This is a similar development as the E-7 project (probably some of the same people too). It took years to perfect the E-7 radar into a stable workable platform and it's now regarded as the benchmark that everyone else wants. CEAFAR is already a working system integrated into a CMS in the Anzacs, my understanding is it's a scalable open architecture system that many others aspire to be. Like the Wedgetail the software is constantly updated which will mean integration becomes far easier, quicker and maintains its market leadership.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
This bugs me too. I might actually be dead before I see 6 hunters, 8 subs, 11 tier 2's. Heck, forget the subs. I still wont be alive for the tier 1 and 2 ships
The problem is we are getting the ships and subs to replace the ANZACs and Collins, that should be replacing the replacements for those types.
The replacement for the DDGs ( the Hobart's) should have followed straight on from the ANZACs, and been in service in the mid 2000s.
The replacement for the FFGs should have been in service from the late 2000s to the mid 2010s, and the replacement for the ANZACs should have started entering service in the late 2010s.
There should have been one new major combatant, DDG, FFG, GP FFH, every eighteen months to two years ever since the ANZACs started entering service.
The replacement for the DDGs ( the Hobart's) should have followed straight on from the ANZACs, and been in service in the mid 2000s.
The replacement for the FFGs should have been in service from the late 2000s to the mid 2010s, and the replacement for the ANZACs should have started entering service in the late 2010s.
There should have been one new major combatant, DDG, FFG, GP FFH, every eighteen months to two years ever since the ANZACs started entering service.
iambuzzard
Active Member
Volks, that's too much common sense for the mandarins in Canberra!
Heck that sounds like some sort of sustainable continuous industry, delivering to a needy navy. Clearly no short term political gain to be had in such a sensible option.
I do wonder if the Hunter program just swells to become a full destroyer program, and the Tier 2 once selected, become a standard build.
From purely an academic exploration, how would people feel about 3 hunters with 64 VLS, 4 Hunter PLus ~13,000t, with ~128 VLS, and then 12-14 Tier 2 ~5000t.. Additional tier 2 built at Osborne? Again purely academic, and more focused on build rates, crewing, workloads, than capabilities.
I'd probably be cautious to push the Hunter-class design to that size rather than going for a more comfortably fitting new design at that point.
Last edited:
Yes. We need to take a leaf out of the SK/JP book and get into the mentality of building "evolved" classes to maintain the ship building and turnover the asset rather than prolonging the lifespan of outdated platforms with expensive LOTE projects.
iambuzzard
Active Member
In other words we have a continuous rolling conveyor belt that doesn't stop. Even though their production isn't up to the speed of JP and SK the US have been building the Arleigh Burke for decades with each new batch an evolution of previous hulls.
We tend to contract for finite numbers of ships instead of going down their path of contracting new builds continuously to avoid valleys of death.
I wouldn’t be surprised if an evolved Hunter hull eventually goes on to replace the Hobart. That should see ship production continue through to around 2050.
Really there shouldn’t be an issue of lack of work going forward. An expanded surface fleet of up to 26 combatants along with 8 SSNs should provide a steady stream of work over the next 30 years or so. This doesn’t even take into account several dozen minor vessels.
We are still at the stumbling and crawling stage at the moment but hopefully we should be in full swing by the 2030s.
Really there shouldn’t be an issue of lack of work going forward. An expanded surface fleet of up to 26 combatants along with 8 SSNs should provide a steady stream of work over the next 30 years or so. This doesn’t even take into account several dozen minor vessels.
We are still at the stumbling and crawling stage at the moment but hopefully we should be in full swing by the 2030s.
My money is on the Hunter hull replacing the Hobarts in due course for an eventual fleet of about nine. It's already a very good AAW platform and it will make use of a hot production line, that by then should be very efficient.
I don't actually see their missile capacity growing that much, maybe to 48 perhaps 64 at most. I would view magazine depth being achieved via the LOCSV pathway as it offers significantly more flexibility with mission focus and reloading, and redundancy from battle damage. I see a lot more than 6 LOCSVs in the future, this could easily be 12 or 18. They will be cheap, expendible and mass producible. Consider them the Liberty class of the future.
In my view the 100 plus VLS destroyer/cruiser concept has already passed its zennith and will be supplanted by the smaller distributed concept. 10,000 tonnes I would suggest is about as big as these ships will get. Future capability will prioritise data fusion and remote vehicle operation.
Hopefully the GPFs continue to evolve in batches with the host nation support. I'd like to see them get connectivity with LOCSVs.
I don't actually see their missile capacity growing that much, maybe to 48 perhaps 64 at most. I would view magazine depth being achieved via the LOCSV pathway as it offers significantly more flexibility with mission focus and reloading, and redundancy from battle damage. I see a lot more than 6 LOCSVs in the future, this could easily be 12 or 18. They will be cheap, expendible and mass producible. Consider them the Liberty class of the future.
In my view the 100 plus VLS destroyer/cruiser concept has already passed its zennith and will be supplanted by the smaller distributed concept. 10,000 tonnes I would suggest is about as big as these ships will get. Future capability will prioritise data fusion and remote vehicle operation.
Hopefully the GPFs continue to evolve in batches with the host nation support. I'd like to see them get connectivity with LOCSVs.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Evolved Hunter is questionable considering what some here think the VLS capability should be IMHO. A Type 83 or whatever the USN decides upon is a better option for the future. An AUKUS destroyer/cruiser would be even better.
So long as the Hunters are followed by something without a gap we are still good.
Going forward, the eleven GP frigates will not just replace the ANZACs they will likely take on roles intended for the OPVs, including the future MCM and hydro roles.
Fingers crossed this leads to a requirement for additional destroyers, making a continuous build viable. If not that, then other types, i.e. a DDH etc.
I dunno. Wasn't there some mention of the replacement for the Hobarts being from the Hunter's? that'd eventually give the Hunter line 9 ships. BAE did present the AAW version with a ton of VLS in the MM section.
The issue is nine ships won't give us a continuous build, twelve, at a pinch, might, but nine is too few.
In an ideal world there would be other types interspersed to maintain skills. The GP frigates are being built in the west, so a parallel build, not a sequential, we are in real danger of reentering the boom and bust cycle.
So 12 hunters. At Osborne
12-16 tier 2 (which can include a mix of tier 2 surface combatant, light amphibious ships, perhaps some sort of JSS). At Henderson.
True, but that was really focused around osborne. There was always a bit of a hole with Henderson. Particularly when Osborne got OPV's. Possibly patchable.
I think we should be open to discussing the future options, because either way, it needs to be fixed. We should make a rule if you break any continuous project during your term in office you have to fix it, or be charged with an offence. The solution must be realistic and able to be implimented. I guess that is hard in a two party system when ultimately another party could take over and blame and destroy.
Japan doesn't have that problem, one party tends to win all the time. Maybe we should take Naval ship building completely out politics and put in a committee of perpetual appointed people to run it.
With the fleet in the west expanding, including the Nukes, would the RAAF need to look at basing FGA assets at Pearce? I mean, it would be important to be able to protect the Navy whilst in Port.