Australian Defence Force

[wargame_insomniac]

CEAFAR2 on Hunter is S and L band (upper and lower sextupel arrays) plus the X Band target illuminators (cardinal point arrays).

Thanks for the info.

AIUI although the design margin maybe 10% much of that has been used up on the Burkes. The T26 light displacement from wiki is 6900t

Though Burkes built with 10% growth margin many appear to have exceeded it, or was more top weight which think more likely, they have had to add ballast, lead or pig iron, to maintain the ships stability margins.

If the Wiki figure is correct (haven't seen a BAE a specific figure quoted for T26 light displacement) that would make the Hunter 19% larger ship than the T26 with its larger beam and make the T26 full load displacement approx. 8,400t if using the IH benchmark of 22% which not far off the Australians original Hunter PR graphic, figure quoted a FLD of 8,800t, now approx. 10,000t.

If the T26/Hunter sized ship was to be the basis of the T83 the Hunter costs shows that it could be a very, very expensive ship, A$45 billion for the Hunter class of nine ships, approx. £2.6 billion each. Among many alternative options with undoubtably a much lower in cost is the route being taken by Singapore in association with SAAB and OMT (designers of the IH/T31) for a 10,000t AAW destroyer.

[SouthernOne]

CEA has been in the radar development business for decades, though, and was one of the pioneers of scalable, modular arrays.

But if it can’t be successfully integrated in a hull as large as Hunter what chance is there for a F100 or FREMM hull?

What other country would specify CEFAR2 if a company like BAE can’t make it work on a 150mX21m hull?

Another reason for Australia to make Hunter work.

But there is nothing to indicate that they aren't able to modify the hull to accommodate the radar. All the commentary in the public domain has pretty much detailed the changes that are needed, and have been made, to do so.

[Poiuytrewq]

But there is nothing to indicate that they aren't able to modify the hull to accommodate the radar. All the commentary in the public domain has pretty much detailed the changes that are needed, and have been made, to do so.

So therefore are you suggesting that the motive for potential program deletion is purely financial?

[SouthernOne]

But there is nothing to indicate that they aren't able to modify the hull to accommodate the radar. All the commentary in the public domain has pretty much detailed the changes that are needed, and have been made, to do so.

So therefore are you suggesting that the motive for potential program deletion is purely financial?

There's not much point speculating on anything. Best to wait until the recent review is made public and (any) decisions are made.

[SouthernOne]

Hunters are using Aegis as a base line CMS our CSO's are already using both Aegis & CEFAR why would the RAN want to change from a proven Australian capability. Not really sure why there is an obsession from UK members that the RAN should abandon CEA to get Hunters in the water quicker.

They seem to be the same members who can't, or don't want, to understand why certain blue water navies i.e. Australia, Canada and the Unites States, let go of the concept of single role ships decades ago, and moved to surface combatants with all round (AAW, ASW and ASuW) capabilities.

[Tempest414]

Hunters are using Aegis as a base line CMS our CSO's are already using both Aegis & CEFAR why would the RAN want to change from a proven Australian capability. Not really sure why there is an obsession from UK members that the RAN should abandon CEA to get Hunters in the water quicker.

They seem to be the same members who can't, or don't want, to understand why certain blue water navies i.e. Australia, Canada and the Unites States, let go of the concept of single role ships decades ago, and moved to surface combatants with all round (AAW, ASW and ASuW) capabilities.

But I would say the USN with its shit ton of money is the only one to have fully done it as the Anzac's and Halifax's are in real terms very good GP frigates. Had the RAN gone with say 10 Hobart's they would be there now

[R686]

Hunters are using Aegis as a base line CMS our CSO's are already using both Aegis & CEFAR why would the RAN want to change from a proven Australian capability. Not really sure why there is an obsession from UK members that the RAN should abandon CEA to get Hunters in the water quicker.

They seem to be the same members who can't, or don't want, to understand why certain blue water navies i.e. Australia, Canada and the Unites States, let go of the concept of single role ships decades ago, and moved to surface combatants with all round (AAW, ASW and ASuW) capabilities.

But I would say the USN with its shit ton of money is the only one to have fully done it as the Anzac's and Halifax's are in real terms very good GP frigates. Had the RAN gone with say 10 Hobart's they would be there now

Had the RAN gone with a fleet of baby Burke’s by Gibbs& Cox you would be on the money. But the boom bust cycle of the last 50 years have hampered the entire ADF not just RAN

Water and money under the bridge now

[tomuk]

Hunters are using Aegis as a base line CMS our CSO's are already using both Aegis & CEFAR why would the RAN want to change from a proven Australian capability. Not really sure why there is an obsession from UK members that the RAN should abandon CEA to get Hunters in the water quicker.

They seem to be the same members who can't, or don't want, to understand why certain blue water navies i.e. Australia, Canada and the Unites States, let go of the concept of single role ships decades ago, and moved to surface combatants with all round (AAW, ASW and ASuW) capabilities.

Have they?
The Halifaxes were predominantly designed as ASW vessels and only have sea sparrow self defence AAW capability.

Australia has the Anzacs and the Hobarts which are a little strange in that the AAW destroyer has a towed array and what one would think is the ASW frigate has no towed array but has SM2 for AAW.

And the Americans are the Americans where due to their inability build a successful replacement destroyer or frigate they have been left with the predominant Burkes and the legacy Ticos.

Anyway there are loads of Navies across the globe that operate AAW focused destroyers and ASW focussed frigates.

[NighthawkNZ]

Have they?
The Halifaxes were predominantly designed as ASW vessels and only have sea sparrow self defence AAW capability.

Australia has the Anzacs and the Hobarts which are a little strange in that the AAW destroyer has a towed array and what one would think is the ASW frigate has no towed array but has SM2 for AAW.

The Halifax class frigates armament are;

• 8 × MK 141 Harpoon SSM
• 16 × Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile SAM/SSM
• 1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk 3 gun
• 1 × Phalanx CIWS (Mk 15 Mod 21 (Block 1B))
• 6 × .50 calibre machine guns (M2HB-QCB)
• 24 × Mk 46 torpedoes Mod 5
• Aircraft carried 1 × CH-148 Cyclone helicopter

While they are ASW Frigates they have Evolved Sea Sparrow not just Sea Sparrow and also carry Harpoon.

[SouthernOne]

Have they?
The Halifaxes were predominantly designed as ASW vessels and only have sea sparrow self defence AAW capability.

Australia has the Anzacs and the Hobarts which are a little strange in that the AAW destroyer has a towed array and what one would think is the ASW frigate has no towed array but has SM2 for AAW.

The Halifax class frigates armament are;

• 8 × MK 141 Harpoon SSM
• 16 × Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile SAM/SSM
• 1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk 3 gun
• 1 × Phalanx CIWS (Mk 15 Mod 21 (Block 1B))
• 6 × .50 calibre machine guns (M2HB-QCB)
• 24 × Mk 46 torpedoes Mod 5
• Aircraft carried 1 × CH-148 Cyclone helicopter

While they are ASW Frigates they have Evolved Sea Sparrow not just Sea Sparrow and also carry Harpoon.

The CSC, another BAE Global Combat Ship variant, is also an "all rounder," and like the Hunter class is still in the design phase.

[tomuk]

Have they?
The Halifaxes were predominantly designed as ASW vessels and only have sea sparrow self defence AAW capability.

Australia has the Anzacs and the Hobarts which are a little strange in that the AAW destroyer has a towed array and what one would think is the ASW frigate has no towed array but has SM2 for AAW.

The Halifax class frigates armament are;

• 8 × MK 141 Harpoon SSM
• 16 × Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile SAM/SSM
• 1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk 3 gun
• 1 × Phalanx CIWS (Mk 15 Mod 21 (Block 1B))
• 6 × .50 calibre machine guns (M2HB-QCB)
• 24 × Mk 46 torpedoes Mod 5
• Aircraft carried 1 × CH-148 Cyclone helicopter

While they are ASW Frigates they have Evolved Sea Sparrow not just Sea Sparrow and also carry Harpoon.

ESSM is just the newer version of Sea Sparrow it is still a self defence missile rather than area defence like SM2. And as regards Harpoon and ASuW you can stick Harpoon\Exocet\etc on pretty much anything.

[Mercator]

The Australian Adelaide class left service in 2015-17 with SM-2 and ESSM on the former Oliver Hazard Perry ASW frigate. An idea the Turks have also adopted (although with SM-1 MR) on their similar G-class frigate. Indeed the original OHP class was always a pretty decent ASW frigate with robust AAW capabilities. SM-1* was considered a pretty big deal in 1975 and the US constructed 70 of the things.

The idea that major combatants like frigates could get away with light AAW defences is a peculiarly European postwar construct, very situational and geographical, and not universally shared elsewhere. Certainly not to Pacific navies. (Just look at Japanese and Korean designs going back 30 years). I would argue that the Royal Navy got caught out with this during the Falklands War.

* much of my P-3C career on various exercises and training evolutions was spent trying to shadow naval forces and identify various combatants of the 'red' forces. If intelligence indicated one of those bad guys was equipped with SM-1 (notional range 25nm), the safe stand-off distance was sufficient to make identifying forces extremely difficult with passive infrared or other EO senses of the time (until SAR came along on radars). It was never considered a 'short-range' SAM. Always a class above Sea Sparrow and RAM, though completely surpassed by ESSM when that was developed. In the 70s and 80s SM-1 probably was not what you would conventionally label an area defence missile, but it lingered at the lower limits of that at the time. The fact that ESSM now exceeds SM-1 by such a good margin, again makes me think it approaches the lower limits of what you would call an area defence weapon in the modern era. Certainly no one would call either of them a short range missile of their respective generations.

Frigates armed with such missiles – then and now – were not and are not AAW lightweights by design. They were and are capable 'escorts' precisely because they can do both ASW and some AAW. These are not the sort of escorts that 'defend against a backfire raid', that's truly the job of destroyers and especially cruisers, but the bulk of what falls below that (MPAs taking a shot at your HVU – that sort of thing). They were always capable of doing a little more than just looking after themselves.

[NighthawkNZ]

ESSM is just the newer version of Sea Sparrow it is still a self defence missile rather than area defence like SM2. And as regards Harpoon and ASuW you can stick Harpoon\Exocet\etc on pretty much anything.

ESSM gives does give Local Area Air Defence with it's range of 27 nmi+ (50 km+) which is more than twice the range of standard sea sparrow which yes was self defence only. And while ESSM is technically a newer version of Sea Sparrow is it a different missile system.

Yes you can stick harpoon on any anything... however the point of my post was to point out the original post was wrong...

The Halifaxes were predominantly designed as ASW vessels and only have sea sparrow self defence AAW capability.

Basically pointing out that, that post is not really true.

[new guy]

Merged Hunter-class discussion from the Type 26 topic into this topic. Please report anything that I've moved over by mistake or forgotten. Thanks.

[tomuk]

ESSM is just the newer version of Sea Sparrow it is still a self defence missile rather than area defence like SM2. And as regards Harpoon and ASuW you can stick Harpoon\Exocet\etc on pretty much anything.

ESSM gives does give Local Area Air Defence with it's range of 27 nmi+ (50 km+) which is more than twice the range of standard sea sparrow which yes was self defence only. And while ESSM is technically a newer version of Sea Sparrow is it a different missile system.

Yes you can stick harpoon on any anything... however the point of my post was to point out the original post was wrong...

The Halifaxes were predominantly designed as ASW vessels and only have sea sparrow self defence AAW capability.

Basically pointing out that, that post is not really true.

How is that statement not true? The Haifaxes were designed as ASW vessels and didn't obtain ESSM until their midlife refits stating in 2010.

[SouthernOne]

The Canadian Navy's Iroquois class were launched in the 1970s as ASW ships with RIM-7. Their update in the late 80's to early 90s added Mk-41 VLS and SM-2. Harpoon was not fitted though, making them more of a dual role ship, rather than an all-rounder.

[tomuk]

The Canadian Navy's Iroquois class were launched in the 1970s as ASW ships with RIM-7. Their update in the late 80's to early 90s added Mk-41 VLS and SM-2. Harpoon was not fitted though, making them more of a dual role ship, rather than an all-rounder.

Yes the Iroquois refit complemented the then new Halifaxes. The Halifaxes were the new ASW frigates with a towed array and the Iroquis were re-rolled to AAW destroyers with the fitment of 32 cell M41 with SM2.

[SouthernOne]

The Canadian Navy's Iroquois class were launched in the 1970s as ASW ships with RIM-7. Their update in the late 80's to early 90s added Mk-41 VLS and SM-2. Harpoon was not fitted though, making them more of a dual role ship, rather than an all-rounder.

Yes the Iroquois refit complemented the then new Halifaxes. The Halifaxes were the new ASW frigates with a towed array and the Iroquis were re-rolled to AAW destroyers with the fitment of 32 cell M41 with SM2.

There are plenty of photos of updated Iroquois with embarked Seakings, so they look to have retained an ASW role. It makes sense given no ASW gear seems to have been removed during their update

[Poiuytrewq]

Not exactly surprising.

[R686]

Not exactly surprising.

By commissioned boats on paper. But most likely out to 2040 will be a mixed RAN/USN crew

RAN is know as the US 7&1/2 fleet

[Halidon]

Not exactly surprising.

The graphic in that piece might be a little misleading, the majority of the dip is due to 688 retirements. The AUKUS deal would extend the dip, but it's there either way.

[SouthernOne]

Sounds like the beginning of an industry-government discussion on funding for shipyard upgrades, beyond funds already committed by the Aus gov. It’s nothing that dollars can’t resolve.

[Mercator]

Japan to deploy ASDF fighters to Australia on rotational basis
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15042152

[Mercator]

One E-7A deployed to Germany (monitoring Ukraine) and two deployed to Southern California (alongside a KC-30) for some sort of major exercise off San Diego. A lot going on for the E-7 fleet and crews, and a pretty big training pipeline back home for the rest of the unit.

https://x.com/militarnyi_en/status/1717 ... 37402?s=20
https://x.com/vcdgf555/status/1716705679480938978?s=20

[Mercator]

“The [US]Defense Department is accelerating delivery of UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters to Australia, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said” - however still big questions over ADF’s capability for immediate special forces ops and upcoming bushfire season

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stori ... ,Lloyd%20J

https://x.com/AndrewBGreene/status/1719 ... 17997?s=20