Australian Defence Force

[SouthernOne]

….the powers that be may still decide to put up with the extra cost of the other proposals to get the capability they really want.

What do they really want?

Hunter appears to have covered all the bases now.

Surely if anything needs refinement it’s the CEAFAR requirement rather than the hull?

Why? Without CEAFAR or an equally large and heavy replacement, the Hunter wouldn't be able to perform the roles it needs to.

[R686]

….the powers that be may still decide to put up with the extra cost of the other proposals to get the capability they really want.

What do they really want?

Hunter appears to have covered all the bases now.

Surely if anything needs refinement it’s the CEAFAR requirement rather than the hull?

Why? Without CEAFAR or an equally large and heavy replacement, the Hunter wouldn't be able to perform the roles it needs to.

Also it’s an Australian company and sovereign owned. Government is spending a lot of dosh for defence sovereign capabilities


https://www.cea.com.au/innovation/commo ... st-in-cea/

[SouthernOne]

….the powers that be may still decide to put up with the extra cost of the other proposals to get the capability they really want.

What do they really want?

Hunter appears to have covered all the bases now.

Surely if anything needs refinement it’s the CEAFAR requirement rather than the hull?

Why? Without CEAFAR or an equally large and heavy replacement, the Hunter wouldn't be able to perform the roles it needs to.

Also it’s an Australian company and sovereign owned. Government is spending a lot of dosh for defence sovereign capabilities


https://www.cea.com.au/innovation/commo ... st-in-cea/

And the underlying reason for that is the current and likely future strategic environment across the Indo-Pacific.

In contrast the RN Type 26 seems to have been designed for the confined and comparatively benign northern Atlantic.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why? Without CEAFAR or an equally large and heavy replacement, the Hunter wouldn't be able to perform the roles it needs to.

Does it really have to be that large and heavy or could it be refined further to help with the top weight issues?

If Hunter can’t successfully integrate it, which alternative hull could with any degree of certainty?

It’s great to have the sovereign capability but if it’s a nightmare to integrate on a hull with Hunters dimensions who else would want it?

From a distance, the currently proposed RAN fleet balance looks particularly poor for a policy of containment over such a vast area, not convinced a few extra VLS cells will drastically alter the outcome.

[SW1]

In contrast the RN Type 26 seems to have been designed for the confined and comparatively benign northern Atlantic.

Could you expand on this point, be interested to know to what design features you refer.

[SouthernOne]

Why? Without CEAFAR or an equally large and heavy replacement, the Hunter wouldn't be able to perform the roles it needs to.

Does it really have to be that large and heavy or could it be refined further to help with the top weight issues?

If Hunter can’t successfully integrate it, which alternative hull could with any degree of certainty?

It’s great to have the sovereign capability but if it’s a nightmare to integrate on a hull with Hunters dimensions who else would want it?

From a distance, the currently proposed RAN fleet balance looks particularly poor for a policy of containment over such a vast area, not convinced a few extra VLS cells will drastically alter the outcome.

That's your assumption, or rather asserion though. A version of CEAFAR scaled for smaller ships has already been integrated into the ANZAC class, which is a much smaller class of ship.

For the same capability of CEAFAR a Hobart class needs SPY-1, AN-SPQ-9, and AN/SPG-9. Similarly look a the number of radars a PAAMs ship is equipped with.

Not sure what that the cause of the anti-CEAFAR hysteria is on this forum.

[SouthernOne]

In contrast the RN Type 26 seems to have been designed for the confined and comparatively benign northern Atlantic.

Could you expand on this point, be interested to know to what design features you refer.

How many adversary carrier battle groups is the RN likely to encounter in the North Atlantic? That's the backdrop for why the Type 26 has been equiped the way it has, and also why the RN still sees value in single role ships.

The Kuznetsov probably has a good chance of sinking all by itself before it would ever reach blue water.

[SW1]

In contrast the RN Type 26 seems to have been designed for the confined and comparatively benign northern Atlantic.

Could you expand on this point, be interested to know to what design features you refer.

How many adversary carrier battle groups is the RN likely to encounter in the North Atlantic? That's the backdrop for why the Type 26 has been equiped the way it has, and also why the RN still sees value in single role ships.

About as many as Australia would see i would think the odd old rusty Russian aircraft carrier.

It’s equipped with the same gun as the Australian ship but the RN one has 72 vertical launch missile silos which I think is more than what Australia is putting in there’s. Not sure the anti ship missile system has been selected yet.

I think history, tradition and training may be more to do with specialisation of hulls in the RN than anything else.

[Poiuytrewq]

That's your assumption, or rather asserion though. A version of CEAFAR scaled for smaller ships has already been integrated into the ANZAC class, which is a much smaller class of ship.

Exactly, so why make the replacement so complicated?

If the RAN wants to follow USN ASW doctrine with AB’s and SSN’s why pick Hunter?

The 9 Frigates, 3 Destroyers and 2 LHD plan looks like an odd balance for Australia.

A policy of containment will be hard to implement successfully over such a vast area with only 4 escorts available at any one time. The 24K solution didn’t work out too well for RN either, hence the T31.

[SouthernOne]

In contrast the RN Type 26 seems to have been designed for the confined and comparatively benign northern Atlantic.

Could you expand on this point, be interested to know to what design features you refer.

How many adversary carrier battle groups is the RN likely to encounter in the North Atlantic? That's the backdrop for why the Type 26 has been equiped the way it has, and also why the RN still sees value in single role ships.

About as many as Australia would see i would think the odd old rusty Russian aircraft carrier.

It’s equipped with the same gun as the Australian ship but the RN one has 72 vertical launch missile silos which I think is more than what Australia is putting in there’s. Not sure the anti ship missile system has been selected yet.

I think history, tradition and training may be more to do with specialisation of hulls in the RN than anything else.

The PLAN currently has two active aircraft carriers, plus one in fit-out. It also has a program in place to rapidly expand that number.

The other issue is land based airborn threats. VVS long range aircraft have to find or fight their way through land based NATO defences before reaching the Atlantic. Meanwhile PLAAF aircraft are based directly adjacent to major shipping lanes and the eastern Pacific in general.

[Mercator]

The competition for the frigate was always about fitting a frigate around the Australian government requirements for CEA radars, SSMs and significant ESSMs. A requirement. If the T26 is having trouble incorporating that, then the trouble is the frigate, not the requirements. Not unreasonably in that situation, the requirement holder is considering the alternatives, and probably thinking long and hard about how they were talked into it in the first place. Given that they are bought in batches, they have that flexibility. Tough shit for the T26.

[SW1]

The competition for the frigate was always about fitting a frigate around the Australian government requirements for CEA radars, SSMs and significant ESSMs. A requirement. If the T26 is having trouble incorporating that, then the trouble is the frigate, not the requirements. Not unreasonably in that situation, the requirement holder is considering the alternatives, and probably thinking long and hard about how they were talked into it in the first place. Given that they are bought in batches, they have that flexibility. Tough shit for the T26.

Is there an appropriately scaled radar and aegis operating system build and operating to the requirements specified at time of contract? if not why not, there is usually land based demonstrators operating years in advance of ship integration. In all the commentary haven’t heard the answer to that stated yet.

So it could be tough shit for the type 26, could be also tough shit the radar doesn’t work so it turns out the requirements are shit.


I should add I strongly suspect budgets have been well and truly blown with everything they’ve been ordering particularly the cost of the nuclear enterprise and now chickens are coming home to roast and they have to find ways to get out of things.

[Mercator]

Re: the earlier discussion about missile armament choices, consider the previous classes of frigates in our respective navies. T23 started out with Sea Viper (a 6nm weapon) and transitioned to CAMM in 2017. Anzac started with Sea Sparrow (10nm) but by the third vessel was fitted with ESSM (27nm+). The other Australian class of frigate, Adelaide class, started with SM1 and later transitioned to SM2-MR + ESSM. And these were the choices that were made in the 90s. Our environment has only gotten scarier since, so it shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that we prefer robust armaments of this sort.

[Mercator]

The competition for the frigate was always about fitting a frigate around the Australian government requirements for CEA radars, SSMs and significant ESSMs. A requirement. If the T26 is having trouble incorporating that, then the trouble is the frigate, not the requirements. Not unreasonably in that situation, the requirement holder is considering the alternatives, and probably thinking long and hard about how they were talked into it in the first place. Given that they are bought in batches, they have that flexibility. Tough shit for the T26.

Is there an appropriately scaled radar and aegis operating system build and operating to the requirements specified at time of contract? if not why not, there is usually land based demonstrators operating years in advance of ship integration. In all the commentary haven’t heard the answer to that stated yet.

So it could be tough shit for the type 26, could be also tough shit the radar doesn’t work so it turns out the requirements are shit.


I should add I strongly suspect budgets have been well and truly blown with everything they’ve been ordering particularly the cost of the nuclear enterprise and now chickens are coming home to roast and they have to find ways to get out of things.

Did you see all the models on display this week? Every one of them was pitching a CEA radar fit on them. If BAE can't make them work – no worries, mate. Somebody else will.

[SouthernOne]

The competition for the frigate was always about fitting a frigate around the Australian government requirements for CEA radars, SSMs and significant ESSMs. A requirement. If the T26 is having trouble incorporating that, then the trouble is the frigate, not the requirements. Not unreasonably in that situation, the requirement holder is considering the alternatives, and probably thinking long and hard about how they were talked into it in the first place. Given that they are bought in batches, they have that flexibility. Tough shit for the T26.

When you look at how much capability has been added to the ANZACs since they were first delivered, including CEAFAR, and how designs like the Arleigh Burke have been revised and upgraded over time, its hard to see why modifying the GCS to meet Aus requirements appears to have turned into such a drama.

[Mercator]

I don't think anyone expected a 7000 ton design to have trouble. Not after Anzac. Someone probably should have checked BAE's homework, but part of me can hardly blame them when the 2018 version of me couldn't conceive it would be an issue.

[SW1]

The competition for the frigate was always about fitting a frigate around the Australian government requirements for CEA radars, SSMs and significant ESSMs. A requirement. If the T26 is having trouble incorporating that, then the trouble is the frigate, not the requirements. Not unreasonably in that situation, the requirement holder is considering the alternatives, and probably thinking long and hard about how they were talked into it in the first place. Given that they are bought in batches, they have that flexibility. Tough shit for the T26.

Is there an appropriately scaled radar and aegis operating system build and operating to the requirements specified at time of contract? if not why not, there is usually land based demonstrators operating years in advance of ship integration. In all the commentary haven’t heard the answer to that stated yet.

So it could be tough shit for the type 26, could be also tough shit the radar doesn’t work so it turns out the requirements are shit.


I should add I strongly suspect budgets have been well and truly blown with everything they’ve been ordering particularly the cost of the nuclear enterprise and now chickens are coming home to roast and they have to find ways to get out of things.

Did you see all the models on display this week? Every one of them was pitching a CEA radar fit on them. If BAE can't make them work – no worries, mate. Somebody else will.

All the models looked great. Models always do. Reality is a much harder task master however.

Notice anything about this lovely model in 2017
https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/n ... ystem.html

[SouthernOne]

Notice anything about this lovely model in 2017
https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/n ... ystem.html

Probably not an article I'd quote in any serious discussion.

[SW1]

Notice anything about this lovely model in 2017
https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/n ... ystem.html

Portably not an article I'd quote in any serious discussion.

Was the model image not the article I was quoting. Radar mast has been gorging on a few pies since that model appeared.


Or maybe even this configuration there has been a few
https://asds-media.com/photos/bae-type- ... alia-m2512

[new guy]

AUSTAL unveils its new ILMV heavy design,

based of and in partnership with BMT Caimen 500.

Play video, It will go strait to the right section.

[Poiuytrewq]

Did you see all the models on display this week? Every one of them was pitching a CEA radar fit on them. If BAE can't make them work – no worries, mate. Somebody else will.

Which alternate hull is going to integrate it with “no worries”.

This idea that Australia has billions of $ to burn jumping between cancelled programs is fascinating. The cost of AUKUS for Australia will be earth shattering, in all likelihood much more than expected. Regardless, it is absolutely the right way to go as if things go kinetic in the Indo Pacific it will be the SSN’s that do most of the problem solving.

Adjusted for inflation, the estimates to convert the Canberras to F35b capable Strike Carriers was around AUS$1.3bn. Was this frittered away on the Attack class? Perhaps it was the AUS$1.3bn MQ-9B program? Clearly a limit to funding exists as it does in every other country.

Better still why is a CVN or CVF not being considered? With 2x ARGs alternating around the two Canberras? Relying on a handful of tankers to enable the RAAF to cover any Amphibious task group gives the impression that crucial elements have been overlooked.

Where is the long range OPV’s or light Frigates to help saturate the vast areas with cost effective presence and a short/medium strike capability from AShM and the embarked helo? These workhorses are currently completely missing from the mix.

If funding is so elastic why reduce Tier1 escorts to fund Tier2 escorts? Why not procure both concurrently to strengthen the drumbeats in the yards and give the RAN the mass required to sustain an inevitable rate of attrition if a clash with a peer nation occurs?

I wish the RAN well but integrating the ungainly CEAFAR2 and adding ever increasing amounts of VLS cells to such a modest number of Frigates seems like a much lower priority than achieving a coherent and lethal fleet in as timely a manner as possible. As in the U.K. it’s time the decision makers started making better decisions.

If someone could explain the rationale behind the proposed RAN fleet balance I would appreciate it.

[NickC]

Craig Lockhart of BAE Systems Australia

"Lockhart conceded that adding the missiles will force them “to change aspects of our propulsion system,” which would “move it away from being ASW primary role to being destroyer-variant primary role.”

At first glance it does not appear changing from T26 CODELOG HED system will be that straight forward with its four MTU 3 MW diesel generators and its two shaft mounted GE 3.4 MW electric motors for a total of 6.8 MW and alternatively using the single 36 MW MT30 GT, the Hunter requires additional electrical operating power compared to the T26 to power its CEAFAR radars and the necessary power for refrigeration plant to cool the radars coolant, presuming more powerful diesel generators are specified for Hunter, as yet have not seen the detailed information released on Hunter's propulsion system.

One option possible for the 96 VLS variant would be to change from T26 CODELOG to a variation of the CODAG as the Italian PPAs which come with the necessary RENK gearing that allows the 32 MW LM2500+G4 GT to be combined with that of its two MTU 10 MW propulsion diesels with separate diesel generators for electrical power, CODAG max. ~32 knots and with only diesels cruise at ~25 knots whereas expect Hunter CODELOG max ~27 knots and in HED mode ~16 knots.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/bae ... asw-fleet/

[Mercator]

Eh. It's a good article but there is much that is contradictory floating around in that article and others. In one article, BAE is quoted as saying the towed array will go, but in this article, he says they are still doing ASW? Then he says it's all pretty cheap and with minimal design changes, apart from a propulsion change? Yeah, okay. Well, if they've been talking for over a year, hopefully someone has pinned down the details. The rumour is that they will decide on the review recommendations in January, so it won't be long until all this is academic. Hopefully.

[tomuk]

Craig Lockhart of BAE Systems Australia

"Lockhart conceded that adding the missiles will force them “to change aspects of our propulsion system,” which would “move it away from being ASW primary role to being destroyer-variant primary role.”

At first glance it does not appear changing from T26 CODELOG HED system will be that straight forward with its four MTU 3 MW diesel generators and its two shaft mounted GE 3.4 MW electric motors for a total of 6.8 MW and alternatively using the single 36 MW MT30 GT, the Hunter requires additional electrical operating power compared to the T26 to power its CEAFAR radars and the necessary power for refrigeration plant to cool the radars coolant, presuming more powerful diesel generators are specified for Hunter, as yet have not seen the detailed information released on Hunter's propulsion system.

One option possible for the 96 VLS variant would be to change from T26 CODELOG to a variation of the CODAG as the Italian PPAs which come with the necessary RENK gearing that allows the 32 MW LM2500+G4 GT to be combined with that of its two MTU 10 MW propulsion diesels with separate diesel generators for electrical power, CODAG max. ~32 knots and with only diesels cruise at ~25 knots whereas expect Hunter CODELOG max ~27 knots and in HED mode ~16 knots.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/bae ... asw-fleet/

Why are you suggesting a CODAG arrangement, that is one with more mechanical power but less generation capacity when you say the requirement is for more electrical power to feed the radar systems?

[Poiuytrewq]

More Arafura-class progress.

It’s an interesting design but does Australia really need 14 of these?