But, everyone would stick their oar in and come up with $[reasons] why the UK needs something special and we need $[modifications], and before you know it, there are so many modifications from what's already available "off the shelf" that it effectively becomes a new design.
The problem is, sometimes those $[reasons] and $[modifications] are in fact justified.
Coming from an Australian perspective, I'll use a current Australian procurement situation as an example.
Australia is procuring the New FFM (Upgraded Mogami) frigate from the Japanese. The first three are to be built in Japan with "no modifications to the Japanese version".
Now, to be clear, I support the New FFM decision. When the RFI was put out with the 4 different frigate classes in it, I, in my non-expert opinion, thought the Mogami (or the South Korean frigates) would be better options than the Spanish or German proposals as we'd be buying from somewhere relatively local, and would be operating a class in common with direct regional allies, which would make logistics, support, maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO), easier, as there would be another country that operated the same type that could provide an additional regional location for maintenance and support (and we could offer the same for them).
But, the big questions as to 'no modifications'.
The Japanese use different missiles to the Australian inventory, Japanese locally produced anti-air and anti-ship missiles. Whereas Australia uses the Evolved-Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) for short range air defense, and the Naval Strike Missile (NSM - actually a backronymn as NSM originally meant Norwegian Strike Missile, but I digress) for anti-surface warfare. So, is the 'stock' Mogami compatible with those weapons? What about the software/integration, do the Japanese combat system software on board work with those missiles? Or would this meran Australia accepting into service a different anti-ar and anti-surface missile and logistics complications that involves?
Apparently the answer to that is yes for both software (Mogami uses a US-based AEGIS system, which is also what Australia uses, so compatible there) and hardware (Mogami uses Mark41 VLS, which is also what Australia uses and was the original designed launch system for ESSM). So, in effect, where the ESSM and NSM are concerned it's really just a change of ammunition rather than a complete change of systems and/or hardware.
But if that wasn't the case, then that would certainly require $[modifications] (to make thoise missiles work) and for $[reasons] (Australia currently uses ESSM and NSM, not the Japanese versions, and has started manufacturing in Australia the NSM and ESSM).
But there are other $[reasons]. Some hypothetical examples:
- What if in Japanese service the toilet-to-crew ratio is one head to 15 crew, but under RAN rules or legislation, crew are supposed to have a 10:1 crew:head ratio. Could they legally accept an unmodified Mogami with the Japanese standard 15:1 ratio? Or would they have to modify that? What about showers, wardroom space, etc. The requirements may be very different for Japanese SDF vs RAN (this may be legislation-based, not just internal policy).
- All the on-board signage, software, documentation, manuals, maintenance guides etc. are currently in Japanese. Therefore these all have to be provided in English, which means the ship built by the Japanese will have to modify things like signs, labels, etc. And if there isn't already English versions of the approrpaite documentation, what then? Who does the translation?. Does the current software used throughout the ship already have an English language mode so you just have to select the right setup option, or do the Japanese (or Australia?) have to do the translation and add the English language mode? Or just install Australian-spec English-language replacement software? Does that Australian-equivalent software support the hardware (CPUs, memory, ASICs, microcontrollers, radars, communications equipment) that is in the "unmodified" Mogami? Or will they have to port the software to the Japanese hardware? Or will they replace the Japanese hardware with hardware that the Australian software (remember, this is needed because of different languages between the manufacturerer, Japan, and the end-user, Australia, not because of random reasons) supports? Will the Australian hardware fit as drop-in replacemnts for the Japanese hardware, or will fittings/mountings/alcoves/cupboards/cable routing have to be modified to the different dimensions and weights of the Australian equipment?
- Do stock radars, communications, firecontrol, doorways (height, width), crew berths, emergency (liferafts, escape hatches, etc.), corridor dimensions, chairs, workstation heights, crawlspaces, electrical power production (AC, DC, voltage, frequency) correspond to Australian regulatory and naval standards (I mean, serving on board an Australian ship it seems reasonable that a crew member can just plug a domestic laptop/shaver/kettle into an electical outlet and expect it to work? right? do Japanese ships use the same AC/DC/Voltage/Frequency as Australian/RAN ships use?).
The list goes on and on. Most might seem trivial, but they are real. Whether regulatory or policy or training or commonality or logistacl or even social constructs, requirements can be different for the same things between nations, especially obvious when there are language differences.
Often it's just not practical to accept an item - in peace time, wartime emergencies like say the Russo-Ukraine war usually do away with these things, you "make do" - as-is because different countries just have different requirements and standards and use and have an inventory of different equipment.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
