Just a thought
It could go the other way, similar principle but in reverse. An Austral mini-LCS or MRV patrol boat solution (maybe up to 800-1200 tonne) that they call an OPV as the patrol boat replacements (the new DefMin visited Austral last month), and a 2nd class of steel hulled 4-6 up gunned OPV that they call Corvettes (1800-2600 tonnes) that are much more heavily armed to fill the void between Frigate and OPV, and keep other yards going until the frigates and submarines are kicked off.
Lets just hope they aren't setting up for a reduction of frigate numbers.
When the white paper due?
Bluey mate, now your speculating too! Ha, ha! (Where's the DWP when you need it!)
But yes, anything is 'possible', but not necessarily 'probable', and that applies to both our comments too.
As far as a 'reduction of frigate numbers', yes anything is possible, but I really think that if the Government is actually going to produce a Naval Shipbuilding Plan that has any hope of creating a 'continuous' build program, then reducing the number of Frigate hulls would basically wipe that plan out completely, in fact I think there is more chance of an additional hull(s).
In all honestly too, I think a 'continuous' build program will be almost near impossible to achieve, yes I'm sure that the aim of the program will be to have a far more 'sustainable' or 'near continuous' Naval Shipbuilding program, but to achieve a 'continuous' program, I fear, will have a negative impact on the Navy itself, despite the potential good outcome for industry, I don't think it will be 'win win' it will be 'win loose'.
So why do I say that?
If you look at the Future Frigate programme (that currently), is planned to get the first hull commissioned in 2026 to coincide with the retirement of Anzac herself, yes that is certainly achievable, but by the time you get to the 'fourth' new hull it could be a different story.
To make sense of what I'm saying, the RAND report was talking about the 'drumbeat' of when a ship is commissioned, there is a drumbeat of 1 or 1.5 or 2 (eg, every 12 months, every 18 months and every 24 months), they are suggesting a drumbeat of '2'.
If you look at the production of the 10 Anzac Frigates (including the two NZ ships), they were commissioned over an 11 year period, just a fraction over a 'drumbeat of 1'.
So what you say?
If you look at the commissioning dates of the 8 Australian Anzac ships they were, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, if you look at a '30 year lifespan' then they should be decommissioned in 2026, 2028, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035 and 2036.
If you follow the RAND suggestion of a drumbeat of '2', the commissioning dates for the eight (8) replacements will be 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036, 2038 and 2040.
By following that production schedule you will have the first four hulls replaced 'one for one' without any reduction in availability, but after that everything gets out of 'sync' and the last of the Anzac replacements actually get commissioned 'four' years after the last Anzac retires!!
If such a building program with a drumbeat of 2 was followed, the Government has basically two options, either retire hulls on time (and end up with a capability gap) or spend extra dollars on extending the life of the existing ships so there is no capability gap, it's one or the other.
Again you say, so what? What has that go to do with a 'continuous' build program?
So if the Government actually sticks to a minimum of 8 Future Frigates replacing the 8 Anzac Frigates, then the last 'Future Frigate' will be commissioned in 2040 (drumbeat of 2), but the first of the AWD's that was commissioned in 2017 is not due to be replaced till 2047!
So here we are again, another 6 or 7 year gap between production of major fleet units as it is now (the last AWD in around 2020 and the first Future Frigate in 2026), all we would be doing is moving this 'Valley of Death' forward 30 years and not resolving the problem.
So what's the solution to fill that 6 or 7 year gap?
Simple! Add another two or three hulls to the Future Frigate program and commission those additional hulls in 2042, 2044 and 2046, but of course that all comes at a significant dollar cost too!
All of the above is what I have extrapolated out of the RAND report and a couple of ASPI reports too.
So yes at the end of the day if the RAN ended up with 15 major fleet units (Destroyers and Frigates), and if they stayed in commission for 30 years and replacements were produced (in the one yard) every two years then a 'continuous' build program is technically possible.
(And yes I haven't mentioned the Collins, ACPB, Mine Warfare, Hydrographic and LCH replacements, because those programs will be 'concurrent' with the Future Frigates and not 'consecutive' replacements and don't exactly 'extend' Naval Shipbuilding in this country).
So yes on the surface, a drumbeat of 2, and extra hulls, can potentially make for a 'continuous' build program, but there is still a number of questions, big questions.
What is the extra cost of stretching out build programs (from 12mths or 18mtns to 24mths) that would obviously add extra manpower and other costs to producing a ship? The issue of a previous class of ships that 'should' be retired every 12mths or so and stretching that out to 24mths which potentially means either a significant capability gap of up to 4 years or spending the extra dollars in maintaining old hulls for that period too.
Lots of questions that I don't have all the answers too!!
Cheers,