>Australia’s troubled $45 billion fleet of new frigates is facing a significant cost blowout and fresh delays, the auditor-general has warned in a scathing report slamming the Defence Department for failing to properly consider whether taxpayers were getting value for money.
>The audit found the department failed to keep key documents, milestones had not been delivered and the project was “experiencing an 18-month delay and additional costs due in large part to design immaturity”.
>Officials advising the government flagged in January with the government that a “risk-adjusted schedule” could involve delivery of the first ship being pushed back 16 months to mid-2032.
>The ANAO report also revealed that defence bureaucrats in internal departmental advice canvassed cutting the number of ships to save money or cutting other projects to pay for them, saying the project had become “unaffordable”.
>They blamed the shipbuilder, BAE Systems, for underestimating the cost of designing the ship and combat system as well as construction. Unaffordability was also being driven by an extra $2.3 billion in leasing costs at the Adelaide shipyard, inflation and rising supply chain costs.
>The Turnbull government picked the British defence giant in 2018 to build the nine Hunter-class frigates.
>But in one of the most damning findings, the report said rival bidders Navantia and Fincantieri had been assessed by Defence as having the “two most viable designs” and there was a lack of documentation over how BAE’s Type 26 had been selected for the tender process.
Trust a bong...
Lmao they are just trolling at this point
>Australia’s troubled $45 billion fleet of new frigates is facing a significant cost blowout and fresh delays, the auditor-general has warned in a scathing report slamming the Defence Department for failing to properly consider whether taxpayers were getting value for money.
Canada's entire naval strategy for the 2030s and beyond relies on the same class of ships being delivered on time and on schedule
Different builders and different designs, just both based on the same UK design.
> 13 years from order to commission, and slipping.
Is that good? It doesn't sound very good.
Huh? My point was Canada shouldn't be worried about following in Australia's shoes, since they're entirely different design and being done by a different ship builder.
My comment had nothing to do with Australia's boats or how good/bad they are.
The Hunter-class plans displace about 1000 tons more than the already heavy CSC plans. It's probably very overweight
>knee-jerk deflection to leafistan
Australia is becoming Canada's Canada. Stop being obsessed and go pay California 20 million again to make movies saying you're cool like in the 80s.
>stop talking about Type 26s in the Type 26 thread
Why does Canada even need a Navy? Who are its enemies exactly?
same as every anglo in history: the danes
The Danish are Canada's closest ally.
only as long as we can afford the danegeld
Hans Island is ours you fucking hakkebøfmorons
The same as any Western nation, spillover conflict with China or arctic conflict with Russia. Frankly Canada really only needs the RCN, RCAF, and reserves. If Canada can geographically ignore any branch its land forces.
The United States. 8/24 Never Forget.
>Canada claims NW passage as territorial waters
>US, China, Russia, and the EU claim it is an international straight and Canada can't regulate traffic through the archipelago
The US literally does summer FONOPs through there and without a credible patrol capability, Canada will lose control over it.
Canada's entire military strategy is doing and spending as little as possible and letting other western nations do the real work, primarily America
canada's naval strategy, much like the strategy of its other branches, is to have the US everything for it you dumb leaf moron
New Zealands entire naval strategy is to wait for other anglo countries to fuck up their naval procurement process and snap up discounted vessels that are then shoehorned into roles they are unsuited for. Same with the airforce, in fact. Christ, it's so disappointing.
>China get some sweet lands and islands because of retarded military management
I hope you gays are starting to train your chopsticks skills
Rent free kek
This literally happens to every large procurement program.
>>But in one of the most damning findings, the report said rival bidders Navantia and Fincantieri had been assessed by Defence as having the “two most viable designs” and there was a lack of documentation over how BAE’s Type 26 had been selected for the tender process.
Isn't this just basically regular corruption?
I assume the other option was FREMM (or FREMM based) like the US is doing?
the FREMM design offered to canada was the naval group offering the french variant and it didn't come close to the requirements at all
for the australian tender fincantieri's had the FREMM offer which is still not anything close to an AEGIS ship
had they offered the constellation-class they might have won but in both cases they were offering a much less capable general purpose or ASW frigate
I presume they chose BAE Systems Australia over the two exclusively foreign competitors.
So just more domestic handouts that should never have been entertained.
domestic defense industry is worth having, you just can't let it get so corrupt it becomes a useless shell company fir government handouts (Uralvagnazod)
Oh sure, I have nothing against awarding contracts to domestic industry even if it costs more or would take longer, but if they can't deliver on their promises, why the fuck are they being entertained at all? If you're just gonna straight up lie about your capabilities there needs to be some sort of recourse for the government besides throwing their hands up and saying "oh well, fucked out of hundreds of millions of dollars and adding years to the development and construction timelines"
This isn't the first time Australia has had these issues, start writing better contracts, or stop giving them to domestic companies, you can't just let them get away with this again and again.
trust me, everybody knows. and everybody knows how to fix it. the reason why this problem is entertained is pork barrelling in south australian electorates and nothing else.
(Boeing, GD Electric Boat, basically all of the domestic defense industry and secondary/tertiary suppliers)
No its not. Both World Wars lasted max 5 years, we can barely build a couple ships or subs in 20 years. And we need foreign help to build anything more high-tech then the hull. Just chuck a couple million each for the leeches in Adelaide and Perth and buy off-the-shelf and we'll still come out billions better off.
They were also far less capable. The FREMM design was an ASW frigate that was worse than the British Type 26, let alone either Lockheed-Martin's CSC or BAe's Hunter, and the Navantia offering was just Hobart-class again
Navantia Australia is also a thing. They're spanish owned. You know what I presume? They picked the british shipbuilder because of commonwealth ties.
>UKs Type 26: ahead of schedule
>Australia's Type 26: behind schedule
Sounds like an Australia problem to me.
>>UKs Type 26: ahead of schedule
's Type 26: behind schedule
>Sounds like an Australia problem to me.
The problems with the Collins class submarines were also Australia problems.
>Buy Type 26
>Change the Radar to domestic, install US Aegis system lead AND then change the whole interface system to a SAAB one specific to Australia
>Vessel now too heavy and behind schedule
>This is the fault of BAe
maybe they need more changes and to punish the contractors, that'll fix things 🙂
They didn't change this though this is what the Australians tendered for, in other words they asked for quotes on those exact specifications and BAE underestimated for moneys. Many such cases.
At the end of the day,if BAE is presented with the requirements and say "yeah,alright" and dont express that it might inpact risk/cost/time then its on their hands. Ofc, them being yes-men and the aussies being optimistic retards just mean that all parties are retards in the retard-pile
They did exactly the same for their subs tho
Pas surpris baiseurs de mères.
>be a customer
>get a product you want
>pay for it
>be a state
>pay for a product you want
>dont get what you want
why is this so hard
Customers buy products that already exist. States buy products that don't exist yet.
the liberal govt's hard on for olde england has fucked our procurement so badly. passing up faster cheaper better gear just to buy bri'ish, and as a result we're not going to fucking HAVE a defence force until like 2040.
not to mention the absolutely ludicrous idea that we are somehow going to be able to maintain and operate this equipement, too, let alone afford it.
If they didn't fuck around and start fucking with the design it would have been fine.
Bongland managed to keep their stuff on track. Aussies are a nightmare to deal with.
Canada and Australia changed the design make it more multirole due to fact both nations have little by way of destroyer escorts (Canada doesn't have any for example). This isn't a problem for the UK.
So the problem wasn't so much bongland it was picking a bongland ASW design that wasn't suited to being multirole.
>So the problem wasn't so much bongland it was picking a bongland ASW design that wasn't suited to being multirole.
its not any worse for multirole than the FREMM though, better in fact.
Better than baseline FREMM and what was originally offered to the RAN, but I'd ask you to attempt to justify that argument against the FREMM-based Constellation-class.
These procurements should all have milestone based payments and not outright handouts.
That way if the architecture runs in delays/cost overruns, it should be on the companies themselves.
Pas mon problème
Yeah well, moot point really. There is literally no other Tier 1 combatant ship Australia will get into the water faster than the Hunter class program.
Ironically, it is the most advanced in design maturity. Australian government and Navy, can't afford to bring in a baseline (barebones) ship like they did with the ANZAC Class. They are adding high level capability from the start for the Hunter Class, because it is needed.
Yes, adding 2000 tonnes extra and having the world-class but heavy CEAFAR2 radar (mounted up high) is causing problems, but there is simply ZERO options other than to double down on the Hunter Class, and attempt to increase production speed by reducing manufacturing time and by ordering more ships, such as a future AAW version with more VLS to replace the Hobart Class.
>but there is simply ZERO options other than to double down on the Hunter Class
This isn't the case though, literally no work has commenced on the Hunter. If you think they can't get a ASW variant of the Hobart up faster than the Hunter then you are retarded.
Your face when the surface fleet reviews cuts the Hunter.
They've already commenced prototype blocks to practice for when manufacturing starts, so they can iron out some kinks already.
>If you think they can't get a ASW variant of the Hobart up faster than the Hunter then you are retarded.
Wrong, you are retarded for thinking the offer for 3 more 'Hobarts' is in any way deliverable on time or money is feasible. They don't make that design or those thousands of components any more.
>>Your face when the surface fleet reviews cuts the Hunter.
>Thinking more programs won't be cut/reduced after Predator, IFV, etc.
You're being silly.
Sorry, but there is no way Australia will get a T1 combat vessel any sooner than the first Hunter, UNLESS it is built entirely overseas, and even then I am being generous with timelines.
>Sorry, but there is no way Australia will get a T1 combat vessel any sooner than the first Hunter, UNLESS it is built entirely overseas, and even then I am being generous with timelines.
Correcto, only solution is to double down on Hunters, address the current issues and do what it takes to increase the drumbeat of the program. The Shipyard at Osborne has gone through some incredible upgrades similar to the standards the British have at theirs
There is at least one “Aussie” poster who is a full blown reformer tard who thinks nuclear subs, or really any navy, airforce or missiles are pointless and we should go all in on a mechanized land force to fight an invasion on our own soil
Keating posts here?
I think he’s legitimately Chinese, he always says shit like
>Beijing WILL create a puppet state in Indonesia and they WILL land troops in the NT/Top End, so we must focus on a land fighting force
>Also F-35s are bad america is gnomish and we need to divorce our country from them
I promise I’m not exaggerating what he says. There’s no way he isn’t Chinese
I straddle the line between he's a Chinese still and he's an angry old man. On one hand he took chinese money for over a decade on another Keating is seeing his legacy dying faster than him
>APEC is useless
>Sea Air gap is a failed concept
>China is foe not friend
>Collins and their SSK successor are not fit for purpose
>privatising everything that moves is no longer palatable. (Aus government nationalising CEA tech)
>he took chinese money for over a decade
> he took chinese money for over a decade
I'm sorry, which Aussie government hasn't done this?
Pretty much. Anyone who thinks China will invade Australia and Australia will be fighting any land war on Aussie soil is retarded.
best thing in the DSR is the increased size and rate of acquisition of littoral transport ships to get our tiny Army up north into islands and mainlands that matter.
5000 jobs. Infinitely cheaper to send the workers to the UK and pay them to do the work there.
At this point they should just scrap the whole program and set up co-production of either the Constellations with the yanks or Mayas with the Japs. In case of a shooting war the RAN will have to join American/Japanese battlegroups anyways and having the same ships will let them do that easier.
So instead of integrating CEAFAR2, Saab 9LV and AEGIS with British ships, you want them to integrate them with Japanese instead, who have never sold a major defence item, let alone a platform such as a frigate?
> So instead of integrating CEAFAR2, Saab 9LV and AEGIS with British ships, you want them to integrate them with Japanese instead, who have never sold a major defence item, let alone a platform such as a frigate?
No I'm saying the Aussies should buy basically off the shelf from one of the 2 major power they will be working with in a pacific war. Japanese and American ships use the exact same equipment, exact same Mk41 VLS, exact same Aegis Baseline 8/9/10 combat system, exact same SPY-1 (soon to be SPY-6) radars, exact same SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and RAM missiles, exact same LM-2500 COGAG naval propulsion. JMSDF and USN ships have excellent interoperability. The difference being that America's yards are backed up for the next decade while Japan has plenty of spare capacity if you need help.
There's not reason to use any European equipment in the pacific, because when the shooting starts they can't ramp production to resupply you, even if they want to which might be in question. On the other hand, if you use American compatible equipment, you can tap into the American supply chain. You think if one of these takes a hit that the Swedes will have spare parts ready for repairs? On the other hand the US Navy is known to keep spares of AEGIS mainframes and SPY-1 radar.
We already use American equipment and armaments.
There is a few constants that need to be applied to Australian navy combatant ships:
>They will be built here (occasional rare occurrence of overseas-made ships like the two AOR's)
>They will have Australian made CEAFAR2 radars
>They will have AEGIS combat system
>They will have Saab 9LV interface
Problem with Japan is they've never sold a complicated defence platform, and American ships have too much manning requirements and are not selling their designs (because they also want to make their own).
Once Australia starts building Hunter Class, it won't really be a British ship any more, it will be Australian, with little British involvement.
> American ships have too much manning requirements
The Australian frigates are -- $5 billion per unit and climbing, and a few dozen extra swabbies are the cost constraint?
RAN already has trouble getting enough bodies to man their current fleet.
I can't take moneyposters seriously when they don't state if their made up figure includes full life of the ship (Aus budgets always include the vehicle itself and the costs until it is expected to be removed from service)
>Constellations with the yanks or Mayas with the Japs
Those are two totally different beasts.
Closer jap approximation to the Constellation-class would be the Mogami-class, though the RAN would want Aegis and the Mogami-class doesn't have Aegis, though the japs DO have the most experience with Aegis integration outside of the US, so they could probably do it.
Though Japan is planning on 2 Mogami-class per year for the next 10-15 years so you'd still need Australian shipyards to build the things and I just don't think they have the capability.
Maya-class also cost like $2b in 2023 dollars.
I honestly wish we designed it and manufactured it all in house.
We’re a uni nation, university is one of our exports, I mean it’s fucking killing our university for locals and pushing the standards and prices up because of foreign students. But it’s an export.
So we’ve got smart fuckers.
>Design ships locally
>kick off local manufacturing jobs get us manufacturing our own heavy industry again,
>Give South Australia something to do cause let’s be honest what else is it good for?
>pivot to making cars again and make us some decent ass cars
>Give South Australia something to do
Perhaps you missed
Australia barely has enough CONTINUOUS work to maintain two shipyards.
>pivot to making cars again
Of which will be too expensive or majorly subsidized by government and for what?
That's too smart and requires effort, we can make more money quicker with some good old pork barrelling and corruption.
Don't make me laugh, Australian ""Education"" is not the export, selling access to our lucrative minimum wage sector and the possibility of a PR is the export, unless you really think Nepalese are flocking here in the 10s of thousands for our prestigious cert IIIs in business management from TAFE or Masters in Business from UNSW or similar, Australian Unis are a joke in the Western world and every STEM graduate worth anything leaves to Europe/America, you even suggesting we're capable of designing ships is enough to make me laugh, our uni system is only capable of producing obnoxious finance grads or credentialed baristas while at the same time acting as a mechanism to transform Australia into a bizzare South-Asian/Chinese/Anglo favela while enriching Uni admins and politicians
Did my masters at UNSW. So true it hurts.
Kind of brutal but yeah. Similarly part of the problem with
is its going to be a Pakistani-designed ship due to BAEs internationally focused economically rational rapid/fluxive HR strategies.
They should start selling guns and ammo to the US civilian market again, it would make up for their lack of funds.
Should have bought FRENCH
France wasn't even an option here. But Spain and Italy were, and aced the tests, and no one even knows why they weren't chosen.
This right here is what fucking kills me. Navantia has industry in Australia, so building there, and the design they proposed was one they were already making for Spain because its navy is modernizing its frigates, so its not only a design that aced what Australia wanted, but is already being tested and we know it works. But Australia went and asigned the contract to the Brits based on them promising tech that doesn't exist and their own experts pointed out won't exist for quite a while. And if you say "well but when it does exist..." Navantia's design is very easy to modify, it was the core requisite by the Spaniards precisely for this reason. I'm don't know much about the Italian proposal but even just counting Navantia, Australia had 0 reasons to pick BAE and it still has 0 reasons not to just do the change. This is self inflicted.
>and no one even knows why they weren't chosen.
We all know why, the yankees are twisting the arm of the Australian government to make sure they only buy ANGLO
Implying anyone needs to force Canberra to do that against their will.
Yeah I’m not blaming the yanks on things one. Probably just certain cunts lining their pocket books. Can’t believe Labor are the ones with a better defense policy…
Lmao if you think the US gives a single fuck if Australia bought from the UK vs Spain, you're delusional.
the americans only differentiate between buying american/buying NATO/buying elsewhere. So long as you're buying NATO, they don't give a shit who exactly from.
aussies just suck anglo cock 24/7. For all the memes about americans being le uncultured brute swines the aussies are actually worse than the worst american caricature. Genuine subhumans.
You're pretty much right, but just to point out a couple of exceptions: They are also okay if you buy from Worst Korea or Japan, basically "Nato & friends"
honorary aryans, might as well be nato clay
Hobbard's are based on but with enhanced ASW capabilities.
Fits the RAN's requirements.
Already upgraded facilities and tooling up for Hunter Class, and already practicing/building the blocks for them. We are Hunter class all the way and for better or worse, there is simply no other option.
I also believe Hunter Class will be modified in the future as the hull to replace the Hobarts.
These upgrades aren't lost though. Where you the dipshits I was arguing with last year about L400 which I said the DSR would slash to death.
Listen dipshits. We aren't stuck with hunter, the timelines aren't just tight they are non-existent plus the longer the delay because of leasing the more expensive it becomes even while it's doing nothing. This is a 45 billion project and it's increasing not decreasing in cost by month. You might think some test batches and some cut steel make it the only game in town but your delusional. Government would happily throw 150 plus in lost costs to fuck it off if need be, as they did with the barracuda.
I think realistically the surface fleet review will reduce numbers drastically and we'll be dumping that into additional Hobarts and corvettes and that's just what's going to happen.
The question is how much it cuts and whether the reduced numbers make it a cost effective procurement (I'm guessing it's not) but that's the path for these being cut.
Option 1: Cut numbers, dump savings into corvettes (lol) and Hobarts.
Option 2: Cut entirely, procure large numbers of tier 2 and small numbers of tier 1 (likely constellation/fremm).
There's no option 3 (that we continue with hunter at same numbers plus cancel OPV and replace with corvettes) there's literally no budget for it.
lol imaging thinking "more Hobarts" are an option over continuing Hunters and getting Corvettes sooner.
Hobarts are still good for decades, and they'll be replaced by a Hunter variant.
There is literally no Hobart ready to be built. You can't just "restart production" you simpleton fuck.
Who cares if Hunter numbers are cut, by the time it matters they can just order more, just like ordering more IFVs after number 129 roles off the production line
>lol imaging thinking "more Hobarts" are an option over continuing Hunters and getting Corvettes sooner.
You are making the critical mistake of assuming the government isn't retarded anon. Did you not read the DSR?
There's what should be done and then there's what government will actually do, never confuse these.
>they can just order more, just like ordering more IFVs
Yes and feel free to name one time defence has ever ever done that? Are budgets not a limiting factor in your consideration anon? I can't see how else you've arrived at this muddled retardation.
I'm just explaining what is able to be done realistically. You or I can't make them one thing or the other.
We'll need to wait for the new review to end dumb discussions like this.
Screenshot this thread. No new Hobarts will be ordered, no matter what other programs are cut or reduced.
With the application of time you'll appreciate how detached gov and defence is from reality. I look forward to watching your appreciation of this mature anon. May the fleet review be a teachable moment for you.
>I think realistically the surface fleet review will reduce numbers drastically and we'll be dumping that into additional Hobarts
Reduce Hunters to fund outdated Hobarts, kek
What shipyard will make them and when?
They'll probably half build in Spain, who knows how deep the retardation goes anon but we're about to find out.
Putin please nuke Adelaide, I'm fucking sick of this shit. They can't build a fucking boat to save their lives but bitch and moan like they can.
Keep talking shit and we'll dump your decrepit corpse in a barrel like its Snowtown all over
As much as I love British surface escorts the Type 26 seems like an odd choice since its an extremely british design as a ASW frigate the same size as Australia's current destroyers.
They should have bought something smaller like the Type 31 or something.
Yeah cos cramming all the things we want/need really worked out for us on smaller ships didn't it?
How come the bongs are building so many different types of frigates anyway? There's what, the 26, the 31 and the 32?
Building military ships and subs is a major industry for them that they capitalise on due to the layout of the nation I guess. Lots of rivers and lakes, lots of space, all on one densely populated island.
Different roles and responsibilities and areas of operation. Also, supplying work, jobs and votes for the various shipyards and workers.
The navy badly needs more ships... no surprises there... the T-26 is necessary because we need the very best ASW but too expensive to spam them, and there are many situations where it would be overkill to send a T-26 (which will be a carrier escort too) and you need something that's "just ok" but much cheaper. The T-31 is the cheapo but still decent workhorse. It is MUCH less expensive than the T-26. The T-31 is only around £250m. The T-26 is well over a £billion as the Aussies know
Then the T-32 is like a next gen T-31, also intended to be cheap, and its gimmick is that it will carry many autonomous systems or something. But the point is to make sure there's a new ship being churned out of the shipyards every N years
It might seem unnecessary but it is needed, the fleet is far too small
Type 26 is a replacement for Type 23 (ASW frigate). It is roughly equivalent (and in some ways superior) to Constellation, and costs as much or more.
Type 31 is really more of a replacement for Type 21 (GP frigate). It is roughly equivalent to LCS, but is cheaper and is in most ways superior (aside from not being fitted with NSMs, which LCS is finally getting).
Type 32 is the planned follow-on program to both Type 26 and Type 31, just like Type 23 de facto replaced both Type 22 (ASW) and Type 21 (GP). It remains to be seen if it ever becomes anything more than a powerpoint slide.
This is nothing new for the Brits; they like to try to save a little money here and there by buying a mix of ships (AAW, ASW, GP), rather than one super-ship that can do everything (Burke). They've been following this pattern for centuries, and they feel comfortable in dealing with the "which ships of the right Type for the job are available" business.
T26 is an ultra high end ASW vessel with a big price tag.
T31 is an economy LCS tier frigate for non escort roles but probably more valuable in peacetime for wider global presence.
T32 will probably be based on a T31 but be optimised for deploying drones, specifically for underwater survey/engineering and the UK's new unmanned minehunting vessels (pic related) it's role will be to replace the minehunters and survey ships that will be retiring between now and then.
>LCS tier frigate
LCS is a corvette, not a frigate
Corvette is not a term used in real (royal) navies.
Ship class types/grades have remained consistent from at least WW2
Didn't you guys still run around with the Peacocks all through the 80s? (I am assuming you are a bongistani)
>Ship class types/grades have remained consistent from at least WW2
Nope, in the Royal Navy they date to immediate postwar reclassification, in 1946 or 1947
In the US Navy the famous 70s shakeup resulted in a very significant reclassification of several ship types such as the Leahy class
>A ww2 destroyer was still a torpedo boat destroyer and differentiated from a frigate
Not to any relevant extent, frankly
No Royal Navy corvette wore the F pennant
Flight III Burkes (a "guided missile destroyer") displace as much as a Treaty era heavy cruiser. English language naval defintions are FUCKED.
Classifications in the father of all navies is about role not some arbitrary tonnage.
Frigates are ASW escorts
Destroyers are AAW escorts
Cruisers no longer exist.
All the smaller stuff is a patrol boat.
The US system is retarded, a Type 45 destroyer would be a cruiser in the USN as it's a guided missile destroyer with command and control facilities to act as fleet flagship. American destroyers are meant to be omni-role yet that's brain dead tactically and from a design point of view.
Dunno what I was expecting from a colonial navy that isn't allowed beards or alcohol though.
>The US system is retarded, a Type 45 destroyer would be a cruiser in the USN as it's a guided missile destroyer with command and control facilities to act as fleet flagship.
That's not really true anymore since the Ticos are being decommissioned and the DDG(X) is expected to have a room for an admirals staff and command facilities. Yet it's still going to be a DDG (destroyer) not a CG (cruiser).
Or maybe we've just been experiencing tonnage creep?
>the father of all navies
Which is? Maybe you can just be clear so people can address your position without having to resort to boxing shadows.
The one you think of when i say "THE Royal Navy" despite there being dozens or Royal navies around the world. The one who wrote the book on and developed almost every aspect of naval warfare and who's traditions and terms have become so widespread that pretty much every navy on earth copies them and people use their phrases in day to day life without even realising.
Are you taken aback? Don't get in a flap.
>The one you think of when i say "THE Royal Navy" despite there being dozens or Royal navies around the world
You still are insisting upon being obtuse fro some assuredly infantile reasons but close enough I suppose.
>The one who wrote the book on and developed almost every aspect of naval warfare and who's traditions and terms have become so widespread that pretty much every navy on earth copies them and people use their phrases in day to day life without even realising.
Arguable but besides the point
>Are you taken aback? Don't get in a flap.
Hey look, I already address your point earlier and you got real silent and didn't respond.
Funny that, innit?
I had ignored you because you were wrong, modern ship classes came well after the 2nd world war and into the 1960's as missiles and ships designed for them arrived. A ww2 destroyer was still a torpedo boat destroyer and differentiated from a frigate almost entirely by displacement (and to a lesser extent range and speed) with ether class being used for various escort roles.
"At least WW2" exclusive not inclusive. Use your fucking head.
Now what about the Peacock class?
>consistent from at least WW2
Means you were saying the current system was in place from WW2 or earlier.
Peacock weren't corvettes in Royal Navy service, it was their subsequent users that gave them that class. Their Hull Pennant starts with P which means they are patrol boats.
Because corvettes existed in the past and if they were made they would have had the F pendant, they weren't made though because the last Royal Navy corvette was in the late 1800's
The last Royal Navy corvette was the Flower class of WW2 fame, one of the key elements in winning the Battle of the Atlantic, and it had a K pennant
royal navy is by courtesy the british royal navy for precisely the reasons given by that anon. everyone has a national prefix attached. don't like then write to nato hq and complain.
the british government keeps cutting their military budget. because of this the type 45 program was cut to seven ships and the number of type 26s was also significantly cut. in order to make up the shortfall in hulls they opted for the much cheaper and less capable type 32 or whatever it is, which iirc is a europeon design that doesn't acheive much and also has completely incompatible foreign made systems and engines with also aren't as good. this fucked the idea of going all-electric with the fleet, and adds massively to logistics and training but you can't explain this to a politician or a treasury department official because they went to eton and you didn't. rinse and repeat since about 1950.
High end warships aren't cheap, are you just figuring this out?
Aussies are paying more than a flight 3 burke for something with half the capability or less.
Is the program costing a lot? yes. Bare in mind Australia has nowhere near the established shipbuilding infrastructure and expertise the US has, Australia is only ordering 9 of them which makes them more expensive per unit and it's a new design which always ups the price. As for being less capable? the likelihood is the US will be moving on from the Burkes by time the 9 Hunter class frigates are fully operational. we won't know how capable the Hunter class will be until the first unit has rolled of the line and is fitted with its kit. It's not surprising the US will probably have better equipped and cheaper warships, they can push down the cost through volume of orders.
Building capable fighting warships are getting more expensive across the board, especially so if you don't have an extensive shipbuilding industry.
>one of two QEs being scrapped for parts already
>Australia and Canda in general
why can't Anglos do naval procurement?
>one of two QEs being scrapped for parts already
>this meme again
Type 26 is an entire generation ahead of the other two vessels. It's night and day in terms of capability.
Pretty much all the cost overruns are due to Australian equipment which is proving to be heavier, bulkier, more expensive and taking longer to arrive than Australia claimed.
This is the price Australia chose to pay for greater a domestic role. The UK type 26 was a year ahead of schedule until the pandemic came.
The equipment Australia wants to put on the Hunters isn't just for much domestic role. The CEAFAR2 radar is an objectively good radar that will add a significant capability to the Hunters. We need to have a positive mindset
Why didn't we do something like this?
We probably could implement the ghost bats on the LHDs if we cared to but also why?
The majority of Australians on PrepHole, hate and despise Singapore
no we don't, get fucked
are you going to run through the whole routine?
Singapore will bend over for China the moment they ask. I am still surprised at how many people are unaware that the ethnic Han Chinese Singapore people have 100% loyalty to China. Singaporeans are Chinese in the end. They'll co-operate with the CCP if given a better offer. That's Chinese for you, switching morals based on opportunity.
I lived in the region for 20 years including 10 in Singapore and the amount of ingrained anti-white racism and hate of the west in every citizen is palpable. I have zero doubts Singapore will side with CCP in the inevitable war.
Not to mention the entire country was built and financed with CCP resources. If a foreigner is born in Singapore the Singapore govt will immediately grant 3 citizenships to mainland Chinese to maintain the race balance. The big 4 families that built Singapore were all CCP members.
>only thing they hate now than Anglos is other Asians
This is that Malaysian cunt that posts a thread shitting on Singapore once a week. Every time he says Australia hates/didn't trust. Literal made up bullshit, makes me think his probably a CCP shill than a SEAmoron.
> echoes of HONHONHON in the night.
that mast looks diseased
>5 billion a frigate
moron you could build an aircraft carrier for that amount
45 billion is the life cycle cost not just the frigates.
its total lifetime cost in AUSD, its a lot less in real people money
>try not to be a fucktard with your defence australia edition
so hey blew out their corvette program
they blew out their ssn program andwont have any sort of sub till mid 50s
and now they blew out their frigate program
There is no corvette program, the SSNs is not blown out and first one will be a Virginia stop gap in early 2030s. The issues with the Hunters have been compounded by inflation and supply chain issues as stated in the ANAO report.
>There is no corvette program
It produced a small number of Mercs and BMWs, but no Corvettes.
yeah right just wait few years lmao
> the SSNs is not blown out and first one will be a Virginia stop gap in early 2030s.
thats political bullshit unless usa somehow found young strapping hands to work on the yards this isnt gonna happen what so ever
> The issues with the Hunters have been compounded by inflation and supply chain
and the inability of the australian yards to built anything decent
>thats political bullshit unless usa somehow found young strapping hands to work on the yards this isnt gonna happen what so ever
Read the agreement, the US is selling two older Virginia-class subs to the RAN with the option for a 3rd later. The US is basically using it as a way to reduce their own sub work schedule as they're struggling to keep up with maitanance on the current sub fleet as it is. So selling the subs to Australia should actually slightly increase US sub availability overall, even if we are "losing" two subs.
We also gain a long term port in that region of that the world that can provide maitanance/training/replenishment to SSNs/SSBNs without needing to go all the way to Hawaii or California/Washington.
Also Australia is paying a few billion dollars to help the US expand their sub manufacturing base which can't hurt.
Don’t bother, he’s decided we’re doomed so we are. Every drunk cunt in the pub Saturday night reckons he’d be a better PM.
>the US is selling two older Virginia-class subs to the RAN with the option for a 3rd later. T
when did renting became selling?
Also they're buying 3 with the option for 2 more. Not 2 with the option for 1 more.
> On 8 March 2023, US officials reported that Australia would purchase three Virginia-class submarines, with the option to acquire a further two more.
>it's super special super capable that's why it's so late and costs so much
>But in one of the most damning findings, the report said rival bidders Navantia and Fincantieri had been assessed by Defence as having the “two most viable designs”
Viable doesn't mean more capable, viable means more achievable, which often means it's less risky/less advanced.
Viable means "capable enough for what they were looking for".
Clearly not since they opted for the new generation of warship and not the decades old ones.
Except we don't know why they chose the Hunter-class:
>and there was a lack of documentation over how BAE’s Type 26 had been selected for the tender process.
It's obvious to eveyone that's not butthurt that type 26 is a new generation of warship that's far more capable.
If it's so obvious, why are they hiding the reason they picked it?
Also it will maybe be more capable in 2032 when the first ship will actually be delivered, assuming they won't delay it further.
The first type 26 is already in the water and is being fitted out. It'll go on extensive first of class sea trials and be in service in 2028.
>we don't know why they chose the Hunter-class
>designed ground up as anti-submarine
>biggest vessel offered
>joint project for reduced costs
>better than the two other ships offered
So why not list that in the official documentation?
viable means off the shelf and ready to go, technically true as the FREMM have already been built while the first type 26 which the Hunters are a reginal variant of is still building.
but FREMM is a smaller and significantly less capable boat, closer to a late life refit type 23 than a type 26 and the significant issue with the Hunters is fitting all the extra stuff the aussies want on the type 26, there is even less space/displacement available on the FREMM so it would hardly be easier
Constellation-class (FREMM based) is on par or better in my opinion.
>48 seaceptor + 24 MK41 VLS
>32 MK41 VLS + 16 deck canister launched NSMs
Constellation is more flexible since the MK41 VLS cells can hold quad packed ESSMs, as well as other larger missiles (tomahawks/SM-2)
12 of the constellation class VLS cells gives you 48 ESSMs to match the type 26 seaceptor load. Then 20 remaining VLS cells for whatever else you want. then 16 deck launched anti-ship missile, so no need to dedicate the remaining 20 VLS cells to anti-ship missiles. They can focus on ballistic missile interceptors or land attack missiles. Whereas the type 26 will have to mix their 24 VLS cells with both anti-ship missiles, and land attack missiles or longer range missile interceptors.
the british type 26 isn't a fleet air defense ship, it's entirely focused around ASW and itts missiles are for defending itself. the hunter-class and CSC are air defense ships. the australians are going with 32 VLS and likely due to costs canada is going with 24 Mk 41 and seaceptors in amidships for now but that could change
the big advantages to the type 26 are things like far better acoustics, the hull is far quieter and better insulated for ASW, more power generation from its engines, about 25% more, better automation, longer range and higher displacement and capacity for upgrades
this type of stuff doesn't matter as much to the US navy because they can to rely on larger destroyers to fill capabilities but for australia and canada they need something that can grow
I'd also assume the US radars and shit are likely better as well, also looks like the US is installing an actual electronic warfare suite.
Yes, the type 26 radar is advertised as 200 mile range and tracking up to 800 simultaneous targets.
AN/SPY-6(V)1 is supposedly 30x more sensitive and 30x more targets tracked simultaneously than the previous AN/SPY-1D which boasted 200 mile range and 200 simultaneously tracked targets. And while the Constellation-class has the AN/SPY-6(V)3, which is smaller, it should still be capable of greater detection range than the Type 26 radar.
But as said, the type 26 focuses on ASW, but still better radar is never bad.
type 26 has better aviation facilities and 48 CAMM integral which means all its nark 41vls can be reserved for strike weapons, constellation has 8 more mark 41 cells but would need to dedicate at least 12 of those to ESSM to have comparable mid range AAM capability, the constellation is also shorter ranged, Sonar is comparable but probably marginally favours the type 26, hull quietening is unknown, but type 26 was designed to be better than type 23 in that regard and type 23 is very very good, the constellation also appears to lack the mission bay of the type 26 which could rob it of some flexibility.
> AN/SLQ-61 light weight towed array sonar
> AN/SQS-62 Variable-Depth Sonar
> AN/SQQ-89F undersea warfare/anti-submarine warfare combat system
I agree the aviation facilities on the Type-26 clearly make it superior for ASW specific duties, but you can't deny the Constellation-class isn't ALSO going to be quite a capable ASW platform as well.
As for missiles, you're forgetting the Type-26 will have to dedicate some of those VLS cells to anti-ship missiles whereas the constellation-class has 16 naval strike missiles that are deck mounted independent of the VLS cells.
In the end they are probably roughly par with the Constellation being a GP frigate with improved ASW and type 26 being a ASW frigate with improved 'general purpose abilities.
although that all said its worth noting that everyone offered a choice between type 26 and FREMM brought type 26, and if type 26 was eligible for the SSC program that resulted in the constellation then it probably would have won, contest was only open to designs already in service but i dont think its particularly controversial to suggest that a US frigate built from a type 26 starting point would be better than a US frigate built from a FREMM base.
In other news, when anglos offer defense contracts to other anglos, they usually take the anlgo option
This has nothing to do with them being anglos, clearly it's just the anglo option was the best option :^)
Considering how much the US changed from FREMM to make the Constellation-class, I really don't think the Type-26 would've faired any better in the selection process.
probably deleted the sea ceptor cells and replaced them with more mark 41 cells with essm, probably delete the mission bay and use it for either more VLS or box launchers, probably end up looking a lot like the canadian variant of the type 26, which is essentially an americanised type 26
Canadian surface combatant has too few missiles
24 Seaceptor + 16 NSM + 24 VLS
Constellation has (assuming the same 24 ESSMs to Seaceptors loadout) 24 ESSMs in 6 VLS cells + 16 NSM + 26 VLS cells
So you can have 2 more land attack missiles, or torpedo rockets, or quad pack another 8 ESSMs for even more anti-air coverage.
So yeah they would've likely deleted the mission bay for another 8-32 VLS cells.
Either way I think all countries involved (except Australia) seem pretty happy with their new frigates.
true and the australian complaints boil down to 'we want to build in aus and cram on a bunch of extra stuff because they want it to be both a excellent ASW ship, which to be fair they do need, and a very capable air defense ship while the type 26 was always designed for self defense vs air threats and to add additional close in defense to a task force operating with type 45s
and speaking of the type 45s its going to be interesting to see what the designs for the type 83s end up looking like, from the numbering they will probably be to the type 45s what the type 82s were to the type 42s so significantly enlarged, probably siginficant improvements to the radar BMD is expected to be integrated with aster 30 soonish and probably carrying 48 sea ceptor and either 48 or 64 aster 30 and probably 16 naval strike missiles in box launchers along with the usual array of guns and CIWS and aviation, probably the same aviation capability as type 26
similar design requirements and available technology tend to lead to similar designs.
What exactly is the point in Europe's anti-air interceptors?
Just buy SM-3/SM-6 and Aegis.
I don't understand why the UK is SO against buying american when they buy american for fucking everything else.
>Just buy SM-3/SM-6 and Aegis.
We like a probability of kill high enough to not need 2-3 missiles per target plus a modern combat system that isn't focused around semi-active missiles and surface illumination.
Ahh you like hardware that is untested in practice and developed by frogs who are demonstrably worse in almost every aspect of technology needed for the system to operate.
Well lets see how that pans out for you long term.
The US system has better radars, better networking, larger networked sensors, more distributed networked sensors, the most real world experience using those sensors and networking them with ACTUAL missiles against ACTUAL targets.
But yea, I'm sure the french shit works just as well
Aegis allows you to tie your ballistic missile defence ships with all of the US sensors, space-based, airborne, seaborne, and ground-based.
I'd still take Aegis over the french system.
>Type-26 will have to dedicate some of those VLS cells to anti-ship missiles
royal navy has already adopted nsm. not much issue to install it if they need to. the next gen missile is likely to come in subsonic due to the clusterfuck with the french and there is plenty of space aft if they want to put some up top. on a 7000t vessel it's not a big deal to put hardpoints where you need them to be especially when you have room to grow like the type 26.
>the next gen missile is likely to come in subsonic
what if the RN buys Conventional Prompt Strike?
Since you're a top trumps wiki kid who just compares weapons stats, your opinion isn't valid. The things that make this vessel so capable aren't mesured on Wikipedia - self noise, sonar fidelity, equipment modularity and aviation facilities.
So basically anything you can't actually source so you can just say whatever you want and claim it's better.
Wow, well in that case Constellation-class is better because all US sensors and systems are superior to the UK counterparts.
I don't have to prove it because it's classified and you can't prove me wrong.
I can explain it but you're not worth my time given the low starting point o your understanding. Once you figure out why CODLOG is better than CODLAG for ASW work you might figure it out for yourself. And this is before we even get to the submarine levels of quieting onboard Type 26 or the Royal Navy / Thales UK / BAE and Ultra Electronics big bag of ASW tricks and experience.
What is it about the Coalition and defence procurement?
>buy bong shit
>overpay for inferior design
should have gone for italian or spanish
>buy french shit
>cancel last minute
>pay billions in reparations
hmmmm................. really enhances my thinkpods...
That's what you call an Anglo circlejerk with massive corruption.
Many such cases!
>buy French shit
>it goes nowhere
>they squeeze you for more workload (can't trust a frog)
>have idea, get better subs
>anglos will share super secret nuclear tech
>leave shitty French deal
>pay them hundreds of millions to fuck off
>work with motherland to design and build subs
>you will get access to sexy Virginia in the meantime
Your brain is a bit smooth but that's okay.
>buy french shit after years of negociation
>your american masters remind your politicians they need to buy american-israeli shit for greater israel
>break contract and pay billions
>overpay for shit you could have had cheaper
>now face delays upon delays
australians are good little lapdogs lmao, pay up pig
Shut up thirdy, the whites are talking
you mean intelectually bankrupt goycattle is coping LMAOO
>get cucked by anglos on the world stage once again
>reminding everyone how irrelevant you are
>throw a tantrum blaming America because Brexit Britain and "lapdog" Australia pulled the wool over you
>proceed to do nothing of real consequence
>crawl back to America (again) like the good bitch you are
>can only moan on a mongolian basket weaving forum
LOL, LMAO EVEN
>propose nuclear submarines to Australies
>"fuck nuclear bro we want diesel"
>offer diesel submarines to Australies
>"fuck diesel bro we want nuclear even though we haven't the industry for this"
>offer a conversion to suit the customer
>then fail to deliver plans
>lie about costs, time frame and local industry involvement
>have literally a dozen exit clauses in the preliminary contract
>surprised picachu face when the customer chooses on the the exit options
>chooses one of the exit clauses*
>then fail to deliver plans
>lie about costs, time frame and local industry involvement
why do you lie?
Because he knows very well Americans twisted their arms to buy American equipment.
Because they did. The literal reason was that they failed to meet the 'Detailed Design' deadline, and Australia used that gate to leave. That's it lol. Deal with it.
>and Australia used that gate to leave
This is how they tried to justify it, if it was true Australia wouldn't have been forced to pay massive financial reparations.
From what I've read the decision came directly from the Australian government and had barely anything to do with the technicalities of the ongoing project, which is why most australians involved in the program were so surprised by this decision.
I don't care how they justified it. I'm just telling you that is how they left the contract.
>french failed a key contract milestone
>failure to meet milestone allowed australia to leave
Are you by any chance retarded?
Nobody cares if you don't care, what you care about has no influence over reality.
If Australia had legitimate reasons to break the contract they wouldn't have payed a breach of contract penalty, this would have been settled in court and we know this is not what happened.
>If Australia had legitimate reasons to break the contract
Never said they were legitimate, you simpleton fuck, I just explained the way they left.
>Never said they were legitimate
So you agree that Australians left for illegitimate reasons because the australian government was strongarmed by the US to do it. Ok. Glad we agree.
You misunderstood. They left legally, whether they left for legitimate reasons is up for you to decide.
>they wouldn't have payed a breach of contract penalty
It wasn't a breach of contract because they didn't breach the contract. They did have to pay to use the exit clause though, which is fair enough as France had done some initial work.
>most australians involved in the program were so surprised by this decision.
Australians were surprised SSNs were offered, absolutely no Australian was surprised the barracuda was cut. It was talked about for years, literal years and you can find articles in ASPI and other publications saying that by the time all barracudas are built in 2040s they would be technologically obsolete
Literally look it up.
>most australians involved in the program were so surprised by this decision.
How is this possible? No one paying attention to the program was surprised.
If Australia could commit to double the number of vessels they could greatly drive down costs while speeding up delivery. It’ll take time and money to ramp up of course but it’s a choice: seriously commit to defense to handle upcoming risks to order and peace, or just spend some minimal amount in order to keep civil servant benefits and pay at a steadily growing rate way beyond market norms.
But, this is the fate of these parliamentary democracies — civil servants become the primary political force, making liberals the natural ruling party and nothing can get in the way of benefits and pay. So, even if Australia does do the right thing and signs contracts for a serious defense upgrade, follow-on governments will just screw it over, even paying contract break fees.
Yeah sorry amerimutts aren’t welcome to talk about Australia until they learn the proper definition of liberal. Especially in the Australian context. Cheers
Hey, wait a minute... a real Australian would say seppo. Reveal yourself, imposter!
>we already got scammed
>better double down!
Great idea there.
Australians are very stupid and easy to manipulate when it comes to budgets and defense im realizing
>say the word scam
>say a big number
>say it’ll be a decade
>either say america is bad, Britain is bad or that domestic industry is bad
>repeat with variations as necessary
>maybe talk about how either China will obviously beat us in a war, the US is dragging us into a war with China, or it’s stupid to go to war with China because they buy our coal
It’s like clockwork.
Why are all modern frigates kinda the same?
mogami is one to two generations behind the others. It's a 80's design with a modern bodykit built to a very tight budget, it will have the typical traits of a far eastern vessel - cramped, cheap, poor seakeeping, systems and procedures that are put in place with no institutional experience.
It exists to take advantage of poverty wages and pad out a regional navy with some fodder.
I'm sorry, what?
Japan has the most naval experience of any modern Navy outside the US and the UK.
Also, Mogami is one of the most advanced warships currently afloat, and the only warship i'm aware of that has a new automated and integrated CIC with a seamless 360 degree field of view visible at all times.
1980s my ass, you sound like the self proclaimed nip that was pimped out by his family because he's a fucking retarded gay.
Jesus nips love their neon title overlays
There's literally nothing in those images that disproves what I said, you think linking some TV's together makes it modern and spacious? look at the aviation facilities ffs.
>look at the aviation facilities ffs.
what's wrong with them?
Complete dumbfuck detected, 1 second in google could have told you the exact opposite.
>cramped, cheap, poor seakeeping
This guy just described Navantia.
>each frigate costs as much as 2 flight 3 * burkes or 5 * type 055s
how the fuck you do that cunts?
Because it's talking about the cost over 40 years of service, not the cost of construction.
How are they still in business? Scams?
They make engines for civilian buses and aircraft. And have bought some foreign companies they now leech off of. Everything else they do is shit.
>Australia is a corrupt shithole by western standards
tell me something new, I heard an aussie youtuber got his house firebombed for exposing some politician at the sub-federal level meanwhile none of that shit happened elsewhere in the western world
This guy? Yep.
Our country is corrupt and aussies are too fucking stupid to do anything about it. They just don't care and their taxpayer money just disappears, they still don't care. The french sub contract was already a disgrace, now this...
I think it will all work out in the end.
It's just modern day politicians crying about stuff in the media. It serves no purpose and doesn't help the progress, the whole idea behind articles like this is political point scoring.
The world could do without that shit. Type 26 looks a really good frigate, the bongs seem to be well on with theirs.
You, sir, are a vatnik disinformation propagandist. There is no issue with any NATO country military.
the source "afr.com" is already a fake news africa tier shithole outlet
>The Australian Financial Review (abbreviated to the AFR) is an Australian business-focused, compact daily newspaper covering the current business and economic affairs of Australia and the world. The newspaper is based in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; owned by Nine Entertainment and has been published continuously since its founding in 1951.
AFR is a Liberal National Coalition lap dog
why can't a third rate nation just buy something off the shelf? what do they need a brand new design with all the R&D plus budget for?
>why can't a third rate nation just buy something off the shelf?
Warships aren't as "easy" as plans and tanks. No one has a supply yard(/harbor) somewhere just waiting to sell them off. They are produced to order and production (globally) has dropped in the past few decades while we are seeing a rapidly rising increase in demand.
>what do they need a brand new design with all the R&D plus budget for?
China. I'm not saying this is correct course, just why they are doing it.
Our government is a corporocratic mess that just does a good job of appearing not to be, and that allows contractors here to be lazy cunts that consistently run over budget, shoot past deadlines like they're meaningless, and only do a half-arsed job in the first place.
The fact that we never learned from the Collins-class fiasco just goes to show how fucking retarded the cunts in charge are. I like having a decent defense force, but if my taxpayer dollars are just getting pissed down the sink by incompetence and corruption, then why fucking bother?
>program is over budget, has produced nothing, with no end in sight
>”we need to cut other programs to continue paying for this.”
These people need to be thrown from a helicopter several miles off shore. God will decide if they return.
>trusting the anglo
>spend billions to defend yourself against the chinese
>import millions of chinese to your country
in 2040 Canada and Australia will integrate the new great chinese empire without fighting so I guess those ships will be a nice gift.
I’m Australian and I hate them, mainly cause they are majority chinese and see them as suspect
That’s been my whole argument about not trusting Singapore
Which makes certain retards in this thread seethe
Daily reminder that French ASW tech is one the best and the Brits are selling power-point boats. Aussies should have bought Navantia and should also stop pissing everyone with their desire to produce everything locally since their industry is incompetent.
Neat, I'm sure the US picking a FREMM derivative had no bearing on that
>Brits are selling power-point boats
I assume you mean 'boats not completed yet' which is not entirely untrue, the first type 26 has been launched but is not yet finished fitting out, and while french ASW tech is 'one of the best' this is not the same as 'the best' that title has been held by the british and the type 26 is building on the lessons learnt from the type 23 which was he best ASW frigate of its period and still is at least for the boats that got refitted as they are intended to be replaced last
>'one of the best' this is not the same as 'the best' that title has been held by the british
Lol got any proof there? He at least linked to 3 years in a row of French ASW awards.
You on the hand are just saying "the British are best" and expecting people to believe you.
NAYRT but Type 26 is unmatched simply because of the extra bits and pieces the bongs spent on quieting the ship, so they'll squeeze more performance out of the same kit installed on Constellation
You can spend money on shit that doesn't work
call me when you've got proof
nobody cares about your opinion
Same to you, I don't care that you think the type 26 is better at AWS, just because the British MoD and royal navy said so isn't really enough proof for me.
>Type 23 is being modernized with French made Captas-4 sonar
>This somehow proves that British ASW products are superior
system made by thales underater systems at sites in the UK and france, by a company that as franc british at time of systems purchase and using the UK sites for R&D and mnufacture, its as french as meteor or storm shadow
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, keep reading wikipedia