Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[JBRobbo]

The SPY-6(V)3 for the Constellation FFG’s and JFK onwards CVN’s consists of only 3x fixed 6ft faces with 9x RMA modules each compared to 4x fixed 14ft faces with 37 RMA modules a piece for the SPY-6(V)1 on the Burke flight III. Likewise the SPY-7(V)2 variant for the Spanish F-110 will be significantly smaller in scale than whatever SPY-7 variant is to equip the future Japanese ASEV. Oils ain’t Oils. It was made clear from its public debut that the radar for the new 142m Mogami was to be enhanced to reflect its greater emphasis on air warfare, we already know this. Yes, Japan already design and produce their own GaN-based AESA’s but as far as I’m aware nothing in S-band, only C-band and X-band. Even their most modern Maya class DDG’s commissioned in 20’ & 21’ use the PESA SPY-1D(V), when the capability to develop a superior S-band AESA equivalent in-country was already well established. Perhaps the interest in SPY-6/7 (if indeed true) indicates a preference for an S-band rather than C-band surveillance radar (e.g. Asahi, Akizuki) for future JMSDF 2nd rate combatants and a resistance to more or less duplicating in-house an existing American design that would essentially offer the same or perhaps even less capability (and with extremely poor export potential by comparison) to reduce time to enter service/keep production at pace.

 

[spoz]

As, of course, would CEAFAR; so if they were going to incorporate an S band rather than an X band system that might be the way to go, given they are supposed to be building for Australia - who are likely to have zero interest in SPY-6 or -7.

 

[SammyC]

The SPY-6(V)3 for the Constellation FFG’s and JFK onwards CVN’s consists of only 3x fixed 6ft faces with 9x RMA modules each compared to 4x fixed 14ft faces with 37 RMA modules a piece for the SPY-6(V)1 on the Burke flight III. Likewise the SPY-7(V)2 variant for the Spanish F-110 will be significantly smaller in scale than whatever SPY-7 variant is to equip the future Japanese ASEV. Oils ain’t Oils. It was made clear from its public debut that the radar for the new 142m Mogami was to be enhanced to reflect its greater emphasis on air warfare, we already know this. Yes, Japan already design and produce their own GaN-based AESA’s but as far as I’m aware nothing in S-band, only C-band and X-band. Even their most modern Maya class DDG’s commissioned in 20’ & 21’ use the PESA SPY-1D(V), when the capability to develop a superior S-band AESA equivalent in-country was already well established. Perhaps the interest in SPY-6/7 (if indeed true) indicates a preference for an S-band rather than C-band surveillance radar (e.g. Asahi, Akizuki) for future JMSDF 2nd rate combatants and a resistance to more or less duplicating in-house an existing American design that would essentially offer the same or perhaps even less capability (and with extremely poor export potential by comparison) to reduce time to enter service/keep production at pace.

I had missed that the Constellations were only a 3 panel system. That must push their oblique angles to the absolute maximum. I was aware the F110 SPY7 was a smaller panel than the massive things planned for the ASEVs. The F110 and the upgraded mogami I think have similar displacements, so perhaps it could fit.

I agree that for their next of class to replace the smaller destroyers, starting with the Murasame, the DDX, might be a candidate for further employment of one of the SPY packages. These align with the design timeframe, given these are supposed to commence building following the Mogamis.

If I had money to bet however, I think the Japanese will want to continue to maintain an indigenous radar capability, so it will take a lot for them to move to a fully imported system beyond the Kongo-Mayas.

Bit like us. We elected to pay the extraordinary money to fit CEAFAR to the Hunters rather than copy what the Canadians are doing with the SPY7.

I have a feeling that the next few years will see some tectonic moves away from American military equipment across the globe and across the board as nations move to protect their sovereignty and supply chain.

 

[JBRobbo]

As, of course, would CEAFAR; so if they were going to incorporate an S band rather than an X band system that might be the way to go, given they are supposed to be building for Australia - who are likely to have zero interest in SPY-6 or -7.

Long history with American systems, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. If Australia presumably takes the risk and integrates CEA radars on our future 8x Australian built Mogami variants, then Japan can observe and compare the performance of the two first hand and decide from there. I think it’s become quite clear, and probably quite a shock to most of the world, especially US defence giants like RTX & Lockheed-Martin that it is Australia’s CEA that now produces the best radars on the planet, only bolstered with the recent announcement that the Royal Navy will look to use CEA radars in future

 

[StevoJH]

I’m very hesitant to make that claim about anything being “the best”, especially when a lot of countries make very good products. Plus it turns into a nation versus nation thing. The Australians think CEA makes the best products, the Americans think LM or RTX do, the British think BAe do, the Swedish think Saab do etc.

Is it “the best” for Australia? Probably, the CoA owns the IP and can direct development down the path that most optimally suits the various use cases of the ADF. Does that mean it’s the best radar in existence? Not necessarily.

Are we ever going to know which one is the best? Not unless you test them all side by side. And even then I bet that each radar will have strengths and weaknesses.

 

[JBRobbo]

You could also reasonably argue that they may be interested in mounting something like a secondary rotating 6ft SPY-6(V)2 EASR further aft, like a lot of modern European & Chinese equivalents to complement the existing forward mast/sensor suite rather than altering it in any way. Would certainly make sense in terms of increased distribution of & reduced topside weight/lower centre of gravity, and presumably risk & cost by a big margin. A departure from its seemingly ‘stealth-first’ design, but a trade-off that might be deemed worthwhile.

 

[devo99]

Unsure if this article has been posted previously however I think this is an issue that is really going under the radar (no pun intended) at least in public discussion.
I expect they'll end up filling out a bit more of the spare berthings in RAN service in order to claw back some of the flexibility that is lost by having such a small crew. Lest we end up with patrol boats dressed as frigates.

People matter—especially when frigate crews are too small | The Strategist

People are getting carried away with the virtues of small warship crews. We need to remember the great vice of having few people to run a ship: they’ll quickly tire. Yes, the navy is struggling ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[ADMk2]

What about defence of the nation as a priority? We're not building taxis!

That has been the policy since 2017 when that program kicked off.

No-one has ever managed to convince any of the Governments since…

 

[spoz]

Unsure if this article has been posted previously however I think this is an issue that is really going under the radar (no pun intended) at least in public discussion.
I expect they'll end up filling out a bit more of the spare berthings in RAN service in order to claw back some of the flexibility that is lost by having such a small crew. Lest we end up with patrol boats dressed as frigates.

People matter—especially when frigate crews are too small | The Strategist

People are getting carried away with the virtues of small warship crews. We need to remember the great vice of having few people to run a ship: they’ll quickly tire. Yes, the navy is struggling ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Good article by Rowan, with whom I served, and of course from a very knowledgeable source, even if he is a Navigator. Something that has concerned me and I’m sure many other ex Navy people for years. A further example - Hobart, with considerably more capability than a CFA but the same mission, has a crew of just over 200 including flight. The ship is 7,000 tons, almost twice the size of the CFA. Admittedly it has a much less manpower intensive propulsion system but that also means many less people for DC in a much bigger hull.

 

[hauritz]

Perhaps I was misunderstood, I never meant to imply that SPY-6 or SPY-7 was replacing OPY-2 on the 'original' 133m Mogami class already built or under construction, rather that SPY-6 or SPY-7 is reportedly being explored instead as the primary radar for the new 'upgraded' 142m Mogami.

I always imagined the Mogamis operating along side the Hobarts, Hunters or as part of a coalition fleet. While it would be nice to have them all equipped with the latest and greatest radars the reality it that we are building these ships on a tight budget. They are all going to be networked together anyway. Throw in E-7s, P-8s and other assets and you should already have pretty good coverage. On top of that you should have dozens, perhaps hundreds of uncrewed systems between you and any potential enemy anyway.

 

[iambuzzard]

I always imagined the Mogamis operating along side the Hobarts, Hunters or as part of a coalition fleet. While it would be nice to have them all equipped with the latest and greatest radars the reality it that we are building these ships on a tight budget. They are all going to be networked together anyway. Throw in E-7s, P-8s and other assets and you should already have pretty good coverage. On top of that you should have dozens, perhaps hundreds of uncrewed systems between you and any potential enemy anyway.

Provided the government of the day funds the uncrewed systems.