Australia Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Blitzo said:
They kind of forced the CEAFAR radar onto it because they wanted a somewhat high end AAW sensor suite.
If they ditched CEAFAR and adopted a simpler Artisan or Smart S class radar only, I'm sure they could've cut down the displacement quite a bit to Type 26 level.
Click to expand...

CEAFAR 2 seems to be the tail wagging the dog. Evidently a reasonably high-end AAW capability was desired, and naturally there is a desire to build upon the success of the CEAFAR radar on the Anzac-class frigates, but at the end of the day it has to fit on the ship and the whole thing has to make sense as an integrated capability. If you are starting with what is already the world's largest and probably most expensive frigate design and having to make it significantly larger, slower and more expensive to accommodate said radar, at a certain point you have to question the whole exercise.

I suspect that even at this late stage, the best solution would be to scrap the current program and order USN's Constellation-class design.

Going further back, what we should've done is order more Hobart AWDs for six to eight total, and then complement those ships with a smaller and more modest frigate in the vein of Mogami/FTI/MEKO.
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Lethe said:
CEAFAR 2 seems to be the tail wagging the dog. Evidently a reasonably high-end AAW capability was desired, and naturally there is a desire to build upon the success of the CEAFAR radar on the Anzac-class frigates, but at the end of the day it has to fit on the ship and the whole thing has to make sense as an integrated capability. If you are starting with what is already the world's largest and probably most expensive frigate design and having to make it significantly larger, slower and more expensive to accommodate said radar, at a certain point you have to question the whole exercise.
Click to expand...

It amused me greatly when the requirements for SEA 5000 first came out, that the RAN wanted a frigate that had a sensor suite so much capable than most of the base frigate offerings given to them.


Lethe said:
I suspect that even at this late stage, the best solution would be to scrap the current program and order USN's Constellation-class design.
Click to expand...

That sounds intuitively reasonable, but would require the existing yard in Australia to retool for the Constellations (not to mention removal of many Australian subsuppliers involved in the Hunter program) -- or if they order from the US directly, the question will be when would the US have shipyard space free to build Constellations for Australia given the USN's own demands for frigates.


Lethe said:
Going further back, what we should've done is order more Hobart AWDs for six to eight total, and then complement those ships with a smaller and more modest frigate in the vein of Mogami/FTI/MEKO.
Click to expand...

And now they want to make the Hunter class have 100-150 VLS lol. Australia's defense procurement seems immensely reactive over the last half decade or so.
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Blitzo said:
It amused me greatly when the requirements for SEA 5000 first came out, that the RAN wanted a frigate that had a sensor suite so much capable than most of the base frigate offerings given to them.
Click to expand...

I think this points to CEAFAR 2 being seen as the sine qua non of the new frigate program, in much the same way that the American AN/BSY-1 combat system was considered a fixed requirement for the new submarine program. If we just wanted a higher-end AAW capability, the Hobart AWDs with SPY-1D and the SPY-6 upgrade path would've been an obvious and fairly compelling alternative.

Personnel costs and political license are, I think, the other factors that have driven the program in its current direction. The program has always been for eight or nine frigates, so the RAN wants each of those ships to be as capable as possible. Additionally, they don't have the personnel to man the more numerous and distributed inventory that I outlined in the previous post. Pushing for more than a dozen major surface combatants would require political negotiation and license, when much has already been invested in making the case for significant expansion of the submarine inventory (with personnel implications that nobody has even begun to grapple with).

Blitzo said:
That sounds intuitively reasonable, but would require the existing yard in Australia to retool for the Constellations (not to mention removal of many Australian subsuppliers involved in the Hunter program) -- or if they order from the US directly, the question will be when would the US have shipyard space free to build Constellations for Australia given the USN's own demands for frigates.
Click to expand...

I was thinking local assembly, potentially with limited modifications such as inclusion of a bow sonar.

Blitzo said:
And now they want to make the Hunter class have 100-150 VLS lol. Australia's defense procurement seems immensely reactive over the last half decade or so.
Click to expand...

BAE are just offering what they think the customer wants to hear. The problem is that after decades of neoliberal reforms, the armed services and Defence Department no longer have the in-house expertise to identify bullshit when they see it. Instead they have to hire one set of contractors to evaluate another set of contractors.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Lethe said:
I think this points to CEAFAR 2 being seen as the sine qua non of the new frigate program, in much the same way that the American AN/BSY-1 combat system was considered a fixed requirement for the new submarine program. If we just wanted a higher-end AAW capability, the Hobart AWDs with SPY-1D and the SPY-6 upgrade path would've been an obvious and fairly compelling alternative.

Personnel costs and political license are, I think, the other factors that have driven the program in its current direction. The program has always been for eight or nine frigates, so the RAN wants each of those ships to be as capable as possible. Additionally, they don't have the personnel to man the more numerous and distributed inventory that I outlined in the previous post. Pushing for more than a dozen major surface combatants would require political negotiation and license, when much has already been invested in making the case for significant expansion of the submarine inventory (with personnel implications that nobody has even begun to grapple with).
Click to expand...

I think we kind of need to see what the upcoming defense review says in terms of recommendations.
For all we know, it might advise that Australia triples its annual defense budget or something.


Lethe said:
I was thinking local assembly, potentially with limited modifications such as inclusion of a bow sonar.
Click to expand...

Gotta keep adelaide happy!



Lethe said:
BAE are just offering what they think the customer wants to hear. The problem is that after decades of neoliberal reforms, the armed services and Defence Department no longer have the in-house expertise to identify bullshit when they see it. Instead they have to hire one set of contractors to evaluate another set of contractors.
Click to expand...

There are some ways in which I could see a 100 or below VLS version of Hunter technically being viable without requiring a massive hull extension, but would likely still result in the ship gaining additional weight on a design that's already not exactly a spring chicken.
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Blitzo said:
I think we kind of need to see what the upcoming defense review says in terms of recommendations.
For all we know, it might advise that Australia triples its annual defense budget or something.
Click to expand...

Yes, when the defence review is released it will no doubt reset the parameters for discussion in many respects. The government has now received the results of the review, though it will reportedly be
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
before a declassified version is prepared for public consumption.

Blitzo said:
Gotta keep adelaide happy!
Click to expand...

Well, I'm from Adelaide.... ;) But really, I think local construction is again one of those fixed requirements and I don't see any compelling reason to oppose it. Certainly it makes more sense for nine frigates than it did for three destroyers. If Constellation had been around at the time the frigate decision was made, it definitely would've been a candidate and, I suspect, a successful one.

Blitzo said:
There are some ways in which I could see a 100 or below VLS version of Hunter technically being viable without requiring a massive hull extension, but would likely still result in the ship gaining additional weight on a design that's already not exactly a spring chicken.
Click to expand...

I do wonder how much of this VLS push is coming from "we need more VLS to meet operational requirements" vs. "we need more VLS to make this 10,000 tonne ship look less under-armed for its size."
 
Z

zavve

New Member
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
If they ditched CEAFAR and adopted a simpler Artisan or Smart S class radar only, I'm sure they could've cut down the displacement quite a bit to Type 26 level.
Click to expand...
The T26 platform should easily support a SAMPSON or 4-faced AESA setup like the AN/SPY-7. Having 12 radar faces like the Hunter-class is excessive.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
These two articles are surprisingly introspective (relatively speaking, compared to other more recent Australian media) on the prospects of Australia fighting a war with China.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Reclaimer

Reclaimer

Junior Member
Registered Member

China, Australia defence officials hold first formal meeting since 2019​

BEIJING, March 22 (Reuters) - Chinese defence officials met their Australian counterparts in Canberra on Wednesday, China's Ministry of National Defense said, in their first formal meeting since 2019.

The talks were helpful in developing a stable relationship between their militaries, the Chinese defence ministry said, and further enhanced mutual understanding.

Australia's defence department confirmed the meeting, adding that dialogue was conducted "in a professional atmosphere with both sides exchanging views on regional security issues".

The talks come after Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang said that the two countries have restarted institutional dialogue and consultation in multiple areas, in a meeting with his Australian counterpart on the sidelines of the G20 meeting earlier this month.

Ties between the two countries deteriorated in recent years, with China imposing sanctions on Australian exports after Canberra called for an international inquiry into the origins of the novel coronavirus.


They are now making progress towards the resumption of Australian timber exports to China in the latest sign of the normalisation of trade.

But as they work to improve ties, the alliance of the United States, Australia and Britain has made moves to counter China's ambitions in the Indo-Pacific.

Last week, the AUKUS alliance
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to provide Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines from the early 2030s.

China's foreign ministry criticised the deal, saying that the AUKUS has disregarded concerns of the international community and "gone further down a dangerous road".
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
Lethe said:
CEAFAR 2 seems to be the tail wagging the dog. Evidently a reasonably high-end AAW capability was desired, and naturally there is a desire to build upon the success of the CEAFAR radar on the Anzac-class frigates, but at the end of the day it has to fit on the ship and the whole thing has to make sense as an integrated capability. If you are starting with what is already the world's largest and probably most expensive frigate design and having to make it significantly larger, slower and more expensive to accommodate said radar, at a certain point you have to question the whole exercise.

I suspect that even at this late stage, the best solution would be to scrap the current program and order USN's Constellation-class design.

Going further back, what we should've done is order more Hobart AWDs for six to eight total, and then complement those ships with a smaller and more modest frigate in the vein of Mogami/FTI/MEKO.
Click to expand...
10000 ton? Just buy a 052E at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top