UK Defence Forum

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Defiance wrote: https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 625-p55639

PS Tried to read more, but "You have reached an article available exclusively to subscribers"
- luckily we have 'correspondents' in Oz

Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board
Andrew Tillett -Political correspondent
Jun 26, 2020 – 12.00am

The navy's $35 billion fleet of new frigates is undergoing design changes because they have become too heavy, risking a cost blowout for taxpayers and potentially compromising their performance.

The Defence Department confirmed BAE System's Hunter class frigate has become longer, while its weight has increased.

The future Hunter class frigates have become bigger and heavier, sparking concerns their performance could be compromised.

BAE Systems conceded the frigate may have to swell in size but insisted it would still meet the navy's requirements.

The Australian Financial Review understands senior naval officers are beginning to have misgivings, although the relationship is nowhere near as strained as it is with the French submarine designer Naval Group.

The government selected BAE Systems in June 2018 to build nine frigates in Adelaide ahead of Spanish shipbuilder Navantia and Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri.

Both European shipbuilders had put forward designs based on ships already in service with their respective navies, but BAE's Type 26 was a new design and at that stage only had one ship under construction for the Royal Navy.

The initial design, as pitched to the government, gave the frigate a weight of 8800 tonnes when fully loaded and length of 149.9 metres.

The winning bid deviated from the base UK design because it was required to include the Australian developed CEA phased array radar, the American Aegis combat system and an Australian developed combat tactical interface by SAAB.

Construction of the first ship is due to start in December 2022.

Australia purchased a design concept and the design is changing significantly, and that is going to increase risk to the program.

— Defence industry source

Defence industry sources said incorporating the radar, which is regarded as world leading, was proving problematic because of its weight and power consumption.

Unlike conventional radars, the data processing by the CEAFAR radar is done within the mast, making it very top-heavy. It also uses more power than standard radars.

One industry source said the frigate's weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.

A larger vessel has several flow-on costs, including construction, needing extra fuel for sailing and the provision of wharf infrastructure.

Alternatively, the navy might need to accept lower capability to keep the boat close to the original design parameters.

"Australia purchased a design concept and the design is changing significantly, and that is going to increase risk to the program," the source said.

A second source said the onus was on BAE Systems to "fix it up, because they put up a paper ship saying it could meet all the requirements, while their competitors had proven, in-service designs".

A third defence industry source likened the frigate to the car designed by cartoon character Homer Simpson, who wanted a raft of features to create the perfect car, only to create anything but.

In the frigate's case, the navy has demanded top-shelf military kit such as the radar and combat systems in a brand new design, but no builder has put the combination together before in the same vessel.

The Defence Department confirmed changes were being made.

"The first Type 26 frigate is being constructed in Glasgow and design changes flowing from production have increased the design’s baseline weight and slightly extended its overall length," it said.

"The Australian changes being made to the Type 26 design, including the incorporation of CEA Technologies’ advanced phased array radar, remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes of the Hunter Class design."

Craig Lockhart, managing director of BAE subsidiary, ASC Shipbuilding, which will construct the frigates, said the Australian version was much more complex than its British parent and the topside was different.

But he said the project remained within budget and it was too early to speculate on the frigate's final size because it was still being designed.

He said there had been no deviation from the Commonwealth's seagoing criteria for speed, range, noise and acceleration.

"It might end up we move the weight parameters, that we move the margin parameters. They are all part of the design process," he said.

"We might get to the point where we have to make some hard decisions and give some hard choices back to the Commonwealth to stay within those characteristics, but the maturity of the process at the moment, it doesn't give me any concern that we won't be able to meet those characteristics."

Jensy wrote:"The Australian changes being made to the Type 26 design, including the incorporation of CEA Technologies’ advanced phased array radar, remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes of the Hunter Class design."

Jensy wrote:"The first Type 26 frigate is being constructed in Glasgow and design changes flowing from production have increased the design’s baseline weight and slightly extended its overall length," it said.

RichardIC wrote:

Jensy wrote:"The Australian changes being made to the Type 26 design, including the incorporation of CEA Technologies’ advanced phased array radar, remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes of the Hunter Class design."

So this means that the Royal Navy's T26s are growing too?

"The first Type 26 frigate is being constructed in Glasgow and design changes flowing from production have increased the design’s baseline weight and slightly extended its overall length,"

serge750 wrote:ps I really like the picture that shark bait found maybe a more stable platform.

Timmymagic wrote: Richard Beedal's Navy Matters website had the best history on it going and has long since disappeared.

It might end up we move the weight parameters, that we move the margin parameters.

RichardIC wrote: So this means that the Royal Navy's T26s are growing too?

Jensy wrote:

RichardIC wrote:

Jensy wrote:"The Australian changes being made to the Type 26 design, including the incorporation of CEA Technologies’ advanced phased array radar, remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes of the Hunter Class design."

So this means that the Royal Navy's T26s are growing too?

Depends how it's interpreted. On the one hand the suggestion seems to be that:

EDIT: as Donald-san notes above:

"The first Type 26 frigate is being constructed in Glasgow and design changes flowing from production have increased the design’s baseline weight and slightly extended its overall length,"

Which would imply that the UK Type 26 is being revised, as bigger and slightly longer too. This might explain the glacial pace of the programme if they're having to lengthen the ship.

However most of the references in the aetlice seem to be about the Hunter Class, so it might well just be the Aussie ones being stretched.

As a third option, could it be that RN Batch II ships (which according to the NAO Carrier report are to be ordered in 2022) might be larger than the first three?

Whatever the truth is, it seems certain that the Hunter Class (if it goes ahead as planned) will be not only larger than the Hobart class but also perhaps the Type 45.

inch wrote:Well t26 wouldn't need to get much longer to be t45 length , about 2.5 MTRS I think which is not a lot

calculus wrote:The question of lengthening the T26 came up about a year ago here in Canada: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... s-says-dnd

It was reported that the design might be lengthened by up to 10m to meet RCN needs, but this was quickly denied by the DND. Still, this combined with the Hunter news does suggest a longer version is a real possibility. The persistent rumour, and it is a rumour, is that the RCN is looking at a longer version (a Batch 2) sometime during the 15-ship build that would accommodate additional MK41 launchers to better take over the destroyer role left vacant by the decommissioning of the Iroquois class. That may be the genesis of the 10m stretch news article linked above. As it stands now, the first "batch" of unknown number of ships will apparently have 32 MK41 cells, and 6 ExLS cells, with the SPY-7 radar, but even that is a best guess based on renderings as the RCN has not released the final configuration yet.

Ron5 wrote:

calculus wrote:The question of lengthening the T26 came up about a year ago here in Canada: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... s-says-dnd

It was reported that the design might be lengthened by up to 10m to meet RCN needs, but this was quickly denied by the DND. Still, this combined with the Hunter news does suggest a longer version is a real possibility. The persistent rumour, and it is a rumour, is that the RCN is looking at a longer version (a Batch 2) sometime during the 15-ship build that would accommodate additional MK41 launchers to better take over the destroyer role left vacant by the decommissioning of the Iroquois class. That may be the genesis of the 10m stretch news article linked above. As it stands now, the first "batch" of unknown number of ships will apparently have 32 MK41 cells, and 6 ExLS cells, with the SPY-7 radar, but even that is a best guess based on renderings as the RCN has not released the final configuration yet.

One of many issues with that proposal is that the T26's depth doesn't allow a simple stretch. It's right up to the practical limit on L/D.

Then there's the financial illiteracy of wasting 100-200 million per ship on ASW measures that would be wasted in a pure AA destroyer.

shark bait wrote:Yep, and not it's like having a quiet ship is bad for an AAW destroyer, plus spending a little more on some higher spec machinery is small fry compared designing and starting up production of a new type.

Ron5 wrote:A survey not long ago revealed ASW specialist designs attracted a 25% premium

Ron5 wrote:A survey not long ago revealed ASW specialist designs attracted a 25% premium.

shark bait wrote:

Ron5 wrote:A survey not long ago revealed ASW specialist designs attracted a 25% premium.

And after a production run of 8 ships you'll have knocked 30% of the build cost.