With Wedgetail in the tendering process Australia got the best technology available from the U.S I was told then that congress actually asked questions of some of that transfer this was at D.S.T.O at Fishermensbend I was also informed then that other countries would likely follow Australia's lead in the purchase of Wedgetail as to actual benefits Australia received for countries Turkey and South Korea acquiring the 737 base I dont know I would suspect the U.K would be required to order through the U.S for a Wedgetail derivative
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is possible, I suppose. I would not consider it particularly likely though. BAE makes the Type 997 Artisan 3D radar which is already fitted to the Type 23 frigates, and appears to be getting fitted to the Type 26 frigates intended for the RN, as well as various other vessels in service with the UK.
While engaging in the sort of development and systems integration required to fit a new radar system to a ship makes sense to meet foreign sales requirements, I do not see an advantage to the UK or RN in having yet another radar system brought into RN or RFA service. The Type 997 Artisan 3D radar can serve and provide commonality across the fleet as a medium-range air/surface search radar, or the SAMPSON/S1850M radar combo in service aboard the Type 45 destroyers if area air defence radar is deemed more appropriate.
Had the RN adopted CEAFAR as the Type 996 replacement radar aboard the Type 23 frigates which starting being refitted in 2012, the situation would be a bit different IMO Since that did not happen, and a new radar was developed and fitted, either CEAFAR would need to provide a reasonably significant capability improvement beyond what comparable British radars are capable of, or there would need to be some sort of major business concessions to make it worthwhile to introduce yet another type of radar system to the RN/RFA, while also competing for orders with UK produced radar systems.
While I do not dismiss the possibility of the UK gov't of putting 'pressure' on AusGov regarding defence purchases, that 'pressure' is far more likely to be in the form of carrots than sticks, IMO at least. Since WWII, and especially since the 1971 withdrawal of the RN east of the Suez, Australia has looked to the US and elsewhere for trade and defence. Therefore the UK has far fewer levers available to influence AusGov and while the AusGov cannot necessarily dictate terms, any negotiations would most likely be on far more equal terms than it would have been in the past.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
While the topic is getting a bit divorced from the RAN, I did want to point out that any country except the US wishing to order the E-7A Wedgetail or a derivative would have to place the order through the US, this includes Australia. The airframe is based on that of the Boeing 737-700 with some elements taken from the 737-800 (not unlike how the P-8A Poseidon is mostly based on the Boeing 737-800 with some elements taken from the 737-900) which is a US product, and the L-band MESA radar is produced by Northrop Grumman headquartered in Maryland in the US.
I agree, I don't see why Australia would bend over backwards for the UK (or anyone else for that matter).
But the UK and the EU have been talking free trade deals. Which is funny because they were Trump back in the early 1960's when they decided to wall themselves off from our apparently fearfully extremely competitive agricultural and manufacturing sectors with trade walls.
The EU pursues $15b free trade talks with Australia, but there's a catch
EU talks with Australia and New Zealand deal blow to UK free trade plans
I don't see some Wedgetail, another 25 Bushmasters or some Banannas being enough. Some lop sided freetrade deal isn't nearly enough.
While Australia is spending the money, Australia strategically is in a much better position than the EU. Our economy is growing, our trading partners economies are growing, we are surrounded by developing nations that are growing much faster. We have a very complimentary economy to Indonesia, India, China etc.
We aren't just buying a OTS design, there will be ongoing development etc. Eventually who ever wins will have to have a significant local footprint, with local people in Australia and their people in Australia. This will likely become as big as their home design team. I feel annoyed that they are using the defence deal as a economic negotiating tool.
So they are only military aligned with us as long as it economically profitable for them. Sounds like the worse fair weather alliance ever.
But the UK and the EU have been talking free trade deals. Which is funny because they were Trump back in the early 1960's when they decided to wall themselves off from our apparently fearfully extremely competitive agricultural and manufacturing sectors with trade walls.
The EU pursues $15b free trade talks with Australia, but there's a catch
EU talks with Australia and New Zealand deal blow to UK free trade plans
I don't see some Wedgetail, another 25 Bushmasters or some Banannas being enough. Some lop sided freetrade deal isn't nearly enough.
While Australia is spending the money, Australia strategically is in a much better position than the EU. Our economy is growing, our trading partners economies are growing, we are surrounded by developing nations that are growing much faster. We have a very complimentary economy to Indonesia, India, China etc.
We aren't just buying a OTS design, there will be ongoing development etc. Eventually who ever wins will have to have a significant local footprint, with local people in Australia and their people in Australia. This will likely become as big as their home design team. I feel annoyed that they are using the defence deal as a economic negotiating tool.
So they are only military aligned with us as long as it economically profitable for them. Sounds like the worse fair weather alliance ever.
I don't think anyone has suggested Australia should bend over backwards or that they are in a position of supplication to anyone. It just so happens that the UKs trade situation is changing and Australia is right to take advantage of this. This is what the discussions between the UK and Aus PMs have been about - see post #24091.
Furthermore, I'd be very weary of deals with the EU which are branded as "free trade". After being in the UK for over a decade and seen how they operate, EU trade deals always seem to be missing something - something is watered down to give them an advantage. If you read the article you posted, apparently the EU "free" trade deal for Aus would net about $7 billion - or 0.2 per cent increase in its GDP - is that really that spectacular?
I should also point out that the Bushmaster opportunity is much larger than the 25 you indicated. The salient points from the article are in quotes below:
Nocookies
"171 Bushmasters have been exported so far with 30 sold to Britain for use by its SAS Regiment",,,,"Thales has recently sent three Bushmaster MR6s to the UK with a range of enhancements targeting the selection competition for Britain’s multi-role (MR) protected vehicle. One will be blast-tested. The other two are an ambulance and a troop carrier...If Thales is successful, it will win an order for about 240 Bushmasters for the British army."
If this discussion is stemmed from a potential T26 decision for SEA 5000, then its right for Australia to include as much as possible from the UK in any such deal.
Nor did I suggest that. My post was in response to a suggestion that the UK was applying pressure to Australia (post #24172)
Australia is indeed in possession of the whip handle. It's only right that we beat them for all we can get out of them. It's also proper that we give Fincantieri and Navantia enough licks to be sure we're getting the proper response from seller to buyer and not being treated as a subordinate and unsuspecting milch cow for their local industry.
oldsig
Actually, I was't responding to your post.
I don't think anyone is trying to apply pressure either. To me its around enhancing a relationship through trade and defence - and this would be for any of the SEA 5000 bids.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As it currently stands (still!) we do not know what the decision by gov't will be, or if it will be announced on the current schedule or delayed,
What I would also be concerned about was any effort (any at all) to carve out a slice of defence work for Austal. From my POV, Defence would do well to stay far away from the company, given some of it's corporate decisions as well as it's specialties.
Unless some things have changed and I missed it, Austal could not really be described as a defence company in Australia since it specializes in building vessels out of marine grade aluminium, and the vessels themselves are designed/built to HSC standard. As I understand it, aluminium has a higher cost to use per tonne than steel albeit a lower displacement for a given volume of material used. Also I believe that marine grade aluminium flexes less than mild steels used to manufacture most ship hulls. In some applications that rigidity is fine, but in others (like in large vessels) such rigidity can lead to cracking. For some applications, like some of the smaller and/or high speed ferry vessels, the properties of marine grade aluminium provide advantages which justify or outweigh the higher costs of using that particular material.
To make matters worse, it seems that for a number of years, Austal had been bringing workers into Australia using 457 visas to work on commercial vessels in Austal yards in WA. The situation currently is that commercial boat building is now done by Austal in the Philippines and not within Australia, so there would not be any commercial or civilian work which could help sustain an Austal shipyard/workforce and the facilities apart from a company HQ would be dependent on orders placed by gov't.
IMO, the fact that Austal lacks expertise in working with steel and that they are used to designing/building to the High Speed Craft (HSC) rules would mean that any Austal workforce which would be based in Australia and produce vessels or ship blocks for the RAN would need to be skilled to work in a material (steel) more appropriate for RAN operating conditions, as well as built to the appropriate naval standard. While I can understand the interest on the part of some politicians with ties to WA to fund developing such a capability in Austal, I see no reason to do so since there are other shipyards, both within WA and elsewhere around Australia that already possess the appropriate skills and experience to work on vessels for the RAN and also engage in some commercial ship building activities. To work towards including Austal as a company which such capabilities would be both a duplication of effort, as well as adding yet another competitor into an already rather crowded space in terms of industrial capacity vs. demand. As it is, it seems that AusGov has had plenty of issues ensuring there is sufficient work to sustain the existing shipyards as part of the strategic shipbuilding plan,
Exactly.
If Lurssen didn't regard them as a capable partner to build patrol boats, how could they even be considered for frigate construction.
Red flag indeed!
MB
Jack Wyatt
Member
In all this talk of free trade deals and Wedgetails (will production of the 700 series continue long enough for more or will they be based on the 800 airframe like the P8A), the Spanish announced its new F110 frigate will have Aegis. I wonder if CEAFAR will get a guernsey?
Also, the RAAF Tritons will be higher spec, the type the USN has designated as replacements for its EP3Cs. Combine this capability with the Wedgetail and P8A, the RAAF has signficiantly improved its capability.
Last edited:
Joe Black
Active Member
Hi Jack,
short answer, no. Spain is developing a new AESA radar with LM.
Lockheed Martin and Indra Partner to Provide State-of-the-Art AESA Radar to Worldwide Anti-Air Warfare Platforms
The article is about AEGIS stuff and missiles for 5 new frigates (so F-110 frigates) and so it should not be updates for Spanish F-100 destroyers.
WASHINGTON ---The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Spain of five (5) AEGIS Weapons Systems (AWS) for an estimated cost of $860.4 million.
Spain – AEGIS Combat System
WASHINGTON ---The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Spain of five (5) AEGIS Weapons Systems (AWS) for an estimated cost of $860.4 million.
Spain – AEGIS Combat System
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Apparently the T26 is the winner and this will be announced on Friday. The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and others reporting this.
BREAKING – BAE Type 26 selected for SEA 5000
BREAKING – BAE Type 26 selected for SEA 5000
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, the specifics will indeed be interesting. It is my belief the T26 will win the CSC as the RCN prefers it and LM has partnered with BAE. The financials will dictate whether 15 will actually be built and if they are, some may be less kitted out.
Great outcome and confirmed in The Australian for an announcement today. The navy appears once again to have gotten the design that it wanted.
To be named the Hunter class - so perhaps even an end to naming the ships after provincial cities. Will be interested to know the final missile loadout and other details.
Hopefully the CSC decision conforms to this one given the similar reported preference of the RCN for this design.
To be named the Hunter class - so perhaps even an end to naming the ships after provincial cities. Will be interested to know the final missile loadout and other details.
Hopefully the CSC decision conforms to this one given the similar reported preference of the RCN for this design.
Lots of reports by proper media already out there, inlcuding the Wall Street Journal, but this little one from AAP via Channel 9 should suffice.
Well, for the moment, anyway.
Well, for the moment, anyway.
Whole article at BAE to build new Aust navy frigates - 9News
The Type 26 decision is a fantastic outcome for Australia! This will be the best frigate of its generation and will serve the navy well. Hunter class is the perfect name for tracking down and dispatching Chinese submarines...
Lockheed Martin on Twitter
Lockheed Martin on Twitter
Last edited:
- Status