The range quoted in Wiki is at odds with other sources such as Navy Lookout that suggests 7000+ nm for the T31. Still a decent range, however, this is on quite a light sensor and weapons load out.
This has an impact if additional systems are retrofitted (aka … what was required with ANZAC) both in draft and stability. To get the anticipated speed the T31 will have a small water plane area to the TCP (tonnage per centimetre immersion) will be quite low. This means added weight will result in increased draft resulting in reduced range and speed (again just what was seen in the ANZAC). When looking at additional systems it is important to look at these systems and their supporting infrastructure such as power generation, associated distribution arrangements, HVAC and extra crew.
Looking at the Hunter as an example …. This is a large ship intended to long range operations. Trying to shoe horn the desired capability and growth has resulted in a 10000 tonne vessel. It will be exceptionally capable but it does provide and example of the impact of even moderate capability increases.
To add capability to the T31 will result in compromise in other areas …. Range possibly being one of them.
Finally … IMHO consideration of HADR for combat vessels (excluding the LHD’s) needs to be dropped as a reason to buy a particular hull as it has the potential to lead to compromising the prime purpose of the vessel. Choules, the AOR’s, the LHD’s and the future JSS will all have an inherent capability in this area due to their size and facilities (so too will the Arafura and future independent landing craft for local regional low key activities). For vessels intended primarily for combat the focus of the multi mission bays needs to be what it adds to the vessels combat capability in respect of boats, USV’s, UAV’s and other capability multipliers.
I have no issue with additional hulls, I more capable ‘corvette’ may be useful for escort work around Australia or in more permissive environments. However, much of the cost of such vessels in the the systems and their supporting arrangement (which is much more expensive when trying to retrofit this capability). I would suggest that in the short term the Hunter is the only player in town and getting this in build as soon as practical is the first objective …. Then build more of them with a shorter drum beat. The yard is capable of building other classes if desired as it has been set up as a digital yard from the outset (a great capability for Australia)
Henderson is not yet a fully developed build site for large combat vessels. It will be a build site for future large hull vessels meaning it will have a lot of work in front of it with the OPV’s, MCM vessels as well as JSS (noting the JSS build and time frame). In addition it appears Henderson will be responsible for future replacement large vessels (such as the LHDs the AOR’s). HMAS Canberra has been in service for 12 years but was laid down in 2009 and launched in 2011) as this work will need to commence in the next decade if new vessels are going to be available when the current vessels hit 25+ years old. Same is true for the AOR’s further down the track (and additional AOR would be nice).
Osborne yard exists and is designed to deliver frigates, destroyers and (soon) Submarines to the RAN. That ….. IMHO …. Is where teh build should stay given production is about to start.
Just a final observation, given the proliferation of large support vessels and other vessel such as ADV Protector (and its replacement) there would appear to be a case for an Australian RFA. Choules, the AOR’s, Protector (replacement) and the JSS could run with a civilian core crew (as is the case with the RFA) which may alleviate some of the manning and training issues. There are a number of commercial support vessels (in additionto Protector) currently operated by civilian crew. This includes the MATV and two Submarine rescue vessels so there would certainly be critical mass if these were combined.
Spot on.
I like corvette but when you look at the costs of the systems it isn't that much more to go for a patrol frigate. Take it a step futher, the OPVs are a quantum leap over the Armidales, but when we start talking about arming them, or even making them more survivable to be worth arming them, something like the USCG Legend Class high endurance cutters start looking more affordable.
I think we need to move away from a sort of thinking that still is quite prevalent, i.e. small is cheaper and light, means lower operating costs. This only works if nothing changes, i.e. you build it, use it and when things change or it needs an upgrade, dispose of it and replace it. One of the problems with the Armidales is they were designed for a price, not a unit price, but a provision of service price that incorporated maintenance and support costs, even the training of crews was part of the contract. The second things changed from what was anticipated they were in trouble (well there were design issues as well but that a different matter).
If you want a capability to remain relevant over 30 years, you need to design it in such a way that it is structurally capable of doing so and potentially ballasted by either actual ballast, or systems you fully intend to remove and replace with other systems, in the future. The other option is to assume a service life of less than twenty years and no major upgrades or changes.
I am happy to be corrected if wrong but my understanding of the Stanflex system is the modules not only have identical dimensions and interfaces, they also have the same designed all up or equipped weight. I may be wrong on that and ballasting my be required as well. This is one of the things that attracts me to the Danish designs (hopefully the Arrowheads retain the facility to include module slots). The Danes have also refitted module slots in a number of legacy designs, raising the possibility that if we adopted, modified or even came up with our own version of this system, we could introduce even greater flexibility to the fleet.
Imagine a future fleet with PBs, OPVs, patrol frigates that are perhaps more robust and larger than they technically need too be, fitted with modules configured for storage, HADR, pollution response etc. Maybe piracy becomes an issue and modules with cranes and extra spares for additional RHIBs or even interceptors or USVs. Possibly China starts deploying into our region much more extensively and begins firing on shipping as has occurred further north. The PBs can morph into FACs, the OPVs into Corvettes and the patrol Frigates in to GP frigates.
Where do these other modules come from, well we build them locally, perhaps we also use them for secondary capabilities on MFUs. Common CIWS or PDMS modules would make sense for majors and fat ships. There are also MCM, hydro of course and the possibility or not just storing the surplus modules but installing them at current fleet and re-establish reserve bases to train operators and maintainers.
HADR is something that comes up often, as is MCM, hydro not so much, but still critical. If we look at covering much of our needs in these areas with common modules that can be easily fitted to most ships in the fleet, this gives further justification for a larger, more robust and capable patrol vessel. The US tried to go down that path with the LCS but appear to have messed up the platforms and then not adequately developed the modules that were the entire reason for going that way in the first place. I can see a place for not just a common core combat system interface, but also for modular systems that can be change out as required. This flexibility and future proofing alone can justify using a frigate platform for EEZ constabulary roles.