So much we don’t know.
A lot will come down to how seriously the government takes our current strategic situation. If things really dire we could expect a Captain’s choice and all the associated risks. Otherwise we may see a selection process to determine what best suits our needs.
If it is a Captain’s choice I would expect a stretched version of OPV80 and perhaps additional Hobarts. Just about any other option would require a drawn out selection process. I guess we will find out in the coming weeks.
I wonder about the focus on more Hobart class DDG's. These are at the end of their growth margin now. The RAN will have to work hard to fit the planned upgrades into them. This certainly is not a hull that can take 100+ VLS in its current form. Stretching the platfrom would be significant job and you may as well plug the Hunter (which will be building its first block this year) as has been suggested. Just getting on and building the Hunters as now designed at a faster rate make be a more effective way of getting extra cells at sea (noting they replace a vessel with 8 cells with 36 ... or 42 if that comes off).
I worry about a number of issues on all the ideas floating about:
1. Any corvette (80 to 100m) may divert funds from projects such as the Hunter without providing a usable asset that can be intergrated into current operations. This may also derail the continous build programme.
2. Any overseas offer (Navnatia) will produce a vessel that with struggle to take the capability (noting their offer is the F105 hull) and has no growth margin. It also means an additional logistics train as much of the equipment on the Hobard DDG is out of production (to be fair this will be the same for diferent batches of the Hunter, however, this logistic train is established prior to the next batch starting) This is likely to derail the continous build programme.
3. So called cheap and simple platforms will be fitted with weapons and combat systems not currently in Australian use to save costs. This detracts for the ability to support the vessel and complicates training. In the 80's DE folk often stayed on DE's same with the DDG's and the FFG's. This reflected the different machinery, systems and weapons on each class. This may also derail the continous build programme. We need this programme start and remain in place to avoid just the situation we are now in.
4. Splitting the build of Hunters with a build of 100+ cell DDG's may derail ecconomies of scale meaning the drumbeat of deliveries will be longer. Iterative growth of the Hunter over batches appears a better option (provide we start on a new build vessel after the 9 hulls are delivered).
So if defence are going to build a second tier combattant to bulk out the numbers it should not detract from the current projects and it should use current weapons and combat systems. This does not mean AEGIS and CEC but CEAFAR and SAAB 9LV are very capable and can add somethign to task group in that ships fitted with these systems can add something to the defence of a convoy or group (rather than only just being able to defend themselves)
The current reporting and leaking of this process makes the Australia DoD look pretty poor in how it manages capability. It really does look like 'shiny kit syndrome' ..... a 'mega cruiser' it is desired because it looks cool ....... how it fits into the operational needs of the RAN against percived threats does not appear to have been discussed. The whole thing is not helped by individuals, the press and think tanks with an agenda.