Any reason we can’t do 6 Hunters and 6 modified AWD Hunters ? And just keep pushing them up out ..assuming the coin is available an increased drumbeat?,
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
So 40 years out we have 12 MFUs?
Tier 1.
Another former elder statesman has questioned the feasablity of Australia building SSNs for the navy. Alexander Downer is in favour of Australia acquiring SSNs but questions whether they could ever be built in Adelaide.
Plan to build Aukus submarines in Adelaide is ‘a fairytale’ and ‘pork barrelling’, Alexander Downer says (msn.com)
OK I am putting on my conspiracy hat. I put it to you that the Australian government on both sides of the bench are fully aware that building nuclear submarines in Adelaide is not guaranteed. Australia acquiring nuclear submarines from the US isn't just a stop gap solution until submarine production ramps up in Adelaide but is rather a fallback position in the case of the whole project falls through. From the very beginning the option for up to five submarines being acquired from the US has been on the table. The option for the additional two submarines only really makes sense if they are to cover for any possible delay or failure of building subs in Australia.
The other elephant in the room is the money. When I first heard that it would cost $360 billion I wondered where that money was coming from. At first I thought they might strip the surface fleet but recent leaks would seem to suggest the exact opposite. Yes the Hunters might get cut back, but that would seem to be to allow for additional AWDs. We are also likely see an increase in the overall number of surface combattants.
So Hunter construction is to eventually pivot to even larger and more capable warships, the overall size of the surface fleet is to be increased, construction of AUKUS SSNs in Australia due to commence next decade and of course everything is to be accelerated. Pretty ambitious stuff from a country that recently had to place the Arafura OPVs on its projects of concern list.
Plan to build Aukus submarines in Adelaide is ‘a fairytale’ and ‘pork barrelling’, Alexander Downer says (msn.com)
OK I am putting on my conspiracy hat. I put it to you that the Australian government on both sides of the bench are fully aware that building nuclear submarines in Adelaide is not guaranteed. Australia acquiring nuclear submarines from the US isn't just a stop gap solution until submarine production ramps up in Adelaide but is rather a fallback position in the case of the whole project falls through. From the very beginning the option for up to five submarines being acquired from the US has been on the table. The option for the additional two submarines only really makes sense if they are to cover for any possible delay or failure of building subs in Australia.
The other elephant in the room is the money. When I first heard that it would cost $360 billion I wondered where that money was coming from. At first I thought they might strip the surface fleet but recent leaks would seem to suggest the exact opposite. Yes the Hunters might get cut back, but that would seem to be to allow for additional AWDs. We are also likely see an increase in the overall number of surface combattants.
So Hunter construction is to eventually pivot to even larger and more capable warships, the overall size of the surface fleet is to be increased, construction of AUKUS SSNs in Australia due to commence next decade and of course everything is to be accelerated. Pretty ambitious stuff from a country that recently had to place the Arafura OPVs on its projects of concern list.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Two potential issues that I see with building six air warfare versions of the Hunter-class, though both are things which might be relatively easy to resolve, OTOH they also might not be quite so simple.
The first has to do with contracting, since AFAIK the contracts for the Hunter-class frigate build are for a total of nine vessels, not a dozen. Even if the design base can be suitably modified to have an air warfare/land-attack focus, such a plan would be for three more vessels than contracted, which means that there would need to be some new/additional contracting done for the final three vessels suggested.
The next bit has to do with both the base design of the Hunter-class frigate, and then what the RAN and/gov't would want or need future air warfare vessels to be capable of. It could very well be that the base design could be fairly easily modified to serve as what would be needed for such roles, however it is also distinctly possible that by the mid-2030's a clean sheet design would be a better option.
Unfort not much is known about the RN's proposed Type 83 destroyer, but so far I have not heard it suggested that the hull or design is a derivative of either the Type 26 frigate or Type 45 destroyer which it would be replacing. I have already mentioned that I suspect something based upon Type 83 would not be ready in time for the RAN, if the Hunter-class build is indeed reduced to six vessels simply due to timing.
However, one should also remember that the USN is still running a DDG(X) programme to come up with a new destroyer design for air and missile defence, as a replacement for the USN's Ticonderoga-class CG and the Arleigh Burke-class DDG, and current plans I believe expect the lead ship to be built or commissioned in the early 2030's, several years before the RN's Type 83. It might very well be worthwhile for the RAN and gov't to look at what the USN is planning with the DDG(X) and possibly consider building a modified version of that, depending on how far along the design is.
Alexander Downer is a toffee nosed prat whose own party couldn't stand him. He's father's property in the Adelaide Hills had a playhouse (yes an actual house). I know this because his father's estate was bought by the South Australian government after his daddy complained it was ruined because he could see the then new South Eastern Freeway. Yes the tax payers had to compensate Alexander's daddy for ruining his view.
Futhermore, this self entitled, elitist POS is one of the born to rule idiots who believes we shouldn't build or make anything in Australia. He is quite literally one of the people responsible for our current skills shortages and the whithered state of industry.
He's a want to be lord of the manor who was foreign affairs minister as China expanded their military and we shrunk ours, as China expanded and invested in manufacturing, science and technology and we cut ours.
He was definately part of the problem and most definately not part of the solution.
It would make little sense building the DDGX in Adelaide, they are going to want the entire shipyard and subyard under the BAE banner.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If and when the time comes, Australia might not want whatever the DDG(X) has become. Or, the US might not be interested in sharing the basic design, or a whole host of other things. However, we are still over a decade way from when this might happen and AFAIK the shipyards in Osborne belong to ASC, not BAE or BAE Australia. In time BAE might be able to purchase ASC from the Commonwealth but TBH I think it might be better for Australia to either retain majority ownership, or have the facility privatized but in a fashion which will prevent it from being merged into or become a subsidiary of an overseas or international defence company.
Hunter is years off entering service but I anticipate it will be superior to Hobart in almost every way.
There is no question it is a better ASW and GP platform as the base Type 26 is superior to Hobart in these areas. On the air defence side, Hunter has a newer baseline AEGIS, and a more modern active phased array radar suite. The only potential area of inferiority is in the number of VLS cells, which hasn't been confirmed.
The only problem with Hunter is the RAN really needed a class of destroyers.
So in simple terms Hunter is superior the Hobart, potentially in every way, buying/building more Hobart's is not a solution, it is a step backwards.
There is no question it is a better ASW and GP platform as the base Type 26 is superior to Hobart in these areas. On the air defence side, Hunter has a newer baseline AEGIS, and a more modern active phased array radar suite. The only potential area of inferiority is in the number of VLS cells, which hasn't been confirmed.
The only problem with Hunter is the RAN really needed a class of destroyers.
So in simple terms Hunter is superior the Hobart, potentially in every way, buying/building more Hobart's is not a solution, it is a step backwards.
As a fan-boy of the Type 26 design (noting that the hull form is based off of the UK Type 45 destroyer IIRC), the Hunter design could be tweaked to turn it into a good destroyer. Add a 10m long 'PLUG' into the design, around midships / FWD of the mission bay. The lower decks give you the additional bunkerage to give the hull-form legs, as well as coping with the additional weight. The next few decks above gives more machinery space for additional gen-sets / diesel generator / plant & equipment, as well as some office space, allowing for design tweaks elsewhere in the FWD end of the hull form. Mid deck up gives you additional space for the likes of VLS / missile system, possibly more offices for Comms, etc. Finally, hangar roof is extended, so gives scope to copy others designs & place the likes of Kongsberg ASM up there / allows for better management of space for the comms antenna farm (always an issue on most warships).
The design becomes property of AUS & as most of the design is effectively copied from T26, work up from initial design into build would be shorter.
SA
It seems that the Hunter already has a lot the attributes of an AWD. There might be better options out there but an AWD version would have the benefits of coming off a hot production line. I know BAE are proposing the idea of alternating its builds between the ASW and AWD version which gives us an opportunity to start producing this things a little earlier.
Sure there is risk of adapting a design but that would be the case with whatever we build. I mean the two other options we have are the DDG(x) and Type 83 which don’t even exist yet.
Sure there is risk of adapting a design but that would be the case with whatever we build. I mean the two other options we have are the DDG(x) and Type 83 which don’t even exist yet.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So if he were a Canadian, he would be junior’s defence or industry minister?
About AAW destroyers:
There are a few projects around, but most of them are conceptual, with no detailed design work known to have been done yet, e.g. the German F127 project, scheduled (perhaps too ambitiously) to enter service from 2031. TKMS has proposed a 220 metre 12000 tonner. Italy's DDX seems the most developed new design so far, but I don't think that's saying much. It looks as if it won't be as big. The Type 83 is planned for later. I'm not sure of the schedule of the next USN AAW design.
Considering when the Hobart class were commissioned, the Italian DDX should be well along when a decision on Hobart replacement is needed - but it'd need some redesign for different weapons & sensors, & a different CMS, as the Italians look likely to stick with MBDA, Leonardo, Thales & WASS. The Germans could go with Aegis & US missiles, so a better fit for Australian requirements.
Or there's an AAW Hunter. More redesign in some ways, but less in others, because of the redesign already done to Type 26 to turn it into Hunter.
There are a few projects around, but most of them are conceptual, with no detailed design work known to have been done yet, e.g. the German F127 project, scheduled (perhaps too ambitiously) to enter service from 2031. TKMS has proposed a 220 metre 12000 tonner. Italy's DDX seems the most developed new design so far, but I don't think that's saying much. It looks as if it won't be as big. The Type 83 is planned for later. I'm not sure of the schedule of the next USN AAW design.
Considering when the Hobart class were commissioned, the Italian DDX should be well along when a decision on Hobart replacement is needed - but it'd need some redesign for different weapons & sensors, & a different CMS, as the Italians look likely to stick with MBDA, Leonardo, Thales & WASS. The Germans could go with Aegis & US missiles, so a better fit for Australian requirements.
Or there's an AAW Hunter. More redesign in some ways, but less in others, because of the redesign already done to Type 26 to turn it into Hunter.
While reading the ASPI report by Jennifer bParker (thanks Scott Elaurant) I saw again (former Vice Admiral) David Shackleton’s report on the same site which has been discussed here before.
Shackleton’s April 2023 suggestion to cancel Hunter (from ship 1) and to try to build Burkes in Adelaide with US govt help (not worth discussing again in my view), but the broader paper might help frame consideration of some procurement issues that are also raised/ implied by Parker.
Australia took (in Type 26) an ASW design (perhaps the best it could find in the world) and then set out to make it even better (presumably at ASW) and to meet Australian requirements.
That broadly repeats what Australia did for LHD and DDG (though for those it adapted the available design that it could crew).
It is difficult to know whether Hunter FFG is too specialised on ASW (or at least should be difficult to know from info in the public domain). The 2022 purchase of 12 more MH-60R ( RAN orders 12 more MH-60R Seahawks - Australian Defence Magazine ) says to me ASW is a critical perceived vulnerability for RAN now. Lack of active anti missile defence on LHDs says to me that they feel they have air warfare covered at the moment (in their likely threat environments). Hunter FFG might be the right ship (at least for the first six ships) but massive respecification from Type 26 may have been a mistake. Too late to change now.
I would say though that if Australia tries to repeat the Hunter approach for AUKUS then even Alexander Downer could be right. If AUKUS in Adelaide modifies the design (or specific Australian requirements make the RN submarine too slow to build) then AUKUS subs (in Adelaide) will fail. Australia cancelling ships from a British builder working in Australia wouldn’t be a good move for AUKUS either.
Shackleton’s April 2023 suggestion to cancel Hunter (from ship 1) and to try to build Burkes in Adelaide with US govt help (not worth discussing again in my view), but the broader paper might help frame consideration of some procurement issues that are also raised/ implied by Parker.
Australia took (in Type 26) an ASW design (perhaps the best it could find in the world) and then set out to make it even better (presumably at ASW) and to meet Australian requirements.
That broadly repeats what Australia did for LHD and DDG (though for those it adapted the available design that it could crew).
It is difficult to know whether Hunter FFG is too specialised on ASW (or at least should be difficult to know from info in the public domain). The 2022 purchase of 12 more MH-60R ( RAN orders 12 more MH-60R Seahawks - Australian Defence Magazine ) says to me ASW is a critical perceived vulnerability for RAN now. Lack of active anti missile defence on LHDs says to me that they feel they have air warfare covered at the moment (in their likely threat environments). Hunter FFG might be the right ship (at least for the first six ships) but massive respecification from Type 26 may have been a mistake. Too late to change now.
I would say though that if Australia tries to repeat the Hunter approach for AUKUS then even Alexander Downer could be right. If AUKUS in Adelaide modifies the design (or specific Australian requirements make the RN submarine too slow to build) then AUKUS subs (in Adelaide) will fail. Australia cancelling ships from a British builder working in Australia wouldn’t be a good move for AUKUS either.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The 12 extra MH-60R are a replacement for the 6 MRH-90 logistics Helicopters and at this stage the MH-60R lost in the Philippine Sea in 2021, so in reality an increase of 5 Helicopters.
Even if they only have 24 VLS that would still make the Hunter a superior AAW ship to what the Perth class DDGs where in their day.
Australia may be able to get away with upsetting Naval Group and the French, but we are far too reliant on BAE to be able to get away with cancelling the Hunters, the same way we did the Attacks.
There is likely to be American pressure for this. Americans understand this concept and what Australia would get out of it. It also makes a clear and manifest tie in between Australia and the US. Training, logistics, design, CONOPs, etc.
Part of the the problem with a type 26 based ship is you start moving away from things the Americans are familiar with, and they stop supporting the idea.
Same issue with the AUKUS submarine. The Americans understand the Virginia. Once you start moving away from it, they start to go quiet.
Arguably the UK should be leaning in and supporting and also rounding up the Americans to support it as well. But UK doesn't see this as their battle, and UK government and uniforms have their own problems and issues, and the AUGOV isn't asking the RN or the UKGOV. Probably because they have no meaningful presence in the indopacific.
The Hunter has a AEGIS CMS at its core, a SAAB 9lv combat system interface, and an expanded, new generation CEA active phased array radar suite. It is, irrespective of any other roles and capabilities, a high end air warfare ship.
Even with only 32 cells it will be highly capable. That's assuming the models and graphic are correct.
According to BAE there are options to increase the size of the VLS or fit additional modules elsewhere. Two eight cell strategic length vls will make it equivalent to a Hobart. More to the point, two eight cell tactical or point defence length would be comparatively easy to fit on such a large hull that is still in detail design. Even the point defence length vls would free up the strategic ones for additional SM-2/6 and Tomahawk.
Even with only 32 cells it will be highly capable. That's assuming the models and graphic are correct.
According to BAE there are options to increase the size of the VLS or fit additional modules elsewhere. Two eight cell strategic length vls will make it equivalent to a Hobart. More to the point, two eight cell tactical or point defence length would be comparatively easy to fit on such a large hull that is still in detail design. Even the point defence length vls would free up the strategic ones for additional SM-2/6 and Tomahawk.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Slight point of correction here, and perhaps a somewhat pedantic one. Mk 41 VLS comes in three different lengths which are self-defense, tactical, and strike. The self-defense launcher is 5.3 m whilst the tactical is 6.8 m and the strike is 7.7 m.
Given a choice, I would rather the RAN adopt and start loading RUM-139 VL-ASROC fitted with Mk 54 LWT's, rather than a handful of RGM-109E Tomahawks.
Now if the Hunter-class VLS loadout could be increased significantly in size/number (like tripled) then allocating some cells to LACM would make a bit more sense. As it stands now, the NSM should provide some LACM capability in addition to serving as an AShM.
Thanks Volk
I think we get hung up on labels.
All this talk of the Hunter class being a specialist ASW frigate , it's like the ship can't do anything other than chase and defend itself against subs.
The Hunters like most vessels over a couple of thousand tonnes usually have some capacity to defend themselves on , under and over the water.
So very glad you highlighted the Hunters substancial air defence capability.
I've always thought of the Hunter and Hobart's as general purpose frigates with capability comensuarte to their size.
The AWD title looks appropriate on a Hobart relative to the ANZAC.
But let's remember the Hobart's also have a hull sonar, towed array sonar, ASW helicopter and ASW torpedoes.
They are like the Hunters, a flexible multiple role ship
Please. let's not get hung up on names and just look at what a class of vessel can contribute to the fleet
Now how are those LHDs going?
Cheers S.
The RAN has never really showed any interest in the ASROC.
We have P8's, we have MH60R firing light weight Mk54, we have ship fired MU90.
Its a pretty narrow range, where they are in close to the ship, but not near the helicopter/P8, but far enough away to be out of range of the Mu90, but are in range to be detected.
In the big ocean spaces the RAN typically operates and the few choke points it has interest in, it does not seem to be a big consideration.
Not sure I see the Mk54 fired from ASROC as more threatening to any target than TLAM. TLAM will hit them, ASROC, well, maybe you are going to get a hail mary firing solution.
The way people here talk about Tomahawk, it is like they are getting their reports from RT.
‘Low efficiency’: Only 23 Tomahawk missiles out of 59 reached Syrian airfield, Russian MoD says
The Russian Defense Ministry says the US missile strike on a Syrian airfield wasn't very effective, with only 23 out of 59 Tomahawk missiles reaching their target. The locations of the remaining 36 missiles’ impact is now unknown, the ministry added.
Even then the Russians only claimed 23 out of 59 success rate.
Even if you are carrying ASROC, how many do you intend to fire? One or two? Then moving into position to track, or moving an air asset to track and make more fires. I don't quite understand why we would need more than two loaded.
Maybe we should look at the LHD being a ASW asset. Really six or more helicopters, with drones and a P8 should provide excellent ASW coverage. The SSN would be the other key element. I am not sure that a single surface frigate is the ASW game changer, it in fact sounds like a surface target, not a submarine hunter.
Unless the target is defended, 100% of the TLAMs will hit them these days. If the target has defence capabilities then that number drops. Saying TLAM is useless, and that other weapons should be fitted, weapons without a 1500 mile strike range, and weapons without a 500Kg warhead.
I don't know what ASROC hit rates are, but I would be surprised if it was any where near 50%.