Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Goknub said:

I'm too much of a cynic to think this lack of information isn't BAE playing for time. A direct replacement of CAMM cells for Mk41 gives it 36 vls. Combine that with the lack of Harpoon cells and the Type 26 looks under-armed compared to the F-100.

If the Australian proposal makes up the difference it'll be interesting to see where this extra capability gets massaged in.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt RAN will still be using a rail launched ASM by the time the first Future Frigate will hit the water (though if they do it will be NSM I suspect) and actually be in a position to employ such a weapon, so the limited number of VLS cells on such a large ship, has to give a bit of pause for thought, surely?

I think the consensus is pretty even that the 48 strike length VLS cells on the AWD is the bare minimum we will need on a major surface combatant moving forward, that the type 26 offers 36 in total, and potentially as few as only 24 of that number will be of the strike length configuration, doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in the missile rich environment these ships will have to operate in...

Thinking on a tangent for a moment, the advantage of the current Harpoon setup is its lack of hull penetration. Could Mk41 be mounted in its place with munitions launching at 45°?
This could provide an additional 8 cells (assuming 2 x 4) for use across all surface ships.

Goknub said:

I'm too much of a cynic to think this lack of information isn't BAE playing for time. A direct replacement of CAMM cells for Mk41 gives it 36 VLS. Combine that with the lack of Harpoon cells and the Type 26 looks under-armed compared to the F-100.

If the Australian proposal makes up the difference it'll be interesting to see where this extra capability gets massaged in.

Click to expand...

Hi Guys,

It is worth pointing out that the Drive article contains an error. The Type 26 design does not have 12 Sea Ceptor cells it has 48, 24 in front of the strike length silos and 24 aft of the funnel.

I'm not sure how helpful this info is in gauging the ship's total theoretical MK41 cell capacity however as the Sea Ceptor missile is cold launch.

Regards

Bramble said:

Hi Guys,

It is worth pointing out that the Drive article contains an error. The Type 26 design does not have 12 Sea Ceptor cells it has 48, 24 in front of the strike length silos and 24 aft of the funnel.

I'm not sure how helpful this info is in gauging the ship's total theoretical MK41 cell capacity however as the Sea Ceptor missile is cold launch.

Regards

Click to expand...

I would imagine the smaller CAMM launchers could be replaced with similar sized self defence mk41 launchers (like what is now on the upgraded Adelaide class) with quad packed ESSM.

If another 24 strike cells could be squeezed in up the front (or aft of the funnel) replacing the CAMM launchers that would be ideal. But as it stands the from an Australian perspective the Type 26 feels a bit light.I imagine in the future it will feel positively featherweight.

Thinking on a tangent for a moment, the advantage of the current Harpoon setup is its lack of hull penetration. Could Mk41 be mounted in its place with munitions launching at 45°?
This could provide an additional 8 cells (assuming 2 x 4) for use across all surface ships.

Click to expand...

NSM can be launched from boxes or from VLS. I would imagine in the future it could be fitted to both in Australian service. I am not sure if 8 ASM is enough.

Bramble said:

Hi Guys,

It is worth pointing out that the Drive article contains an error. The Type 26 design does not have 12 Sea Ceptor cells it has 48, 24 in front of the strike length silos and 24 aft of the funnel.

I'm not sure how helpful this info is in gauging the ship's total theoretical MK41 cell capacity however as the Sea Ceptor missile is cold launch.

Regards

Click to expand...

I think he's assuming that four SeaCeptor cells are equivalent to one Mk 41. While it should be possible to fit four SeaCeptor canisters into a Mk 41 cell, the SeaCeptor launchers are simpler, lighter & cheaper (& I think at least a metre shorter than a Mk 41 self-defence length launcher), because as you say, they're cold launch. No efflux control needed, & I think the gas launch thing is part of the canister that slots into the launcher.

So Mk 41 fitted in place of SeaCeptor dedicated launchers should either stick up, or need to penetrate further into the ship.

ASSAIL said:

Since that vid was released a few weeks ago I've been wondering if this has been a long term plan to service the LHDs out on the Oil wharf? I understood they spent big money upgrading the old carrier wharf and removing the crane specifically to service the LHDs, maybe the good burghers of Wooloomooloo finally got enough sway to change Navy's mind?

Click to expand...

There's an environmental management plan available on the net (and links were posted here or I wouldn't have found it) which says inter alia that one of the significant benefits of the upgrade was to reduce noise impact on the neighbours, or rather, to allow Navy to still do its thing as it needs and put a middle finger up at the finger wharf.

It seems that the answer is "yes"

oldsig

A very interesting discussion on the BAE proposal on the UK Defence Journal. The comment from Joe (below) is very interesting.

At the price the UK quoted, this entrant stands no chance.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-video-shows-type-26-frigate-customised-australia/

Goknub said:

I'm too much of a cynic to think this lack of information isn't BAE playing for time. A direct replacement of CAMM cells for Mk41 gives it 36 VLS. Combine that with the lack of Harpoon cells and the Type 26 looks under-armed compared to the F-100.

If the Australian proposal makes up the difference it'll be interesting to see where this extra capability gets massaged in.

Click to expand...

I don't know as lack of Harpoons is that big a deal ... it is a pretty dated missile. The SM6 will be available by the time the new frigates hit the water.

Lack of torpedos puzzles me however. It looks like the British version will have to rely solely on the helicopter to attack submarines. That is of course unless torpedos are going to be stored in the mission bay.

The mission bay would seem to be one of the biggest points of difference between the Type 26 and the other contenders. It gives the design a lot of flexibility and might yet be the deciding factor in this competition.

swerve said:

I think he's assuming that four SeaCeptor cells are equivalent to one Mk 41. While it should be possible to fit four SeaCeptor canisters into a Mk 41 cell, the SeaCeptor launchers are simpler, lighter & cheaper (& I think at least a metre shorter than a Mk 41 self-defence length launcher), because as you say, they're cold launch. No efflux control needed, & I think the gas launch thing is part of the canister that slots into the launcher.

So Mk 41 fitted in place of SeaCeptor dedicated launchers should either stick up, or need to penetrate further into the ship.

Click to expand...

It certainly won't be as neat. It will either eat into space in the hull or superstructure or stick out even further (with more top weight issues). A significant modification. Not sure if I like VLS launchers sticking out all over the place. I would imagine that it wouldn't be good for radar returns, and that is kind of the area you don't want munitions to be aiming for. On the FFG it was an acceptable modification to get the capability.

My preference is to make a Type 26+. A lengthened type 26. One that actually meets the needs of Australia. Perhaps the UK will build a flight II type 26 in that concept. Like the batch 2 OPV BAE built which was a good 10 m longer (same width).

If the Type 26 or FREMM doesn't meet the needs of Australia then I guess we will just keep building AWD based frigates and evolve that design further.

Good day all


With respect to the T26 we do not know what will be proposed for the future frigate and what launchers/tube/box launchers it will be fitted with. I would expect SSMs (not a fan of relying on SM6 in lieu of dedicated SSM and suspect I am not alone in that view) and tubes will be in the RFT.


The T26 is a large ship and making it larger is not a simple option and just increases risk.


It really is wait and sea. If we are looking at 48 cells then both the T26 and FREMM will need a bit of internal rejigging.

alexsa said:

Good day all


With respect to the T26 we do not know what will be proposed for the future frigate and what launchers/tube/box launchers it will be fitted with. I would expect SSMs (not a fan of relying on SM6 in lieu of dedicated SSM and suspect I am not alone in that view) and tubes will be in the RFT.


The T26 is a large ship and making it larger is not a simple option and just increases risk.


It really is wait and sea. If we are looking at 48 cells then both the T26 and FREMM will need a bit of internal rejigging.

Click to expand...

And to fit in two helo hangars, amongst other things, Navantia will have had to considerably rejig the AWD design with follow on issues known only to them and the project team. None of the designs being offered are likely to be directly interpretable from the limited information so far publicly released; therefore as suggested let's wait and see.

spoz said:

And to fit in two helo hangars, amongst other things, Navantia will have had to considerably rejig the AWD design with follow on issues known only to them and the project team. None of the designs being offered are likely to be directly interpretable from the limited information so far publicly released; therefore as suggested let's wait and see.

Click to expand...

True, but the CoA have already provided money for that design process before the CEP was initiated. The evolved F105 design mooted is the outcome of that process and 'model' presented already had those modifications prior to the at the beginning of the CEP. .


As I said we need to wait to see what is offered and it may be practical to plumb in 48 strike length Mk41 tubes into both the T26 and FREMM as well as tubes and box launchers ...... we don't know.


We also do note know the scope and impact of any changes (i.e the impact on the mission bay of the T26 of the twin medium helicopter issue you note is a requirement) and how much work is required to meet the RFT.


Noting we do not have visibility of the RFT it is hard to determine what changes are required .... so we have to wait for the details of each offering before we can judge .......... however, sticking a hull plug in any other options is fraught with risk.

Hazdog said:

The Royal Navy shared a promotional video on their Facebook page to promote the selection of the Type 26 for SEA 5000. The video is linked below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl89hsSje3E.

Click to expand...

It's pretty half baked. Titled GCS for Australia, yet says that it has a Chinook capable flight deck and hangar capable of supporting a Wildcat or Merlin.

Singular.

I may be completely wrong but I was under the impression that the ship has to be able to support two medium helicopters, Romeos in our case at this time, not one.

The video looks for all the world like they just modified the RN T26 graphics to include a CEA Tech style mast, redid the animation where needed and called it good enough for the Ockers, right up to having the ship escorting an RN carrier.

(Edit: Just watched the RN video which is indeed the same old thing with a different mast)

Just half baked PR bumf. I wouldn't be trying to count the number of VLS from that.

oldsig

StingrayOZ said:

Australia has accelerated its frigate program (much to the disappointment of the UK/BAE) and has been pretty aggressive with the start dates of other programs. Given the current geopolitical situation you would want to be building as fast as possible. This is the time to double your efforts.

Click to expand...

I don't buy this wrt frigates. They are not a strategic asset and current RAN planning appears based around highly localised sea control around expeditionary operations.

if you were accelerating/expanding submarine building - fair enough - but for frigates, just can't see it.

Regards,

Massive

oldsig127 said:

The video looks for all the world like they just modified the RN T26 graphics to include a CEA Tech style mast, redid the animation where needed and called it good enough for the Ockers, right up to having the ship escorting an RN carrier.

(Edit: Just watched the RN video which is indeed the same old thing with a different mast)
oldsig

Click to expand...

This is an older video which came out pre RFT. Take absolutely nothing from this video with respect to the Australianised design. If you click on the BAE Australia link you will see a picture of the later design. Harpoon mid-ships and full set of Mk41 VLS forward of bridge.

Samoa said:

This is an older video which came out pre RFT. Take absolutely nothing from this video with respect to the Australianised design. If you click on the BAE Australia link you will see a picture of the later design. Harpoon mid-ships and full set of Mk41 VLS forward of bridge.

Click to expand...

May you please provide a link to this? Thanks.

To the aviation issue I believe that the initial Type 26 proposal before budget constraints the design was large enough to house 2 Romeo's. (I cannot provide a link for this).

On another note, It's obvious to any person that it was a simple edit job of the UK Type 26 promo video.

Hazdog said:

May you please provide a link to this? Thanks.

To the aviation issue I believe that the initial Type 26 proposal before budget constraints the design was large enough to house 2 Romeo's. (I cannot provide a link for this).

On another note, It's obvious to any person that it was a simple edit job of the UK Type 26 promo video.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and yet someone earlier in the discussion was suggesting people try to count the number of VLS it had fitted.

oldsig

oldsig127 said:

Indeed, and yet someone earlier in the discussion was suggesting people try to count the number of VLS it had fitted.

oldsig

Click to expand...

Yes that "someone" was I, I was attempting to start some discussion on the actual number of VLS to be fitted...Due to the lack of info available.

Personally I'd hope it to be some where closer to 64 VLS throughout the design, yes very, very optimistic. But in the current and future South East Asia area 48 VLS cells is becoming increasingly lacklustre. You could possibly fit 64 VLS cells by mounting 48 on the bow and 16 aft.

The load out for a Type 26 with 64 VLS could be as following.

Bow battery: 12 SM-2 providing Anti-Air warfare. 12 SM-3 providing a low-end BMD. 12 SM-6 providing Task group air defence. 6 Tomahawk providing long range land attack capability. 6 LRASM providing Anti-Ship warfare.

Aft battery: 16 cells fully fitted with ESSM, providing 64 ESSM for ship defence. (The aft battery could be fitted as self defence size, as too save room in the design for other purposes)

Could this be a viable option for the Australian T26 since they have been quoted as Destroyers?

Hazdog said:

Yes that "someone" was I, I was attempting to start some discussion on the actual number of VLS to be fitted...Due to the lack of info available.

Personally I'd hope it to be some where closer to 64 VLS throughout the design, yes very, very optimistic. But in the current and future South East Asia area 48 VLS cells is becoming increasingly lacklustre. You could possibly fit 64 VLS cells by mounting 48 on the bow and 16 aft.

Click to expand...

If we are going that big you would think the Govt would buy the latest flight of Burke?

The German proposal had 64 VLS and 28 plus knots of speed.

I'd suggest 48 VLS is more realistic with possible growth to 64 VLS. I recall Volk did provide advice on Navantia offering of an evolved design?