Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
We are not the first nation this has happened too but it doesn't make it any less humiliating.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
It is your own Australian Audit Office being critical of the way the decision to choose T26 was made not any external parties with their own world view as you put it.SouthernOne wrote: ↑12 May 2023, 09:33tomuk wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 16:50If you read the auditors report it isn't clear what they signed up for and exactly what they have signed up for varies depending on who they ask. As Aus MoD have lost the paperwork the answer to why an ASW frigate was chosen as a base for a mini Burke AAW destroyer is lost to the ether.SD67 wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 13:57 The Australians did not order Type 26 - they signed up for a project to create an Australian Burke-lite, using the BAE Global Combat Ship as a starting point. That's a 5 year design phase, minimum, whichever ship was chosen as the base. TBH I don't think they're terribly troubled about design maturity as one of the main objectives is to create a local sovereign ship design capability. It's more important that they ship CEAFAR radar than get the ship in the water quickly.
We shall see how much redesign happens but fitting a different radar, CMS and hosting different missiles in the Mk41s doesn't make it a different vessel it will still be a version of T26.
I'd be pretty sure the Aus Department of Defence knew exactly what it was signing up for, regardless of how other parties may view the process from their own perspectives and "world views."
Defence procurement worldwide is a pretty rum affair and the countries of world seem to be in an unannounced competition in who can make the biggest balls up.
Frankly if I was facing a future, if not current, superpower with a growing submarine capability I would want an excellent ASW capability to counter it. The nuclear attack subs will be one capability and the Hunter class will be another. Hopefully all goes well and you get them asap.
-
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Pretty much all audit reports are quite negative, though.tomuk wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 03:00It is your own Australian Audit Office being critical of the way the decision to choose T26 was made not any external parties with their own world view as you put it.SouthernOne wrote: ↑12 May 2023, 09:33tomuk wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 16:50If you read the auditors report it isn't clear what they signed up for and exactly what they have signed up for varies depending on who they ask. As Aus MoD have lost the paperwork the answer to why an ASW frigate was chosen as a base for a mini Burke AAW destroyer is lost to the ether.SD67 wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 13:57 The Australians did not order Type 26 - they signed up for a project to create an Australian Burke-lite, using the BAE Global Combat Ship as a starting point. That's a 5 year design phase, minimum, whichever ship was chosen as the base. TBH I don't think they're terribly troubled about design maturity as one of the main objectives is to create a local sovereign ship design capability. It's more important that they ship CEAFAR radar than get the ship in the water quickly.
We shall see how much redesign happens but fitting a different radar, CMS and hosting different missiles in the Mk41s doesn't make it a different vessel it will still be a version of T26.
I'd be pretty sure the Aus Department of Defence knew exactly what it was signing up for, regardless of how other parties may view the process from their own perspectives and "world views."
Defence procurement worldwide is a pretty rum affair and the countries of world seem to be in an unannounced competition in who can make the biggest balls up.
Frankly if I was facing a future, if not current, superpower with a growing submarine capability I would want an excellent ASW capability to counter it. The nuclear attack subs will be one capability and the Hunter class will be another. Hopefully all goes well and you get them asap.
I suspect it would be fair to say that all procurements beyond simple commodities like TVs, cars, or trucks tend to be complex, particularly if you want to be on the cutting edge. Hence why organisations like the Aus DoD typically bring in very experienced folk from peer organizations and services for key oversight roles.
And what's the biggest risk? If I was the DoD I'd be holding back a little on the design finalization and delivery schedule to see what the results of sea trials for the RN Type 26 are.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Twice British procurement of bog standard Army trucks has had a hand in the closing two if not three UK truck factories so maybe more complex then one would think.SouthernOne wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 05:57
Pretty much all audit reports are quite negative, though.
I suspect it would be fair to say that all procurements beyond simple commodities like TVs, cars, or trucks tend to be complex, particularly if you want to be on the cutting edge.
And one would hope that these experts have no current or future connection with the contractors concerned. See Ajax and the head of GDUK as one example.Hence why organisations like the Aus DoD typically bring in very experienced folk from peer organizations and services for key oversight roles.
If that was genuinely the plan and the delay was properly costed and defined then audit would have no problem. But aren't the delays really down to trying to squeeze the AAW radar on?And what's the biggest risk? If I was the DoD I'd be holding back a little on the design finalization and delivery schedule to see what the results of sea trials for the RN Type 26 are.
-
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
An audit report will always be negative; a reason will always be found to be negative.tomuk wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 16:33Twice British procurement of bog standard Army trucks has had a hand in the closing two if not three UK truck factories so maybe more complex then one would think.SouthernOne wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 05:57
Pretty much all audit reports are quite negative, though.
I suspect it would be fair to say that all procurements beyond simple commodities like TVs, cars, or trucks tend to be complex, particularly if you want to be on the cutting edge.And one would hope that these experts have no current or future connection with the contractors concerned. See Ajax and the head of GDUK as one example.Hence why organisations like the Aus DoD typically bring in very experienced folk from peer organizations and services for key oversight roles.If that was genuinely the plan and the delay was properly costed and defined then audit would have no problem. But aren't the delays really down to trying to squeeze the AAW radar on?And what's the biggest risk? If I was the DoD I'd be holding back a little on the design finalization and delivery schedule to see what the results of sea trials for the RN Type 26 are.
"Squeeze" is not a word I'd use in this context.
A variant of the CEA radar system is already in service aboard the RAN ANZAC class frigates. These are ships with a displacement less than half that of the Hunter class. For comparison, the Hunters will be substantially larger than the Hobart class, which are AEGIS ships with pretty impressive AAW, ASW and ASuW capabilities. Their displacement will also be similar to early flight Arleigh Burke destroyers, which are full spectrum warships.
- These users liked the author SouthernOne for the post:
- serge750
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Well just ignore it then if the auditors are just being negative for the sake of it. What's a few millions AUD between friends.SouthernOne wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 23:49An audit report will always be negative; a reason will always be found to be negative.tomuk wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 16:33Twice British procurement of bog standard Army trucks has had a hand in the closing two if not three UK truck factories so maybe more complex then one would think.SouthernOne wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 05:57
Pretty much all audit reports are quite negative, though.
I suspect it would be fair to say that all procurements beyond simple commodities like TVs, cars, or trucks tend to be complex, particularly if you want to be on the cutting edge.And one would hope that these experts have no current or future connection with the contractors concerned. See Ajax and the head of GDUK as one example.Hence why organisations like the Aus DoD typically bring in very experienced folk from peer organizations and services for key oversight roles.If that was genuinely the plan and the delay was properly costed and defined then audit would have no problem. But aren't the delays really down to trying to squeeze the AAW radar on?And what's the biggest risk? If I was the DoD I'd be holding back a little on the design finalization and delivery schedule to see what the results of sea trials for the RN Type 26 are.
Yes I know about CEAFAR and the need to ballast down the ANZACS to maintain stability requirements after fitment."Squeeze" is not a word I'd use in this context.
A variant of the CEA radar system is already in service aboard the RAN ANZAC class frigates. These are ships with a displacement less than half that of the Hunter class.
Apart from the radar and 8 Mk41 cells in place of 48 Sea Ceptor the Hunter is the same as the T26. So the only driver for the supposed increased displacement is the radar and its power and cooling requirements. So if lots of work is required I call that squeezing it in.
But will the Hunter actually be bigger than T26? The lowest figure for T26 is 6900t the highest I've seen for Hunter is 10,000t. Where is the 3100t going? So far dimensions quoted by the RAN and DOD are the same as T26.
Or is it just the continued ambiguity around size of RN vessels, the T45 has figures quoted less than T26 but it is longer and wider than T26
I would say that Hobarts are AAW focused ships they do have ASW capability but it doesn't compare to a specialist ship like T23 or T26. As regards size yes T26 and Hunter are larger than the Hobarts but whether it is substantial is debatable they are a lot closer in size than an Anzac and a Hobart.For comparison, the Hunters will be substantially larger than the Hobart class, which are AEGIS ships with pretty impressive AAW, ASW and ASuW capabilities. Their displacement will also be similar to early flight Arleigh Burke destroyers, which are full spectrum warships.
-
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
We already know the hull of the Hunter class will be wider than Type 26 as that’s in the public domain. Also in the public domain are changes to the propulsion system.tomuk wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 04:25Well just ignore it then if the auditors are just being negative for the sake of it. What's a few millions AUD between friends.SouthernOne wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 23:49An audit report will always be negative; a reason will always be found to be negative.tomuk wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 16:33Twice British procurement of bog standard Army trucks has had a hand in the closing two if not three UK truck factories so maybe more complex then one would think.SouthernOne wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 05:57
Pretty much all audit reports are quite negative, though.
I suspect it would be fair to say that all procurements beyond simple commodities like TVs, cars, or trucks tend to be complex, particularly if you want to be on the cutting edge.And one would hope that these experts have no current or future connection with the contractors concerned. See Ajax and the head of GDUK as one example.Hence why organisations like the Aus DoD typically bring in very experienced folk from peer organizations and services for key oversight roles.If that was genuinely the plan and the delay was properly costed and defined then audit would have no problem. But aren't the delays really down to trying to squeeze the AAW radar on?And what's the biggest risk? If I was the DoD I'd be holding back a little on the design finalization and delivery schedule to see what the results of sea trials for the RN Type 26 are.Yes I know about CEAFAR and the need to ballast down the ANZACS to maintain stability requirements after fitment."Squeeze" is not a word I'd use in this context.
A variant of the CEA radar system is already in service aboard the RAN ANZAC class frigates. These are ships with a displacement less than half that of the Hunter class.
Apart from the radar and 8 Mk41 cells in place of 48 Sea Ceptor the Hunter is the same as the T26. So the only driver for the supposed increased displacement is the radar and its power and cooling requirements. So if lots of work is required I call that squeezing it in.
But will the Hunter actually be bigger than T26? The lowest figure for T26 is 6900t the highest I've seen for Hunter is 10,000t. Where is the 3100t going? So far dimensions quoted by the RAN and DOD are the same as T26.
Or is it just the continued ambiguity around size of RN vessels, the T45 has figures quoted less than T26 but it is longer and wider than T26I would say that Hobarts are AAW focused ships they do have ASW capability but it doesn't compare to a specialist ship like T23 or T26. As regards size yes T26 and Hunter are larger than the Hobarts but whether it is substantial is debatable they are a lot closer in size than an Anzac and a Hobart.For comparison, the Hunters will be substantially larger than the Hobart class, which are AEGIS ships with pretty impressive AAW, ASW and ASuW capabilities. Their displacement will also be similar to early flight Arleigh Burke destroyers, which are full spectrum warships.
At this stage, everyone is assuming or guessing what the final design of the Hunters will be. As to what’s driven that increase in beam beyond radar, combat system, additional Mk 41 cells, installation of RAST, and ship launched MU90 torpedoes, we don’t yet know.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
We don't know they will be wider or that they will have different propulsion, we do have a number of comments countering issues raised in the reporting of a leaked DOD Engineering assessment report. The only concrete one beingSouthernOne wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 04:52We already know the hull of the Hunter class will be wider than Type 26 as that’s in the public domain. Also in the public domain are changes to the propulsion system.tomuk wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 04:25Well just ignore it then if the auditors are just being negative for the sake of it. What's a few millions AUD between friends.SouthernOne wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 23:49An audit report will always be negative; a reason will always be found to be negative.tomuk wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 16:33Twice British procurement of bog standard Army trucks has had a hand in the closing two if not three UK truck factories so maybe more complex then one would think.SouthernOne wrote: ↑13 May 2023, 05:57
Pretty much all audit reports are quite negative, though.
I suspect it would be fair to say that all procurements beyond simple commodities like TVs, cars, or trucks tend to be complex, particularly if you want to be on the cutting edge.And one would hope that these experts have no current or future connection with the contractors concerned. See Ajax and the head of GDUK as one example.Hence why organisations like the Aus DoD typically bring in very experienced folk from peer organizations and services for key oversight roles.If that was genuinely the plan and the delay was properly costed and defined then audit would have no problem. But aren't the delays really down to trying to squeeze the AAW radar on?And what's the biggest risk? If I was the DoD I'd be holding back a little on the design finalization and delivery schedule to see what the results of sea trials for the RN Type 26 are.Yes I know about CEAFAR and the need to ballast down the ANZACS to maintain stability requirements after fitment."Squeeze" is not a word I'd use in this context.
A variant of the CEA radar system is already in service aboard the RAN ANZAC class frigates. These are ships with a displacement less than half that of the Hunter class.
Apart from the radar and 8 Mk41 cells in place of 48 Sea Ceptor the Hunter is the same as the T26. So the only driver for the supposed increased displacement is the radar and its power and cooling requirements. So if lots of work is required I call that squeezing it in.
But will the Hunter actually be bigger than T26? The lowest figure for T26 is 6900t the highest I've seen for Hunter is 10,000t. Where is the 3100t going? So far dimensions quoted by the RAN and DOD are the same as T26.
Or is it just the continued ambiguity around size of RN vessels, the T45 has figures quoted less than T26 but it is longer and wider than T26I would say that Hobarts are AAW focused ships they do have ASW capability but it doesn't compare to a specialist ship like T23 or T26. As regards size yes T26 and Hunter are larger than the Hobarts but whether it is substantial is debatable they are a lot closer in size than an Anzac and a Hobart.For comparison, the Hunters will be substantially larger than the Hobart class, which are AEGIS ships with pretty impressive AAW, ASW and ASuW capabilities. Their displacement will also be similar to early flight Arleigh Burke destroyers, which are full spectrum warships.
At this stage, everyone is assuming or guessing what the final design of the Hunters will be. As to what’s driven that increase in beam beyond radar, combat system, additional Mk 41 cells, installation of RAST, and ship launched MU90 torpedoes, we don’t yet know.
The leaked report and the surrounding reportage confirmed it was issues around space, power and cooling for the radar and combat system. The extra Mk41 replace Sea Ceptor launchers and T26 has has space for ship launched torpedos even if they aren't actually fitted.An engineering solution had been crafted relating to the full displacement weight of the Hunter-class, expected to be around 10,000 tonnes against the full displacement weight of the UK ships at about 8,800 tonnes, the Minister said.
It does seem extraordinary that you need 2200 tonnes just to add an L band radar.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
HMS Glasgow (F88)
(Warship TV) 2nd May 2023
HMS Cardiff (F89)
(Warship TV) 4th May 2023
(Warship TV) 2nd May 2023
HMS Cardiff (F89)
(Warship TV) 4th May 2023
- These users liked the author SKB for the post (total 2):
- donald_of_tokyo • Ron5
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
In light of todays news on T31 being fitted with 32 MK41 VLS, I wonder if T26 will be fitted with the additional 8 cells to take it up to 32.
- These users liked the author Dobbo for the post (total 3):
- Poiuytrewq • wargame_insomniac • Jensy
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
No reason other than:
1 - I believe the T26 can accept an additional 8 cells.
2 - the RN is apparently now able to persuade the bean counters of the value of more VLS cells
3 - they are in build now, so changes are likely not a major volte face
4 - 24 VLS is more limited space considering T26 has no other ship mounted torpedo launching system, I would expect such weapons to be fitted here, and more flexibility for FCASW / TLAM (for example) would be helpful.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5585
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
How about moving the 8 canistered NSM from T23ASW on to T26? Then, both T26 and T31 will have "32 anti surface/land" missiles?Dobbo wrote: ↑17 May 2023, 20:13No reason other than:
1 - I believe the T26 can accept an additional 8 cells.
2 - the RN is apparently now able to persuade the bean counters of the value of more VLS cells
3 - they are in build now, so changes are likely not a major volte face
4 - 24 VLS is more limited space considering T26 has no other ship mounted torpedo launching system, I would expect such weapons to be fitted here, and more flexibility for FCASW / TLAM (for example) would be helpful.
Actually, I think this will be a better solution, overall.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- serge750
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Type 26 has 24 Mk41 and 24 Mushrooms up front (plus 24 Mushrooms behind the funnel), Hunter has 32 Mk41 in the same forward silo. The Canadian version has 8x NSM on the rear deck house roof behind the funnel mushrooms.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑18 May 2023, 01:12How about moving the 8 canistered NSM from T23ASW on to T26? Then, both T26 and T31 will have "32 anti surface/land" missiles?Dobbo wrote: ↑17 May 2023, 20:13No reason other than:
1 - I believe the T26 can accept an additional 8 cells.
2 - the RN is apparently now able to persuade the bean counters of the value of more VLS cells
3 - they are in build now, so changes are likely not a major volte face
4 - 24 VLS is more limited space considering T26 has no other ship mounted torpedo launching system, I would expect such weapons to be fitted here, and more flexibility for FCASW / TLAM (for example) would be helpful.
Actually, I think this will be a better solution, overall.
Whether fitted or not all versions have space for lightweight torpedo launch system.
Apart from FCASW what is going in the Mk41?
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
CAMM (XR?), and potential.tomuk wrote: ↑18 May 2023, 01:38Type 26 has 24 Mk41 and 24 Mushrooms up front (plus 24 Mushrooms behind the funnel), Hunter has 32 Mk41 in the same forward silo. The Canadian version has 8x NSM on the rear deck house roof behind the funnel mushrooms.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑18 May 2023, 01:12How about moving the 8 canistered NSM from T23ASW on to T26? Then, both T26 and T31 will have "32 anti surface/land" missiles?Dobbo wrote: ↑17 May 2023, 20:13No reason other than:
1 - I believe the T26 can accept an additional 8 cells.
2 - the RN is apparently now able to persuade the bean counters of the value of more VLS cells
3 - they are in build now, so changes are likely not a major volte face
4 - 24 VLS is more limited space considering T26 has no other ship mounted torpedo launching system, I would expect such weapons to be fitted here, and more flexibility for FCASW / TLAM (for example) would be helpful.
Actually, I think this will be a better solution, overall.
Whether fitted or not all versions have space for lightweight torpedo launch system.
Apart from FCASW what is going in the Mk41?
- imperialman
- Donator
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
- Contact:
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Work ongoing.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- These users liked the author imperialman for the post (total 7):
- RichardIC • bobp • Jensy • serge750 • donald_of_tokyo • wargame_insomniac • Ron5
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Also good to see Cardiff is having her Hull painted.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Just so we are all clear on the program costs of Type 26
March 2010 BAE receive a £127 million design contract ( program cost 2010 127 million )
Feb 2015 BAE receive a £859 million contract for on going design and long lead part's ( program cost 2015 986 million )
July 2017 BAE receive a £3.7 billion contract for on going design and build of first 3 ships ( program cost 2017 4.68 billion )
Nov 2022 BAE receives 233 million for budget over run
Nov 2022 BAE receives 4.2 Billion to build Batch 2 ships ( program cost 2022 9.1 billion )
this gives a average program cost per ship of 1.137 billion per ship
Now here comes the good bit for Type 26 fans if we take on board the design cost equals 3 unit costs and then split the 9.1 billion between 8 + 3 = 11 then the unit price = 830 million
Now comes the bit we don't know is there a add cost for the GFE from the Type 23's for the 5 B2 ships
March 2010 BAE receive a £127 million design contract ( program cost 2010 127 million )
Feb 2015 BAE receive a £859 million contract for on going design and long lead part's ( program cost 2015 986 million )
July 2017 BAE receive a £3.7 billion contract for on going design and build of first 3 ships ( program cost 2017 4.68 billion )
Nov 2022 BAE receives 233 million for budget over run
Nov 2022 BAE receives 4.2 Billion to build Batch 2 ships ( program cost 2022 9.1 billion )
this gives a average program cost per ship of 1.137 billion per ship
Now here comes the good bit for Type 26 fans if we take on board the design cost equals 3 unit costs and then split the 9.1 billion between 8 + 3 = 11 then the unit price = 830 million
Now comes the bit we don't know is there a add cost for the GFE from the Type 23's for the 5 B2 ships
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
What about the Mk45 order from the MoD, was that outside the budget that BAE has received for T26 or is that included?Tempest414 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 15:05 Just so we are all clear on the program costs of Type 26
March 2010 BAE receive a £127 million design contract ( program cost 2010 127 million )
Feb 2015 BAE receive a £859 million contract for on going design and long lead part's ( program cost 2015 986 million )
July 2017 BAE receive a £3.7 billion contract for on going design and build of first 3 ships ( program cost 2017 4.68 billion )
Nov 2022 BAE receives 233 million for budget over run
Nov 2022 BAE receives 4.2 Billion to build Batch 2 ships ( program cost 2022 9.1 billion )
this gives a average program cost per ship of 1.137 billion per ship
Now here comes the good bit for Type 26 fans if we take on board the design cost equals 3 unit costs and then split the 9.1 billion between 8 + 3 = 11 then the unit price = 830 million
Now comes the bit we don't know is there a add cost for the GFE from the Type 23's for the 5 B2 ships
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
As I assume we are taking that rule of thumb from the French who seem to have better handle on procurement and production than Treasury, MOd, DE&S and BAE I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
- These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
- Tempest414
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Its a good question we will see but it would be good to knowzavve wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:09What about the Mk45 order from the MoD, was that outside the budget that BAE has received for T26 or is that included?Tempest414 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 15:05 Just so we are all clear on the program costs of Type 26
March 2010 BAE receive a £127 million design contract ( program cost 2010 127 million )
Feb 2015 BAE receive a £859 million contract for on going design and long lead part's ( program cost 2015 986 million )
July 2017 BAE receive a £3.7 billion contract for on going design and build of first 3 ships ( program cost 2017 4.68 billion )
Nov 2022 BAE receives 233 million for budget over run
Nov 2022 BAE receives 4.2 Billion to build Batch 2 ships ( program cost 2022 9.1 billion )
this gives a average program cost per ship of 1.137 billion per ship
Now here comes the good bit for Type 26 fans if we take on board the design cost equals 3 unit costs and then split the 9.1 billion between 8 + 3 = 11 then the unit price = 830 million
Now comes the bit we don't know is there a add cost for the GFE from the Type 23's for the 5 B2 ships
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Defense Aerospace reporting on Australian Financial Review article claims - BAE Defends $45 Billion Australian Frigate Project As Axe Hovers.
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/bae-d ... xe-hovers/
Think the main driver for the increased displacement for the Hunter was the RAN requirement to fit the CEAFAR radars, X, S and L band?, the new generation AESA GaN radars require substantially more power and cooling besides the T/R are modules heavy fitted in the flat panel arrays of the six sided deck house needed to accommodate all the different arrays and add to the top weight impacting the ships stability.The review, commissioned following the recent Defence Strategic Review, will look at whether Australia needs a fleet of smaller but more numerous warships packed with missiles, rather than the 10,000 tonne frigates
The issues over the ship’s weight have eroded margins for growth – such as adding new weapons – over the ships’ lifetime, as well as raised questions over its performance, including its speed and range.
An Australian National Audit Office report, released last month, revealed the project is facing fresh cost blowouts and delays, with the first ship not expected to be delivered until mid-2032.
It also questioned how the BAE design was selected, as the ship only existed on paper at that point, while two rival designs from Italian and Spanish shipbuilders were already in service.
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/bae-d ... xe-hovers/
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4089
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Five years ago Australia seemed to have a clear eyed view of defence procurement.
Now with all this chopping and changing it’s beginning to look like an incoherent mess.
One of the reasons why the Hunters are going to take so long to build is due to the requirement for an entire production facility to be built from scratch.
If sovereign manufacturing is the principal aim and exports are not acceptable how would a change of design actually help?
Now with all this chopping and changing it’s beginning to look like an incoherent mess.
One of the reasons why the Hunters are going to take so long to build is due to the requirement for an entire production facility to be built from scratch.
If sovereign manufacturing is the principal aim and exports are not acceptable how would a change of design actually help?
-
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
They have already built prototype Hunter class blocks at that facility, so it is already up and running. Like the Canadian CSC, the Hunter is still in the design phase because they are both substantially different to the Type 26 in role and systems. The "immaturity" of the BAE Global Combat Ship reference design was often cited as a major cause of the delays.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑20 Jun 2023, 16:22 Five years ago Australia seemed to have a clear eyed view of defence procurement.
Now with all this chopping and changing it’s beginning to look like an incoherent mess.
One of the reasons why the Hunters are going to take so long to build is due to the requirement for an entire production facility to be built from scratch.
If sovereign manufacturing is the principal aim and exports are not acceptable how would a change of design actually help?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4089
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
- Ron5 • donald_of_tokyo