambuzzard said:

The Evolved Mogami with 32VLS is starting production and the Japanese have offered it.

Click to expand...

SammyC said:

The data released indicates that both GPF suppliers were permitted to submit a baseline vessel (mandatory) and an alternative (more tailored to lower priority requirements such as integration with existing systems and alignment with Australian supply chains). If there was a hard line around the "as is" principle then I would view they would not have permitted the alternative to be included in the tender submission (don't ask for what you don't want).

So I would suggest there is wriggle room for the final proposal and what is signed up to. I would suggest that any modification has to be at no risk to schedule and no impact on overall cost. No revolutionary stuff.

Following that logic I don't see it as unreasonable for the final MEKO proposal to be based on our standard fitout, and the Mogami to be based on the upgraded version (several of the media releases have stated "upgraded" in their leaked information).

Furthermore, Japan has been vocal about configuring the upgraded Mogami baseline (their own build) with Australian technology and supply systems. So a proper joint build, with Australia having influence on design for the class. NSM has been a significant one in the news, where the Japanese Mogami will be made compatible.

It would not surprise me if CEA and Mitsubishi formed a JV for radar development and manufacture for instance, and we saw this as the system then employed for the upgraded Mogami for both Japan and Australia.

Click to expand...

Underway said:

Exactly. People keep throwing around imaginary ships and modifications. Guess what, that's not the project.

The competition is now between the A200 as is and the Mogami 30 as is. With German/Japanese health and safety, ammo storage, fueling, fire fighting etc... and no Australian standards or modifications. No CEA radar system, no increased number of VLS (16 max), no Saab 9LV, etc...

This is a Tier 2 combatant. Its job is to defend itself, monitor air, surface and subsurface and patrol while the Tier 1's go and protect the maritime approaches, support amphib ops etc... It clears up the space for those operations. And because you want them quick and "cheap", changing the design will add cost and time. Australia can do that later when they eventually refit. They need the ships sooner than later. Enemy of good enough is perfect.

Click to expand...

Bob53 said:

I would even stab that at a later stage another 3 x OZ spec will get built and the first 3 sold off when they are about 10 years old.

Click to expand...

Bob53 said:

I would even stab that at a later stage another 3 x OZ spec will get built and the first 3 sold off when they are about 10 years old.

Click to expand...

hauritz said:

Really depends on how quickly we can build them. I would anticipate the first Australian build being delivered in the early to mid 2030s with the last of the class being built around the early 2040s. If the three earlier ships are to be replaced by Australian builds that could push out to the mid-forties. Even that might be optimistic given that Henderson has never built frigates before,

Click to expand...

Underway said:

I was unaware of the "tailored" build option. Happy to defer to new information.

Don't really understand the CEA infatuation though. Lots of great radars out there. I suppose commonality is important as well as domestic production.

Click to expand...