By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 3 February 2022
In the Ottawa Citizen today, David Pugliese writes about an Australian Defence Department study that was published in November. It was examining the Hunter-class frigates to be built in Australia based on the UK’s Type 26 frigates. The study raises concerns about using an immature design. It estimates that because the frigates are heavy, they’ll be slow, have less range, and use more fuel. In addition, it raised concerns about safety issues. Since Canada is basing its new frigates on the Type 26 design, this study makes for interesting reading. See David Pugliese’s article, “Australian defence study warns new warships with same design to be used by Canada are unsafe,” at https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/australian-defence-study-warns-new-warships-with-same-design-to-be-used-by-canada-are-unsafe
9 thoughts on “Australian Study Raises Concerns about New Ships”
The big question is the extent to which the Hunter class’s problems will apply to the CSC. One way to assess this is the radar configuration, which drove much of the Hunter’s modification in terms of power consumption and size increase. The Hunter class consists of six faces, each with two long-range CEAFAR antennas working in the S and L bands. There are also four more CEAMOUNT illumination radars working on the X band (if it maintains the same configuration as the upgraded ANZAC frigates). That totals 16 antennas per ship, with the weight and power consumption that goes with it.
In contrast, CSC’s suite is expected to consist of a more convention four-face configuration with two antennas each, one S-band SPY-7 for volume search and one X-band for illumination. With only eight antennas per ship, that’s potentially half the radar power consumption of the Hunter class. It may even be less, given the CSC’s lack of the longer ranged L-band search arrays on the Hunter. Of course, this assumes each antenna consumes the same or less power than the CEA radars, which seems unlikely given the need for four faces to provide the same resolution 360-degree coverage as the six-face array. Still, I think it’s much more likely that CSC will consume significantly less electrical power and weight than the Hunters just from the sheer reduction of radar antennas.
Does that mean CSC will be less capable in its sensors compared to the Hunter? Maybe, but we also have to remember that every other phased array ship has operated with only four-face arrays (or just three on the future Constellation class), so I’m not particularly concerned about CSC having “only” four.
Considering the size of the Hunter Class frigate compared to the CSC it shouldn’t have the same issues at all. Don’t you think we’re not extensively modeling everything going into that hull? More gloom and doom from the RCN’s favorite ace reporter.
Agree “Retired RCN” however let’s just wait until the City class Type 26 does its own “speed trials” before we all go off half-cocked. This will at least give us a base for the CSC and Hunter classes to attain or better. The latest mast design graphics though of LMs CSC Frigate leave me also to question…is this Mast design a little too top heavy and will it be a detriment to crew safety? I don’t believe so as I am convinced that LM would have taken that into account first and therefore nothing to worry about on the CSC side of things. I’m not sure though if that would also be the case for the Hunter class.
As mentioned before all weights are extensively modelled before the design is completed to determine the ships hydrodynamic properties. Unlike old technology we will know how fast the ship will be able to go, and other ships particulars. There will be builder’s trials but we will know very close to what the ship can do. We don’t build Billion dollar ships without knowing how it’s going to do first.
I also think that the CEAFAR radar is the biggest source of overweight for the Hunter class frigate. Although I am worried about the 9400t displacement mentioned by the outgoing ISI CEO. I have no problem defending the operating cost and propulsion plant of a 7800t CSC but it would seem underpowered at 9400t versus a 6900t British City class frigate. For the potential of people being trap down below in case of flooding, it is difficult to comment without knowing the internal arrangement, but we usually have more than one hatch and escape hatch so there is more than one escape route available. It would be surprising to have this missing out of a brand-new design! It will be nice to know the final configuration and specs for the CSC. Eventually!
Whenever you build a ship with crewing below the main deck and below the waterline you run the risk of personnel being trapped. Same as the steamers or the modern Arleigh Burke Class.
Totally agree with all you have said Mikaël! Hopefully the RCN has put a little more thought with the internal config of the CSC Frigate to counter any flooding concerns that the Hunter class may have. A brand new design with that kind of design flaw would not be a good thing safety wise. Although as you say, we have not seen any “final design specs” for the CSC yet. Again, soooo much secrecy when there is no need!
I believe the Canadian Government’s CSC Frigate System Design Review will be coming out early or late Fall of this year, so it will be interesting to see what they have to say vis-a-vis Canada’s CSC Design. Canada’s CSC Frigate is getting heavier as well, as has the Australian Hunter class. Will Canada have to review the power consumption requirements of the CSC Frigate to live up to the speed needs of the CSC? Perhaps larger DG’s or even a second GT? That will only mean more fuel consumption again. The next several months will tell the tale. That’s if the government will publicly release this report. Or is it going to be made secret as well! With a CSC Frigate Functional Review to follow in 2023, the construction phase seems to be sliding to the right again which means first steel cut later in 2024 or even 2025 with an operational CSC Frigate about a year behind schedule.
Hi every one, according to this text: https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/dutton-and-chief-of-navy-respond-to-fears-around-hunter-class , the UK City class ”full displacement” is about 8800 tons VS 10 000 for the Hunter class. If we put together all the data circulating around, it looks like a ”standard displacement” vs ”full displacement” of 6900t vs 8800t for the City class, 7800t vs 9400t foe the CSC and probably 8800t vs 10000t for the hunter class. That is a lot of differences for a common design. One problem is that there are many definitions to the term displacement (light, standard, full, …) and when it is not specified you can only make an educated guess!