Two batches of hunter followed by three DDGs means the government can announce, even kick of the design/selection, but most of the funding and orders will be years off.
Indeed.
from the article
“Hilarides definitely backed a further destroyer-type capability,” a source briefed on the contents of the review but not authorised to speak publicly said.
These ships could be made at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyards using the same hull as the Hunter-class frigates under a proposal to be submitted by BAE Systems, the British defence firm that designed the Hunter-class ships.
and..
Defence analyst Michael Shoebridge backed the idea of giving the navy more firepower but feared the additional destroyers could take over a decade to hit the water.
So slashing the Hunter class to a class of 6, while ordering 3 destroyers based off the same hull, isn't exactly unexpected. As part of that process the tender should at least benchmark, Burkes and similar western destroyers. BAE themselves have been talking about this as an option for quite a while now. Even if something crazy happened, like they selected a KDXIII or burke, it would still be built at ASC probably by BAE.
I think any Hobart 2.0 deal is dead. The Hobart sized ~7000t ship isn't big enough to perform landstrike with TLAM and BMD as well as its main job. Its not just slightly more Air defence capability, its significantly more capability. With 200 TLAM, no way can Hobarts carry that kind of land strike capability. You would need ~15 hobart destroyers.
I don't know about Alpha 3000 and Babcock. We signed a contract and are building ships from lurrsen/NVL. Lurrsen has the OPV90 design, and have indicated they could swap into it, and that their contracts and arrangements would allow this.
German shipbuilder Luerssen says it can build small capable warships in Australia for the Royal Australian Navy within five years if the government decides to go down the corvette path.
www.australiandefence.com.au
It said pivoting the existing OPV production line at Henderson created exceptionally advantageous circumstances which under the procurement rules allowed Defence to do a fast-track limited tender directly to Luerssen.
Speaking to Australian reporters in Hamburg, Peter Luerssen, Head of the parent company Naval Vessels Lurssen (NVL), said the company had demonstrated that it took Australian industry content very seriously.
“We are above the threshold we needed originally. We have a great experience. We understand how the Commonwealth works and we will be in the position to respond to whatever need the government may have, in my belief, faster than any competitor,” he said.
“We can have the first ship in the water by 2028.”
I think the corvette thing is going to have a lot of pressure on it in terms of build speed. I don't know if we have money or time for another selection process for a small combatant. I also think they are a temporary fix, and that within 10 years when larger ships come on line, they can be sold to allies (possibly through NVL) in the region.
I'm not sure the capability difference between a Alpha 3000 and a NVL OPV90 based corvette, in the RAN, are worth spending another $3-$4b on selection and another 5 years.
You could literally build another 12+ corvettes for the same amount of money and time to merely select a Alpha 3000 or arrow120 and build zero of them. They all do approximately the same job. However, I would say by size alone the Arrow120 is likely to be out of the running, its ~50% larger the than the current OPV, its never been built so would have a massive risk profile, Babcock isn't building ships in Australia currently, and has no arrangement with a yard, currently in Australia.
Selecting new platforms and contractors isn't free. The government of the day can direct all blame onto previous governments which spec and order the original Sea1180 OPV. This is the best and quickest they can do under the current arrangements.
At least we know what the future possibly would look like.
www.afr.com
