Australian Future Frigate Program

[Ilay]

Tamir Eshel-Aug 17, 2017

BAE Systems is offering the Global Combat Ship design for the future Australian submarine. A selection is expected in 2018. The frigates will be built in Adelaide, South Australia and will incorporate the Australian-developed CEA Phased-Array Radar. Image: BAE Systems

Australian Navy will introduce a new class of frigates in the next decade, under a program, known as ‘SEA 5000 Phase 1’. Facing the growing numbers of submarines in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, these new frigates are required, primarily, to increase the Australian Navy’s anti-submarine warfare capabilities. The new frigates are scheduled to enter service in the late-2020s.

Nine frigates will be built at a budget of A$35 billion, a fleet that will have sufficient range and endurance to operate effectively throughout maritime South East Asia and will be able to be deployed from forward bases, such as in the Middle East. The frigates will be equipped with a range of offensive and self-protection systems. The frigates will be built in Adelaide, South Australia and will incorporate the Australian-developed CEA Phased-Array Radar.

This project is one of a number of maritime projects to ensure Australia retains a sovereign capability to build and sustain its naval vessels and implement the Government’s commitment to a continuous build of naval surface ships in Australia.

Navantia is offering a version of the F100 design equipped with the CEA Phased-Array Radar. Image: Navantia

Three suppliers have been shortlisted through the preliminary evaluation – BAE Systems with the Type 26 Frigate, Fincantieri with the FREMM Frigate, and Navantia with a redesigned F100 have been working with Defence since August 2015 to refine their designs. Of the three contenders, Navantia has already delivered two amphibious support ships – HMAS “Canberra” and HMAS “Adelaide”, and HMAS “Hobart”, the first of three Australian Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) which is also based on the F100 design. Navantia also builds landing crafts for the Australian Navy. Following the selection of the supplier, construction of the new frigates will begin in 2020, in Adelaide, South Australia.

The nine Future Frigates are part of the Government’s A$89 billion national shipbuilding endeavor which would see Australia develop a strong and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry.

http://defense-update.com/20170817_sea5000.html

 

[Penguin]

BAE Systems Type 26 based offering

Navantia's F-100/Hobart ADW based offering

Fincantieri's FREMM based offering

Other offerings not selected were:

DCNSs FREMM based offering

TKMS's F125 based offering

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries SEA5000 proposal is based on the 30DEX project

 

[Incog_nito]

They should continue to build another 3 same class which they have now. I would be better if they have a total of 9-12 of these...

Hobart ADW is best.

 

[Penguin]

They should continue to build another 3 same class which they have now. I would be better if they have a total of 9-12 of these...

Hobart ADW is best.

THey are seeking to replace the Anzac class. Hobart would be overkill.

 

[flamer84]

THey are seeking to replace the Anzac class. Hobart would be overkill.

Actually, most of the offers are roughly the same tonnage and are equal in weapons package.

 

[Penguin]

Actually, most of the offers are roughly the same tonnage and are equal in weapons package.

Yes, but additional Hobart AWDs (D as in Destroyer) are not among the offerings for the Australian Future Frigate program. Clearly, they are looking at a lesser capability (but still an up from the current ANZAC)

ANZAC frigate = MEKO200 = 3,600 t

 

[Incog_nito]

10-12 Hobart is good numbers keeping in mind the activity in their regional waters. Moreover, I would prefer to see some additional P3Cs there along with MALE UAVs.

 

[Penguin]

10-12 Hobart is good numbers keeping in mind the activity in their regional waters. Moreover, I would prefer to see some additional P3Cs there along with MALE UAVs.

Navantia's offering would give a high degree of commonality with the Hobarts while utilizing Australia's industrial base to provide the desired level of capability. With 9 of these plus 3 AWDs you have ships on a common platform, sharing many systems.

 

[Blue Marlin]

BAE Systems Type 26 based offering

Navantia's F-100/Hobart ADW based offering

Fincantieri's FREMM based offering

Other offerings not selected were:

DCNSs FREMM based offering

TKMS's F125 based offering

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries SEA5000 proposal is based on the 30DEX project

got any info on the radar sensors? regards.

 

[Penguin]

got any info on the radar sensors? regards.

The Future Frigates must be capable of supporting the CEAFAR S/L/X radar suite with the SAAB 9LV Combat System and Aegis Fire Control System (FCS).

AUSPAR = new, higher power L-band long range sensor in the same family as CEAFAR ("version of").
http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Directory.php?Location=ProductsServiceshasedArrayTechnologies

CEAFAR = 4th gen S Band Active Phased Array Radar
http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Directory.php?Location=ProductsServices:PhasedArrayTechnologies:CEAFAR

CEAMOUNT = 4th Gen X Band Missile Illuminator (supports ESSM, probably not enough range for SM2)
http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Direc...sServices:ContinuousWaveIlluminators:CEAMOUNT
http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Direc...uctsServices:ContinuousWaveIlluminators:SSCWI

 

[jhungary]

10-12 Hobart is good numbers keeping in mind the activity in their regional waters. Moreover, I would prefer to see some additional P3Cs there along with MALE UAVs.

We don't need 10-12 (even 6) Hobart AWD, we needed some degree of Air Defence on our "Capital Ship" ; i.e. the Canberra Class, that is the reason why we needed Hobart Class as we are reverting back to 1980s RAN era, where RAN operate as a battlegroup rather than Base Group (which is what RAN currently deploying)

We need coastal ship to replace the aging ANZAC class frigate, and we need those ship that can be operate with Hobart and Canberra as a battlegroup.

 

[Blue Marlin]

We don't need 10-12 (even 6) Hobart AWD, we needed some degree of Air Defence on our "Capital Ship" ; i.e. the Canberra Class, that is the reason why we needed Hobart Class as we are reverting back to 1980s RAN era, where RAN operate as a battlegroup rather than Base Group (which is what RAN currently deploying)

We need coastal ship to replace the aging ANZAC class frigate, and we need those ship that can be operate with Hobart and Canberra as a battlegroup.

looks to be the case with the hobart destroyers and now these "frigates" quiet strange really.

 

[Penguin]

We don't need 10-12 (even 6) Hobart AWD, we needed some degree of Air Defence on our "Capital Ship" ; i.e. the Canberra Class, that is the reason why we needed Hobart Class as we are reverting back to 1980s RAN era, where RAN operate as a battlegroup rather than Base Group (which is what RAN currently deploying)

Hence 3 AWDs.

If you need better selfdefence on the Cenberra's, it shouldn't be to difficult to retrofit ESSM:
- there's room for a short 8-cell Mk41 or a pair of 6-cell Mk56s (as used by the Danes, on Ivar Huitfeldt and Absalon classes) on the starboard side of the bow. That would give 24-32 ESSM. Alternatively, use the starboard side of the superstructure to mount Mk48 launchers externally (much in the way it was done on the port hangar wall of the Dutch Doorman class M-frigates: 16 cells can support 32 ESSM).
- the same radar fit as used on HMAS Perth (CeaFAR/CeaMount) could be installed to support the ESSM.

(Mmmm, perhaps a couple of SeaRAM launchers, with 20km range block II missiles, would be easier ;-).

We need coastal ship to replace the aging ANZAC class frigate, and we need those ship that can be operate with Hobart and Canberra as a battlegroup.

Which means, in this case, a hull that is oversized relative to combat capability: you get benefits of longer range and good seekeeping, so you can work with a task group out of area, while you retain a relatively limited combat capability as found on ANZAC.

 

[jhungary]

looks to be the case with the hobart destroyers and now these "frigates" quiet strange really.

Well, yeah, most people don't understand what's up with these frigate, but if you know more about RAN, then these frigate do make sense.

RAN is not an offensive Navy, with RAN role limited to Defensive and Disaster Relief role, the scope for our Naval Force is limited to coastal and EEZ defence, the Royal Australian Navy main role is to protect the Coast and resource around Australia and its EEZ, and the main task is to turn around both illegal fishing vessel and people smuggling. And most of RAN asset are in common use or some time under the command of Australian Border Force (formerly Australian Custom and Excise Service)

The reason why we needed these "Frigate" is to patrol the shore of Australia, we need them to be enduring (can stay at sea without resupply for 40 days +) but also fast for interdiction, Weapon-wise, these frigate is needed for self defence role (hence only 1 8-cell MK 41 on ANZAC).

But the thing is, since we revamp the built up of RAN, we decided to switch from a coast defence role to a more aggressive ocean going role. The Navy Asset will go back to the Navy and the Navy will transfer some of the PB to Custom and the 2009 and 2013 white paper set the RAN into a Battle Group deployment mission again, and these frigate then have to be dual headed. Which mean they could be used for coastal defence, but also can be forward deployed with Hobart and Canberra class (that is the reason why we built Expeditionary ship) and that mean they would have to either deployed half//half (Half of them support the RAN expeditionary force, the other half supporting Australia Border Force) or perform sole mission on either. The need for weapon on these frigate would be in some sense "Modular" when they are accompanying Hobart and Canberra, they would need to be Anti-Surface and Anti-Sub, but when they are accompanying the ABF, they need to be fast and have a long range radar. Hence these "future frigate", although are designated as frigate as such, in reality, they are Hobart Class with enhance Anti-Surface/Anti-Sub capability. Hence these frigate are strange....

Hence 3 AWDs.

If you need better selfdefence on the Cenberra's, it shouldn't be to difficult to retrofit ESSM:
- there's room for a short 8-cell Mk41 or a pair of 6-cell Mk56s (as used by the Danes, on Ivar Huitfeldt and Absalon classes) on the starboard side of the bow. That would give 24-32 ESSM. Alternatively, use the starboard side of the superstructure to mount Mk48 launchers externally (much in the way it was done on the port hangar wall of the Dutch Doorman class M-frigates: 16 cells can support 32 ESSM).
- the same radar fit as used on HMAS Perth (CeaFAR/CeaMount) could be installed to support the ESSM.

(Mmmm, perhaps a couple of SeaRAM launchers, with 20km range block II missiles, would be easier ;-).

The air defence part is given to Hobart AWD, before that, the RAN lack this capability since late 1990 when the RAN retired all Perth Class without any direct replacement (Hobart Class is seen as Direct Replacement for Perth Class) and for RAN to operate on open ocean with the 2 LPD, the RAN needed ship that can perform Anti-Ship/Anti-Sub role, and in come the Future Frigate, ANZAC simply cannot cut it as it have limited Anti-Surface capability.

One thing tho, although they are designated as Frigate, in 2014 reported commissioned by then PM Tony Abbotts, the future frigate essentially is a CEA Radar on a Hobart Class hull (instead of AEGIS System) The projected tonnage for Future Frigate is to be the same as Hobart Class AWD.

Which means, in this case, a hull that is oversized relative to combat capability: you get benefits of longer range and good seekeeping, so you can work with a task group out of area, while you retain a relatively limited combat capability as found on ANZAC.

Yes, that is exactly the reason why RAN stretch out the Frigate into an oversized ship, I reckon they should have just called this Future Destroyer (Or give them a name and call it a destroyer) but I guess that will piss off Taxpayer as to why we need another destroyer. You need to know, this program is not very popular in Australia, especially after the Hobart Class delay and the Sub purchasing debacle.

 

[Penguin]

ANZAC simply cannot cut it as it have limited Anti-Surface capability.

What's wrong with its 127mm and 2x4 Harpoon?

One thing tho, although they are designated as Frigate, in 2014 reported commissioned by then PM Tony Abbotts, the future frigate essentially is a CEA Radar on a Hobart Class hull (instead of AEGIS System) The projected tonnage for Future Frigate is to be the same as Hobart Class AWD.

Yes, that is exactly the reason why RAN stretch out the Frigate into an oversized ship, I reckon they should have just called this Future Destroyer (Or give them a name and call it a destroyer) but I guess that will piss off Taxpayer as to why we need another destroyer. You need to know, this program is not very popular in Australia, especially after the Hobart Class delay and the Sub purchasing debacle.

This just goes to show ship type designation is determined more by role and associated capability than tonnage!
See Dutch LCF Zeven Provincien: a 6k ton fld FRIGATE.