Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
I’m not a fanboy of extra Hobarts, I would prefer an accelerated and increased build of Hunters.

However, I think ppl are still thinking of yesterdays strategic situations.
= Longer luxuries of time, lengthy life of type employments etc.
- the counter argument would be that I’m unrealistically pessimistic!

the 10yr gap is apparently no-more.

Australian building yards are already slotted to capacity, correct?
Therefore there is no obvious political impact on building required ships overseas when boosting RAN critical mass.

Do we want hulls in the water ASAP, or will we still be talking of potential capability on conflict-eve?

Any extra Hobarts built are likely close analogues of the current service versions so it’s the least likely to cause issues, correct?
As i clumsily tried to say prev, any theoretical extra Hobart numbers will I think be employed as supplied in the longer term, because logic says theyd be a time critical capability booster; and longer term the Hunters will logically take precedence.
 

Tbone

Member
Does anyone have information on the final design of the MCM vessels for the RAN?
Reported it was to be a variation of the Lurssen OPV but that’s it.
They are expected to be delivered mid decade but still no news.
Will they be using the opv 80 or opv 90 hulls?
Interesting to see what happens here with possible corvettes to be built also.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Does anyone have information on the final design of the MCM vessels for the RAN?
Reported it was to be a variation of the Lurssen OPV but that’s it.
They are expected to be delivered mid decade but still no news.
Will they be using the opv 80 or opv 90 hulls?
Interesting to see what happens here with possible corvettes to be built also.
Aren't they planned to be a subclass of the Arafura-class, with 2 vessels scheduled to be built at the backend of the OPV construction run?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Aren't they planned to be a subclass of the Arafura-class, with 2 vessels scheduled to be built at the backend of the OPV construction run?
That is the current plan, but like everything else we are waiting on the DSR to see what the future of the Arafura class is. Right now only the first 6 of a planned 12 are confirmed.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I’m not a fanboy of extra Hobarts, I would prefer an accelerated and increased build of Hunters.

However, I think ppl are still thinking of yesterdays strategic situations.
= Longer luxuries of time, lengthy life of type employments etc.
- the counter argument would be that I’m unrealistically pessimistic!

the 10yr gap is apparently no-more.

Australian building yards are already slotted to capacity, correct?
Therefore there is no obvious political impact on building required ships overseas when boosting RAN critical mass.

Do we want hulls in the water ASAP, or will we still be talking of potential capability on conflict-eve?

Any extra Hobarts built are likely close analogues of the current service versions so it’s the least likely to cause issues, correct?
As i clumsily tried to say prev, any theoretical extra Hobart numbers will I think be employed as supplied in the longer term, because logic says theyd be a time critical capability booster; and longer term the Hunters will logically take precedence.
This might just be personal quirk of mine, but I really dislike it when people mention the idea of building additional "Hobarts" as this really is not possible given that some of the systems fitted to the current DDG's are out of production and no longer available. Australia certainly could have a new design with comparable capabilities built, but it would not be the same class of vessel. Some of the systems would be different, and likely the internal layout.

I do not wish to get into the whole pile of issues with the existing Hobart-class DDG's being space and weight/displacement limited which AFAIK has already impacted what upgrades are planned. Having a new class with a similar role as well as size and displacement would likely run into the same issue, or a related one in that there could be problems fitting available kit of comparable capabilities to those in service aboard the current Hobart-class, or future kit to be included in their planned upgrades.

There is also the very real issue of what kit would be needed for vessels of a comparable role, what of that kit is available and what kit can Australia already operate and support. IMO this is an area where there is the potential for major stumbling blocks to any new/additional build programmes. Given that the role of the DDG's is air warfare/area air defence and they are fitted with the Aegis CMS and SPY-1 radar arrays, it would be reasonable to believe that a new set of DDG's would also have Aegis CMS and a comparable radar array. If Aegis is a requirement (a reasonable belief for a RAN DDG IMO) this would be a major stumbling block, given the amount of time needed to get them. The US DSCA announced in June 2018 here that Spain had requested to buy five Aegis systems. Given the time frame, these could only have been intended for their F-110 frigate programme the Bonifaz-class with construction of the lead ship starting in April 2022. I have not been able to determine how much earlier it was that Spain submitted the purchase request but I would not consider it unreasonable for the various US agencies to take a year to determine such a purchase was acceptable. I would also not consider it unreasonable for ship construction to need to have been underway (pardon the pun) for a year before enough of the vessel was completed for the CMS and radars to be fitted, with vessel launch another year or more away.

Working back the timeline for Navantia's ongoing build, it is likely that the design for the Bonifaz-class had largely been set when Spain likely requested to buy Aegis from the US, and this would have likely been made some time in 2017. Current Spanish plans are for the lead ship to be launched in 2024 and commissioned the following year. So about seven years from DSCA announcement to commissioning and likely eight years after the gov't to gov't buy request for the CMS. Of course, even after the lead ship is commissioned there would need to be various ship trials to make sure the vessel functions as intended and request, before the new ship could be reasonably considered available for ops and deployment. One to two years for builders trials and ship acceptance seems to be fairly normal for large, complex warships like DDG's or FFG's, which would most likely put the first new Spanish frigate available operationally some time in or after 2027, or about a decade after long-lead kit for a specified design was requested.

Applying that same logic chain to more DDG's for the RAN, if a design was already selected now and some of the initial requests were made now, the lead ship would most likely not be available until some time in 2032/2033 and that is also making the assumption that build space in a shipyard somewhere was not an issue. If it is absolutely essential that additional units have to be in RAN service before that time, then Aegis-equipped vessels are pretty much excluded. There is also the potential for a similar sort of situation with the availability of Mk 41 VLS, with a DSCA announcement here from 2020 including three shipsets of Mk 41 for the Hunter-class FFG. IIRC it is likely that the lead FFG will be laid down this year, three years after the DSCA announcement covering the VLS for the first batch of frigates.

As much as I would like to see the RAN expanded in size and capabilities, I see little value in getting additional hulls in the water which are not fitted out with systems useful to and able to be maintained by the RAN/Australia. In terms of getting additional, functional vessels into RAN service within the next decade, I suspect the best that could be managed would be a hodge-podge of vessels fitted with whatever was available and being of rather limited utility given the problems that the RAN would likely encounter both maintaining essentially bespoke vessels and systems, but also in getting operators trained on specific systems used no where else in the RAN. One should remember that there is a reason why the RAN decided to adopt the 9LV CMS interface across the fleet, including aboard the AOR's, LHD's and OPV's as well as the FFH, DDG and planned for the FFG.

Just my opinion, but if Australia can manage to weather whatever happens between now and ~2030/2032 AND if there is a real plan and agreement to expand the size of the RAN both in terms of personnel and warships, then there are other approaches which I feel would be more likely to be achieved.

One option would be to start working, now, on plans to have a third class of escort vessel commissioned into the RAN starting just after the ANZAC-class frigates begin getting decommissioned. What I have in mind would be more like a 2nd tier GP frigate fitted with systems comparable to or perhaps even pulled directly from upgraded ANZAC-class frigates as they are decommissioned. Given a choice, I would have such a hypothetical class somewhat larger than the current FFH's, probably around the planned size for the USN's Constellation-class frigates or the RN's Type 31 frigates to leave space and weight for future capabilities and upgrades.

Another option which IMO is also worth consideration is the idea of bring the Hobart-class DDG replacement forward. Right now the assumption seems to be that the replacement DDG will start construction after the last Hunter-class frigate is completed, with construction being done in Osborne. However, if the Civmec facilities at Henderson are expanded or upgraded sufficiently to enable construction of major warships, it might be possible for Australia to carry out two simultaneous build programmes, one for the Hunter-class FFG's and the other for GP frigates or new/replacement DDG's.

If either idea was started now, selection of a preferred design might be possible by the end of this decade. Following this, orders could start getting placed for some of the long-lead items as well as selection of kit to be pulled from FFH's as they retire, First steel of the lead vessel might be possible by the start of next decade with the first of a new class vessel entering RAN service in the early to mid-2030's.

These ideas would not deliver new capabilities this decade, but I honestly just do not see a viable way for the RAN to get useful capabilities in that time frame. What would be required to be useful is either not realistically available in the timeframe, or unfamiliar to the RAN which would then need time to become familiar enough to make use of what is available. In some cases, I suspect the answer is that kit is neither available or familiar to the RAN and could not be gotten soon enough for RAN personnel to make effective use by the time people believe a major crisis will occur.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
I also think the Corvettes will simply be stretched versions of the Arafura. Eventually Australia may aquire something more akin to a light frigate but I think something like Lurssen's MMPV is a more likely short term solution. This might be what they had in mind for the new MCVs anyway. They could start building these ships instead of the final batch of Arafuras.
I think the Arafura OPV is perfectly suited to the "third tier" patrol function it was designed to perform. The function of the Patrol Boat Group (of which it will be a part of) is to essentially perform Coast Guard duties primarily within the EEZ alongside the ABF. Whether that's the right structure of responsibility is another (and arguably, more important) question.

Corvette designs do not have the range, endurance or capacity required to perform the roles of a second tier combatant in our region's geography.
As per my earlier post the MMPV has a range of only 3,000 nmi - How is that in any logical way suitable for a RAN combatant?

Even going to the higher end of the Corvette-Light Frigate market you're still hamstrung by range and endurance simply because it's physically impossible to fit the fuel and stores required into a small hull.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
This might just be personal quirk of mine, but I really dislike it when people mention the idea of building additional "Hobarts" as this really is not possible given that some of the systems fitted to the current DDG's are out of production and no longer available. Australia certainly could have a new design with comparable capabilities built, but it would not be the same class of vessel. Some of the systems would be different, and likely the internal layout.

I do not wish to get into the whole pile of issues with the existing Hobart-class DDG's being space and weight/displacement limited which AFAIK has already impacted what upgrades are planned. Having a new class with a similar role as well as size and displacement would likely run into the same issue, or a related one in that there could be problems fitting available kit of comparable capabilities to those in service aboard the current Hobart-class, or future kit to be included in their planned upgrades.

There is also the very real issue of what kit would be needed for vessels of a comparable role, what of that kit is available and what kit can Australia already operate and support. IMO this is an area where there is the potential for major stumbling blocks to any new/additional build programmes. Given that the role of the DDG's is air warfare/area air defence and they are fitted with the Aegis CMS and SPY-1 radar arrays, it would be reasonable to believe that a new set of DDG's would also have Aegis CMS and a comparable radar array. If Aegis is a requirement (a reasonable belief for a RAN DDG IMO) this would be a major stumbling block, given the amount of time needed to get them. The US DSCA announced in June 2018 here that Spain had requested to buy five Aegis systems. Given the time frame, these could only have been intended for their F-110 frigate programme the Bonifaz-class with construction of the lead ship starting in April 2022. I have not been able to determine how much earlier it was that Spain submitted the purchase request but I would not consider it unreasonable for the various US agencies to take a year to determine such a purchase was acceptable. I would also not consider it unreasonable for ship construction to need to have been underway (pardon the pun) for a year before enough of the vessel was completed for the CMS and radars to be fitted, with vessel launch another year or more away.

Working back the timeline for Navantia's ongoing build, it is likely that the design for the Bonifaz-class had largely been set when Spain likely requested to buy Aegis from the US, and this would have likely been made some time in 2017. Current Spanish plans are for the lead ship to be launched in 2024 and commissioned the following year. So about seven years from DSCA announcement to commissioning and likely eight years after the gov't to gov't buy request for the CMS. Of course, even after the lead ship is commissioned there would need to be various ship trials to make sure the vessel functions as intended and request, before the new ship could be reasonably considered available for ops and deployment. One to two years for builders trials and ship acceptance seems to be fairly normal for large, complex warships like DDG's or FFG's, which would most likely put the first new Spanish frigate available operationally some time in or after 2027, or about a decade after long-lead kit for a specified design was requested.

Applying that same logic chain to more DDG's for the RAN, if a design was already selected now and some of the initial requests were made now, the lead ship would most likely not be available until some time in 2032/2033 and that is also making the assumption that build space in a shipyard somewhere was not an issue. If it is absolutely essential that additional units have to be in RAN service before that time, then Aegis-equipped vessels are pretty much excluded. There is also the potential for a similar sort of situation with the availability of Mk 41 VLS, with a DSCA announcement here from 2020 including three shipsets of Mk 41 for the Hunter-class FFG. IIRC it is likely that the lead FFG will be laid down this year, three years after the DSCA announcement covering the VLS for the first batch of frigates.

As much as I would like to see the RAN expanded in size and capabilities, I see little value in getting additional hulls in the water which are not fitted out with systems useful to and able to be maintained by the RAN/Australia. In terms of getting additional, functional vessels into RAN service within the next decade, I suspect the best that could be managed would be a hodge-podge of vessels fitted with whatever was available and being of rather limited utility given the problems that the RAN would likely encounter both maintaining essentially bespoke vessels and systems, but also in getting operators trained on specific systems used no where else in the RAN. One should remember that there is a reason why the RAN decided to adopt the 9LV CMS interface across the fleet, including aboard the AOR's, LHD's and OPV's as well as the FFH, DDG and planned for the FFG.

Just my opinion, but if Australia can manage to weather whatever happens between now and ~2030/2032 AND if there is a real plan and agreement to expand the size of the RAN both in terms of personnel and warships, then there are other approaches which I feel would be more likely to be achieved.

One option would be to start working, now, on plans to have a third class of escort vessel commissioned into the RAN starting just after the ANZAC-class frigates begin getting decommissioned. What I have in mind would be more like a 2nd tier GP frigate fitted with systems comparable to or perhaps even pulled directly from upgraded ANZAC-class frigates as they are decommissioned. Given a choice, I would have such a hypothetical class somewhat larger than the current FFH's, probably around the planned size for the USN's Constellation-class frigates or the RN's Type 31 frigates to leave space and weight for future capabilities and upgrades.

Another option which IMO is also worth consideration is the idea of bring the Hobart-class DDG replacement forward. Right now the assumption seems to be that the replacement DDG will start construction after the last Hunter-class frigate is completed, with construction being done in Osborne. However, if the Civmec facilities at Henderson are expanded or upgraded sufficiently to enable construction of major warships, it might be possible for Australia to carry out two simultaneous build programmes, one for the Hunter-class FFG's and the other for GP frigates or new/replacement DDG's.

If either idea was started now, selection of a preferred design might be possible by the end of this decade. Following this, orders could start getting placed for some of the long-lead items as well as selection of kit to be pulled from FFH's as they retire, First steel of the lead vessel might be possible by the start of next decade with the first of a new class vessel entering RAN service in the early to mid-2030's.

These ideas would not deliver new capabilities this decade, but I honestly just do not see a viable way for the RAN to get useful capabilities in that time frame. What would be required to be useful is either not realistically available in the timeframe, or unfamiliar to the RAN which would then need time to become familiar enough to make use of what is available. In some cases, I suspect the answer is that kit is neither available or familiar to the RAN and could not be gotten soon enough for RAN personnel to make effective use by the time people believe a major crisis will occur.
Had an additional comment which came to mind too late and ended up making the original post too long when I tried to edit it. For those who take issue or umbrage at the idea of starting a project now to delivery new/additional capability to the RAN sometime in the early to mid-2030's or later stop and really consider when current or recent major RAN projects got started and when the capabilities were delivered. Nuship Hobart was provisionally accepted in 2017, but planning for what became the Hobart-class started much earlier, back around 2000 IIRC, and Aegis was specified as a required system back in 2005. The genesis for the Hunter-class FFG's was back in 2009 with the mention in the 2009 WP about the Future Frigate with an ASW focus replacing the ANZAC-class frigates. Nine years after, the Type 26 design was selected as the base for what will be the Hunter-class frigate. If things are not already in progress, projects for delivery in the first half of the 2030's need to be started now.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
History lesson time.

When the shooting starts you are pretty much left to fight with what you already have. You are limited to building what is already in production, or at least what has already been designed.

This is why late war US ships were bigger and better than RN ones, they had time to finalise new designs before locking in production.

If we go back and do F-100s this is equivalent to the UK deciding to build H or G class destroyers instead of the vastly superior J/K/L. It would be like building Leanders instead of evolving the Town's into a war emergency design.

The US were able to shift from whe Benson and Gleaves to the Fletcher with the extra time they had. And their cruisers grew well beyond the treaty limited designs the UK had to persist with.

The shooting hasn't started, so now is the time to establish the design and production capability we need while training crews.
 

Tbone

Member
The Hobart 2 will be built in Spain and the hunters will be the hulls used for ASW and most likely the next AAW destroyer.
So the design and build has been locked in.
The best thing the ADF can do is upgrade the OPV’s to corvettes and get more hulls for escort and inner layer defence.. mmpv 90 3000nm range is limited by these ships will most likely be running around close to Australia or the pacific islands
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Hobart 2 will be built in Spain and the hunters will be the hulls used for ASW and most likely the next AAW destroyer.
So the design and build has been locked in.
The best thing the ADF can do is upgrade the OPV’s to corvettes and get more hulls for escort and inner layer defence.. mmpv 90 3000nm range is limited by these ships will most likely be running around close to Australia or the pacific islands
Have you built a Hobart? Or any ship for that matter?

A designer?

Maybe you've worked on sustaining naval platforms?

Possibly you are an engineer with experience on some of the systems involved?

Are you navy, ex navy, an operator or maintainer?

I'm not saying you have to be any of those to have an opinion, rather that those with actual experience are also allowed to have opinions and it doesn't look good to be constantly telling them how to suck eggs.
 

Tbone

Member
Final warning
Have you built a Hobart? Or any ship for that matter?

A designer?

Maybe you've worked on sustaining naval platforms?

Possibly you are an engineer with experience on some of the systems involved?

Are you navy, ex navy, an operator or maintainer?

I'm not saying you have to be any of those to have an opinion, rather that those with actual experience are also allowed to have opinions and it doesn't look good to be constantly telling them how to suck eggs.
Sounds like you are saying I have to be any of those.. very passive aggressive of you.

Again I was just mentioning the hunter class looks to be the hull the RAN will use going forward.
as the previous poster mentioned you are limited to what yothe fighting starts, what’s been designed or in production.

So I mentioned the Hunter class will most likely be the hull the RAN will use going forward especially if conflict erupts.

Hunter due in the early 30’s as an ASW vessel is the major combatant designed and in production.

BAE has already flagged a AAW variation of the Hunter Class so not sure how me mentioning this is telling people to suck eggs.

I would ask you not to get personal and stay on topic as this is a discussion on defence related matters.

@Tbone

You have been asked to justify the proposals you suggest. You have failed to respond to the last request to do this. You are emphatic that certain outcomes can be achieved without justifying it. This is quite frustrating to those that have been involved in the projects under discussion. You were asked to provide some evidence of professional and technical qualifications to support your opinion. So far these have not been provided and you continue to provoke.

A reasoned discussion is welcomed,.... so far you have not provided this.

You are on a formal warning. I strongly suggest you do some research to back up your opinions.

If your posting style does not improve then action will be taken. This is not the preferred option but stronly worded proposals and opionions need to be supported by some sort of evidence ....

Please provide some evidence of professional or technical qualifications to justify your assumptions.

alexsa
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sounds like you are saying I have to be any of those.. very passive aggressive of you.

Again I was just mentioning the hunter class looks to be the hull the RAN will use going forward.
as the previous poster mentioned you are limited to what yothe fighting starts, what’s been designed or in production.

So I mentioned the Hunter class will most likely be the hull the RAN will use going forward especially if conflict erupts.

Hunter due in the early 30’s as an ASW vessel is the major combatant designed and in production.

BAE has already flagged a AAW variation of the Hunter Class so not sure how me mentioning this is telling people to suck eggs.

I would ask you not to get personal and stay on topic as this is a discussion on defence related matters.
Did I hurt your feelings?

Nothing passive aggressive about it, more a warning growl. Simple fact, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are pushing your opinions non-stop, often over members who are some, most, or all of what I listed.

There are some extremely competent, capable and experienced people who have responded to you with carefully considered replies and guidance and they are starting to get annoyed.

Oh, I was the poster who mentioned about you fight with what you have and are currently building.

Also, some were pushing for a fourth AWD back in 2007/8, (it was actually costed) even discussing how we really should have been building six to nine of them to bring numbers back to the long-recognised minimum (as in every time a serious analysis has been done since the late 1950s 16 to 23 destroyers and frigates were determined to be the minimum necessary).

Ordering more Hobarts then made sense, now it doesn't, that doesn't mean it won't happen, just that it's not a very good idea. It is basically equivalent to building another three Darings for the RAN in the early 60s, or more to the point, building the last two DEs instead of something newer and more capable.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
At some point in the future the R.A.N may decide on the need for a replacement or even supplement to the Hobart ,at the moment the R.N is in the position of consideration of its future type 83 future A.A.W destroyer as U.S.N destroyers have been found to be too large for the R.A.N to operate and crew perhaps we could look at the Type 83 as Australia chose and developed the Hunter class
New British Type 83 Destroyer to enter concept phase next year (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If the type 83 is going to be a T26 derivative the Hunter at 10,000 tons is partly there already. Hopefully T83 will be a new hull that can accept two MT30s thus providing power for future directed energy weapons and a big missile load including hypersonic missiles. Probably 11-13,000 tons or about the same as the future USN destroyer. The UK will be hard pressed to afford this. A future AUKUS destroyer makes sense and would more affordable for the junior partners but I doubt the USN would compromise on their wish list.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
This article suggests that the future type 83 will not be based on the type 26 because of the amount of redesign of stealth features, not being a case of a few plugs , possibly power generation for future weapons like lasers may also being considered, but Australia did not choose the Arleigh Burkes because of manning considerations instead of the Hobarts ,so perhaps size and manning will be a factor as well as not disturbing the Hunter class frigate program , perhaps this is another problem for the government
Considerations for the Type 83 destroyer – the Royal Navy’s future anti air warfare combatant | Navy Lookout
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This article suggests that the future type 83 will not be based on the type 26 because of the amount of redesign of stealth features, not being a case of a few plugs , possibly power generation for future weapons like lasers may also being considered, but Australia did not choose the Arleigh Burkes because of manning considerations instead of the Hobarts ,so perhaps size and manning will be a factor as well as not disturbing the Hunter class frigate program , perhaps this is another problem for the government
Considerations for the Type 83 destroyer – the Royal Navy’s future anti air warfare combatant | Navy Lookout
New British Type 83 Destroyer...


I've copied in the 2nd link, as I'd like to clarify something.

x1 article is from April 2021, the 2nd from November 2021.

We are very nearly at 2 years since this data was 1st published & so far we know this :

The 'Type 83' will be the replacement for the Type 45 Destroyers & that they will start being delivered in the late 2030's.

Technically that is about all we can tangibly state is true.

From a logical deign perspective, the Type 26 hull form is a derivative, based loosely on the Type 45 & overall would be a good hull form to transition into a 10,000 - 15,000 GRT hull for use as a Destroyer, by adding 10m long plugs.

From an indigenous design route, having the Hunters & a Destroyer based on the same hull would speed up the ability for AUS to get the designs they want, in a shorter time than it would starting from scratch. Going down the US or SPA routes would cost a lot more, would mean compromises & would likely limit capability for AUS to do what it wanted with the equipment it has (i.e. pull-thru of current systems across classes, to help reduce training / spares costs). Continuity of systems may seem a backward step, as everyone wants the latest / Gucci equipment, but introducing new systems / equipment from a strategic need in increments, is a cheaper approach

SA
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I think the time has come for Australia to design our own ships rather than adapting short range Euro designs to fit our needs. Our operational environment is completely different to that of many other countries.

One of the he problems we are having with the Hunter class for example is that we are trying to add capabilities tthat were never intended for an ASW frigate.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I think the time has come for Australia to design our own ships rather than adapting short range Euro designs to fit our needs. Our operational environment is completely different to that of many other countries.

One of the he problems we are having with the Hunter class for example is that we are trying to add capabilities tthat were never intended for an ASW frigate.
I think we are in the same boat (LOL) as Canada in that perspective in the adding of capabilities , I'm not a naval architect or have those sort of detailed understandings of the Hunter class to suggest it could have a "plug or two" added , can understand the advantages in it though if feasible
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The Hobart 2 will be built in Spain and the hunters will be the hulls used for ASW and most likely the next AAW destroyer.
So the design and build has been locked in.
The best thing the ADF can do is upgrade the OPV’s to corvettes and get more hulls for escort and inner layer defence.. mmpv 90 3000nm range is limited by these ships will most likely be running around close to Australia or the pacific islands
And the above is illustrative of some of the problems encountered with posters here on DT. Namely that it contains some facts, some items which are likely opinion or conjecture, and some items which are asserted as though it is fact when it is at best an opinion.

Making the issue worse is that some of what is being asserted has been discussed here at length, in part because there are significant issues which most people are unaware of and the advocates for the ideas tend to gloss over or ignore.

For instance, gov't might decide to place an order from Navantia for new/more DDG's to be built like the Hobart-class, but it is by no means certain that it will happen. It has also been pointed out that there are some fairly significant obstacles to getting Aegis-equipped vessels in the timeframe that Spain has proposed. These obstacles might be able to be overcome, however they also might not be, and it would not be up to just Australia or Spain either.

As already mentioned, the Hunter-class is to be an ASW frigate with extra capabilities, so no issues there.

The hull (basic or future evolved) of the Hunter-class might be continued/re-used for when the Hobart-class DDG replacement programme starts. However, construction for these vessels is expected to commence once the Hunter-class build programme is completed, which is currently planned to run into the early 2040's IIRC. Predicting that something being built now, will be appropriate and re-used for something to be built starting some 20 years from now might be accurate, but could also be wildly off.

There has been talk here on DT about the potential viability for "upgunning" the OPV's, however there is no realistic way to "upgrade" OPV's into corvettes. This has to do with what capabilities are designed into a vessel and if certain capabilities and features were not included in the OPV design because it was not intended to be a combat vessel, then an OPV would be rather stuck. I suppose it might be possible for an OPV to be taken into a shipyard and then essentially dismantled and rebuilt to include certain features, but I suspect that would take as much or more time, and cost as much or more than just building a new vessel as a corvette from the beginning.

Despite what some of the commentators (who are not naval architects or others who would be aware of such issues) have said about the viability of turning an OPV into a proper warship. There are distinct limits on what can be done in terms of increasing the sensor and combat system capabilities due to limitations on space for the necessary electronics and sensor arrays, the power generation capacity of the vessel, and the cooling needed to run the electronics and emitters. It might be possible to increase some of all of these beyond what the OPV is capable of now, but that might require major modifications or a rebuild of the vessels internals and superstructure. The same holds true if one were to talk about making significant increases to the weapons fitout//firepower of the OPV. It appears that the 'A' position was designed to be fitted with a small calibre gun, at least up to a 40 mm. Trying to fit something larger like a 57 mm or even 76 mm could be an issue, depending on what is beneath the 'A' position and whether or not the vessel superstructure in that area was designed to handle the mass of a larger gun and magazine, as well as the stresses which would be experienced when firing such a weapon. The same holds true if other weapon systems were to be added elsewhere aboard the vessel. A good example of a potential here would be trying to place a missile launcher somewhere, without giving due consideration to where and what would be impacted by a launching missile's exhaust, or what the flight path might be when clearing the launcher and vessel. Failure to do this right could cause a ship to effectively blind itself because a radar system or even just the cabling to it was damaged by hot gasses from a launched missile.

Perhaps one of the most fundamental differences between a corvette and an OPV, aside from the weapons fitout, is the basic resiliency of the vessel itself. Something like a corvette should have some capacity to handle taking damage and have damage control potentially keep the vessel seaworthy. This might mean watertight compartments and doors, redundant power generation and distribution, or redundant fire containment/suppression systems. There could also be other elements of a ship's design and construction which would impact damage control that I am unaware of, but what I have already mentioned are things which would need to be included as part of the design, as they are not something which could be added later without making some significant alterations to a vessel.

Also, all the above are issues even before one considers whether or not the armaments which could be fitted to a vessel would be effective for the likely threats or whether the vessel's speed underway, endurance and fuel bunkerage/consumption would be worth while.

Also worth considering, a 3,000 n mile range for an Australian vessel really means that the vessel is going to stick close to the Australian landmass. That kind of range would enable a transit from Darwin to Cairns or similar distances, but an attempt to transit from FBE to the Solomons would be a one-way trip without either a fuel stop en route, or RAS by an AOR.
 
Top