|
|
Post by richard1098 on Nov 2, 2019 7:53:42 GMT 12
If NZ did go for the T26 (who knows what will happen geopolitically in the next decade or how much the cost of the T26 will come down as production ramps up), I think a version of the Canadian vessel might be the best option. It has the CMS 330 and Sea Ceptor which has continuity with the Anzacs, plus you get the advanced AAW capability conferred by LM's SSR + Mk41 + Aegis AAW software module. And all that is on top of, arguably, the best ASW platform. It's a very impressive vessel. I don't think CMS-330 has the AEGIS capability. If we wanted that kind of capability, we'd be better to go with the RAN Hunter class including their CEAFAR radars and probably their SAAB 9lv / LM AEGIS CMS lash up after they have all the bugs ironed out, however I am not overly confident of the RANs success in introducing bespoke software based capabilities. Or even better still, A Hunter class with the AN / SPY-6 AESA radar, which is scalable, and the Lockheed Martin Combatss-21 CMS. This is the new CMS for the Flight 3 Arleigh Burke DDGs and includes AEGIS, ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) capabilities, as well as CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability). We may never use the ABM capability, but if we need to then all we have to do is acquire SM-6 missiles. In fact if we acquired those from the start instead of SM-2, they cover both long range AAW and ABM defence. Tad expensive though. We require a platform that is more than just ASW. It must also undertake AAW and ASuW (Anti Surface Warfare) as well, so in reality it must be a GP frigate. That's where the UK Type 31e, in its present iteration, fails in a NZ context and where the Type 26 would be the better option. If we were to go the Type 31e way we'd be far better just to go straight to OMT, bypassing Babcocks, and acquire a F370 design licence straight from OMT. We could ask OMT or the South Koreans to modify the design to our specifications and build it there. I have been told that costs fall in a warship build program from hull #9, which is the break even hull. The RAN Hunter build is a continuous build program, so if we were to add 3 hulls to it we could get them at a reasonable price, far cheaper than the UK build which is only 5 hulls, however they are making money from the licensing. The Canadian build is 15 hulls, but it isn't a continuous build, and they will be expensive to buy because shipbuilding in Canada is more expensive than shipbuilding in Australia.
The Hunters will actually be no different than the Hobarts, which have an interface developed by Konnesberg to allow the integration of systems not natively incorporated into the AEGIS code base. Thoughts of an "SAAB 9lv / LM AEGIS CMS lash up" are off the mark. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 2, 2019 21:01:58 GMT 12
I don't think CMS-330 has the AEGIS capability. If we wanted that kind of capability, we'd be better to go with the RAN Hunter class including their CEAFAR radars and probably their SAAB 9lv / LM AEGIS CMS lash up after they have all the bugs ironed out, however I am not overly confident of the RANs success in introducing bespoke software based capabilities. Or even better still, A Hunter class with the AN / SPY-6 AESA radar, which is scalable, and the Lockheed Martin Combatss-21 CMS. This is the new CMS for the Flight 3 Arleigh Burke DDGs and includes AEGIS, ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) capabilities, as well as CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability). We may never use the ABM capability, but if we need to then all we have to do is acquire SM-6 missiles. In fact if we acquired those from the start instead of SM-2, they cover both long range AAW and ABM defence. Tad expensive though. We require a platform that is more than just ASW. It must also undertake AAW and ASuW (Anti Surface Warfare) as well, so in reality it must be a GP frigate. That's where the UK Type 31e, in its present iteration, fails in a NZ context and where the Type 26 would be the better option. If we were to go the Type 31e way we'd be far better just to go straight to OMT, bypassing Babcocks, and acquire a F370 design licence straight from OMT. We could ask OMT or the South Koreans to modify the design to our specifications and build it there. I have been told that costs fall in a warship build program from hull #9, which is the break even hull. The RAN Hunter build is a continuous build program, so if we were to add 3 hulls to it we could get them at a reasonable price, far cheaper than the UK build which is only 5 hulls, however they are making money from the licensing. The Canadian build is 15 hulls, but it isn't a continuous build, and they will be expensive to buy because shipbuilding in Canada is more expensive than shipbuilding in Australia.
The Hunters will actually be no different than the Hobarts, which have an interface developed by Konnesberg to allow the integration of systems not natively incorporated into the AEGIS code base. Thoughts of an "SAAB 9lv / LM AEGIS CMS lash up" are off the mark. Hmm not what BAE have said: "BAE Systems Australia has selected Lockheed Martin Australia and Saab Australia to partner with the company to deliver combat system integration on the Royal Australian Navy's new Hunter Class frigates." |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 2, 2019 21:19:19 GMT 12
I didn't say anything about buying the RDN Iver Huitfeld class and yes I know that they pulled stuff through because I actually state that in my post above. I have said that IF we went down that route we would be buying an OMT F370 design license and fitting it out / equipping it to our specs.
Regarding the Tide Class ships, they are not a South Korean design, but a BMT design, so if there are wiring design problems then that is a BMT problem, not a Daewoo problem. Secondly, if there are build quality problems then both BMT and the RN / MOD were somewhat slack in their project management. Thirdly, haven't Daewoo have been having problems anyway and have had to be bailed out? Aren't HHI supposed to be taking them over at some stage? Probably a good thing Aotearoa is being built by HHI. Sounds like the UK MOD and / or BMT didn't undertake proper due diligence of DMSE, which is what the NZ MOD does with all of its tenders now, and has been doing since around 2015.
Like I said above this is all conjecture at the moment, but worthy of discussion.
So now you're stating facts that "if we went down that route we would be buying an OMT F370 design license", prove it. I very much doubt we would, that ship is now outdated, it needs significant and I guess expensive modifications to make it buildable today, this is what Babcocks have already done, so why would we want to do it all over again? BMT provided the class design, the way the ship is built is down to the shipyard and there workshop design. I give up. I suppose that you reckon that the design drawings are on paper - blueprints, to be precise, when in fact they are done in CAD. The Babcocks variant is only one variant built for one client and isn't the be all to end all. Secondly, when the current frigates are due to be replaced the Babcocks variant will need to be upgraded anyway for use in the Indo Pacific, because it will already be at least 10 years old.
Again why would we want to have a UK build of any ship when it would cost us fortune. Why weren't the Tide class ships built in the UK? They probably could've been built by Harland and Wolf who could've done with the work and have now gone into receivership. The UK MOD and RN are exactly the exemplars of good defence procurement practise, especially in controlling cost overruns and keeping projects to some semblance of the timetable. In fact if there's a way of drastically increasing costs and delaying an acquisition delivery, the UK MOD is very successful.
Anyway I've said my pennies worth and have other things to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Nov 2, 2019 21:28:48 GMT 12
The Hunters will actually be no different than the Hobarts, which have an interface developed by Konnesberg to allow the integration of systems not natively incorporated into the AEGIS code base. Thoughts of an "SAAB 9lv / LM AEGIS CMS lash up" are off the mark. Hmm not what BAE have said: "BAE Systems Australia has selected Lockheed Martin Australia and Saab Australia to partner with the company to deliver combat system integration on the Royal Australian Navy's new Hunter Class frigates." Here's the Aus gov statement: www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/cpyne/media-releases/future-frigate-combat-system-integrator-announcedFor the Hobarts that interface is called the "Australian Tactical Interface". |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 2, 2019 22:41:04 GMT 12
The Hunter Class will have 5 key design differences to the T-26 to meet RAN requirements. You can listen to update from the Programme Director for BAE @timestamp 0:45-3:10. There is also an interesting interview about the dockyards being developed for the fabrication & assembly @timestamp 7:40
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 2, 2019 23:27:16 GMT 12
Insightful interview with John Howie, the chief executive of Babcock International's marine business about their fabrication & build plans for Type 31. A lot of de-risking to the delivery of the programme attributed to the OMT F370 design. Babcock credited a lot of data shared from the Danes (Iver Huitfeldt programme) in their confidence about the sustainment & affordability of the Type 31s. (6:14) Interestingly, looks like Babcock cooking into their T-31 design a digital asset management system (I-Support 360) to manage the maintenance/operation of the vessels. (Similar to IPMS found onboard the Iver Huitfeldts) See: 4:26-5:42 Here is a 2014 overview of the Iver Huitfeldt programme that reflects just how central a tenet sustainment & affordability was in the platform's design. www.ft.dk/samling/20141/almdel/FOU/bilag/20/1417702.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 3, 2019 11:57:15 GMT 12
@ macnz thanks for both those posts. Have seen both the videos and nice to refresh myself of the Type 31 interview. Already have the OMT brochure on the Iver Huitfeld; its sits in the same folder with all the other material, including video, that I have acquired over the years about both the Iver Huitfeld and Absalon classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Nov 4, 2019 5:08:42 GMT 12
@ macnz thanks for both those posts. Have seen both the videos and nice to refresh myself of the Type 31 interview. Already have the OMT brochure on the Iver Huitfeld; its sits in the same folder with all the other material, including video, that I have acquired over the years about both the Iver Huitfeld and Absalon classes. Hey senob, any idea when you may be able to get that propulsion info from your T26 program contact? I'd love to be able to tell that RN officer he's full of shit.  |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 4, 2019 19:25:50 GMT 12
@ macnz thanks for both those posts. Have seen both the videos and nice to refresh myself of the Type 31 interview. Already have the OMT brochure on the Iver Huitfeld; its sits in the same folder with all the other material, including video, that I have acquired over the years about both the Iver Huitfeld and Absalon classes. Hey senob, any idea when you may be able to get that propulsion info from your T26 program contact? I'd love to be able to tell that RN officer he's full of shit. I have sent a query over the weekend and am waiting for a reply. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwirob on Nov 4, 2019 19:45:01 GMT 12
So now you're stating facts that "if we went down that route we would be buying an OMT F370 design license", prove it. I very much doubt we would, that ship is now outdated, it needs significant and I guess expensive modifications to make it buildable today, this is what Babcocks have already done, so why would we want to do it all over again? BMT provided the class design, the way the ship is built is down to the shipyard and there workshop design. I give up. I suppose that you reckon that the design drawings are on paper - blueprints, to be precise, when in fact they are done in CAD. The Babcocks variant is only one variant built for one client and isn't the be all to end all. Secondly, when the current frigates are due to be replaced the Babcocks variant will need to be upgraded anyway for use in the Indo Pacific, because it will already be at least 10 years old.
Again why would we want to have a UK build of any ship when it would cost us fortune. Why weren't the Tide class ships built in the UK? They probably could've been built by Harland and Wolf who could've done with the work and have now gone into receivership. The UK MOD and RN are exactly the exemplars of good defence procurement practise, especially in controlling cost overruns and keeping projects to some semblance of the timetable. In fact if there's a way of drastically increasing costs and delaying an acquisition delivery, the UK MOD is very successful.
Anyway I've said my pennies worth and have other things to do.
BTW I work in the ship building industry on the supplier side. UK shipbuilding at the moment is fairly cheap due to a low £ exchange rate. Harland and Wolff could not have done the work, they haven't built a ship since 2002, they don't have the manpower or experience to build a complete ship. Also it was Harland and Wolff's owners Dolphin Drilling went into receivership, the yard was profitable hence it's now been taken over and it's back doing what they do best supporting the windfarm and oil & gas industries. |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 7, 2019 21:24:55 GMT 12
@ macnz thanks for both those posts. Have seen both the videos and nice to refresh myself of the Type 31 interview. Already have the OMT brochure on the Iver Huitfeld; its sits in the same folder with all the other material, including video, that I have acquired over the years about both the Iver Huitfeld and Absalon classes. no probs senob, happy to share. Sorry been away - so couldn't respond earlier. Likewise, I've followed the Iver Huitfeldt programme for some years and RDN. OMT was reported to have been the frontrunner ( earlier this year ) for Indonesia's Frigate modernisation program - 2 new frigates on a budget of USD$720m - based on the F370 platform. I recall the program required them to be built in Indonesia which OMT had no difficulties to accommodate. I've read no further reports as to where that competition has led since May this year but it would be interesting if Indonesia decided to produce another Iver Huitfeldt variant into the frigate domain in 2020, and see how that compares. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 7, 2019 22:28:58 GMT 12
@ macnz thanks for both those posts. Have seen both the videos and nice to refresh myself of the Type 31 interview. Already have the OMT brochure on the Iver Huitfeld; its sits in the same folder with all the other material, including video, that I have acquired over the years about both the Iver Huitfeld and Absalon classes. no probs senob , happy to share. Sorry been away - so couldn't respond earlier. Likewise, I've followed the Iver Huitfeldt programme for some years and RDN. OMT was reported to have been the frontrunner ( earlier this year ) for Indonesia's Frigate modernisation program - 2 new frigates on a budget of USD$720m - based on the F370 platform. I recall the program required them to be built in Indonesia which OMT had no difficulties to accommodate. I've read no further reports as to where that competition has led since May this year but it would be interesting if Indonesia decided to produce another Iver Huitfeldt variant into the frigate domain in 2020, and see how that compares. Apparently under the current Indonesian administration, what is said regarding defence procurement and what actually happens, are more than likely to be two, three, four, or more different stories, depending upon which General, Admiral, or Minister is telling the story. I have found it is best to wait until you actually see the platform in Indonesian markings in Indonesia. |
|
