http://images.defence.gov.au/S20220053
Australian Defence Force
Re: Australian Defence Force
Pallets of UK aid are among the extensive array of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief supplies on HMAS Adelaide as it sails to Tonga following the recent volcano eruption and subsequent tsunami.
http://images.defence.gov.au/S20220053
Re: Australian Defence Force
I take it that UKAid bought the stores in Australia for transshipment with the ADFMercator wrote: ↑22 Jan 2022, 23:52Pallets of UK aid are among the extensive array of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief supplies on HMAS Adelaide as it sails to Tonga following the recent volcano eruption and subsequent tsunami.
http://images.defence.gov.au/S20220053
Re: Australian Defence Force
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/hunte ... -disarray/
Unfortunately, the exit report indicates that the design is far from coherent. We’ve known that the substantial modifications that Defence imposed on what was an immature design to start with have driven substantial problems. First among these is a growth in the size of the vessel from around 8,000 tonnes to over 10,000 tonnes. The laws of physics mean that if you increase the size of the vessel by 25% without increasing the power plant, performance will suffer. The exit report puts some detail around that, stating that ‘maximum speed will be lower than comparable RAN surface combatants’ and the vessel will face ‘increased fuel consumption and running costs’.
Lack of power also has a direct impact on warfighting capability, with the commander needing to ‘prioritise power allocation to either the CEAFAR2 radar or the propulsion system depending on the ship’s operational requirements’. In the middle of a fight when you need to go fast and run your radar at full power to detect incoming missiles, you can’t do both. The list of problems goes on, suggesting that ultimately a feasible ship design may not be possible.
The future frigate selection process was meant to pick a mature design that was in the water and in service. Instead, it picked an immature design as its reference ship (the UK’s Type 26 frigate) that had barely started construction and was far from being in the water, let alone in service. The government also agreed to five major changes to the design, including installing the Australian-made CEAFAR radar and the US Aegis combat system. There’s no such thing as a completely off-the-shelf warship design, but the point of picking a mature, in-service design is to minimise changes and the technical and schedule risks that accompany them. Instead, the path Defence has taken has generated risks that are now being realised.
Unfortunately, the exit report indicates that the design is far from coherent. We’ve known that the substantial modifications that Defence imposed on what was an immature design to start with have driven substantial problems. First among these is a growth in the size of the vessel from around 8,000 tonnes to over 10,000 tonnes. The laws of physics mean that if you increase the size of the vessel by 25% without increasing the power plant, performance will suffer. The exit report puts some detail around that, stating that ‘maximum speed will be lower than comparable RAN surface combatants’ and the vessel will face ‘increased fuel consumption and running costs’.
Lack of power also has a direct impact on warfighting capability, with the commander needing to ‘prioritise power allocation to either the CEAFAR2 radar or the propulsion system depending on the ship’s operational requirements’. In the middle of a fight when you need to go fast and run your radar at full power to detect incoming missiles, you can’t do both. The list of problems goes on, suggesting that ultimately a feasible ship design may not be possible.
The future frigate selection process was meant to pick a mature design that was in the water and in service. Instead, it picked an immature design as its reference ship (the UK’s Type 26 frigate) that had barely started construction and was far from being in the water, let alone in service. The government also agreed to five major changes to the design, including installing the Australian-made CEAFAR radar and the US Aegis combat system. There’s no such thing as a completely off-the-shelf warship design, but the point of picking a mature, in-service design is to minimise changes and the technical and schedule risks that accompany them. Instead, the path Defence has taken has generated risks that are now being realised.
Re: Australian Defence Force
Looking like no t26 derivative for aus then,who are they going to turn too then ,Spain again with commonality with Hobart class hull I'm thinking or the USA/ fremm design
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5616
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Australian Defence Force
well if the deal falls through and they go for FREMM we must be ready to pull our ambassador from Paris and standby to mortar our dummies and teddies into the channel
Re: Australian Defence Force
Going from 8000t to over 10,000t is a massive increase and would appear to be down to the CEAFAR radar. I don't see how fitting that to a 7000t FREMM or slightly larger Constellation class would work any better.
A word of warning on taking any Oz defence news at face value though is to remember that defence is a lot more contentious political football than in the UK.
A word of warning on taking any Oz defence news at face value though is to remember that defence is a lot more contentious political football than in the UK.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Australian Defence Force
Exactly, but it is 10,000 Tonnes, up from 6900 Tonnes (a 3,100 Tonnes increase). Not far short of a 45% increase in displacement! That would obviously have a significant (and not beneficial) effect on the resultant vessel.
Re: Australian Defence Force
Plus I think it goes to show that designing radar needs skill and a certain finesse. Just sticking thousands of kilos of GaN TRM modules on your ship doesn't make a great radar.
Re: Australian Defence Force
Yes if the are determined to install CEAFAR on their next Frigate I cannot think of any design currently mature that could more easily handle the weight.
Re: Australian Defence Force
Scimitar54 wrote: ↑02 Feb 2022, 19:23 Exactly, but it is 10,000 Tonnes, up from 6900 Tonnes (a 3,100 Tonnes increase). Not far short of a 45% increase in displacement! That would obviously have a significant (and not beneficial) effect on the resultant vessel.
Perhaps use the Soth Korean Sejong the Great-class destroyer
They are slightly bulked than a Burke for stability wise, but lose the quiteness oftheT26
They must be really upscaling the capability of the radar considering they have placed it on the Anzac fleet
Re: Australian Defence Force
The Anzac fit was originally only single band, the later refit included a second set of antennas I believe S and L band. To increase Anzac stability I believe ballast has been added to weigh them down this will at best increase fuel consumption and reduce range.
That proposed fit for Hunter was triple band X S and L but to be causing issues there must be a load more TRM modules.
That proposed fit for Hunter was triple band X S and L but to be causing issues there must be a load more TRM modules.
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5616
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Australian Defence Force
for me rather than binning Type 26 they need to go back to the drawing board on the Radar in real terms given that there radar structure is replacing a current radar and mast means theirs must be getting up to 4000 tons + which is mad
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- Little J
Re: Australian Defence Force
The could go for the USN's new scalable SPY-6 radar, but they are very proud or the CEAFAR radar and it is very good. What they appear to be doing though is trying to add a considerable AAW capability onto a very capable ASW vessel and expecting it all to fit and end up with a very capable multi-role platform. The idea is great, whether is can be achieved is another matter. Maybe they should work with BAe to develop either a stretched version of the Hull or one with a wider beam like we did with the Leanders back in the day. As such it could form the basis for the T-45 replacement for the RN and reducing the risk for it. We have often changed the size of the hull within an Escort class in the past.
Re: Australian Defence Force
At ten thousand tons would this be the heaviest class of frigate? another question does this size hamper asw operations?
Re: Australian Defence Force
Heaviest frigate? Any sensible person wold probably call it a destroyer at that size.
Hamper ASW operations? Pure size no. But based on the limited info in the press I think it might from a propulsion perspective.
On T26 it uses diesel generators and electric motors for low to medium speeds - quiet running for ASW and max range on the DGs only. It switches to the MT30 turbine for medium to high speed cruise.
Ideally you would want to stick to the DGs and Electric drive when carrying out ASW including sprint and drift. If the ship is now so large it can't sprint on the DGs only then that would hamper asw if the MT30 was needed.
Not forgetting of course that you need the DGs to power the big radar too.
There was one quote that mentioned crew evacuation I wonder if there is a design variant where on Hunter there is an extra or larger DG.
The most flexible option would have been to use a T45 style IEP system where everything is electric and you bring on the generators diesel or turbine as required to power the propulsion and house loads.
Hamper ASW operations? Pure size no. But based on the limited info in the press I think it might from a propulsion perspective.
On T26 it uses diesel generators and electric motors for low to medium speeds - quiet running for ASW and max range on the DGs only. It switches to the MT30 turbine for medium to high speed cruise.
Ideally you would want to stick to the DGs and Electric drive when carrying out ASW including sprint and drift. If the ship is now so large it can't sprint on the DGs only then that would hamper asw if the MT30 was needed.
Not forgetting of course that you need the DGs to power the big radar too.
There was one quote that mentioned crew evacuation I wonder if there is a design variant where on Hunter there is an extra or larger DG.
The most flexible option would have been to use a T45 style IEP system where everything is electric and you bring on the generators diesel or turbine as required to power the propulsion and house loads.
Re: Australian Defence Force
Size and weight no longer define what class a vessel is but rather its role and even here things are blurred. Calling all such vessels simply "Escorts" seems a better option.
With modern computer modelling and engineering capabilities, shouldn't the Australian Builders be able to gain a fairly accurate picture of the Hunter class and its seaworthiness? They must have some core data available showing the Hunter class is a viable development of the T-26?
With modern computer modelling and engineering capabilities, shouldn't the Australian Builders be able to gain a fairly accurate picture of the Hunter class and its seaworthiness? They must have some core data available showing the Hunter class is a viable development of the T-26?
Re: Australian Defence Force
Government awards contract for Hercules armour
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... les-armour
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... les-armour
Re: Australian Defence Force
Good god some defence journalists are brain dead, when they throw in top gun I turn off
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 59knp.html
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 59knp.html
Re: Australian Defence Force
And an article for Army, the way they talk we might as well emulate NZDF
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 59knl.html
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 59knl.html
Re: Australian Defence Force
These are written for ratings, not rigour. I basically don't bother. If a White Paper struggles to articulate the strategies and equipment necessary to respond to various contingencies in a reasonable word count, how the heck is 20 paragraphs in a newspaper going to do it justice? It can't. And that's because it's not its purpose. These guys contribute so little that's useful I'd be ashamed to be called a defence reporter. It's a waste of a life.
Re: Australian Defence Force
The Article on the Australian Army may not be the best quality, but many of the issues raised by those interviewed actually mirror many that are raised regarding the British Army. In both cases people argue that if the Army is to be deployable in a rapid manor, heavy tracked vehicles and the resources required to both move them and then support them are much higher than a force made up of modern wheeled combat platforms, and the time taken to move and then build up the support infrastructure makes thing far more difficult for planners.
But this is where a balanced force becomes essential. You need lighter forces to be able to be rapidly deployed to gain entry to a theatre and then heavier follow up forces to exploit this. However the lighter initial forces need to be properly equipped and have the capabilities and capacity required as much as the heavier forces do. With Australia I have issues with the desire to field 400+ tracked IFVs, then modern wheeled platforms can do nearly everything needed for considerably less cost for both their purchase and support once in service. The latest 8x8 platforms have similar protection to the current generation of tracked IFVs with regards to RPGs and ATGWs, and smaller ballistic rounds, are actually superior against mines, but together with tracked platforms have little or no change against a modern Main Battle Tank. The same could be said for the K9 SPGs, but there the purchase cost seems to have been very competitive and few wheeled platforms that are mature can beat its performance. The small fleet is not going to break the back to support and like the small Tank force, the number likely to be included in any deployment will be relatively small, and the benefits they bring out weight any negatives. The purchase of HIMARs balances this as well, as does the new GBAD system which is also wheel based.
But this is where a balanced force becomes essential. You need lighter forces to be able to be rapidly deployed to gain entry to a theatre and then heavier follow up forces to exploit this. However the lighter initial forces need to be properly equipped and have the capabilities and capacity required as much as the heavier forces do. With Australia I have issues with the desire to field 400+ tracked IFVs, then modern wheeled platforms can do nearly everything needed for considerably less cost for both their purchase and support once in service. The latest 8x8 platforms have similar protection to the current generation of tracked IFVs with regards to RPGs and ATGWs, and smaller ballistic rounds, are actually superior against mines, but together with tracked platforms have little or no change against a modern Main Battle Tank. The same could be said for the K9 SPGs, but there the purchase cost seems to have been very competitive and few wheeled platforms that are mature can beat its performance. The small fleet is not going to break the back to support and like the small Tank force, the number likely to be included in any deployment will be relatively small, and the benefits they bring out weight any negatives. The purchase of HIMARs balances this as well, as does the new GBAD system which is also wheel based.