A lot of the news reporting this week has been focussed on the defence cooperation treaty the UK and Australian defence ministers signed and how it might relate to the Royal Navy’s planned Type 26 Global Combat Ship.
Exportability was always one of the central design drivers in the Type 26, so this is the fruit of that initial thinking. Unfortunately, the UK does not have a happy recent history in complex warship building and although the QE Class carrier build programme is marching on at a steady pace, there is still a lot of ground to recover. I am sure the Royal Australian Navy will be thinking about their trials and tribulations with HMAS Choules.
Phil Hammond said;
Areas of potential co-operation include future frigates, with the Royal Navy’s Type 26 design, a cutting-edge blueprint that could be the first of many opportunities for future collaboration. In times of budget pressures for all nations, it makes sense to maximise economies of scale and work with our friends to get the best value for money on all sides
What the final shape of such cooperation ends up being is open to discussion, everything from selling complete ships, sub system or design sharing seems possible, but we will be seeing more of this as countries seek to maximise their investments in complex military equipment.
Australia has a well-developed naval design, development, manufacturing and support infrastructure, a growing economy but several defence and defence funding challenges.
Read more about the Type 26 here
What do people think will be the final shape of such co-operation as it relates to the Type 26 and what implications are there for both countries?
The FREMM is not really an ASW platform and the RAN is suddenly interested in ASW again given the number of subs that are coming into service in the region.
That also explains the use of the Ultra bow and towed array sonars on the Hobart AWD’s at the cost of a new bow design. The RAN has previously used Thales Sonars pretty exclusively (the ANZAC’s use Thales Sperion which were also retrofitted to the 4 upgraded FFG’s).
The early fabrication problem on the Hobart class were nothing out of the ordinary. The block that buckled was the keel section of the fwd aux machinery room which suffered from weld shrinkage. It was a straight forward fix. The real problem was the DMO made a hash out of the sub contracts for block manufacture. The LHD project and The AWD project didn’t coordinate so BAe ended up with 13 modules for each of the AWD’s (of 31) plus 7 modules for each of the LHD’s. Presumably BAe said they could do it but they couldn’t hire enough labour fast enough. None of which excuses DMO because they should have seen thay were creating a huge risk at BAe and they didn’t need too because they were other fabricators looking for the work. Sorry, hobby horse, I hate DMO.
Yes, they might “minimise” the descriptions, as per Chuck
At the same time, they have coastal/ littoral navies
– e.g. Singapore wanted the Lafayettes faster
– they now are, making for a forey out, and quickly back ( but the range, compared to the French [long-range]patrol frigate design is a third less)
@x, January 20, 2013 at 18:21 “I just think these would be too small for Australia. 140 bods in 2500/3000 tonnes or so that would be cramped for Westerners. If it were 80 to 100 perhaps. 18 to 24 production run, now that is economies of scale.” http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=842
The Asians do tend to minimize the size of their ships in their descriptions so it is probably 2500 tons light, probably over 3,000 tons full load. Still relatively small, smaller than the ANZACs, but about the same size as Type 21s or Leanders. Automation, more compact propulsion and components should make accommodations more nearly acceptable. A bit of a stretch might make it more acceptable, but still unlikely.
The Koreans have also produced three classes of larger, more impressive designs as well. An update of this one might be seen as an appropriate complement to the Hobarts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDX-II
Martin,
I was suprised to see the project cost as well but everything I can find indicates they have paid $8 billion AU for the 3 Hobarts.
@APATS – I will believe the $10 billion budget when I see it. The Aussies are gretj.a for setting lofty program goals then failing to fund them.
@NaB
I guess you’re right, exports aren’t a sure thing.
No. Our programme will have to stand on it’s own two feet. It cannot be dependent on exports or co-production. That way lies Typhoon/A400 madness and delay.
However, what licence fees and sustainment work would do is help fund the basic UK overhead in design of complex warships.
@X
Putting aside the comparative costs and ship trends exactly why wouldn’t the Australians want FREMM?
@NaB
So the more design licence fees we sell and the more ‘knock-on’ sustainment those deals provide the more viable and economical it makes our own part of the programme?
Id totally forgotten that the French paid for the QEC design a few years ago, not exactly money well spent!
I always think of ANZAC as a modern better T21 than a T23. (And Halifax as a T23 equivalent.) FREMM wouldn’t suit their needs.
Observer,
FREMM is actually a really good example of how “different” the “same” Ship class can end up if you are involved in the design phase.
The Italian vessels are 8M longer than the French.
The Italians have gone for CODLAG whilst the French have CODOG. The GTs are the same but Genny sets are different and the Italians have an electric motor in there.
They have different CMS, radars and combinations of VLS installations, guns, CIWS and fire control.
Know which section was distorted APATS, just didn’t want to point it out.
Good point on the design from start part. Guess either way, there is still risk, a new design or an old design that might not be compatible with the new parts. Luck to them Aussies.
“Can the T26 have a successful export programme simply by selling the design for others to build?”
Yes – many of the T12/Leander hulls in service with Commonwealth were actually built abroad. What it doesn’t do is “save the UK shipbuilding industry”, but it should provide some knock-on sustainment work (ie design authority, logs support etc).
The design itself would probably be worth a few tens of million in licence fees. Remember the French paid £100M for access to the QEC design, although my information is that they were apopletic when they found how little had been done at the time!
Observer
It was part of the keel. Type 26 has the advantage of being designed with a mission bay and for UAV operations from the outset. It may also already come with MK41 cells as part of the design.
Another key point is that the T-26 is essentially still a powerpoint presentation while FREMM has in service hardware. Though how much of an edge it has is questionable when you have to gut the entire system and “Americanize” it. The torps would have commonality with the Eurotorp though. But if they want to use RUM ASROCs on a VLS, having all Mk 51s would be better logistically. Guess they could go either way, ASROC or no ASROC.
APATS, fair point, only one section. Won’t mention which :) Guess this was probably a one off screwup, though a fairly serious one.
It seems very likely that any deal with the Australian over T26 would result in the ships being built by them rather than in the UK and with quite a specific Aussie weapon/sensor fit. So all we would really be doing is selling the design, how much is that actually worth?
Can the T26 have a successful export programme simply by selling the design for others to build?
Observer,
Please, one 20M section was fooked up by BAE Australia!
Given the modular building of CVF and T45 I am guessing that BAE when working from their own design are pretty competent at modular design and construction.
Whatever they end up buying they will almost certainly be built in Australia. I just cannot see anyone getting anywhere near a deal without that being the case.
Reading the paper that Adam sudgen linked to yesterday the acquisition costs were somewhere in the region of $10 billion AU which would place the cost per unit at twice what we are looking at buying our T26 for.
@ Observer
The Franco/Italian FREMM does have a chance though, DSCN already has experience with a tech transfer program in the RSN Formidables, so they won’t have any qualms about building overseas, and they would have a “reference customer” with close RAN ties for a showroom ship.
Do you not think FREMM might be a bit pricy for the Aussies current budget?
My guess is that the New Zealanders will end up with something similar to a police interceptor than a warship, it would fit their budget and threat assessment. I really don’t envy their coming problems.
The Franco/Italian FREMM does have a chance though, DSCN already has experience with a tech transfer program in the RSN Formidables, so they won’t have any qualms about building overseas, and they would have a “reference customer” with close RAN ties for a showroom ship.
Rough guessimate, I’d say it might come down to France/Italy, Germany and Spain. BAe… the sections of Horbart made by them were incompatible with the other sections from other companies IIRC. Tough luck.
Fella’s,
First, the first ANZAC will reach 25 in 2021 so a project to replace them will start in the second half of this decade, so the T26 is well placed assuming you can keep your schedule and the cost doesn’t blow out.
Second no one in the RAN wants a bar of the LCS project. The requirement is for an ASW frigate to partner the Hobart Class AWD. So again the job is for the T26 to lose. There is some possibility that the next white paper due out by mid this year will authorise a 4th AWD largely because Canberra has learned the lession that peaks`and troughs in workload destroy skills and will likely leave politicians with red faces, as has been the case with the AWD build. Incidently, the prime contractor for the AWD is not BAe but ASC a government operation on South Australia.
Thirdly, our Kiwi cousins, the OPV’s that they keep wingeing about were lowest tender, as was their new logistics ship (Canterbury). They bought cheap because their budget was limited and that is what they got, the lowest çompliant’offer. It is most unlikely that NZ will be able to replace their 2 ANZAC’s with T26’s or anything similar. Most Likely they will end up going for large OPV’s (something like a Thetis class). That is about as far as their budget is likly to last bercause in the same timescale they also have to replace both the RNZAF Orions and C130’s.
Got a bit of bad news for you NGF, those points you brought up can almost be said to be the objectives of almost every shipbuilding project since 1970.
How many actually succeeded is open to debate.
As for Austalia’s problems, rest assured we do remember INTERFET and the Bali bombings.
Of course I should also mention the gorilla in the room when discussing Australia’s strategic environment – the rise of China as an economic and military power.
On the one hand, China has become Australia’s largest export market and a major source of investment.
On the other, China is an authoritarian one-party state that is rapidly developing it military and engaged in territorial disputes in the East China and South China Seas with several of its neighbours – Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. Not to mention Beijing’s ongoing claim to Taiwan and its support of North Korea.
The old Chinese curse applies – “may you live in interesting times”.
Speaking from an Australian perspective, the RAN will only acquire the Type 26 if it first meets some basic criteria:
1. It meets the RAN’s operational requirements in term of weapons, sensors, survivability, range and crew endurance in tropical environments.
2. It is seamlessly inter-operable with the US Pacific Fleet.
3. It is the best value for money when compared with other options. (The Australian Department of Defence has been rightly criticised in recent times for several projects that have run badly over budget and behind schedule).
4. All the RAN’s ships are built in Australia.
Nostalgia for the Commonwealth is nice, but it will count for little when billions of dollars are stake.
In terms of geo-politics, Australian planners now refer to the “Indo-Pacific” (rather than “Asia Pacific”). This term encompasses:
* Both the the Indian and Pacific Oceans – Australia straddles both.
* Australia’s SLOC’s from our mineral and energy export ports on the Indian Ocean coast of Western Australia, though the straits (choke points) in Indonesian archipelago, and on through the South China Sea to our major export markets in China, Japan, South Korea and South East Asia.
* Australia’s Pacific SLOC’s from the East/Pacific coast, past our Pacific Island neighbours (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia and Vanuatu)and on to the markets mentioned above.
* International SLOC’s carrying oil from the Middle East across the Indian Ocean, through the Malacca Strait to China, Japan, South Korea and South East Asia.
On top of this it should be noted that Australia lives in a neighborhood that has been relatively unstable over the last 15 years. In may not be well known in the UK that Australia has had to lead military interventions in East Timor, Bougainville (in PNG) and Solomon Islands. Dozens of Australians have been killed in Islamist terrorist attacks in Indonesia. In addition, there have been major law and order problems in PNG, a series of military coups in Fiji, and separatist/Islamist insurgencies in parts of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand – to name a few.
Meanwhile, as most Asian countries are growing economically, they are spending more on defence and developing increasing sophisticated capabilities. This is steadily eroding the technological edge that Australia has enjoyed in the region since 1945. (At the same time the current Australian government has cut defence expenditure – that is a major debate in itself.)
Thus, the defence equipment purchases that Australia makes in coming years will have to meet the needs of a demanding strategic environment. It will be interesting to see if the Type 26 measures up.
@x
http://pipeliner.com.au/shop/pipeline_map_of_australia1/075744/
The green lines are oil pipelines. Notice something strange about their placement? Wonder why would they put their oil pipes on the opposite side of the country to their supply route? You would be right in the statement that the Indian Ocean would be Australia’s main oil supply route if oil came “ready to use”, but it doesn’t. Most of the cracking centers are in countries north of Australia, not West, hence the strange distribution.
The Indian Ocean is a huge playground for the RAN, but it is NOT an area of concern. There is absolutely no threat value there, no African countries out to cross the huge empty ocean to invade Australia, no African refugees crossing the Indian Ocean to sneak into Aussieland and most shipping go through the East of Australia not West. Same thing like the oil, the middlemen distribution centers are to the North. The defence worries of Australia are to the North, the Pacific Ocean and the Phillipine Sea, where there are lots of other countries to stir the pot, not the huge no-man’s land of the Indian Ocean.
It’s not that big (hence Canberras built in Spain) it’s just plenty big enough to build their own DD/FF, rather than build in UK.
@NaB
Nope never seen Williamstown, I take it from you’re response that it’s a big facility!
I’m assuming when they say that T26 can/will be fitted with large VLS that it could easily be either MK 41 or A70 depending on the customer’s requirements.
You make a good point about the size of the ship giving it a high degree of future proofing. I wasn’t so much questioning whether a buyer like Australia could give the basic hull it’s own weapon/sensor fit, more suggesting that the mere fact a lot of countries don’t want British systems makes building them here far more illogical and costly than if they simply wanted a direct copy of our version.
@ NaB re “accommodation”
On the two occasions I have visited an ANZAC it felt oddly RN with a subtle hint of USN. It was like a parallel universe……..
It’s never going to be British built! Have you SEEN Williamstown? The only reason Canberra was built in Spain was size constraint.
Last time I looked at T26, there were Mk 41 Strike length launchers in it. Shoulnd’t be a drama putting Mk 48s in if they want and Mk49 RAM is an add-on.
However – whether the CSH, power distribution system, accommodation are set up to suit the Aussies is another question. T26 is the best part of 8000te full load displ at end of life. That’s plenty big enough to fit most things – if you have the money.
How adaptable is the basic T26 hull?
If the Aussie’s want the ship would it suit the fitting of Mark 41 silo’s, Sea Sparrow, Sea Ram or whatever it is they prefer?
The fact that they would almost certainly want American kit over British makes me think that although selling the basic hull design is very possible the idea of it being British built isn’t a likely outcome.
I just think these would be too small for Australia. 140 bods in 2500/3000 tonnes or so that would be cramped for Westerners. If it were 80 to 100 perhaps. 18 to 24 production run, now that is economies of scale.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=842
Mike said “I think he was more referring to the islands themselves, like East Timor.”
I think I covered all that too. Armidales just aren’t big enough. They will be replaced by something larger with more bang bangs. There is a reason why they operated from the northern RAN bases. And if they have to fight Indonesia it will be at sea, under the RAAF, but close to Australia, they wouldn’t be going off to attack Indonesian islands as that would be, well, a bit silly.
The RAN’s job will be too support USN in the Indian Ocean not send a few frigates to the South China Sea. By working with the USN it will free USN assets so they can support CBGs and ARGs. China needs resources. They have to cross the Indian Ocean. For the RAN that means frigates and SSKs. The Australians aren’t going to replace the Collins with smaller submarines for stooging around coasts, but larger ones that cope with greater distance. Why? The Indian Ocean.
why would the t26 need to be produced in oz? there’s no reason why we can’t recruit oz workers here…we do for everything else! well at least the things that require some sense of personality!
Great bunch of guys and gals. Puts us to shame.
McZ
“And, MikeW, Canada will buy what Canada can afford.”
That must be another Mike. I wonder whether he is referring to the Upholder submarines.
If they go for type 26 it will be produced at bae’s yard in australia.
Only the itams that cannot be built the will be made in europe so that is why they have gone for it. That was why they have gone for the type 26. The spanish would what to produce it on licence.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/html_dec10/sea/Sea5000.html
@SI
Maybe a trip to Australia would keep him out of trouble and stop him fucking the countries position in Europe
Martin,
Gotten off his ass? Think there’s a slightly more important set of issues closer to home that he needs to busy himself with. Like Europe.
I don’t think BAE have a great reputation down there. Certainly they managed to screw up the RNZN OPV buy, and didn’t they cock-up the Hobart as well? I have an RNZN colleague who can’t say a nice word about them.
Filed under ‘would be nice but not a lot of hope’.
If the UK and Australia agree, that economies of scale are worth the cooperation, then T26 has good chances.
HMAS Hobart is currently built by BAE Systems Australia, formerly Tenix. So much to relationships. What I could see as another result is a lot of cooperation in the field of submarines.
The F-110 is actually a lot riskier than the T-26, as it is with current economic trends entirely unfeasible for the Spanish Navy. The basic layout seems uncertain, and if it turns trimaran, it will never achieve lower prices. But even if both problems vanish, T26 will still have a larger number of vessels built.
Regardless what Oz chooses, i think NZ will follow suit with two units. The idea to comply to numerous local treaties with Otagos or even Otago+ is not managable. They will have to revisit the frigate-game sooner or later.
And, MikeW, Canada will buy what Canada can afford. Their shipbuilding is devastated and needs investment, I really don’t know how they will re-invest in complex warship-building for little money. As they definitely have commonalities in requirements and operational doctrine, I wouldn’t write the T26 off too early.
Amd then there are emerging Tiger-states without a Navy at al, but with mighty neighbours threatening their EEZ. Sri Lanka, Burma, Indonesia. (Damn, we need to widen the FPDA)
But I also agree with NaB, as an outside contender to any frigate-contract in the next years, keep an eye on the FFX from Hyundai.
ahhh a good x rant :D
Indeed.
I think he was more referring to the islands themselves, like East Timor.
T26 exports… when was the last time we built a brand new complex warship like a frigate for an export order?
T42?
Looking at other potential customers… Canada wont be one, they’ve had enough peril from ex RN kit with ‘made in GB’ stickers.
“I just hope designs are not too far along to let the Aussies properly participate.” I don’t want to be a party pooper on this but one of the things I found encouraging about the last two design updates released by BAe was that they actually showed very little change, which indicates that for once we are not endlessly faffing about with redesigns. If we let Oz in on the ground level won’t that just mean delay and more cost?
@ Observer
Here is a map for you,
http://www.yourchildlearns.com/online-atlas/images/indian-ocean-map.gif
Look there is Indonesia in the INDIAN OCEAN. I wonder which ocean ocean Australia’s oil has to cross? Could it be the INDIAN OCEAN per chance? Which ocean is the majority of the Anzac frigates and all the Collins SSKs based upon? Oh look it is the INDIAN OCEAN. Where are Australian forces currently engaged? Could it be South West Asia? I wonder which ocean has to be crossed to reach that region to support operations there? Wow! It is the INDIAN OCEAN. I think I am detecting a bit of pattern here. Could it be the INDIAN OCEAN is the key to Australian maritime security? Leaving smaller ships to deal with the II and drugs problem to the north.
Observer said “Not bloody likely mate.”
Rollicks.
One thing I can say for sure is that the new frigate will not have as strong an emphasis on anti-air as they already have the air defence destroyers for that. I think what they might be aiming for would be a GP frigate with a slight leaning towards anti-sub warfare, so any designs targeting that competition would do well to put in a bit more effort into sonar and towed arrays.
I’d say NaB is probably right in that Korea would be a strong contender. Other possibles would be Spain as they already have an “in” with the new destroyers being Spanish and the French/Italian FREMM with massive equipment overhaul. It also depends on how much tech transfer is Australia looking for. If they insist on building a large chunk of the fleet in Australia, which is very likely, SK might balk as their ships tend to be shipped complete from their own yards, not assembled in someone else’s.
Edit:
“For Australia frigates are about the India Ocean.”
Not bloody likely mate. Australia has absolutely zero interest beyond Indonesia. Their biggest headache right now would be the South China Seas for 2 reasons. 1) China is flexing muscle pretty hard. and 2) Their SLOC trade links with China.
For Australia frigates are about the India Ocean.
For their north coast I see a different future. The Armidale’s lack of “mass” point to it being replaced by one of those corvette like designs so beloved here fighting under RAAF top cover.
I said Spain because of their current relationship. I think if F110 is “short legged” the issue would be a fudge even if it meant RAN acquiring more tankers. I can’t see the Spanish building a 45kt 5000t ship, that is just silly, I expect something a lot more sensible.
FWIW I can’t see NZ replacing their ANZACS with true frigates.
“Australia has a well developed naval design, development, manufacturing and support infrastructure, a growing economy but several defence and defence funding challenges.”
No. It doesn’t. Really.
Several challenges, yes. Manufacturing and support infrastructure, yes.
Design and development? Absolutely not. There is a reason the Aussies have historically bought versions of other people’s designs and that is because (with the exception of some smaller patrol craft) they have never designed warships themselves and more importantly, nor have their shipyards. Starting that from scratch is an impossibility for a country with the industrial base they have, unfortunately. ASC and Deep Blue tech are the nearest thing they’ve got and they are busily waving dollars at anyone who will listen in the UK submarine building industry at the minute – which as you can imagine is going down very well in MoD, BAES and elsewhere, as Successor ramps up.
I agree with X that the Aussies are more likely to go US in their kit requirements, which tends to count against T26, as BAES are loath to put any CS items that they don’t own or have a stake in, in their ships (one of the reasons export has been so poor). However, the interesting thing is the absence of a long-legged DD/FF hull in the US programme. The Aussies might still get tempted by the LCS, because actually it might work in the archipelagos north of them, but they’d need more hulls which they probably can’t afford. If they don’t then T26 has a slim chance.
However, I’d personally keep an eye on South Korea. Japan makes superlative DD/FF, but are still potentially unacceptable politically for Australia. They may also have a constitutional ban on military exports. SK build ships that are approaching Japanese capability and have been entering a lot of export competitions recently. The writing was on the wall for the Europeans when the SKs entered the Omani competition that resulted in the Khareefs. Last time I looked, MEKO hasn’t done anything since the South African A200 ships, although they might be able to offer A200 for this.
RE “it’s going to be a while before anything gets finalised for the future frigate”
– yep, they just modernised the AAW suite on their current frigates, and it has been deemed a roaring success (with very reasonable expenditure; the Canadians are trying to make theirs last much longer and are ripping apart each ship over an 18 month cycle and putting in completely new systems… on that one the jury is still out as for VFM)
Think the RAN is going to be busy intergrating the Horbarts to actually shop around in the near future, it’s going to be a while before anything gets finalised for the future frigate.
The T26 should be a no brainer for Australia. Given that its BAE thats going to be building it and the USA has no equivalent. I just hope designs are not too far along to let the Aussies properly participate.
Its good to see the government taking an interest again in places like Australia but one has to think this treaty is nothing more than a paper exercise to grab a few headlines. it does not cover anything new that we did not already have with Australia. I would have liked to see this done as part of a broader move with Australia to reinforce the FPDA. Maybe atleast putting on a proper annual exercise focused on areas like ASW and MCM where we have a world lead and nations boardering china have a need.
I would also like to see us getting back to RIMPAC. No point in having all our awesome new shinny kit like SAMPSON, Sea fox and 2087 if we can’t show it off to the people who actually need it an can afford to buy it.
However its like everythng with this government all talk and no action. I think the Prime Minster could also have gotten off his ass and went out for the signing.
The UK might not have a recent happy history in complex warship building, but nor does Australia lately, so I wouldn’t let that worry you too much. Indeed because Australia has had a rough history going it alone in complex programs, the fashion lately in Australia defence procurement (at both the political and departmental level) has been to partner with other nations provided that we can get in early enough and have enough sway over the final design to suit our requirements. Think P-8, BAMS, JLTV and JSF. That joint press release feels like the start of something similar.
That said, even if it does become the preferred design, the usual practice is to take some sort of lower cost, less complex alternative to Cabinet as another option, and that probably would be a cutdown version of the Spanish AWD (less Aegis). In fact that is how we got the Spanish AWD in the first place when it went up against the ‘baby Burke’. So nothing is certain by any means.
It would be great news, and just… nice, for once. I guess it depends on how ‘modular, open architecture, plug ‘n’ play, yadda, yadda’ the Type 26 design actually turns out to be.
Nice, economical, long-legged Frigate hull (unlike the Spanish one), with the US bits and bobs that they’re already familiar with, and their domestic (with US involvement) new fixed plate radar – cool.
Plus they get to crow that *their* version is much better and higher spec than the Poms’ own version: what’s not to like? :)
They will probably by the F110. Australians want US kit and the Spanish integrate US systems into their ships. I like the idea of Australians and New Zealanders buying a common Commonwealth design but it won’t happen. Odd that the UK loses out on defence sales to a White Commonwealth country to a state it supports through EU contributions. I wonder how much Navantia is getting through the back door……..