Joe Black
Active Member
RAN has put up a video of their industry placement with CEA. The video contains a lot of great footage on the CEAFAR radar. Worth a watch:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Re the amphib task group working in the EAXA recently, this is one of the images from the Defence gallery, cracker shot and also highlights how the different grey paint schemes look in the light : HMA Ships Stuart, Choules, Hobart and Canberra sail in formation
You don't look sorry. Report to @ASSAIL for counselling through the medium of chipping and painting.
Not nearly harsh enough, I suggest scrubbing out the Omnipure tanks.You don't look sorry. Report to @ASSAIL for counselling through the medium of chipping and painting.
I know but he's a civvy and we have give him a bit of leeway. Assail is old school navy. Think he may have been Nelson's buffer.Not nearly harsh enough, I suggest scrubbing out the Omnipure tanks.
Reporting for duty
Was always a lovely smell when they had to open it up down 163 mess !! Thankfully not that oftenNot nearly harsh enough, I suggest scrubbing out the Omnipure tanks.
An Interesting summary of SEA 1778 Pase 1, deployable MCM capability published in Marine Technology News yesterday.
www.marinetechnologynews.com
For the Royal Australian Navy, Technological Leap Starts Small
Driven by the need to organically protect maritime Task Groups from the threat of sea mines, the Royal Australian Navy is introducing…
www.marinetechnologynews.com
Nah! Better a half necklace search on CVS21 in harbour, Air Group embarked with 1200 men using the heads with direct discharge to sea.Not nearly harsh enough, I suggest scrubbing out the Omnipure tanks.
Blind mullets aplenty!
Wow, a carrier warrie. Better rope off the area and pipe all 3 badgemen to the scene. Were you duty Greenie when god said let there be light ?
Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board
New frigate to be built in Adelaide will be longer and heavier than first proposed, raising concerns about cost and performance.
Sinking Feeling Frigate heads back to drawing board.
(Bold my addition)AFR said:
A little bit longer isn't a big issue and I would rather its factored into the design, than done and compromised after the fact. The yard and lifts can still fit even a quite lengthened Type 26. I still think the Type 26 was the right choice as its the biggest design offered and has the most chance of fitting what Australia wants. Making the hull slightly larger really shouldn't increase the cost that much (these aren't submarines where increasing volume has a very linear impact on cost), and if it makes upgrades and operations easier can save money in the long run. Personally if these Frigates go into the water as 10,000t, and have growth margins on top of that, then so be it. Pretty big frigate though. However given the capabilities we are trying to fit into it, not really unexpected. These aren't low end cheap things we are trying to build. I don't think its speed will be too negatively affected if they are made longer, I think that fear is unsupported commentary by those not in the project.
Given the current environment, I don't think its exactly unwarranted. I say yes to 10,000t+ frigates, and see no reason to limit there size to some completely arbitrary target.
I wouldn't be overly concerned about it at the moment. The design hasn't been finalised and there is time before crunch decisions have to be made. At 10,000 tonnes full load, it'll be the size of a Flt III DDG-51.
Which is complete fine, as they are expected to have similar capabilities, if a bit a different focus and different fit out and equipment.
Crewing however *IS* a big cost, so going for the Type 26 is likely to have much lower crewing requirements. In terms of procurement cost, its rather insignificant, crewing is a key operational cost, particularly for a small navy of a country like Australia. It is far more difficult to overcome the crewing requirements, both in cost and in building up that extra sized crew.
So as long as crewing stays within the numbers, a few thousand extra tonnes is not a problem. We have had small ships with large crews and large ships with small crews. One is clearly harder and more expensive long term and has greater difficultly operating at tempo.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
That is interesting. At 10,000t with ~32 VLS cells (vs 3x as many on the Burke) you'd have to hope there is still significant growth margin there. Perhaps it depends on how much internal volume is affected by the mission bay? Not an expert on the subject so can't say with any authority.
I like to look at the positive side of it, the new CEAFAR radar apperantly is a lot more powerful then currently fitted to the Anzacs. Makes one wonder how they will compare to the spy radars. As said as long as we don't increase Manning requirements beyond our ability then this is better for us. Naturally article makes out the risk but ignores how risky the other smaller designs would have been with the same gear fitted.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
WRT crewing, Canada’s CSC program in the future should reduce the number of RCN members joining the RN and RAN in order to serve on better ships. Mind you, OZ’s weather will still be an attractive option. As per the size increases in the T26 design, bit of extra length isn’t a negative. I recently read an article (link below) about a modified T26 as a future T45 replacement for the RN. The weight issues due to the Sampson radar would require a size increase on the base T26 design, perhaps even a beam increase which I gather is more problematic versus a length increase. Just guessing CEAFAR isn’t as heavy as SAMPSON?The Type 4X Destroyer – An early look at an early concept
This just turned up on one of my news feeds...
Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board
Unfortunately most ship designs increase in weight from drawing board to manufacture, so it shouldn't really be a surprise...
Bringing some 'new' equipment together into a design often brings little hiccups like this. Mix in customer changes over the original agreed design, to bring in additional / enhanced capability, then all these mount up, increasing the weight.
Type 26 will no doubt be under similar weight 'issues' & as long as the customer understands their responsibilities (due to adding 'new equipment', or bringing forward activities that were planned later in the life of the ship,but have been introduced during build), then all should be ok.
SA
Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board
Unfortunately most ship designs increase in weight from drawing board to manufacture, so it shouldn't really be a surprise...
Bringing some 'new' equipment together into a design often brings little hiccups like this. Mix in customer changes over the original agreed design, to bring in additional / enhanced capability, then all these mount up, increasing the weight.
Type 26 will no doubt be under similar weight 'issues' & as long as the customer understands their responsibilities (due to adding 'new equipment', or bringing forward activities that were planned later in the life of the ship,but have been introduced during build), then all should be ok.
SA
protoplasm
Active Member
Was just trying to imagine what length increase would be needed to take the design from ~8,800t to ~10,000t. I took a stab based on a beam of ~20m and draught of ~5.5m, which would lead to a hull plug of about 10m give or take. I'm just speculating what spaces would get bigger to take up an extra 10m? Is it just additional hotel load supports (electricity, cooling etc) to support the specced equipment, or is it additional growth margin for future equipment? The current Type 26 renders appear to show a well proportioned ship, just wondering what might change if the hull suddenly becomes 10m longer?
The article indicates the Radar and mast, are key design concerns. Changes are needed to manage that and its top weight and needs, as well as other systems. RAN ships typically have significant endurance requirements and significant HVAC requirements. It also mentions the ship is a lot more high end than the UK type 26 in specification.
The height of the radar is large, and mast seems to be getting larger compared to the earlier renderings. The first system confirmed for Sea5000 was the CEAFAR 2 radar, everything basically follows that. CEAFAR is a scalable design, built to RAN specs, so it would seem the RAN has set things given their requirements for the radar performance (not any pre-existing physical size). CEAFAR isn't a particularly heavy radar design, but the size and scale of it seem to indicate the RAN have quite high end goal posts.
However, Australia seems to be at the higher (and larger) end of the Type 26 design spectrum.
The article doesn't mention growth margins, just current requirements necessitating greater size than the UK Type 26.
A bit of extra length isn't going to be much of a visual issue. The Type 26 is quite beamy compared to other designs both current and past. It more likely to help increase top speed. Its possibly more at the lower end of a 5m-10m lengthening. It probably isn't just a plug either, as its in the early design phase its likely to be highly integrated. It is possible to scale beam, Japanese and Korean Burke based designs have increase beam and length for example. Although typically that is a more complicated change.
It is interesting to compare the radar mast volume between the Hunter class, Type 26 and the CSC. It would also seem to require more volume than the Type 26 with Sampson mockup (or even the Type 45 Sampson mast). It may be that moving the processing into the mast is a big component of that.
I think missile loadout is not a key priority right now. After all you can't shoot and hit what you can't see. The priority seems to be the radar and systems.
The height of the radar is large, and mast seems to be getting larger compared to the earlier renderings. The first system confirmed for Sea5000 was the CEAFAR 2 radar, everything basically follows that. CEAFAR is a scalable design, built to RAN specs, so it would seem the RAN has set things given their requirements for the radar performance (not any pre-existing physical size). CEAFAR isn't a particularly heavy radar design, but the size and scale of it seem to indicate the RAN have quite high end goal posts.
However, Australia seems to be at the higher (and larger) end of the Type 26 design spectrum.
The article doesn't mention growth margins, just current requirements necessitating greater size than the UK Type 26.
A bit of extra length isn't going to be much of a visual issue. The Type 26 is quite beamy compared to other designs both current and past. It more likely to help increase top speed. Its possibly more at the lower end of a 5m-10m lengthening. It probably isn't just a plug either, as its in the early design phase its likely to be highly integrated. It is possible to scale beam, Japanese and Korean Burke based designs have increase beam and length for example. Although typically that is a more complicated change.
It is interesting to compare the radar mast volume between the Hunter class, Type 26 and the CSC. It would also seem to require more volume than the Type 26 with Sampson mockup (or even the Type 45 Sampson mast). It may be that moving the processing into the mast is a big component of that.
I think missile loadout is not a key priority right now. After all you can't shoot and hit what you can't see. The priority seems to be the radar and systems.
- Status