Here comes the Hunter: BAE awarded $35bn SEA 5000 Future Frigate contract

BAE Systems will equip the Royal Australian Navy with a fleet of nine highly-advanced frigates, transforming not only the Navy but Australia’s sovereign shipbuilding capabilities.

Source of quote

I have been watching Sea 5000 with real interest over the last few months. It was a competition to build anti-submarine frigates for Australia. The three designs were:

- F100, which was based on the Hobart-class destroyer and came from the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia. Wikipedia entry for F100
- FREMM, which would have been a ASW variant and from the Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri. Wikipedia entry for FREMM
- Global Combat Ship, which was based on the new Type 26 which is being built for the Royal Navy, and from BAE of the UK. Wikipedia Type 26 entry

There's been quite a lot of analysis of these offerings if you look, but clearly the Australians have made an excellent choice and gone for the best ship in looks, capability and expandability.

I wonder how this will impact the other two big programmes out there:

> The Canadian "Single Class Surface Combatant Project", which has the Type 26 against a the F100, plus some Dutch design, or the...
> The US FFG(X) which has FREMM and F100 up against US designs, with Type 26 not qualified to bid at the time as it was not in service.

Is BAE one of the companies that was excluded from the competition for a new Canadian frigate? I’m pretty sure a variant of the Italian spec FREMM is in the tender and it looks like that’s their best option (since they shut out bidders who didn’t go through the “proper” channels in time for the project tender).

a reply to: BigDave-AR

No that was the Fincantieri's FREMM design. Fincantieri delivered their proposal in a way that was not within the process and (sneakily) attempted to protect their intellectual property. Interestingly the successful Type 26 bid for the Australians includes a huge transfer of IP.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: BigDave-AR

No that was the Fincantieri's FREMM design. Fincantieri delivered their proposal in a way that was not within the process and (sneakily) attempted to protect their intellectual property. Interestingly the successful Type 26 bid for the Australians includes a huge transfer of IP.

My memory is getting terrible I got that one backasswards.

Thought they would win but was a toss up between Navantia and BAE. BAE has a pretty substantial presence in Australia, did ANZAC Class including its more modern upgrades such as ASMD and Canberra Class.

More than twice as heavy as the ships they are replacing.

AEGIS combat system with Saab Interface and Australian AESA radar. On an ASW ship. Cooperative Engagement?

Source and more information including concept pictures.

Weighs as much as an early Arleigh Burke.

Also wider than a Burke but shorter, so T H I C C



Anyways, just to be a bit of a fanboy here, but it looks like Australia won't just have the best Air Force in the world for its size, but the best Navy in the world for its size, and the best army in the world for its size. Although our shipbuilding plans are expensive and yes, it's a bit of a jobs program, and I would rather see more money spent on other areas, it's still good to hear.

Spanish language news are pushing the "we was robbed" mantra, saying the F100 was clearly the best, but British low-down colonial politics have been used. I am sure there has been politics at all ends of this, but don't think the F100 was the best.

a reply to: paraphi

Politics were likely a factor, but I'm not sure colonialism is the best way to describe it.

Free trade agreement with UK probable and there's the possibility that Australia will sell equipment back to the UK.

Anyway, like Australia's submarines, looks like the government chose the higher risk option. I hope it can be pulled off.

My interpretation is also that the UK is scrambling for options now that it has committed to brexit (a stoopid decision). Countries like Australia can use that to our advantage.

a reply to: paraphi

Check PMs.

Also apparently some Italians feel they were cheated and blame colonialism. Not sure what the Spanish are whinging about either, they still have contracts to build ships for Australia.

Anyway, I think the GCS-A was definitely the best choice. Hopefully Australia can build additional ships for New Zealand, since Australia built their current frigates, which are the same type that Australia currently uses.

First three ships will be:

HMAS Hunter
HMAS Flinders
HMAS Tasman

And here's the most comprehensive information about the current CEAFAR radar I've found. Hunter Class will use CEAFAR2. Features of the existing setup as implented on ANZAC Class according to the document and my own basic knowledge of radar.

- Six faces pointing in all directions
- Each face has 1024 AESA T/R modules (I counted).
- S-Band
- Liquid cooled.
- Adjacent faces can make up for the loss of one face, albeit this will reduce performance.
- Also integrated with CEAMONT X-band illuminators for guiding SARH missiles.

There's also some information about what was (when the document was written) a further development of CEAFAR, which might give us clues to CEAFAR2 which could be on Hunter Class.

- Higher power for long range search for air warfare and ABM.
- GaN was being explored
- L-band being explored
- Scaleable, so T/R module count can be increased or decreased easily.

More here.

The interesting thing is that Type 26 as built by UK will have a rotating phased array radar instead. I wonder how the performance would compare. I would expect CEAFAR2 to have benefits from being able to search in all directions, at all times, with no mechanical systems.

And an excellent article on how integrating AEGIS with a Saab interface and CEAFAR could work and why. Since that article came out, as noted, Hunter Class will have AEGIS, CEAFAR2, and a Saab Interface.

Good article on the challenges with Hunter Class here.

originally posted by: C0bzz
Also apparently some Italians feel they were cheated and blame colonialism. Not sure what the Spanish are whinging about either, they still have contracts to build ships for Australia.

They are whinging because the Brits have not bothered to export new-built and significant warships for decades. Now comfy European shipyards have competition, and in the first test they lost.

There're some serious implications for Navantia especially with their financial woes, and the fact that both the Canadians and the United States are unlikely to select their "offering" for their future frigate programmes if they are on a losing streak. I expect the Australians will quietly share their evaluation with their Canadian brethren.

Give it two years. The EU will roll warship building into a single entity and consolidate ship building in France! They'll call it Seabus, or something.

Good info about the CEAFAR radar. I wonder whether UK / Australian collaboration will see things like CEAFAR getting access to a wider market, including the Royal Navy.

Also, as an aside, I expect the long-standing Five Eyes security arrangement between the UK and Australia will have provided reassurance that some of the more secret technology can be transferred, whatever that may be; but I would love to know!

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: paraphi

Politics were likely a factor, but I'm not sure colonialism is the best way to describe it.

Free trade agreement with UK probable and there's the possibility that Australia will sell equipment back to the UK.

Anyway, like Australia's submarines, looks like the government chose the higher risk option. I hope it can be pulled off.

My interpretation is also that the UK is scrambling for options now that it has committed to brexit (a stoopid decision). Countries like Australia can use that to our advantage.

So, over half of the British voting public are stupid ? I bet you get plenty of thanks for that. Tried reading some of the stupid laws that come out of Brussels ? Would you like to be told YOU HAVE to take immigrants ? Type of what you know.