Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Brucedog]

That's why i thought we (well, you guy's) could put forward your ideas for such a ship.

What are the minimum requirements? I have no knowledge of these types of ships.

How long should it be able to stay in a affected area?
How many helicopters?
How much of what types of fuel?
Chinook capable deck?
Hospital facilities for how many?
A dock seems a given.
How many LCM's, RHIBS, LCVP's?
Command & Control facilities?
Is it pre-loaded with what?

It most likely won't be the only ship sent but it might be the biggest.
Is it able to offload he different fuel types to other ships, boats, ashore?

How much room and crew for all or any of these capabilities?

The JSS seems agood starting point to an outsider like me but i note the size difference between the various Galicia class based ships, especially the beam.

If I'm in forbidden territory i apologise.

 

[John Newman]

That's why i thought we (well, you guy's) could put forward your ideas for such a ship.

What are the minimum requirements? I have no knowledge of these types of ships.

How long should it be able to stay in a affected area?
How many helicopters?
How much of what types of fuel?
Chinook capable deck?
Hospital facilities for how many?
A dock seems a given.
How many LCM's, RHIBS, LCVP's?
Command & Control facilities?
Is it pre-loaded with what?

It most likely won't be the only ship sent but it might be the biggest.
Is it able to offload he different fuel types to other ships, boats, ashore?

How much room and crew for all or any of these capabilities?

The JSS seems agood starting point to an outsider like me but i note the size difference between the various Galicia class based ships, especially the beam.

If I'm in forbidden territory i apologise.

Mate, can I make a suggestion to you?

A few pages back Ngati made a suggestion for you to go back through the threads and have a good read, I know it's a hard slog, but it is worth it.

A lot of questions newbies ask have been done to death previously, I'm not saying don't ask questions, but don't just ask simple 'is the sky blue?' or 'is water wet?' type questions, have a good think and pose a question and also your opinion too, you'll find you get much more response.

If you haven't already done so, go to the Defence website, you can use that as a springboard to the Minister, Army, Air Force and Navy websites.

Home : Department of Defence, Australian Government, Jobs, News, Operations

You should also download (and these are available on the Defence website) PDF documents such as the 2016 DWP and DIIP (and previous DWPs too), the Continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan, and anything else that catches your eye.

Other good places are the ASPI Strategist website:

The Strategist | ASPI's analysis and commentary site

And main ASPI website:

| Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI

On the main ASPI site, there are a lot of very detailed PDFs reports/publications that can be downloaded (for free):

Search | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI

Other Australian defence related websites such as:

ADM, ADBR, Australian Aviation, Defence Connect, DTR, APDR, etc.


There is an old saying that was used here regularly in previous years: "Google, it's your friend, use it!". Think of a question, Google it and do your research.


Again, I'm not trying to put you off asking questions, but think of DT as a discussion forum, not just a Q & A site.

Cheers,

 

[Todjaeger]

That's why i thought we (well, you guy's) could put forward your ideas for such a ship.

What are the minimum requirements? I have no knowledge of these types of ships.

How long should it be able to stay in a affected area?
How many helicopters?
How much of what types of fuel?
Chinook capable deck?
Hospital facilities for how many?
A dock seems a given.
How many LCM's, RHIBS, LCVP's?
Command & Control facilities?
Is it pre-loaded with what?

It most likely won't be the only ship sent but it might be the biggest.
Is it able to offload he different fuel types to other ships, boats, ashore?

How much room and crew for all or any of these capabilities?

The JSS seems agood starting point to an outsider like me but i note the size difference between the various Galicia class based ships, especially the beam.

If I'm in forbidden territory i apologise.

It is not so much that it is forbidden territory, but that there had been some discussion back when the idea was originally brought up in Nov 2018, but absent further details from gov't, there is nothing more to discuss except making a kit/capabilities wish list. Fundamentally, until gov't further defines the role and/or sets the minimum requirements for the Pacific support ship, asking what the ship should have is like asking the question, "how long is a piece of string?"

The capabilities which are typically found in various types of amphibious warfare vessels do tend to lend themselves to HADR operations as well, but that does not mean that is what gov't wants, intends, or is willing to pay for.

One thing I would tend to caution, since there does not appear to a project designation yet for the Pacific support ship on the CASG site, and that according to published reports the vessel is to be both new, not particularly sophisticated, and acquired using funding under the existing budget causing some training to be deferred, is that the vessel IMO is unlikely to be anywhere are comprehensive as a dedicated LPD or LSD, never mind something like one of the Canberra-class LHD's. In point of fact, I would not be surprised if the vessel (if it ever actually happens) acquired was to be a commercially built vessel that gov't then has modified to provide some HADR capabilities. There is precedent for Australia doing this in purchasing the then under construction MV Skandi Bergen which had been brought into RAN service as the ADV Ocean Shield as a short-term filler for the decommissioned LPA's.

 

[Redlands18]

That's why i thought we (well, you guy's) could put forward your ideas for such a ship.

What are the minimum requirements? I have no knowledge of these types of ships.

How long should it be able to stay in a affected area?
How many helicopters?
How much of what types of fuel?
Chinook capable deck?
Hospital facilities for how many?
A dock seems a given.
How many LCM's, RHIBS, LCVP's?
Command & Control facilities?
Is it pre-loaded with what?

It most likely won't be the only ship sent but it might be the biggest.
Is it able to offload he different fuel types to other ships, boats, ashore?

How much room and crew for all or any of these capabilities?

The JSS seems agood starting point to an outsider like me but i note the size difference between the various Galicia class based ships, especially the beam.

If I'm in forbidden territory i apologise.

Totally agree with what @John Newman says above, about the best education you could get on the RAN can be found on this thread.
There are 2 RAN subjects however that are totally Verboten on this thread, Aircraft Carriers and Nuclear powered Subs, they have been totally done to death.

 

[Volkodav]

i guess that would depend on how the ship was deployed.
The RAN complement was 13. To break that down; CO and XO, Coxn, Chief Eng, PO Seaman (Buffer), Radio Operator, Cook, 3xABs, 3xMech Eng = (13) or something similar. You may add an electrical rate in lieu of a ME or other small adjustment but if you want to run the ship 24/7 that crew would be minimal for independent operation.
Halving the number is simply not practical except for short coastal day work supported by base staff.

I believe in army service the LCH was commanded by a WO2 so no officers per se. As for crew size I don't have anything.

 

[ASSAIL]

I believe in army service the LCH was commanded by a WO2 so no officers per se. As for crew size I don't have anything.

Yes I remember that.
Navy used them as a great command training experience for young Lieutenants, XO was a SBLT so early responsibility whereas for Army it was a pinnacle job for Noncoms.

 

[Takao]

So - I asked my white suiter brethren today about the difference in crew sizes for the RAN despite automation, and I got a mass grinding of teeth. You see, RAN SOPs says x number of people are required for this job, y number for that one. So a ship, regardless of automation, the engine room gets x and the galley y. So....we didn't take advantage of the automation Choules offers.

The grinding of teeth comes from the long-term campaign to get some more flexibility injected into those SOPs, because apparently with automation you can save crew numbers (! who knew!!). But there is an entrenched part of the RAN that is fighting off such attempts. Now, there could be a reason (battle damage demands some element of overcrewing, and the LCSs have demonstrated that automation isn't the silver bullet), but all the peeps I spoke to got angry that paperwork was holding back the force.

Hopefully that gets rectified. I know that some of the MCM community are going to start getting aggressive about changing this - they need to for the automation they want / need.

 

[Takao]

Hi Mate, If I'm reading you post correctly, I think your interpretation and my interpretation vary on the potential numbers of amphibious and support ships (five or six), and what has or hasn't been budgeted for.

Relevant quotes from pages 71-73 of the DIIP:

Replenishment ships
3.24 Two new replenishment ships will replace the current mixed fleet of one replenishment ship and one oiler (fuel only) by the early 2020s.Replenishment ships are able to resupply fuel, water, food and weapons to ships at sea to extend their range and endurance. As the surface fleet grows with the introduction of larger frigates and larger patrol vessels, Defence will acquire another support vessel such as a third high‑capacity replenishment ship or an additional logistics support ship similar to HMAS Choules in the late 2020s. A third replenishment ship would provide an assured capacity to continuously generate one operationally available replenishment ship for Surface Task Group operations.

Logistics support ship
3.27 Defence will upgrade and extend the life of the ADF’s logistics support ship HMAS Choules, which is capable of undertaking a range of tasks across the spectrum of military operations from providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to amphibious lodgement. Planned investment includes:

* updating the ship’s battle management and command, control, communications, computers and intelligence capabilities to enable it to work effectively with the Canberra Class amphibious ships
* fitting self-defence systems for protection against torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and fast attack craft
* fitting aviation support systems.​

3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger and better‑equipped forces. HMAS Choules, together with the two Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations. A third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be considered in the late 2020s.


I read the above as saying (apart from the 2 x LHDs), is that there will be 2 x AOR, there will be a replacement of Choules around 2030, and that the possible 'sixth' ship will be either a 3rd AOR or an additional logistic support ship (eg, another Choules type ship).

The budget allowances made in the 20016 DIIP are for:
* Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional) - 2024-2030 - $1b-$2b
* HMAS Choules Upgrade and Support - 2017-2023 - $200m-$300m

There currently isn't a budget allowance for the replacement of Choules, but that doesn't surprise me as the 2016 DIIP covers the ten year period (2016-2025), I would imagine that a budget allowance for Choules would appear once it is within the usual ten year scope of the DIIP.

As for the Pacific Ship, that really is a how long is a piece of string question too.

Cheers,

Quoting because there is lots of good factual data here.

The current IIP review/build keeps DWP 16 as its basis - it doesn't change the strategic settings. Noting that, the need for National Shipbuilding 2.0, the recent additions of Supply and Stalwart, and the large amount of possible commonality between an AOR and an "LSD"* I would suggest there is a reasonable argument for 2x JSV to provide a Choules replacement and a third AOR - but this being combined into a single program.

Not sure I'm a fan though - there are significant differences in the mission between an AOR and a "LSD". And in a toss up between the AOR role and the land support role, the former will almost always win (there is some validity in that - a land force has more options without some supplies than a fleet has without fuel). To that end, I'm concerned that we end up with 4x AORs and 2x amphibs (instead of 3x each or 2x / 3x that we have now). I realise that the poster child for the JSV (HNLMS Karel Doorman) is bigger than Choules and can carry more - but I'm not convinced that (despite JOC) the JSVs would often practise that role.

While on paper, and in peacetime, JSVs make sense, I'm not convinced they do in practise, especially at war.

* I'm putting "LSD" in quotes as while Choules is an LSD, its replacement may not be - it may be another amphib type.

 

[Stampede]

Quoting because there is lots of good factual data here.

The current IIP review/build keeps DWP 16 as its basis - it doesn't change the strategic settings. Noting that, the need for National Shipbuilding 2.0, the recent additions of Supply and Stalwart, and the large amount of possible commonality between an AOR and an "LSD"* I would suggest there is a reasonable argument for 2x JSV to provide a Choules replacement and a third AOR - but this being combined into a single program.

Not sure I'm a fan though - there are significant differences in the mission between an AOR and a "LSD". And in a toss up between the AOR role and the land support role, the former will almost always win (there is some validity in that - a land force has more options without some supplies than a fleet has without fuel). To that end, I'm concerned that we end up with 4x AORs and 2x amphibs (instead of 3x each or 2x / 3x that we have now). I realise that the poster child for the JSV (HNLMS Karel Doorman) is bigger than Choules and can carry more - but I'm not convinced that (despite JOC) the JSVs would often practise that role.

While on paper, and in peacetime, JSVs make sense, I'm not convinced they do in practise, especially at war.

* I'm putting "LSD" in quotes as while Choules is an LSD, its replacement may not be - it may be another amphib type.

Some clarity for all of the recent discussions should I believe come form a new Defence paper, which as yet I have not heard announced.
Suggest a new DWP would be appropriate within the current governments term of office.


Previous DWP's have been
2016
2013
2009
2000
1994
1987
1976

Navy have some good solid projects under way and in the developmental stage,but some clarity,adjustment of timelines, and budgeting for much of what has recently been discussed would be prudent.

If only government read our advice on DT !

Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

Some clarity for all of the recent discussions should I believe come form a new Defence paper, which as yet I have not heard announced.
Suggest a new DWP would be appropriate within the current governments term of office.


Previous DWP's have been
2016
2013
2009
2000
1994
1987
1976

Navy have some good solid projects under way and in the developmental stage,but some clarity,adjustment of timelines, and budgeting for much of what has recently been discussed would be prudent.

If only government read our advice on DT !

Regards S

I am unsure, but do they issue anything similar to the Kiwi DCP - Defence Capability Plan?

Nah they wouldn't accept our advice because it's to logical and makes common sense, which pollies are allergic too. If they did we'd have to charge them consultants rates in US$ of course.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I am unsure, but do they issue anything similar to the Kiwi DCP - Defence Capability Plan?

I don't think the New Zealand DCP 2019 will be a regular thing, (I could be wrong) I think that it is only out because of the 20 Billion NZD over 15 years that National started and they needed a plan on what they were going to spend it on... We regularly have the DWP and due for another in 2022ish (I think)

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't think the New Zealand DCP 2019 will be a regular thing, (I could be wrong) I think that it is only out because of the 20 Billion NZD over 15 years that National started and they needed a plan on what they were going to spend it on... We regularly have the DWP and due for another in 2022ish (I think)

G'day @Nighthawk.NZ , welcome to the forum. Your material has featured on here before and you are more than welcome. Because you are ex RNZN, you must be upstanding - well before tot time anyway

The NZ DCPs have been around for the last 9 years and the 2019 iteration was the third. I have copies of the 2011, 2014 and 2019 DCPs. The DCPs are the Defence acquisitions laid out with a little detail and flesh out the DWPs a bit. The DWPs are pure policy documents, and going by the pattern set in 2010, probably 2021 - 23 for the next DWP, depending upon who wins the 2020 election. Anyway this is off topic and more suited for the NZDF thread.

 

[Takao]

I am unsure, but do they issue anything similar to the Kiwi DCP - Defence Capability Plan?

Nah they wouldn't accept our advice because it's to logical and makes common sense, which pollies are allergic too. If they did we'd have to charge them consultants rates in US$ of course.

You'd be surprised at what gets fed in....

There is a review of the IIP occurring now, a combination of "is what is in there now still suitable?" and adding 2036-2040 projects in. Another DWP was suggested, but that hasn't been taken up.

 

[Volkodav]

I

Quoting because there is lots of good factual data here.

The current IIP review/build keeps DWP 16 as its basis - it doesn't change the strategic settings. Noting that, the need for National Shipbuilding 2.0, the recent additions of Supply and Stalwart, and the large amount of possible commonality between an AOR and an "LSD"* I would suggest there is a reasonable argument for 2x JSV to provide a Choules replacement and a third AOR - but this being combined into a single program.

Not sure I'm a fan though - there are significant differences in the mission between an AOR and a "LSD". And in a toss up between the AOR role and the land support role, the former will almost always win (there is some validity in that - a land force has more options without some supplies than a fleet has without fuel). To that end, I'm concerned that we end up with 4x AORs and 2x amphibs (instead of 3x each or 2x / 3x that we have now). I realise that the poster child for the JSV (HNLMS Karel Doorman) is bigger than Choules and can carry more - but I'm not convinced that (despite JOC) the JSVs would often practise that role.

While on paper, and in peacetime, JSVs make sense, I'm not convinced they do in practise, especially at war.

* I'm putting "LSD" in quotes as while Choules is an LSD, its replacement may not be - it may be another amphib type.

I used to be in favour of a JSV but lm would have been quite happy if the RAN had gone for a modified Lewis and Clark T-AKE logistics ship instead of the AORs, but we bought what we bought. The AORs are good but don't have any significant amphibious or ground force support capability making this the priority.

So - I asked my white suiter brethren today about the difference in crew sizes for the RAN despite automation, and I got a mass grinding of teeth. You see, RAN SOPs says x number of people are required for this job, y number for that one. So a ship, regardless of automation, the engine room gets x and the galley y. So....we didn't take advantage of the automation Choules offers.

The grinding of teeth comes from the long-term campaign to get some more flexibility injected into those SOPs, because apparently with automation you can save crew numbers (! who knew!!). But there is an entrenched part of the RAN that is fighting off such attempts. Now, there could be a reason (battle damage demands some element of overcrewing, and the LCSs have demonstrated that automation isn't the silver bullet), but all the peeps I spoke to got angry that paperwork was holding back the force.

Hopefully that gets rectified. I know that some of the MCM community are going to start getting aggressive about changing this - they need to for the automation they want / need.

The Hobarts verses the Spanish F-100s, Australia has separate combat system operators and maintainers while, if I recall correctly, Spain has operator / maintainers i.e. the crew who use the combat systems maintain them too. End result for the same, or smaller, overall crew, you have more people who can operate and maintain systems.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Does it make sense to introduce and other orphan class of ship into the RAN? Any savings tend to disappear when you have unique training, logistics, upgrades, integration etc all tied in. If we want an AOR with some swing capability, that is one thing, but that doesn't make it an amphibious ship. We are already short on amphibious capability. Two swinging JSS type won't give the ADF the amphibious capability it needs, and if the Choules "replacements" is smaller than Choules you are getting less over all capability even with two ships.

Bigger ships like TAK-E can probably meet the dual requirements quite well for a small Navy like the RAN. But the standard design is quite heavily focused on dry stores. We also missed the boat on the construction by ~6 years being announced 2016 and Tak-E winding up 2012.

Still could be worse... Canada is still building their JSS thing, did not have an easy selection and curious to see what useful capability they get out it..

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Just a note StringrayOz Canada is not building nor is it designating the new Protector Class as anything more than an AOR. The vessels offer no more capability than the previous vessels except maybe the ability to take some LOLO outsize cargo similar to what the Adterix can. If they have enhanced features its in the automation and habitability areas. They are Canadainized German Navy Bonn class AORs at three times the cost and ten years late.

 

[Volkodav]

Does it make sense to introduce and other orphan class of ship into the RAN? Any savings tend to disappear when you have unique training, logistics, upgrades, integration etc all tied in. If we want an AOR with some swing capability, that is one thing, but that doesn't make it an amphibious ship. We are already short on amphibious capability. Two swinging JSS type won't give the ADF the amphibious capability it needs, and if the Choules "replacements" is smaller than Choules you are getting less over all capability even with two ships.

Bigger ships like TAK-E can probably meet the dual requirements quite well for a small Navy like the RAN. But the standard design is quite heavily focused on dry stores. We also missed the boat on the construction by ~6 years being announced 2016 and Tak-E winding up 2012.

Still could be worse... Canada is still building their JSS thing, did not have an easy selection and curious to see what useful capability they get out it..

Would only have gone modified T-AKEs in place of the AORs so a dead idea now anyway.

What I would like to see, if the Pacific ship goes ahead, is that has a high level of commonality with the eventual Choules replacement. Ideally they would be the same class of LPD type, just changing primary role and possibly some role specific equipment, i.e. armament and self defence suites.

Possibly, depending on value for money and priority, if it is decided to belatedly replace the LCH capability, a third LPD of the same type could be considered instead. Look at the capability required place capability delivered for the outlay instead of just like for like replacement.

 

[Todjaeger]

Would only have gone modified T-AKEs in place of the AORs so a dead idea now anyway.

What I would like to see, if the Pacific ship goes ahead, is that has a high level of commonality with the eventual Choules replacement. Ideally they would be the same class of LPD type, just changing primary role and possibly some role specific equipment, i.e. armament and self defence suites.

Possibly, depending on value for money and priority, if it is decided to belatedly replace the LCH capability, a third LPD of the same type could be considered instead. Look at the capability required place capability delivered for the outlay instead of just like for like replacement.

While we are still very light on details, I somehow suspect that the Pacific ship would be quite different from whatever ends up replacing Choules. The other alternative IMO would likely be quite a bit worse, considering the statements about funding for the Pacific ship and the allusion to it being a fairly basic vessel in terms of systems. I do not foresee Defence being able to squeeze AUD$300 mil. from existing progammes to fund the purchase of the Pacific ship, and that is what the approximate cost of a new-built Bay-class LSD was back in 2002, unless the vessel was something like a Tarlac-class or Makassar-class LPD ordered from and built in Indonesia, with then a possible final fitout completed in Australia.

 

[ASSAIL]

While we are still very light on details, I somehow suspect that the Pacific ship would be quite different from whatever ends up replacing Choules. The other alternative IMO would likely be quite a bit worse, considering the statements about funding for the Pacific ship and the allusion to it being a fairly basic vessel in terms of systems. I do not foresee Defence being able to squeeze AUD$300 mil. from existing progammes to fund the purchase of the Pacific ship, and that is what the approximate cost of a new-built Bay-class LSD was back in 2002, unless the vessel was something like a Tarlac-class or Makassar-class LPD ordered from and built in Indonesia, with then a possible final fitout completed in Australia.

I think your right.
I don’t think the funds will be made available for an all purpose amphib back up for an ARG.
I suspect that given the politics and the individually small nations of the Pacific a smaller ship(s) is likely.
That ship will be built in Aust and the most likely candidate is Austal therefore the most likely hull would be a copy of the T-EPF.
Expeditionary Fast Transport (T-EPF)
They are relatively cheap, AUD 260|300, they can use the small island wharves, they can take enough personnel/cargo to assist small communities, are quick enough to do multiple runs and could be useful support for security crisis in our immediate north just as the chartered HMAS Jervis Bay proved during INTERFET.
Most importantly the construction would come at a time when the Mobile Al yard is running down T-EPF construction. I don’t think it would be acceptable to have it/them built in the US but the expertise is readily transferable.
Depending upon funds (resources should be allocated from the DFAT/Foreign Aid budget) it would be highly desirable to build two.
The ships should be manned by civilians.
If I was calling the shots I’d permanently base one in Cairns and one in Darwin.

 

[PeterM]

It seems the RAN will be upgrading the 3 Hobart class in a similar timeframe as the first 3 Hunter class builds.
It is great to see consistent systems across both classes.

The State Department has reportedly approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of long-lead items, engineering development activities, and other defence services for the Australian Surface Combatant Program at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion.

The Government of Australia has requested to buy long-lead items, engineering development activities, and other defense services to support the Australian Surface Combatant Program, including the modernization of the three Hobart Class Destroyers, and construction of the first three (of nine total) Hunter Class Frigates which includes:

-Three Shipsets of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) in the MK 6 Mod 1 configuration to support the Modernization of the Hobart Class DDGs;

-Three Shipsets of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) in the MK 6 Mod 1 configuration to support the New Construction of the Hunter Class FFGs;

-Three shipsets of the MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) for installation on the Hunter Class Frigates; three shipsets (2 mounts per ship) of the Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) for installation on the Hunter Class Frigates;

-Two Australia AEGIS Weapon System Computer Programs (one for Hobart Class, one for Hunter Class), and associated computer programs for AEGIS Combat System components for installation on both the Hobart and Hunter Class ships; six shipsets of the Global Positioning System (GPS) - Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Service (GPNTS) Navigation Systems and associated Advanced Digital Antenna Production (ADAP) antennas and support equipment for installation on the Hobart and Hunter Class ships;

-Six shipsets of upgraded Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) equipment for installation on the Hobart and Hunter Class ships;

-Six shipsets of Command and Control Processor (C2P) equipment for installation on the Hobart and Hunter Class ships;

-Eight shipsets of Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio Set (MIDS JTRS) terminals for installation on the Hobart and Hunter Class ships. Also included are: three shipsets of MK 34 Gun Weapon System (GWS) modification equipment to include the Electro-Optical Sight System and changes supporting Naval Fires Planner and associated TacLink Control System for installation on the Hobart Class Destroyers;

-Three shipsets of MK 34 Gun Weapon System components to include the MK 160 Gun Computing System and the MK 20 Electro-Optical Sight System, and the Naval Fires Planner and associated TacLink Control System for installation on the Hunter Class Frigates;

-Three shipsets of: Mode 5/S capable Identification, Friend of Foe (IFF) Systems; Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplexing System (GEDMS); AN/WSN-7 Ring Laser Gyrocompass Inertial Navigation Systems; WSN-9 Digital Hybrid Speed Log systems; Common Data Link Management System (CDLMS); and Global Command and Control System-Maritime (GCCS-M) systems for installation on the Hunter Class Frigates;

-Six shipsets of AN/SRQ-4 Hawklink and SQQ-89 Sonobuoy processing equipment for installation on the Hobart and Hunter Class ships;

-Defense services for development and integration of a capability upgrade for the installed AEGIS Combat System on the Hobart Class Destroyer, including Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability and growth capability for Ballistic Missile Defense;

-Development, integration and testing support for installation of a AEGIS Combat System for installation on the Hunter Class FFG, a Global Combat Ship Type 26 (BAE) platform, including the integration of the indigenous CEAFAR 2 Phased Array Radar (CEA Industries) with the AEGIS Combat System (including Cooperative Engagement Capability) and the primary radar sensor and illuminator;

-Integration of selected Australian provided combat system components including Undersea Warfare and Ship Self Defense for installation on the Hobart and Hunter Class ships; integration of the MH-60R helicopter into the AEGIS Combat System for installation on the Hobart and Hunter Class ships;

Australia Surface Combatant (ASC) Program