Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

[Zeno]

I don't believe that it is correct that Ceafar , radar is based on Northrop Grumman technologies N.G is a minor partner with Ceafar
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... sor-system
https://cea.com.au/News+Media/Attachments/2006-0005.pdf
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/aust ... perational

[NickC]

I don't believe that it is correct that Ceafar , radar is based on Northrop Grumman technologies N.G is a minor partner with Ceafar
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... sor-system
https://cea.com.au/News+Media/Attachments/2006-0005.pdf
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/aust ... perational

You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... rtnerships

[tomuk]

You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies

You said that CEAFAR is based on Northrop Grumman technology and then provide links to two press releases which provide no evidence of such a thing.

The first press release details a demo of CEAFAR set up in the states by NG and CEAFAR to tout for US sales. In this case NG are for want of a better word the "sales agent" for CEAFAR in the US. This isn't unusual smaller defence companies who don't have an onshore presence partner up with bigger US defence firms all the time.

The second press release details contracts let by NG to local Australian producers for the supply of services and materials to the Australia Defence Materiel Organisation. This is just the normal offsetting to the local supply chain contractors do to win contracts. A current example is the potential for Rheinmetall to supply F35 fuselage sections as an offset by LM for Germany to buy F35.

Neither example show any 'connection' and definitely no evidence the NG technology is in the CEAFAR radar.

[SouthernOne]

You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies

You said that CEAFAR is based on Northrop Grumman technology and then provide links to two press releases which provide no evidence of such a thing.

The first press release details a demo of CEAFAR set up in the states by NG and CEAFAR to tout for US sales. In this case NG are for want of a better word the "sales agent" for CEAFAR in the US. This isn't unusual smaller defence companies who don't have an onshore presence partner up with bigger US defence firms all the time.

The second press release details contracts let by NG to local Australian producers for the supply of services and materials to the Australia Defence Materiel Organisation. This is just the normal offsetting to the local supply chain contractors do to win contracts. A current example is the potential for Rheinmetall to supply F35 fuselage sections as an offset by LM for Germany to buy F35.

Neither example show any 'connection' and definitely no evidence the NG technology is in the CEAFAR radar.

CEAFAR technology has been under development by CEA since very early this century, and dates back to before project SEA 1448 Phase 2 which commenced in 2003.

[tomuk]

You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies

You said that CEAFAR is based on Northrop Grumman technology and then provide links to two press releases which provide no evidence of such a thing.

The first press release details a demo of CEAFAR set up in the states by NG and CEAFAR to tout for US sales. In this case NG are for want of a better word the "sales agent" for CEAFAR in the US. This isn't unusual smaller defence companies who don't have an onshore presence partner up with bigger US defence firms all the time.

The second press release details contracts let by NG to local Australian producers for the supply of services and materials to the Australia Defence Materiel Organisation. This is just the normal offsetting to the local supply chain contractors do to win contracts. A current example is the potential for Rheinmetall to supply F35 fuselage sections as an offset by LM for Germany to buy F35.

Neither example show any 'connection' and definitely no evidence the NG technology is in the CEAFAR radar.

Although what I said about the two press releases is correct I believe an apology is in order. Northrop Grumman actually own 49% of CEA Technologies.

Australia Defence Magazine April 2012 Interview with then CEA Tech CEO Rob Forbes

ADM: Northrop Grumman owns a 49 percent of CEA. What does that mean for the Australian SME?
Forbes: In our case as the SME on a day to day basis, not a lot because they have taken a relatively hands off approach to the operations of the company. In a strategic sense and exploiting CEA's technology, it's more about potential, which is still to be realised between the two companies as we've needed to develop the relationship and work out how we should be working together. That said we're jointly pursuing a number of significant international opportunities so the relationship is opening up new doors for us as a business.

The only official confirmation of the relationship is a press release from 2006 where is states that NG will take on a 'minority holding'.

CEA Technologies is pleased to announce that on the 10th of March they signed a strategic agreement
with Northrop Grumman Corporation. Northrop Grumman has also acquired a minority shareholding in
CEA Technologies. This allows long-term investors, Deutsche Asset Management and the Canberra based Goodwin & Kenyon Group to sell their shareholding in CEA.

The lack of openness about the shareholding is to my mind not sporting and I assume the reality is kept close to their chest as to not reduce CEA's 'Aussieness'.

[SouthernOne]

You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies

You said that CEAFAR is based on Northrop Grumman technology and then provide links to two press releases which provide no evidence of such a thing.

The first press release details a demo of CEAFAR set up in the states by NG and CEAFAR to tout for US sales. In this case NG are for want of a better word the "sales agent" for CEAFAR in the US. This isn't unusual smaller defence companies who don't have an onshore presence partner up with bigger US defence firms all the time.

The second press release details contracts let by NG to local Australian producers for the supply of services and materials to the Australia Defence Materiel Organisation. This is just the normal offsetting to the local supply chain contractors do to win contracts. A current example is the potential for Rheinmetall to supply F35 fuselage sections as an offset by LM for Germany to buy F35.

Neither example show any 'connection' and definitely no evidence the NG technology is in the CEAFAR radar.

Although what I said about the two press releases is correct I believe an apology is in order. Northrop Grumman actually own 49% of CEA Technologies.

Australia Defence Magazine April 2012 Interview with then CEA Tech CEO Rob Forbes

ADM: Northrop Grumman owns a 49 percent of CEA. What does that mean for the Australian SME?
Forbes: In our case as the SME on a day to day basis, not a lot because they have taken a relatively hands off approach to the operations of the company. In a strategic sense and exploiting CEA's technology, it's more about potential, which is still to be realised between the two companies as we've needed to develop the relationship and work out how we should be working together. That said we're jointly pursuing a number of significant international opportunities so the relationship is opening up new doors for us as a business.

The only official confirmation of the relationship is a press release from 2006 where is states that NG will take on a 'minority holding'.

CEA Technologies is pleased to announce that on the 10th of March they signed a strategic agreement
with Northrop Grumman Corporation. Northrop Grumman has also acquired a minority shareholding in
CEA Technologies. This allows long-term investors, Deutsche Asset Management and the Canberra based Goodwin & Kenyon Group to sell their shareholding in CEA.

The lack of openness about the shareholding is to my mind not sporting and I assume the reality is kept close to their chest as to not reduce CEA's 'Aussieness'.

A lot of large tech based companies build their IP portfolio through acquisitions. The software industry is a prime example.

I wouldn’t be surprised if NG wanted a larger stake, but that could face resistance from certain key stakeholders.

[bobp]

Sorry folks, this topic is meant to be focused on the Royal Navy Type 26. Feel free to discuss the Australian and Canadian variants in these topics:
viewtopic.php?t=19 (Australia)
viewtopic.php?t=63 (Canada)

[NickC]

MoD placed $219 million/~£111 million contract with BAE Systems Inc for T26 Batch 2 main guns, Mk45 5", Maritime Indirect Fire System

"The award follows an initial contract awarded in July 2016 for GBP183 million (USD240.3 million) for three MIFS systems to equip the three Batch 1 Type 26 frigates. The contract included one trainer system. The Batch 1 guns were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings incorporating newbuild ordnance elements.
BAE Systems' MIFS combines the five-inch 62 calibre Mk 45 Mod 4A naval gun system with a fully automated ammunition handling system (AHS), a gun fire-control system, and qualified ammunition"

Didn't know the Batch 1 contract were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings, had assumed new. Also to note the contract placed by MoD not BAE so assuming additional cost over and above the main Batch 2 £4.2 contract, have seen no recent figures for either Batch 1 or 2 T26 GFE costs funded directly by MoD, think remember seeing a figure of approx £300 million for Batch 1.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... 6-frigates

[NickC]

MoD placed $219 million/~£111 million contract with BAE Systems Inc for T26 Batch 2 main guns, Mk45 5", Maritime Indirect Fire System

"The award follows an initial contract awarded in July 2016 for GBP183 million (USD240.3 million) for three MIFS systems to equip the three Batch 1 Type 26 frigates. The contract included one trainer system. The Batch 1 guns were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings incorporating newbuild ordnance elements.
BAE Systems' MIFS combines the five-inch 62 calibre Mk 45 Mod 4A naval gun system with a fully automated ammunition handling system (AHS), a gun fire-control system, and qualified ammunition"

Didn't know the Batch 1 contract were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings, had assumed new. Also to note the contract placed by MoD not BAE so assuming additional cost over and above the main Batch 2 £4.2 contract, have seen no recent figures for either Batch 1 or 2 T26 GFE costs funded directly by MoD, think remember seeing a figure of approx £300 million for Batch 1.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... 6-frigates

Apologies need to correct figures $219 million should be approx £183 million not £111 million and Batch 2 contract £4.2 billion not £4.2

[Ron5]

Didn't know the Batch 1 contract were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings, had assumed new.

AFAIK no new mk 45's have been made for decades. All supplied are refurbished. Same for Phalanx..

[Jdam]

Seen these on Gabrieles twitter.



Possible welding together the 2 sections later on this year? It will be interesting to see if they can keep to this timetable.



You cant see much but its the best we had on Glasgow since she was moved into the dry dock for fitting out.

[bobp]

Still picture of above

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvBO5rTXYAE ... name=large


So this time they seem to be joining the two sections indoors.

[tomuk]

Still picture of above

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvBO5rTXYAE ... name=large


So this time they seem to be joining the two sections indoors.

They did this 'inside' before this isn't the joining of the fore and aft halves but the joining of the stern to the aft hangar section. Once joined this will be manoeuvred out onto the hard standing to join the forward half.

[bobp]

Still picture of above

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvBO5rTXYAE ... name=large


So this time they seem to be joining the two sections indoors.

They did this 'inside' before this isn't the joining of the fore and aft halves but the joining of the stern to the aft hangar section. Once joined this will be manoeuvred out onto the hard standing to join the forward half.

Sorry I forgot that bit, it has been a while.

[Digger22]

It would be interesting to know the paint temp tolerance for applying the paint. I'm sure they will need mild weather for a sustained period to start painting the hull. Now the flight deck is in position, I don't think the shed door will close. So early Summer before roll out?

[serge750]

Progress.

dji_fly_20230329_095702_173_1680080419942_photo_optimized.jpg

[tomuk]

That was surprisingly quick.

[Scimitar54]

Historic mistakes usually are!

[Ron5]

Historic mistakes usually are!

Why is it a mistake? Probably pays for itself very quickly.

[serge750]

That was surprisingly quick.

No "help" from the MoD or Treasury.

[Scimitar54]

A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!

[serge750]

A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!

The desire was to get this done as quickly as possible.

[tomuk]

A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!

Dry dock is more expensive, up front and in ongoing maintenance and less practical as you need big craneage to lower the blocks into the dock and you have the issue of the flooding up effecting the other ship in the dock. All these things are a lot easier with SMPT and a barge launch.

[Ron5]

A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!

Dry dock is more expensive, up front and in ongoing maintenance and less practical as you need big craneage to lower the blocks into the dock and you have the issue of the flooding up effecting the other ship in the dock. All these things are a lot easier with SMPT and a barge launch.

In other words, a dry dock would put up the costs for no additional value.

[Scimitar54]

But increased capacity!