the australian frigate competition: getting the right ship for the … · 2019. 4. 11. · home...

Home Analysis The Australian Frigate Competition: Getting the right ship for the right deal

By Guest Contributor - May 21, 2018

The Australian Frigate Competition: Getting the right ship for the right deal

Very soon, the Australian government is expected to have picked a derivative of BAE’s Type 26 (designated GCS-A),Navantia’s F100 (F5000) or Fincantieri’s FREMM to be the Royal Australian Navy’s future frigate under project SEA5000.

This article was contributed by Australia based Ross White-Chinnery.

The winning design must be first-off a good ASW ship, ideally with hanger capacity for two SH-60R helicopters. The AustralianCEAFAR2 radar, Aegis combat system matched with Australian designed consoles and strike length Mk-41 VLS are a statedrequirement so AAW capability is not a major point of competition, though the recent decision to include ballistic missile defencecapability may favour the F5000’s large VLS capacity. More on that point below.

This competition is however more than the usual warship beauty pageant. SEA5000 along with projects SEA1180 (OPV) andSEA1000 (Future Submarine) forms part of a broader plan to put Australian shipbuilding on a sustainable footing out to mid-century.

Australia has a long history of building ships domestically, usually from foreign designs modified to the RAN’s requirements. As isthe story in many other countries however, the Australian shipbuilding industry’s fortunes have waxed and waned with the cyclebetween major navy projects. The only export or civilian shipbuilding of any significance in the country being confined to fast ferryspecialists Austal of Henderson, Western Australia and Tasmania’s InCat.

As in the UK, local political sensitivities are also a factor. Under project SEA4000 modules for the Hobart class destroyers werebuilt by yards around the country, being consolidated at ASC’s yard at Osborne, near Adelaide in South Australia. UnderSEA5000 however it is expected all major fabrication and certainly all assembly will be done at Osborne. The terms of thecompetition do not compel bidders to work with ASC, but they are obliged to locate the work at Osborne. The decline ofmanufacturing in South Australia, recently punctuated by the exit of all major car manufacturers, has put immense pressure on allsides of politics to be conspicuous in their support the state’s other remaining major manufacturing industry.

With the so-called “Valley of Death” looming after the completion of the Hobart class, a sense of urgency has been injected into

https://www.facebook.com/ukdefencejournal/https://plus.google.com/+UKDefenceJournalOrgUKOfficialhttps://twitter.com/ukdefjournalhttps://ukdefencejournal.org.ukhttps://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/land/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/sea/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/air/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/cyber-security/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/international/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/international/europe/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/international/north-america/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/international/pacific/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/international/africa/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/international/south-america/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/international/asia/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/fact-check/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/opinion/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/video/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/about-us/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/our-teamhttps://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/author/guest_author/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-different-kind-of-bear-a-summary-of-defence-modernisation-in-russia/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-f-35-a-guide-to-the-jet-that-will-soon-land-on-hms-queen-elizabeth/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-ranked-top-in-measurement-of-diplomatic-and-cultural-clout/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/natos-two-percent-and-burden-sharing/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/american-leaders-are-correct-eu-member-states-must-pay-up-for-nato/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/trident-would-stay-at-faslane-for-20-years-after-yes-vote-says-expert/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/merlins-join-hms-queen-elizabeth-as-she-prepares-for-f-35/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/multiple-cases-of-negligence-contributed-to-snipers-death-report-finds/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-different-kind-of-bear-a-summary-of-defence-modernisation-in-russia/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-wins-151m-contract-to-maintain-american-cruiser-uss-gettysburg/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/report-claims-nine-poseidon-aircraft-are-not-enough-for-the-uk-to-provide-sufficient-anti-submarine-warfare-coverage-in-the-north-atlantic/

the acquisition process. The design must be able to meet the needs of the RAN out to mid-century, yet also sufficiently maturefor the first steel cut to happen by 2020.

With the above in mind, let us look at the contenders as if we were a procurement manager. What do we see?

Type 26

This is the most promising ship from an ASW standpoint, but a harder sell as the UK doesn’t have a completed example to showoff yet. It is also likely to be the most expensive.

However, it is also the newest and largest of the three designs. This is no small thing given that the ships produced underSEA5000 can be expected to form the backbone of the RAN’s surface combatant force into the second half of this century. Itwould be remiss of us not to consider where each offering is currently at in its design life, as well as its capacity to grow andadapt in what is likely to be a period of significant and rapid technological change.

In this regard the feature of the Type 26 design that really differentiates it from its rivals is the large mission bay amidships whichopens both port and starboard, and aft to form a continuous space with the barn-like hanger. The significance of this is not to beunderestimated. Far more than a glorified stores room it should be viewed as part of the ship’s fighting capability. From thisspace can be deployed USVs with lightweight fibre-optic towed array sonar in support of the ships core ASW role; or for surfacereconnaissance, hydrography and mine counter measures in support of an expeditionary force.

From an industrial point of view, BAE benefits from significant presence and a long history in-country having expanded inAustralia through acquisition of several local firms. Indeed, BAE Systems Australia is now the largest “local” defence company.BAE benefits particularly from their ownership of two yards in Australia: one at Williamstown in Victoria, and a facility at theAustralian Maritime Complex in Henderson not far from Austal’s headquarters. Though the political impetus for the entire build tobe done at Osbourne precludes significant utilisation of these yards, having this in-house cadre of skilled local personnel (manyof whom have worked on previous RAN projects) can do BAE’s bid no harm at all.

BAE gets another tick on systems integration with key systems like the Mk 45 gun (not mandated, but likely preferred) and Mk.41VLS already part of base Type 26 design. Even though it will be the first time these have been incorporated into a British warship,they will be old friends to BAE staff at Williamstown and Henderson who respectively built and upgraded the Anzac class frigates.

Likewise, Aegis has never previously been integrated on a British ship. This task is however more in the hands of LockheedMartin, CEA Technologies and Saab Systems Australia than BAE. In any case BAE as an organisation is not totally bereft ofexperience with Aegis ships with the US subsidiary having performed modernisation of several Ticonderoga class cruisers for theUS Navy.

The Australian government’s drive for defence exports has not gone unnoticed by the UK either with the British government tostudy the use of CEAFAR in future RN ships. The obvious implication being that the second batch of City class frigates couldtake after their Australian sisters – should they be built.

FREMM

The Italian ASW-focused variant of the FREMM known as the Virginio Fasan class is very good at what it does. Something weknow because the Italians sent one over to show the RAN what it can do, and according to all public accounts it did soimpressively.

The main questions regarding Fincantieri’s bid will likely centre around systems integration. Notwithstanding the Italian-deriveddesign of the Freedom class LCS built by Fincantieri-owned Marinette Marine, the Italians stopped putting American weapons ontheir own ships a long time ago. Furthermore, apart from a speculative model of a FREMM fitted with SPY-1 radars, neitherFincantieri nor any other Italian firm has to this author’s knowledge had any involvement with a project requiring Aegisintegration. The Lockheed Martin COMBATSS-21 system fitted to the LCS is however part of the Aegis “pedigree”.

A point of interest is that rather than adapting the design to mount the Mk.45 127mm Fincantieri seems to be pushing a designwith two Strales mounts, the latest version of the OTO-Melara 76mm, specifically designed to fire guided rounds. Given theMarina Militare’s is happy mount a 127mm weapon on their GP designated FREMMs, one wonders if on the ASW variant a

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/aqs-24b-minehunter-demonstrated-portsmouth/

127mm in the “A” gun position, rather far forward on the FREMM’s somewhat crowded foredeck, is a little more proximate to thesonar not far beneath it than is ideal.

They might also consider a bit of history: the Anzac class frigates SEA5000 will replace were originally to carry the old OTO-Melara 76mm but this was changed to the US Mk-45 127mm weapon at the Army’s insistence. The Anzacs were replacing allthen currently serving ships with medium calibre guns thus leaving the RAN with no ship capable of providing shorebombardment unless that capability was put on the Anzacs. The absence of a 127mm weapon on the SEA5000 would leave thetrio of Hobart class destroyers the only ships capable of fire support

Perhaps it is reasoned on the MM and RAN’s shared emphasis on AA capability which comes from both services’ main areas ofoperation falling well within range of shore-based aircraft. Whatever the reasoning, it should be questioned whether it is the bestuse of the bid team’s time to burden them with having to sell a customer on a new weapon system (along with the associatedtraining and logistics overheads) when they really need to be pushing the exceptional qualities of the platform and the benefits ofthe industrial package on offer.

That industrial package is nothing to sneeze at either. Prior to the SEA5000 bid Fincantieri had no in-country presence inAustralia but are working hard to remedy the situation. Through their newly established local subsidiary the company anticipatesa share of fabrication work on Fincantieri’s civilian order book being done in Australia.

F5000

On first impression, this seems to be both favourite and underdog at same time. Navantia’s recent track record in Australia hasbeen overwhelming, and they are bidding a ship they have already succeeded in selling to Australia once before. Yet doubthovers over the Spanish contender for it is the oldest of the three and the only one that is not a “native” ASW ship.

It is not known if F5000 is proposed with electric drive. The absence of this feature would be a significant disadvantage visFREMM and T26. On the other hand, it potentially introduces a point of technical risk that undermine their key selling point ofdesign maturity. Worse still, none of ships with electric drive Navantia has built previously is a high performance ASW escort.

However, the Hobart is a much better ASW ship than the original F-100 and it is Hobart that the F5000 design is building upon.Furthermore, the Australian force context may not require absolute maximum possible ASW capability achievable in the surfaceplatform component. With the UK’s poverty of other ASW assets the RN cannot afford anything less than the best possible ASWships it can get. The future Australian ASW force however will consist of nearly twice as many P-8s, eventually to be joined bynearly twice as many attack subs as the RN is ever likely to have again.

In any case SEA5000 is required to be more than just an ASW ship. High level AAW and BMD capability on 6000-7000 tonne hullwas anticipated for the Anzac class replacement as far back as the 2009 Defence White Paper. F5000 inherits the 48 VLS cellsof F-100 which should be just about enough to take a few SM-3s for the BMD role while still having space for a decent load ofother weapons. The type 26 and FREMM designs for Australia have both been modelled with 32 Mk.41 cells. The type 26 couldlikely fit another two eight tube modules to match F5000, though the FREMM already looks a little crowded at the front. (Here wemight recall that the RAN had originally wanted a ship with 96 VLS cells.)

As a direct derivative of the Hobart class F5000 is more than just familiar hull. It would run on the same Navantia/SAGEAutomation integrated platform management system as the Hobarts, Canberra class LHDs and Supply class replenishmentships. This is probably the most important point in terms of day-to-day operability of the ship from a sailor’s perspective. It meanssmoother transfers between units and less retraining. For the navy it means savings from being able to consolidate multipletraining streams.

It is worth considering that Navantia and Australia are at this point very much known quantities to each other. The difficulties withboth the Hobart and Canberra classes are well known, and the decision to send the replenishment ship build overseas, again toNavantia, was met with some bitterness in Australia. Despite this, indeed because of it, Navantia is a company which we nowhave a much-improved long term working relationship across three classes of ship.

The choice of Aegis as the combat system for SEA5000 further plays to Navantia’s strengths. They have built ten Aegis ships atFerrol and been closely involved with another three at Osbourne. They have done more work around Aegis than anyone elseoutside the US and smooth integration of specified weapons systems should be almost a given. There is no system in the

specifications Navantia is unfamiliar with other than the radar and that is just as unfamiliar to Fincantieri. BAE will however enjoysome insight on this point having installed the CEAFAR X-band medium range search and S-band fire control arrays on theAnzac class and will soon be receiving those ships back at Henderson to add the L-band long range search array in place of theold SPS-49 2D radar.

Navantia are offering to make Australia the design authority for F5000 and Hobart. This tunes their bid well to the government’sexport ambitions. In fact, Navantia already has CEA Technologies, SAGE and SAAB Systems Australia signed up for their bid onthe Canadian frigate project.

We have a very tight schedule to navigate between design selection and first steel cut in 2020. Navantia’s hull has already gonethrough Australian engineering standards compliance – that is one very big and time-consuming job that doesn’t have to be doneon this ship which does on the other two. This is no less a consideration than the freshness of the type 26 design.

In summary, Australian choice for SEA5000 must somehow balance all the usual near-term cost and capability considerationswith choosing a platform that will be relevant through a period of rapid technological change while also satisfying conflictingpolitical imperatives for the build to begin as soon as possible and for the project to play its part in ensuring the long-termsustainability of shipbuilding in Australia. Piece of cake.

58 COMMENTS

dave12 May 21, 2018 at

13:19

I doubt very much the aussies will by the T26 to much cheaper competition

Reply

Like 256

A different kind of bear – A summary of defencemodernisation in Russia

The F-35, a guide to the jet that will soon land on HMSQueen Elizabeth

UK ranked top in measurement of diplomatic andcultural clout

NATO’s Two Percent and Burden Sharing American leaders are correct, EU member states mustpay up for NATO

Trident would stay at Faslane ‘for 20 years after Yesvote’ says expert

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Analysis Air Analysis

Analysis Analysis Analysis

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-different-kind-of-bear-a-summary-of-defence-modernisation-in-russia/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/air/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-f-35-a-guide-to-the-jet-that-will-soon-land-on-hms-queen-elizabeth/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-ranked-top-in-measurement-of-diplomatic-and-cultural-clout/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/natos-two-percent-and-burden-sharing/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/american-leaders-are-correct-eu-member-states-must-pay-up-for-nato/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/news/analysis/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/trident-would-stay-at-faslane-for-20-years-after-yes-vote-says-expert/


13:20

#buy

Reply

Helions May 21, 2018 at

16:17

Agree – Wish they would but I think the Navantia will be selected.

Cheers!

Reply

Julian May 21, 2018 at

13:37

On VLS cells & the potential disadvantage of T26 RAN bid only having 32 x Mk41 in it’s reconfigured forward VLS silo vs F5000 48 x

Mk41 might the T26 be able to close some of that gap?

The article says “type 26 could likely fit another two eight tube modules to match F5000”. Hopefully that is true but if not, and actually even

if it is, could the T26 RAN variant add even more capability by using the midships VLS silo area, used for 24 x Sea Ceptor in the RN

version, to host some ESSM? Those are hot launch rather than cold so not sure if that is a showstopper but dimension wise ESSM isn’t a

million miles away from CAMM (3.66m/0.254m length/diameter vs 3.2m/0.166m for CAMM). If, as I really hope, the RN T26 soft launch

silos are sized for possible CAMM-ER use in future that reduces the difference between ESSM & CAMM-ER to 3.66m/0.254m vs

4.0m/0.19m so ESSM is actually shorter but a bit fatter than CAMM-ER.

If it was possible then adding some capability to carry ESSM in a midships silo would take some of the pressure off the forward Mk41 silo

if it can’t go bigger than 32 x Mk41 on the RAN T26 and if it could get to 48 x Mk41 to match the F5000 load then adding a midships

ESSM silo would actually put RAN T26 into the lead as far as total VLS silo capacity is concerned even if only 16 could be hosted there. If

24 could be hosted that’s effectively adding 6 Mk41 tubes more than the F5000 has.

It’s interesting to see the comment in this article “(Here we might recall that the RAN had originally wanted a ship with 96 VLS cells.)”. I

guess the RAN takes, or at least was taking, a much more US “armed to the teeth” approach that the RN when it comes to this part of the

design requirements.

Reply

Mike Saul May 21, 2018 at

14:22

T26 would have stood a far greater such in this and the US navy frigate competition if we hadn’t sat on the design for the past 8 years.

Much was promised in 2010 about the export prospects of the T26, sadly to date not one of those prospects has materialised into an

actual order. Potential customer after potential customer has opted for a future that doesn’t include the T26.

The UK should have had a T26 in service by now, if we had the future may have been brighter.

Reply

Andrew May 21, 2018 at

15:55

Mike,

I couldn’t agree more… I made the same comment in a previous article….

The three competitors are all buying up lots of advertising space on the tv channels…. beautiful adverts showing their ships at

work, posing in Sydney harbourr, tours for the vip’s….. .Bae’s, funnily enough is all very obviously cgi….

Such a shame there was so much prevarication over the type 26 project…. if one was in service now, i’m Sure that would tip the

scales firmly in Bae’s favour…

Reply

Oscar Zulu May 22, 2018 at

14:17

Plus you might need to send better salesman than Johnson and Fallon LOL

http://images.defence.gov.au/20170727adf8209508_031.jpg

Reply

Sceptical Richard May 21, 2018 at

14:33

On paper the Spanish ship has to be ahead by a country mile. It depends on how seriously the RAAN takes the ASW requirement against

its other needs.

Reply


16:22

Sad that a country with such a small population relative to the UK is building a far more capable ASW force than the mother of the

RAN…

Cheers!

Reply


19:50

I thought you want the aussies to buy the T26 on your previouse comment Helions

Reply


22:56

I absolutely do Dave, I would like to see all of the 5 Eyes purchase either the T26 or the T31 for commonality during joint

operations which I believe will only increase in the future. I can see the RNZN opting for the T31 as well as Canada

(perhaps as part of a high low mix for the RCN).

The USN should go with the design because high end is what we like and the T26 is nothing if not high end – however the

design needs to be up armed for our requirements. BAE is a major U.S. defense contractor so there should be no problems

working with them along with their stateside partner.

Cheers!

Reply

Paul T May 21, 2018 at

23:55

Helions/Mike – what is known about the T26 version being offered to the RCN? Im guessing it will be pretty similar to the

one proposed for the RAN in sensors and weapons fit.If hopefully the T26 wins in Australia it would surely make sense

for the Canadians to go the same way in terms of risk and integration etc.


00:38

There’s this I found that discusses the T26’s possible customers…

https://www.defenceprocurementinternational.com/features/sea/royal-navy-type-26-export

http://images.defence.gov.au/20170727adf8209508_031.jpghttps://www.defenceprocurementinternational.com/features/sea/royal-navy-type-26-export

Cheers!


00:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfMqfoMQTs0


14:52

Best and worst of each competitor.

T26 BEST modern design optimised for ASW. WORST unproven therefore greater risk.

FREMM BEST inservice proven and low risk. WORST needs major customisation for RAN

F5000 BEST established RAN supplier, design based on existing RAN warship. WORST doubts over ASW performance.

Unknown factor is cost, I don’t have reliable data regarding that issue.

Reply

T.S May 21, 2018 at

15:22

I am quietly hopeful Bae have this in the bag. Australia seem to be uncompromising at the moment and want the best kit available. That is

the T26.

Australia seem set to be more militarily powerful than us soon in many areas outside carrier strike. I didn’t think their economy was big

enough to support such a military spend.

Reply


15:40

Don’t forget that they don’t have CASD to fund. Notwithstanding that, they do seem to do a very good job of spending their budget

well though.

Reply


16:23

I predict it’s only a matter of time that the RAN will add a cats and trap QE sized (maybe the QE design itself) to the fleet.

Cheers!

Reply


16:24

Carrier that is!

Reply


20:02

Aussies cant afford it other wise they would of done it with the spanish designed heli carrier ships


23:03

I personally believe that the Canberras are just a way for the RAN to ease into full carrier operations the way the Izumos

are serving the same purpose for the JMSDF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfMqfoMQTs0http:

Very useful ships on their own and as even the UK MoD has admitted, cannot be replaced by a purpose built carrier. It’s

evident when you watch this humorous look at the life of a USMC Jarhead at sea on one of our LHA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=P70TgvtNvQQ

Cheers!


14:26

In 2016 the UK economy ranked 5th in the world ($2.6 trillion USD) or twice Australia’s ($1.3 trillion) at 12th globally just ahead of

Russia in 13th spot at ($1.2 trillion).

The UK though has two and a half times the population of Australia’s 24.9 million people.

This means on a per capita GDP basis Australia ranks globally at 17th spot ahead of the UK at 21st and Russia in 52nd spot.

Reply


16:35

Australia has committed to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP, a rise from 1.5%.

Australia never suffered a recession after 2007/8 banking crisis.

Australia doesn’t have a UK style welfare state.

Three reasons why Australia has lots of cash available to invest in defence. Their only problem, like ours, is they cannot recruit the

personnel to man all these new weapon platforms.

Reply

Mike nield May 21, 2018 at

16:53

Australia doesn’t have to (directly at least) fund a nuclear deterrent. I support the UKs nuclear deterrence but if we didn’t have it

that’s a lot of money to spend on other aspects of our military. Realistically the saving would go anywhere but our military

Reply


19:52

Australia is a has a very small population to the UK and its GDP is 9th in the world

Reply

Matt May 22, 2018 at

00:57

Australia has a welfare state Mike lol. It’s not too dissimilar from the UK’s, apart from the fact that you have pay more for some

health services.

Australia, Singapore and New Zealand are in a much better fiscal position than the UK, but there is also more bipartisan support

for increased defence spending in Canberra.

Reply


06:43

Matt, I said Australia doesn’t have a UK style welfare system.

My uncle who emigrated to Australia in 1951 joined their Army fought in Korea and Vietnam was entitled to free healthcare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=P70TgvtNvQQ

based on his military service, other Australian citizens were not entitled to the same free healthcare they had to pay for it.

It is my understanding that the Australian healthcare system is funded by tax, private insurance and the patient.

Reply


14:39

“Australia doesn’t have a UK style welfare state.”

Actually Australia spends almost exactly the same amount per capita as the UK on welfare.

UK $8,619 Aus $8,479 (OECD 2013 in US dollars)

The hospital systems are run by the states largely with federal government money so there is some variation from state to state

but in Queensland for instance, the public hospital system is free of charge to patients just like the NHS.

Reply


17:29

My uncle lived in Melbourne Australia

Reply

Peter Shaw May 21, 2018 at

17:49

In terms of capability the T26 is streets ahead. Obviously the others are more cost related if they are chosen. Personally if I were the

Australians I would purchase T26 and make this the backbone of their fleet. Also it would integrate well with the UK as well in terms of

operations. Post Brexit the UK will have greater military collaboration with both Australia, Canada and New Zealand so it makes sense to

use the same weapons platform; especially if it is state-of-art like the T26. Cost maybe the deciding factor though but I hope not for the

Australian’s sake. History tells us that you purchase inferior kit and it often bits you back later on.

Reply


15:10

“Post Brexit the UK will have greater military collaboration with both Australia, Canada and New Zealand…” Maybe. We’ll see.

There seems to be way too much optimism (desperation?) about a reinvigorated Commonwealth or Anglo-sphere alliance post

Brexit and a lack of appreciation of the changed perspectives of other nations, Australia in particular – militarily, strategically,

economically and socially.

It’s like an old girlfriend who abandoned you and told you to bugger off I’m gong to marry someone else (the EU) then when that

didn’t work out and they got divorced decades later wanting to get back together. People (and nations) move on.

“…so it makes sense to use the same weapons platform” Perhaps for the UK but not Australia.

Whatever happens post Brexit, Australia’s major ally will remain the US, both because of its proximity (it is a Pacific power with a

Pacific coastline) and the sheer size and strength of its forces compared to the UK.

So it makes sense from the RANs perspective to have the same kit and high levels of interoperability with the USN. For example

the Hobart AWDs have already demonstrated the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with USN AEGIS equipped ships to

hand off sensor and targeting data from one ship to another to launch missiles. Something the RNs T45s have yet to achieve.

Reply

Anthony May 21, 2018 at

17:55

Does anyone know what the actual benefit to the UK would-be if Australia chose the type 26 given the hull, radar, sensor suite will be

Australian and the the combat system and vls American?

Reply


18:22

Money in the pocket for BAE shareholders. They own the design and don’t they also own most of the Australian industry that

would be involved?

Reply

T.S May 21, 2018 at

18:44

I thought HMG owned the design. We must be getting something from it as we paid for the R&D!

Reply


21:48

Yeah. I’d assumed HMG would get paid license fees for the design. Whether those fees ever get credited to the defence

budget or just go into Spreadsheet Phil’s “general receipts” column is another question however.

Reply


10:28

The IPR will remain with industry. HMG will have first free right of use and the right to receive an export levy from foreign

sales. But Oz will demand and get free right of use as well, if they’re any good at contact negotiating! Also when best and

final offers are on the table, and especially since T26 will be the most expensive, BAES will probably ask and get relief

from HMG from having to pay the export levy. So there you go. The answer is NO. only the shareholders will make

something out of it and I suspect not very much.

Joe May 21, 2018 at

21:16

None.

Reply

Stephen G. May 22, 2018 at

16:14

The propulsion system for one.

Reply


10:36

One GT per ship. The diesels are German though RR shareholders will benefit as RR owns MTU. The electric motors are GE

from the US I think…

Reply


19:09

Hmmmm…

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/05/18/could-this-be-the-new-us-navy-frigate-design/

Cheers!

Reply

http:https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/05/18/could-this-be-the-new-us-navy-frigate-design/

Joe May 21, 2018 at

21:19

No.

The FREMM & F100 are on that shortlist to give the impression of a fair competition.

In reality a derivation of the Freedom class LCS will win FFG(X).

The Navy are happy to double down on this ship if it helps cover the LCS debacle

Reply


10:39

Agree!

Reply


18:35

Have to disagree – Although I’d like to see the T26 win, I think the FREMM will win out… Right size, good mix of

capabilities, and most important – right on the money price wise…

Cheers!

Reply

Joe May 21, 2018 at

21:14

The “risk” situation is incorrectly looked at from 1 perspective only.

They will pick Navantia because they are perceived to be low industrial risk due to their already existing production base in Australia with

the Hobart and Canberra class projects.

However, everyone says that the F100 is a noisy ship.

The pre-existing industrial base will be of little comfort if in the event of war an Australian task force prove to be very easy pray to Chinese

SSNs/SSKs

If they want the best ASW ship, they should pick that…. and that’s the T26

Reply

Mr Bell May 21, 2018 at

23:05

On paper type 26 is the best ASW design. The FREMM class cannot fit MK41 vls which is a current requirement.

They also do not have a mission bay for drones or UAV, usb, ussv

The Navantia design are not quiet enough and do not have the sprint/ stealth characteristics for ASW and would be easily detected,

targeted and sunk by any submarine from a sophisticated enemy.

The type 26 really is the best choice and premiere ASW in existence now, it has growth and development potential whereas FREMM does

not. If Australia want a frigate that is still at the forefront of ASW, Anti air warfare in 30 years time they will need the type 26s additional

wide margin and growth potential.

Reply


15:23

“On paper type 26 is the best ASW design”

As they say on Mythbusters ‘there’s your problem right there!’

“The type 26 really is the best choice and premiere ASW in existence now”

But its not in existence now. It sure has an impressive spec on paper though. Unfortunately, as the T45s propulsion issues

demonstrate, sometimes the spec doesn’t translate in the real world. The RANs frigates will have to operate in tropical waters after

all.

Reply

Stephen G. May 22, 2018 at

16:18

From Save the Royal Navy “The Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbine is already at sea on HMS Queen Elizabeth and is designed to

work in hot conditions. It is actually 15-20% more efficient operating with an ambient air temperature up to 40º than the LM

2500 GT used in both of the other competing designs.”

Reply


09:52

I hope the T26 frigate wins.

However looking at all the information available, if the F5000 can meet the minimum ASW creteria set by the RAN it must be favourite.

Tough decision to be made here for the RAN, if we had a T26 in service with the RN that actually demonstrates it’s superior ASW

performance then things may be different.

Reply


20:38

Last of the Hobarts was launched by the RAN…

http://www.janes.com/defence/platforms/sea-platforms

Cheers!

Reply


10:49

Those Navantia ships look and are good. Mini Arleigh Burkes really. RAN so closely linked to USN that Oz will have little choice to

buy ship that best meets that interoperability requirement. Also they’ve built up good working relationship with the Spanish yard by

now (Hobarts and Canberras). Only alternative would be if USN bought a different ship such as a FREMM (highly unlikely).

Helions, when is the USN decision due?

Reply


17:45

I think… by 2020 with the first one entering sea trials in 2023 S.R.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/us-navy-frigate-competition-finalists/

Cheers!

Reply


17:48

Canadian decision.

http://www.janes.com/defence/platforms/sea-platformshttps://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/us-navy-frigate-competition-finalists/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warship-design-delay-1.4277967

Reply


17:57

http://adbr.com.au/down-to-the-wire/

Cheers!

Paul T May 23, 2018 at

10:50

helions – I wonder if the RAN wishes it had taken up the option on the 4th ship – assuming they do get the full 9 Frigates this

shouldn’t be a problem.

Reply


17:39

I’m sure they do Paul, 4 hulls would have most likely allowed an availability of 2 units for deployment – 1 with a Canberra ARG

and 1 heading up a Surface Action Group. Could be why they are insisting on such a strong Strike and AW capability for their

frigate RFP in addition to the ASW requirements to offset the lower number of Hobarts…

Cheers!

Reply


10:55

Guys, as an aside, get ready for T26 to have all sorts of problems for many years as they are introduced to service. All new complex

defence programmes do. Unlikely that an export customer will be found for them until they are proven in service.

Reply


10:56

I hope I’m wrong of course!

Reply

Gunbuster May 23, 2018 at

12:24

Im not so sure it will have to many issues.

A lot of the systems are , taken as single entities, already proven on T23, T45 and QE. System integration between those systems

should be ( !!! )straight forward as the integration requirements are already set out in numerous DEFSTANS etc and have been

already proven. The fact that most systems are now open architecture and run COTS components makes things even easier.

Artisan, Seaceptor, CSM-1, MT30, DGs, electric propulsion, Sonar, Mk41 VLS, Gun etc are all in service and proven systems.

The one problem area I do see may be with the mission bay and how that works. That will be the great unknown as its not been

done before on a UK vessel.

Reply

LEAVE A REPLY

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warship-design-delay-1.4277967http://adbr.com.au/down-to-the-wire/

Comment:

Name:*

Email:*

Website:

By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.*

Post Comment

Search

STAY CONNECTED

LIKE108,242 Fans

FOLLOW33,669 Followers

August 16, 2018

Merlins join HMS Queen Elizabeth as she prepares for F-35

Other News

https://www.facebook.com/ukdefencejournalhttps://twitter.com/ukdefjournalhttps://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/merlins-join-hms-queen-elizabeth-as-she-prepares-for-f-35/

August 15, 2018

Multiple cases of negligence contributed to sniper’s death, report finds

August 21, 2018

A different kind of bear – A summary of defence modernisation in Russia

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/multiple-cases-of-negligence-contributed-to-snipers-death-report-finds/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-different-kind-of-bear-a-summary-of-defence-modernisation-in-russia/

About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy

© 2014-2017 UK Defence Journal, All rights reserved.

August 21, 2018

BAE wins $151m contract to maintain American cruiser USS Gettysburg

August 15, 2018

Report claims nine Poseidon aircraft are ‘not enough’ for anti-submarine warfare coverage

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-wins-151m-contract-to-maintain-american-cruiser-uss-gettysburg/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/report-claims-nine-poseidon-aircraft-are-not-enough-for-the-uk-to-provide-sufficient-anti-submarine-warfare-coverage-in-the-north-atlantic/https://www.facebook.com/ukdefencejournal/https://plus.google.com/+UKDefenceJournalOrgUKOfficialhttps://twitter.com/ukdefjournalhttps://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/about-us/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/privacy/

The Australian Frigate Competition: Getting the right ship for the right dealType 26FREMMF5000RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

A different kind of bear – A summary of defence modernisation in RussiaThe F-35, a guide to the jet that will soon land on HMS Queen ElizabethUK ranked top in measurement of diplomatic and cultural cloutNATO’s Two Percent and Burden SharingAmerican leaders are correct, EU member states must pay up for NATOTrident would stay at Faslane ‘for 20 years after Yes vote’ says expert58 COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLYSTAY CONNECTEDOther News

Merlins join HMS Queen Elizabeth as she prepares for F-35Multiple cases of negligence contributed to sniper’s death, report findsA different kind of bear – A summary of defence modernisation in RussiaBAE wins $151m contract to maintain American cruiser USS GettysburgReport claims nine Poseidon aircraft are ‘not enough’ for anti-submarine warfare coverage

the australian frigate competition: getting the right ship for the … · 2019. 4. 11. · home...

Documents