AUKUS
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
One reason to sign multinational treaties to build aircraft - such as Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest - is that they make it incredibly hard to cancel politically, and unlikely to be financially worthwhile once penal clauses due to the cost the remaining partners is taken into account.
The same holds true for SSN-AUKUS, except the penalty clauses and costs would be far higher due to the nuclear element….
The same holds true for SSN-AUKUS, except the penalty clauses and costs would be far higher due to the nuclear element….
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,642
Likes: 7,343
From: Peripatetic
AW&ST:
What The Space Force Wants For Future Domain Awareness
The U.S. Space Force is undertaking an in-depth study of its future space domain awareness mission, finding gaps to fill to meet a need that the service’s boss says is critical to everything it does.….
Leaders in Washington have taken steps to improve domain awareness, most recently with the December agreement among Australia, the UK and the U.S.—also known as AUKUS—to accelerate the Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC).
Under the new agreement, the first DARC radar site will be set up in Australia with a goal of starting operations in 2026, and more sites in the UK* and U.S. are planned to follow.….
* https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...rm-uk-security
https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Arti...bility-initia/
Cawdor Barracks = RAF Brawdy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cawdor_Barracks
What The Space Force Wants For Future Domain Awareness
The U.S. Space Force is undertaking an in-depth study of its future space domain awareness mission, finding gaps to fill to meet a need that the service’s boss says is critical to everything it does.….
Leaders in Washington have taken steps to improve domain awareness, most recently with the December agreement among Australia, the UK and the U.S.—also known as AUKUS—to accelerate the Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC).
Under the new agreement, the first DARC radar site will be set up in Australia with a goal of starting operations in 2026, and more sites in the UK* and U.S. are planned to follow.….
* https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...rm-uk-security
https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Arti...bility-initia/
Cawdor Barracks = RAF Brawdy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cawdor_Barracks
Last edited by ORAC; 3rd January 2024 at 13:56.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
It will most likely be at Harold Holt communications station. They already have a Deepspace telescope and C-Band space radar there
The system they are building
https://www.ssc.spaceforce.mil/Porta...%20success.pdf
The system they are building
https://www.ssc.spaceforce.mil/Porta...%20success.pdf
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Interesting report to congress on aukus. I find one of the most interesting things is that B-21 were discussed at some point
https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod...RL/RL32418/269
Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities (such as, for example, producing long-range anti-ship missiles and/or purchasing of U.S.- made B-21 long-range bombers),49 so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/na...ustry-insiders
Clains the RAN naval review will recommend 8 type 26 in ASW config and 8 upgunned/missile hunters (96 VLS cells)
Clains the RAN naval review will recommend 8 type 26 in ASW config and 8 upgunned/missile hunters (96 VLS cells)
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 41
Likes: 3
From: Canberra
Interesting report to congress on aukus. I find one of the most interesting things is that B-21 were discussed at some point
https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod...RL/RL32418/269
https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod...RL/RL32418/269
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Also note another media group is reporting that recommendation that hunters be axed or scaled down and replaced with hobart flight 3 and either arrowhead 140 or alpha 3000
So litterally the news groups are getting different leaks
So litterally the news groups are getting different leaks
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 813
Likes: 429
From: Portsmouth
The technical term is thrashing about. Trying to add area AAW capability to the baseline ship has not and will not end well.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,642
Likes: 7,343
From: Peripatetic
Reference the above press reports.
Henderson shipyard in Western 🇦🇺Australia to partner with @Babcockplc to pitch Arrowhead-14 / Type 31 frigate to @Australian_Navy
Expected 🇦🇺Type 26 / Hunter class frigate order may be scaled back slightly and supplemented with a simpler/cheaper design in an exact mirror of RN programmes.
https://archive.is/2024.02.07-235301...avy-c-13497956
Henderson shipyard in Western 🇦🇺Australia to partner with @Babcockplc to pitch Arrowhead-14 / Type 31 frigate to @Australian_Navy
Expected 🇦🇺Type 26 / Hunter class frigate order may be scaled back slightly and supplemented with a simpler/cheaper design in an exact mirror of RN programmes.
https://archive.is/2024.02.07-235301...avy-c-13497956
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 376
From: Hampshire
N_a_B - while I sympathise with you views on the likely out come of such a plan, BAES was reported as offering such an option late last year. Navantia had previous made an unsolicited proposal for an ASW vessel to replace the late Hunters. There has been a lot of politicing going on - optimisation for one role, not enough missiles, absence of effective land strike capability, integrating AEGIS etc. (as not adopting INTeACT). Much flowing from Vice Adm. William Hilarides (USN rtd)'s study.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...unter-proposal
(reported 02 November 2023)
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...unter-proposal
(reported 02 November 2023)
BAE Systems Australia is offering an up-armed, evolved version of the Hunter class frigate to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) as a way of rapidly increasing the firepower of the surface fleet. BAE argues that their proposal, which effectively replaces the Hunter class mission bay with additional missile tubes, offers an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, approach to delivering additional capability to the RAN.
Craig Lockhart, Managing Director at BAE Systems Australia, described the proposal as the “closest thing to off the shelf” available to Australia. The concept, which BAE is proposing for Batch II of the class, uses the space allocated for the mission bay on the Hunter class to insert 64 Mk41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) and 16 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) into the ship for a total of 96 VLS cells.
If the RAN elected to remove the 5 inch Mk 45 gun, Lockhart said, it would enable the VLS count to grow even more to 128 cells – which surpasses even the United States Navy’s (USN) Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruisers. According to BAE the up-armed, Batch II Hunter, maintains 85% commonality with the existing ships that are under construction at Osborne, South Australia. The most significant difference is the removal of the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems.
It would also involve “minor” changes to the ship’s propulsion and power systems to accommodate for the increased top weight of the high-mounted VLS cells.
The proposed modifications would have a “minimal” impact on cost and a “negligible” impact on schedule so long as build of the modified design commenced with Batch II, rather than Batch I ships, Lockhart said.
Craig Lockhart, Managing Director at BAE Systems Australia, described the proposal as the “closest thing to off the shelf” available to Australia. The concept, which BAE is proposing for Batch II of the class, uses the space allocated for the mission bay on the Hunter class to insert 64 Mk41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) and 16 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) into the ship for a total of 96 VLS cells.
If the RAN elected to remove the 5 inch Mk 45 gun, Lockhart said, it would enable the VLS count to grow even more to 128 cells – which surpasses even the United States Navy’s (USN) Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruisers. According to BAE the up-armed, Batch II Hunter, maintains 85% commonality with the existing ships that are under construction at Osborne, South Australia. The most significant difference is the removal of the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems.
It would also involve “minor” changes to the ship’s propulsion and power systems to accommodate for the increased top weight of the high-mounted VLS cells.
The proposed modifications would have a “minimal” impact on cost and a “negligible” impact on schedule so long as build of the modified design commenced with Batch II, rather than Batch I ships, Lockhart said.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 8th February 2024 at 13:08.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 813
Likes: 429
From: Portsmouth
It's still thrashing about because they went down a route they thought was low risk and are learning a hard lesson.
Of course BAES will offer this or that, as will Navantia or Babcock for that matter. Point is, if you don't know what you're doing - which DoD don't, then you're at the mercy of the supplier with the "quickest" solution.
Of course BAES will offer this or that, as will Navantia or Babcock for that matter. Point is, if you don't know what you're doing - which DoD don't, then you're at the mercy of the supplier with the "quickest" solution.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
Purchasing more Hobart AWD’s is not really feasible because a lot of the systems are obsolete, especially the drivetrain. The RAN would end up with a Mark II AWD without much commonality for maintenance and logistics. The Navantia hulls are also quite small with the systems jammed in, thus making maintenance more difficult and expensive.
All the latest information indicates that the Type 26 hull is the most suitable for RAN requirements despite the furore about the selection process. The very quiet drivetrain is part of the reason for the high cost but that is why it makes such a good ASW platform. The hull size allows much more flexibility with system installation and future growth as new technologies enter service.
The Hunter class is being developed with all the sensors of an AWD but will have a smaller missile capacity due to its ASW role. The BAES proposed 96 cell Type 26/Hunter variant offers a much superior AWD to the Hobart class due to better sensors and twice the missile capacity. It would be a vessel that would be upgradable throughout its service life and remain fully capable in the modern sensor environment and, it would have a large amount of commonality with the ASW version thus reducing logistics and maintenance costs for the RAN.
IMHO, acquiring more Hobarts is sticking with technology that is already starting to become obsolete whereas the Type 26/Hunter is the future - there are signs that the USN agrees as they are totally rejigging the Constellation class in an attempt to have similar capability.
All the latest information indicates that the Type 26 hull is the most suitable for RAN requirements despite the furore about the selection process. The very quiet drivetrain is part of the reason for the high cost but that is why it makes such a good ASW platform. The hull size allows much more flexibility with system installation and future growth as new technologies enter service.
The Hunter class is being developed with all the sensors of an AWD but will have a smaller missile capacity due to its ASW role. The BAES proposed 96 cell Type 26/Hunter variant offers a much superior AWD to the Hobart class due to better sensors and twice the missile capacity. It would be a vessel that would be upgradable throughout its service life and remain fully capable in the modern sensor environment and, it would have a large amount of commonality with the ASW version thus reducing logistics and maintenance costs for the RAN.
IMHO, acquiring more Hobarts is sticking with technology that is already starting to become obsolete whereas the Type 26/Hunter is the future - there are signs that the USN agrees as they are totally rejigging the Constellation class in an attempt to have similar capability.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
The Hunter class is being developed with all the sensors of an AWD but will have a smaller missile capacity due to its ASW role. The BAES proposed 96 cell Type 26/Hunter variant offers a much superior AWD to the Hobart class due to better sensors and twice the missile capacity. It would be a vessel that would be upgradable throughout its service life and remain fully capable in the modern sensor environment and, it would have a large amount of commonality with the ASW version thus reducing logistics and maintenance costs for the RAN.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
If Navantia are offering that large a missile capacity, it would have to be in a new hull design as the F100 hull is very tight with the current AWD configuration, thus there would be no commonality with the existing fleet.
The sensor design (including CEAFAR 2 radars) is virtually complete for the Hunters and that would carry over to AWD variants based on the Type 26 hull. If a new Navantia hull was selected, all that work would have to be done again - more expense plus taking up a lot of time that we don’t have.
The sensor design (including CEAFAR 2 radars) is virtually complete for the Hunters and that would carry over to AWD variants based on the Type 26 hull. If a new Navantia hull was selected, all that work would have to be done again - more expense plus taking up a lot of time that we don’t have.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Did you bother reading the 96 cell was a mid life refit option to the existing 3 hobarts. While we dont much more information on the 128 cell except for the model at indopac, the 128 is a F110 hull
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 813
Likes: 429
From: Portsmouth
All the latest information indicates that the Type 26 hull is the most suitable for RAN requirements despite the furore about the selection process. The very quiet drivetrain is part of the reason for the high cost but that is why it makes such a good ASW platform. The hull size allows much more flexibility with system installation and future growth as new technologies enter service.
For avoidance of doubt, that doesn't mean the Hobart/F100 options would be better either.
Thrashing about because they've found that just modding Hunter to fit CEFAR is non-trivial and costly and because they've changed their fleet mix requirement.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
CEAFAR has weight in an elevated position, not additional total weight - due to a lot of the electronics being located immediately behind the antennas. This has been the main issue with integrating it into the Type 26 design. The additional volume available in the T26 hull (8,800t V 7.000 for Navantia) is such that BAES is confident that it can build the high capacity AWD with minimal changes.
The Navantia F110 design is more limiting and would require a huge amount of design work - why do that when it has already been done for a superior platform? I seriously doubt that a seaworthy version of the F110 could be built with 96 VLS without removing a lot of other essential capability, the hull size is too limiting.
The Navantia F110 design is more limiting and would require a huge amount of design work - why do that when it has already been done for a superior platform? I seriously doubt that a seaworthy version of the F110 could be built with 96 VLS without removing a lot of other essential capability, the hull size is too limiting.