AUKUS
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
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
Once again - its not that F110 would be more or less limited - it would be subject to exactly the same limitations. This is an object lesson in what happens when you make a significant change to a baseline ship (T26 to Hunter) and then try to change it again, without understanding what you're doing.
The following users liked this post:
From what I understand the even the theoretically low risk conversion of FREMM to FFG-62 has had issues particularly with software development and integration. I will be interested to see how the Canadian Surface Combatant T26 adaptation progresses, but I don't think I would lose money betting on delays.
I forgot to mention the workforce issues which are going to delay FFG-62 by at leat a year
Number of VLS Tubes
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the number of vertical launch system (VLS) missile tubes in the FFG-62 design. The VLS is the FFG-62’s principal (though not only) means of storing and launching missiles. FFG-62s are to each be equipped with 32 Mark 41 VLS tubes. (The Mark 41 is the Navy’s standard VLS design.)
Supporters of requiring each FFG-62 to be equipped with a larger number of VLS tubes, such as 48, might argue that FFG-62s are to be roughly three-quarters as large, and at least half as expensive to procure, as the Navy’s DDG-51 class destroyers, and might therefore be more appropriately equipped with at least 48 VLS tubes, which is one-half the number on recent DDG-51s. They might also argue that in a context of renewed great power competition with potential dversaries such as China, which is steadily improving its naval capabilities,29 it might be prudent to equip each FFG-62 with 48 rather than 32 VLS tubes each, and that doing so might only marginally increase FFG-62 unit procurement costs. They might also argue that equipping each FFG-62 with 48 rather than 32 VLS tubes will permit the Navy to more fully offset a substantial reduction in VLS tubes that the Navy’s surface fleet is projected to experience when the Navy’s 22 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers, which are each equipped with 122 VLS tubes, are retired, and provide a hedge against the possibility that Navy plans to field VLS tubes on Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles (LUSVs) will be slowed or curtailed for technical or other reasons.
Supporters of having each FFG-62 be equipped with 32 VLS tubes might argue that the analyses indicating a need for 32 VLS tubes already took improving adversary capabilities (as well as other U.S. Navy capabilities) into account. They might also argue that FFG-62s, in addition to having 32 VLS tubes, will also to have separate, deck-mounted box launchers for launching 16 anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as a separate, 21-cell Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) AAW missile launcher; that Navy plans continue to call for eventually deploying additional VLS tubes on LUSVs, which are to act as adjunct weapon magazines for the Navy’s manned surface combatants; and that increasing the number of VLS tubes on each FFG-62 from 32 to 48 would increase (even if only marginally) the procurement cost of a ship that is intended to be an
affordable supplement to the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.
A May 14, 2019, Navy information paper on expanding the cost impact of expanding the FFG-62 VLS capacity from 32 cells to 48 cells states
Congeressional Research Service - Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated December 20, 2023
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the number of vertical launch system (VLS) missile tubes in the FFG-62 design. The VLS is the FFG-62’s principal (though not only) means of storing and launching missiles. FFG-62s are to each be equipped with 32 Mark 41 VLS tubes. (The Mark 41 is the Navy’s standard VLS design.)
Supporters of requiring each FFG-62 to be equipped with a larger number of VLS tubes, such as 48, might argue that FFG-62s are to be roughly three-quarters as large, and at least half as expensive to procure, as the Navy’s DDG-51 class destroyers, and might therefore be more appropriately equipped with at least 48 VLS tubes, which is one-half the number on recent DDG-51s. They might also argue that in a context of renewed great power competition with potential dversaries such as China, which is steadily improving its naval capabilities,29 it might be prudent to equip each FFG-62 with 48 rather than 32 VLS tubes each, and that doing so might only marginally increase FFG-62 unit procurement costs. They might also argue that equipping each FFG-62 with 48 rather than 32 VLS tubes will permit the Navy to more fully offset a substantial reduction in VLS tubes that the Navy’s surface fleet is projected to experience when the Navy’s 22 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers, which are each equipped with 122 VLS tubes, are retired, and provide a hedge against the possibility that Navy plans to field VLS tubes on Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles (LUSVs) will be slowed or curtailed for technical or other reasons.
Supporters of having each FFG-62 be equipped with 32 VLS tubes might argue that the analyses indicating a need for 32 VLS tubes already took improving adversary capabilities (as well as other U.S. Navy capabilities) into account. They might also argue that FFG-62s, in addition to having 32 VLS tubes, will also to have separate, deck-mounted box launchers for launching 16 anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as a separate, 21-cell Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) AAW missile launcher; that Navy plans continue to call for eventually deploying additional VLS tubes on LUSVs, which are to act as adjunct weapon magazines for the Navy’s manned surface combatants; and that increasing the number of VLS tubes on each FFG-62 from 32 to 48 would increase (even if only marginally) the procurement cost of a ship that is intended to be an
affordable supplement to the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.
A May 14, 2019, Navy information paper on expanding the cost impact of expanding the FFG-62 VLS capacity from 32 cells to 48 cells states
To grow from a 32 Cell VLS to a 48 Cell VLS necessitates an increase in the length of the ship with a small beam increase and roughly a 200-ton increase in full load displacement. This will require a resizing of the ship, readdressing stability and seakeeping analyses, and adapting ship services to accommodate the additional 16 VLS cells.
A change of this nature would unnecessarily delay detail design by causing significant disruption to ship designs. Particularly the smaller ship designs. Potential competitors have already completed their Conceptual Designs and are entering the Detail Design and Construction competition with ship designs set to accommodate 32 cells.
The cost is estimated to increase between $16M [million] and $24M [million] per ship.This includes ship impacts and additional VLS cells.
Compared to an FFG-62 follow-on ship unit procurement cost of about $1.0 billion, the above estimated increase of $16 million to $24 million would equate to an increase in unit procurement cost of about 1.6% to about 2.4%.A change of this nature would unnecessarily delay detail design by causing significant disruption to ship designs. Particularly the smaller ship designs. Potential competitors have already completed their Conceptual Designs and are entering the Detail Design and Construction competition with ship designs set to accommodate 32 cells.
The cost is estimated to increase between $16M [million] and $24M [million] per ship.This includes ship impacts and additional VLS cells.
Congeressional Research Service - Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated December 20, 2023
ARLINGTON, Va. – The first Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will deliver at least a year late due in large part to workforce shortfalls at the Wisconsin yard where it’s built, USNI News has learned.
The service has briefed Congress that the future USS Constellation (FFG-62) could deliver in 2027 and that shipyard Fincantieri Marinette Marine has undergone an independent review to assess the delay, a legislative source confirmed to USNI News this week.
During a program briefing on Thursday at the annual Surface Navy Symposium, the deputy manager for the frigate program acknowledged potential schedule slippage in the program due to the workforce issues. When asked for a ballpark on the schedule, Andy Bosak told USNI News the assessment is “ongoing.”
“We do have challenge in the schedule. We are working that. Fincantieri has communicated to us of challenges within the schedule,” Bosak told USNI News.
“We are doing our analysis, as the Navy does, of doing deep dives of causes and effects and various different levers of which we can pull within that shipyard,” he added. “And we need to, as a program, work with our leadership, kind of figure out what we want to do. And from that, we will make that assessment as to what the actual schedule impact is of where we are. And that effort is ongoing.”
Following an earlier version of this post, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced a review of Navy shipbuilding, citing concerns with the frigate program and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program. NAVSEA head Vice Adm. Jim Downey and assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition Nickolas Guertin will lead the evaluation.
“The American public should know that the Department of the Navy is committed to developing, delivering, and sustaining the finest warfighting capability to our Sailors and Marines,” Del Toro said in a statement. “We will continue to work with industry and all other stakeholders to strengthen our national shipbuilding capacity, both naval and commercial.”
USNI News - January 11, 2024 5:04 PM - Updated: January 11, 2024 9:59 PM
The service has briefed Congress that the future USS Constellation (FFG-62) could deliver in 2027 and that shipyard Fincantieri Marinette Marine has undergone an independent review to assess the delay, a legislative source confirmed to USNI News this week.
During a program briefing on Thursday at the annual Surface Navy Symposium, the deputy manager for the frigate program acknowledged potential schedule slippage in the program due to the workforce issues. When asked for a ballpark on the schedule, Andy Bosak told USNI News the assessment is “ongoing.”
“We do have challenge in the schedule. We are working that. Fincantieri has communicated to us of challenges within the schedule,” Bosak told USNI News.
“We are doing our analysis, as the Navy does, of doing deep dives of causes and effects and various different levers of which we can pull within that shipyard,” he added. “And we need to, as a program, work with our leadership, kind of figure out what we want to do. And from that, we will make that assessment as to what the actual schedule impact is of where we are. And that effort is ongoing.”
Following an earlier version of this post, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced a review of Navy shipbuilding, citing concerns with the frigate program and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program. NAVSEA head Vice Adm. Jim Downey and assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition Nickolas Guertin will lead the evaluation.
“The American public should know that the Department of the Navy is committed to developing, delivering, and sustaining the finest warfighting capability to our Sailors and Marines,” Del Toro said in a statement. “We will continue to work with industry and all other stakeholders to strengthen our national shipbuilding capacity, both naval and commercial.”
USNI News - January 11, 2024 5:04 PM - Updated: January 11, 2024 9:59 PM
Last edited by SLXOwft; 9th Feb 2024 at 21:20. Reason: Workforce issues
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://asiatimes.com/2024/02/new-ze...joining-aukus/
New Zealand one step closer to joining AUKUS
The National-led coalition government is off to a fast start internationally. In envisioning a more central role for the ANZAC alliance with Australia, and possible involvement in the AUKUS security pact, it is recalibrating New Zealand’s independent foreign policy.
At the inaugural Australia-New Zealand Foreign and Defense Ministerial (ANZMIN) meeting in Melbourne earlier this year, the focus was on future-proofing the trans-Tasman alliance.
Detailed discussions took place on the defense and security aspects of the relationship. This included global strategic issues, the Indo-Pacific region, and the relevance of the partnership in the Pacific.
But the stage for this shift in New Zealand’s independent foreign policy had already been set by the Labour government in 2023.
In his foreword to the country’s first National Security Strategy last year, then-prime minister Chris Hipkins wrote that New Zealand “faces a fundamentally more challenging security outlook.” The strategy document called for a “national conversation on foreign policy.”
Christopher Luxon’s administration is taking the logical next step by increasing cooperation with Canberra….
New Zealand’s independent foreign policy has to be redefined in response to present strategic circumstances rather than past interpretations, however well they may have served us. These historic positions, recently put forward by former National leader Don Brash and former prime minister Helen Clark, have run their course.
At the sharp end of this recalibration is AUKUS, the technology partnership involving Australia, the UK and the US. New Zealand has expressed an interest in participating in “pillar two” of the agreement, involving non-nuclear technology sharing.
A joint statement released after the ANZMIN consultations stated that AUKUS was discussed as “a positive contribution toward maintaining peace, security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.”….
New Zealand one step closer to joining AUKUS
The National-led coalition government is off to a fast start internationally. In envisioning a more central role for the ANZAC alliance with Australia, and possible involvement in the AUKUS security pact, it is recalibrating New Zealand’s independent foreign policy.
At the inaugural Australia-New Zealand Foreign and Defense Ministerial (ANZMIN) meeting in Melbourne earlier this year, the focus was on future-proofing the trans-Tasman alliance.
Detailed discussions took place on the defense and security aspects of the relationship. This included global strategic issues, the Indo-Pacific region, and the relevance of the partnership in the Pacific.
But the stage for this shift in New Zealand’s independent foreign policy had already been set by the Labour government in 2023.
In his foreword to the country’s first National Security Strategy last year, then-prime minister Chris Hipkins wrote that New Zealand “faces a fundamentally more challenging security outlook.” The strategy document called for a “national conversation on foreign policy.”
Christopher Luxon’s administration is taking the logical next step by increasing cooperation with Canberra….
New Zealand’s independent foreign policy has to be redefined in response to present strategic circumstances rather than past interpretations, however well they may have served us. These historic positions, recently put forward by former National leader Don Brash and former prime minister Helen Clark, have run their course.
At the sharp end of this recalibration is AUKUS, the technology partnership involving Australia, the UK and the US. New Zealand has expressed an interest in participating in “pillar two” of the agreement, involving non-nuclear technology sharing.
A joint statement released after the ANZMIN consultations stated that AUKUS was discussed as “a positive contribution toward maintaining peace, security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.”….
The following users liked this post:
The Honorable Bonnie D. Jenkins Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security U.S. Department of State
ITAR exemption for UK and AU, looking to mid April
ITAR exemption for UK and AU, looking to mid April
Last edited by golder; 19th Feb 2024 at 06:34.
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The Hunter-class (a Type 26 variant) frigate programme has been cut from nine ships to six. Australia will now look at Six Hunter class frigates, 11 new general purpose frigates and six new Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs).
Details of the Australian Navy’s new future fleet plan have been released. Planned future fleet: 26 large surface combatants (incl 6 optionally crewed) & 25 patrol vessels.
https://www.defence.gov.au/about/rev...ombatant-fleet
Details of the Australian Navy’s new future fleet plan have been released. Planned future fleet: 26 large surface combatants (incl 6 optionally crewed) & 25 patrol vessels.
https://www.defence.gov.au/about/rev...ombatant-fleet
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-a...0240219-p5f5yb
Awakening of a maritime nation 50 years in the making
It is a historic day when the government has finally agreed to support an enhanced surface combatant fleet capability for the Royal Australian Navy.
Awakening of a maritime nation 50 years in the making
It is a historic day when the government has finally agreed to support an enhanced surface combatant fleet capability for the Royal Australian Navy.
The following users liked this post:
A very historic day.
Of the options for the GP Frigate, I think that the updated Mogami FFM would give the RAN the best bang for buck as well as having some good political outcomes.
https://navalinstitute.com.au/from-r...e-acquisition/
Of the options for the GP Frigate, I think that the updated Mogami FFM would give the RAN the best bang for buck as well as having some good political outcomes.
https://navalinstitute.com.au/from-r...e-acquisition/
Only if you believe it will all happen.
This is politicians being politicians, and an ever gullible crowd of defence watches being offered "cake and circuses" on the never never.
Defence Ministers and PM's have made big announcements about major RAN acquisitions in the past, with grandiose major fleet upgrades and more ships or submarines than anyone expected, and lots of money in the forward estimates, and it all comes to be revised after the next election.
ie
replace 6 conventional subs with 12 new better French subs.
replace 8 ANZAC frigates with 9 bigger and better ones (Hunter Class) that we will alter to customise for our needs
12 bigger steel OPV to upgrade from the poor aluminium patrol boats that were bashed to death on patrols in heavy sea states
- all of which never actually got delivered
Perhaps someone will soon come up with "this time it is different".
This is more money and time wasted when we don't have a lot of money or time to waste.
This is politicians being politicians, and an ever gullible crowd of defence watches being offered "cake and circuses" on the never never.
Defence Ministers and PM's have made big announcements about major RAN acquisitions in the past, with grandiose major fleet upgrades and more ships or submarines than anyone expected, and lots of money in the forward estimates, and it all comes to be revised after the next election.
ie
replace 6 conventional subs with 12 new better French subs.
replace 8 ANZAC frigates with 9 bigger and better ones (Hunter Class) that we will alter to customise for our needs
12 bigger steel OPV to upgrade from the poor aluminium patrol boats that were bashed to death on patrols in heavy sea states
- all of which never actually got delivered
Perhaps someone will soon come up with "this time it is different".
This is more money and time wasted when we don't have a lot of money or time to waste.
Last edited by Bug; 21st Feb 2024 at 07:13.
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
One Los Angeles Class sub - available NET 2029 - low mileage….
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-12b-contract/
Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-12b-contract/
Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract
One Los Angeles Class sub - available NET 2029 - low mileage….
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-12b-contract/
Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-12b-contract/
Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract
First thing I thought when I read it a few days ago training sub for Australia
One Los Angeles Class sub - available NET 2029 - low mileage….
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-12b-contract/
Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-12b-contract/
Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract
Saw a blurb the other day (was it on Linked in?) about Huntington Ingalls wanting to (or intending to?) increase the annual rate of sub production...it is currently in an abysmal state. (IMHO).
It's the way US procurement works. They cry doom and gloom to congress to get money. Lobbyists and direct political donations, get the money. In this case to refit their yards. They have said they can normally do 2 a year. With covid and lifetime parts that failed and no spares. They took them from current builds. This also slowed things up to the 1.5 a year. So the real base is 2 a year, but they have previously said they can do 3, if they get the money.
A Conversation with the AUKUS Army Chiefs on Land Power's Contribution to AUKUS Pillar 2.
Last year, the Australian, British, and U.S. army chiefs signed a statement of intent identifying capabilities of priority for cooperation. This effort is intended to contribute to the broader work under AUKUS Pillar 2. In this panel discussion moderated by Dr. Charles Edel, U.S. General Randy A. George, UK General Sir Patrick Sanders, and Australian Lieutenant General Simon Stuart will discuss AUKUS Pillar 2 from a land domain perspective and how the three armies can work together to enhance collaborative efforts in capability developments.
Last year, the Australian, British, and U.S. army chiefs signed a statement of intent identifying capabilities of priority for cooperation. This effort is intended to contribute to the broader work under AUKUS Pillar 2. In this panel discussion moderated by Dr. Charles Edel, U.S. General Randy A. George, UK General Sir Patrick Sanders, and Australian Lieutenant General Simon Stuart will discuss AUKUS Pillar 2 from a land domain perspective and how the three armies can work together to enhance collaborative efforts in capability developments.