UK Defence Forum

Zeno wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 10:40 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 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 12:11
You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies

tomuk wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 15:22

NickC wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 12:11
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.

tomuk wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 15:22

NickC wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 12:11
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.

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.

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.

tomuk wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 03:35

tomuk wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 15:22

NickC wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 12:11
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'.

NickC wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 11:59 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 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 11:59 Didn't know the Batch 1 contract were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings, had assumed new.

bobp wrote: ↑26 Mar 2023, 14:52 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 wrote: ↑26 Mar 2023, 23:03

bobp wrote: ↑26 Mar 2023, 14:52 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.

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑29 Mar 2023, 19:52 Historic mistakes usually are!

tomuk wrote: ↑29 Mar 2023, 19:38 That was surprisingly quick.

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 18:45 A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 18:45 A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!

tomuk wrote: ↑31 Mar 2023, 02:59

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 18:45 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.