Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

Yes they are, but that does not make them front line warships. As I hope most on this board understand, sensors, data capacity, non kinetic effectors and survivability all go to make up a full blown warship, as well as weapons.

Here yes, the average Aussie loungeroom or even average parliamentarian, sadly, no.

"Straya has a grouse army and navy, just look at all the Cape class battleships and Hawkie tanks! The air force sucks though because the F-35 is crap and we should have got those Sewkioyoyoy things Andrew Bolt says we need."

Even worse, smart people often have no idea. I talk people's ears off over defence matters and yet my wife was stunned at a news story about China and said, "but we have aircraft carriers?" And shocked when I said, "not since 1982", and went on to explain what we did have.

The danger is we will get armed OPVs and just as the FFGs became or alternate to DLGs (what we really needed) and ANZACs became or stand in for multi role destroyers, we may find tarted up OPVs as a very big part of our fleet.

 

[Flexson]

Really interesting comment. Care to elaborate?

Some people don't want to work on poorly built equipment with continual issues. It adds to work load and stress, whilst negatively impacting on job satisfaction and pride in your ship.

 

[Bob53]

Some people don't want to work on poorly built equipment with continual issues. It adds to work load and stress, whilst negatively impacting on job satisfaction and pride in your ship.

I was interested in this re the differences between Spanish built and Aussie built… I would assume it’s all the same but just strung together differently!

 

[Bob53]

Here yes, the average Aussie loungeroom or even average parliamentarian, sadly, no.

"Straya has a grouse army and navy, just look at all the Cape class battleships and Hawkie tanks! The air force sucks though because the F-35 is crap and we should have got those Sewkioyoyoy things Andrew Bolt says we need."

Even worse, smart people often have no idea. I talk people's ears off over defence matters and yet my wife was stunned at a news story about China and said, "but we have aircraft carriers?" And shocked when I said, "not since 1982", and went on to explain what we did have.

The danger is we will get armed OPVs and just as the FFGs became or alternate to DLGs (what we really needed) and ANZACs became or stand in for multi role destroyers, we may find tarted up OPVs as a very big part of our fleet.

I suspect this is what will happen. my guesstimate is We will reduce Hunters to 3 with the public story navy’s around the world are moving to smaller ships. We will get either up gunned corvettes or light frigates in their place and be sold on there are more of them…instead of 11 ships we are going to have 16 (3 Hobart, 3 Hunters and 10 lite ships that will be British design to make up for another major naval backflip ) so our navy is bigger and better…I will happily say I am wrong if I am .. but my tea leaves have generally been pretty good. I stir in a very large spoonful of scepticism anytime I think about government spending and in particular on defence. to keep the yards busy the sales team better get out to Wellington pronto and see if can tack 2-3 extra onto the lite ship order.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I thought the new buildings at civmec should have been future proofed from the beginning, the main hall should have had the same height across all 4 bays allowing any sized ship and not just 2 frigate/destroyer central and 2 opv/corvette either side. The blast and paint hall double the depth and height to accomodate any ship(not just opvs), the smaller fab workshop could have been the same size as the existing building but shipbuilding specific. The steel yard could have been moved to the otherside where the empty reserve is(next to asc)
Imo. going forward civmec should take over maintenance/upgrades instead of shipbuilding and the bae yard at Henderson demolished/upgraded and a new shipbuilding facility built. (300m x 600m block of land.)

Well bigger is better. They are pretty big already.
They are bigger than the new yards in Govan where they build large modules for the QE class. Our yards are way ahead of UK or US or Korean in terms of technology and layout. Most ship building nations are having to basically bulldoze and redevelop their ship building capabilities with new technologies in mind.

Work Begins on New Shipbuilding Hall at Govan

Work has already begun on a new shipbuilding hall at BAE Systems’ shipyard at Govan, Glasgow.

euro-sd.com

Gulf Coast Shipyards Growing Capacity While Navy Shipbuilding Plans Remain Unsettled - USNI News

PASCAGOULA, Miss. — From the fantail of the 24,000-ton Richard M. McCool, Jr., (LPD-29), one can see the world’s most complex warships coming together, with shipbuilders welding, painting and running cables in the Mississippi sun. Two Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers – Leah H...

news.usni.org

Whole blocks can go through the paint facilities anyway. So for bigger ships typically that would happen for builds and for maintenance, well the big hall can cater that without removing masts etc like most other yards have to do.

Osborne also has the new huge mega build halls. They can fit two hunters easily size by side.

CIVMEC was hoping to get some maintenance contracts, but so far they have been a bit out in the cold for that.

However, obviously, with a bigger RAN, American ships, UK ships etc, that may be possible.

Based on what can be read it appears that this is just Babcock doing what Navantia and NVL have already done. Until the Navy surface fleet review has been completed and the CoA make a decision on how to achieve any or all of the review recommendations, these 'offers' are just commercial posturing. The reality is that it will be just Australia that may be looking for a new class of vessel.

It is, however Babcock doesn't have a builder either locally or internationally lined up to deliver. They do seem to be pitching at replacing Hunters with something else and building them at Osborne. Even if we cut back hunter numbers I can't see Australia building any less than 6.

But there is also a timeframe challenge for this. The Spanish proposal was very, very aggressive on timeframe.

 

[Reptilia]

Well bigger is better. They are pretty big already.
They are bigger than the new yards in Govan where they build large modules for the QE class. Our yards are way ahead of UK or US or Korean in terms of technology and layout. Most ship building nations are having to basically bulldoze and redevelop their ship building capabilities with new technologies in mind.

Work Begins on New Shipbuilding Hall at Govan

Work has already begun on a new shipbuilding hall at BAE Systems’ shipyard at Govan, Glasgow.

euro-sd.com

Gulf Coast Shipyards Growing Capacity While Navy Shipbuilding Plans Remain Unsettled - USNI News

PASCAGOULA, Miss. — From the fantail of the 24,000-ton Richard M. McCool, Jr., (LPD-29), one can see the world’s most complex warships coming together, with shipbuilders welding, painting and running cables in the Mississippi sun. Two Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers – Leah H...

news.usni.org

Whole blocks can go through the paint facilities anyway. So for bigger ships typically that would happen for builds and for maintenance, well the big hall can cater that without removing masts etc like most other yards have to do.

Osborne also has the new huge mega build halls. They can fit two hunters easily size by side.

CIVMEC was hoping to get some maintenance contracts, but so far they have been a bit out in the cold for that.

However, obviously, with a bigger RAN, American ships, UK ships etc, that may be possible.


It is, however Babcock doesn't have a builder either locally or internationally lined up to deliver. They do seem to be pitching at replacing Hunters with something else and building them at Osborne. Even if we cut back hunter numbers I can't see Australia building any less than 6.

But there is also a timeframe challenge for this. The Spanish proposal was very, very aggressive on timeframe.

if we end up with Arrowheads 140 or 120, those 2 outer bays in the main assembly hall will have to be modified at some stage you would think, if the arrowheads are built at civmec that is. Once completed with the mast, they won’t fit in those outer bays.

bae Osborne yard also could get blocks made much faster, the Italians have an automated panel line, now the u.s do for the constellation class.
Bae could have duel plasma cutters, another shape former, second unit assembly line for smaller blocks, more robots. More skilled workers would be needed in other areas of the yard to reduce construction time, = more $$$

5 Hunters lines up nicely with destroyer replacement time wise. BAE won’t care too much aslong as the follow on is a type 26 destroyer or type 83.

 

[StingrayOZ]

if we end up with Arrowheads 140 or 120, those 2 outer bays in the main assembly hall will have to be modified at some stage you would think, if the arrowheads are built at civmec that is. Once completed with the mast, they won’t fit in those outer bays.

That isn't a huge issue. Many ships are completely built outside, having the mast removed is fairly common. TBH not sure if all build and fitout would happen at Henderson.

Civmec has a east coast operation at tomago, or more likely they would have to go to osborne for radar etc anyway.

5 Hunters lines up nicely with destroyer replacement time wise. BAE won’t care too much aslong as the follow on is a type 26 destroyer or type 83.

BAE is concerned about work and money. If BAE has work and money, who cares? Its like NVL changing from OPV80 to OPV90 for the last half of the build. They don't really care, particularly if gov is paying.

 

[Volkodav]

There is no one right answer but plenty of wrong ones.

A medium sized ship with a minimum capability in greater numbers would work. As would smaller numbers of larger, more capable ships, supported by smaller ships.

Too few large ships, supported by too weak a small ship would not work. Nor would reduced numbers of medium ships, supported by small ships.

Every generation our "big" ships have shrunk in size and capability, compared to global best practice.

Each generation we seem to accept a greater gap in size and capability, then spend big trying to close it through upgrades. When it's time for a new platform we then tend to go for what would have been good enough a decade earlier but has no or limited growth potential.

 

[Volkodav]

A segway from my earlier post about people thinking the army and navy are well equipped and the RAAF is the red headed step child with hand me down and thrift store reject stuff.

What if RAN and army were equipped and organised more like the RAAF?

That is, the greatest numbers of the best capability that could afforded, supported by sufficient numbers of complementary systems, all adequately sustained, and entire capabilities regenerated at regular intervals.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We will need more than 12 surface combatants. We had more than 12 when times were more certain and risks were lower.

Despite the very much deteriorating global situation, worse than even projections had made, we are less capable and have older ships than expected. The Anzacs were supposed to be half way through getting replaced by now, our Collins replacement was meant to be in the water. It goes beyond the RAN, our F-35's can't fire our primary antishipping missile, m113's still make up most of the armys IVF capability. But those can be fixed or augmented.

The issue with the RAN is each unit is a huge investment in time and money and people, and takes years to build, there is no stock of warships we can just buy from like with any other unit type.

There needs to be more consistency in RAN acquisitions over longer periods of time.

If we wanted to build a lot of small ships we certainly could though.

Civmec Henderson has 187m hall so should still be able to fit 2 x OPV90 in each bay.

Austal also has 4 x nearly 100m bays in Henderson. I would imagine we would be more limited in our ability to fit a ship out than build halls to build them in. But they are configured for aluminium and have only a 2000t slipway.

Henderson Shipbuilding Operations and Service Capabilities

Austal Australia’s Henderson shipbuilding and service facilities comprise: Land Area 78,344m² Office Area 2,055m² Building Halls Bay 3 93.0m long x 21.0m wide x 14.9m high Bay 4 95.0m long x 30.0m wide x 21.8m high Bay 5 99.0m long x 35.0m wide x 21.8m high Bay 6 99.0m long x 23.0m wide x 14.9m...

australia.austal.com

Moving above 90m would make building capacity more limited and slower. This might be a reason why AUSGOV may choose a OPV90 over say a small 110m frigate etc. If more hulls faster is critical for them. While air is free and steel is cheap, build halls are limited. If you go larger than 90m then you might as well go big and build 140-170m ships. From a build hall point of view.

The A140 would be an interesting design. But no one really has it speced out just like Australia would want. Im not sure Babcock and BAE will be happy to work together, on a babcock design. I don't know enough about their dynamic. Would they get along or not at all, are we looking at a Thales and Naval group type issue.

At the same time the Americans are building a shit ton of Constellation class. But again, who would be prime for such a build and who would build it and who is able to accelerate the contracting and supplier portion.

Cutting back hunters any less than 6 would be pretty bad from a SME point of view.

 

[Redlands18]

We will need more than 12 surface combatants. We had more than 12 when times were more certain and risks were lower.

Despite the very much deteriorating global situation, worse than even projections had made, we are less capable and have older ships than expected. The Anzacs were supposed to be half way through getting replaced by now, our Collins replacement was meant to be in the water. It goes beyond the RAN, our F-35's can't fire our primary antishipping missile, m113's still make up most of the armys IVF capability. But those can be fixed or augmented.

The issue with the RAN is each unit is a huge investment in time and money and people, and takes years to build, there is no stock of warships we can just buy from like with any other unit type.

There needs to be more consistency in RAN acquisitions over longer periods of time.

If we wanted to build a lot of small ships we certainly could though.

Civmec Henderson has 187m hall so should still be able to fit 2 x OPV90 in each bay.

Austal also has 4 x nearly 100m bays in Henderson. I would imagine we would be more limited in our ability to fit a ship out than build halls to build them in. But they are configured for aluminium and have only a 2000t slipway.

Henderson Shipbuilding Operations and Service Capabilities

Austal Australia’s Henderson shipbuilding and service facilities comprise: Land Area 78,344m² Office Area 2,055m² Building Halls Bay 3 93.0m long x 21.0m wide x 14.9m high Bay 4 95.0m long x 30.0m wide x 21.8m high Bay 5 99.0m long x 35.0m wide x 21.8m high Bay 6 99.0m long x 23.0m wide x 14.9m...

australia.austal.com

Moving above 90m would make building capacity more limited and slower. This might be a reason why AUSGOV may choose a OPV90 over say a small 110m frigate etc. If more hulls faster is critical for them. While air is free and steel is cheap, build halls are limited. If you go larger than 90m then you might as well go big and build 140-170m ships. From a build hall point of view.

The A140 would be an interesting design. But no one really has it speced out just like Australia would want. Im not sure Babcock and BAE will be happy to work together, on a babcock design. I don't know enough about their dynamic. Would they get along or not at all, are we looking at a Thales and Naval group type issue.

At the same time the Americans are building a shit ton of Constellation class. But again, who would be prime for such a build and who would build it and who is able to accelerate the contracting and supplier portion.

Cutting back hunters any less than 6 would be pretty bad from a SME point of view.

The Constellation class are actually 2m longer than the Type 26 but about 1m narrower.
Blohm+Voss | NVL
NVL is actually the parent company of Blohm+Voss so the entire range of Meko designs would be available to NVL, to build at Henderson.

 

[Volkodav]

The entire idea of a continuous shipbuilding program was to get away from the inefficient boom and bust cycle that saw us spending huge sums of money upgrading old worn-out ships while rebuilding the capability to build new ones because the capability that had been established the last time around had withered and died over a decade or so with no work.

Building low value for money corvettes at Austal, to permit construction of light frigates, that don't do what the RAN needs from major combatants, at Civmec, all paid for by reducing the number and duration of the build of the ships that actually come closest to meeting RAN requirements, at Osborne, makes the problem worse.

There will be three yards left with no work by the mid 2030s, the RAN will have half a dozen tactically useless over priced tarted up OPVs, half a dozen too small impossible to upgrade frigates that lack AEGIS and the ability to be upgraded with ABM, and maybe six ships that have the minimum required capability all heading for block obsolescence.

The by then, near end of life Hobart's, may or may not be planned to be replaced and the shipbuilding industry will have died by 2045 when it is needed again.

Rince repeat.

 

[hauritz]

We will need more than 12 surface combatants. We had more than 12 when times were more certain and risks were lower.

Despite the very much deteriorating global situation, worse than even projections had made, we are less capable and have older ships than expected. The Anzacs were supposed to be half way through getting replaced by now, our Collins replacement was meant to be in the water. It goes beyond the RAN, our F-35's can't fire our primary antishipping missile, m113's still make up most of the armys IVF capability. But those can be fixed or augmented.

The issue with the RAN is each unit is a huge investment in time and money and people, and takes years to build, there is no stock of warships we can just buy from like with any other unit type.

There needs to be more consistency in RAN acquisitions over longer periods of time.

If we wanted to build a lot of small ships we certainly could though.

Civmec Henderson has 187m hall so should still be able to fit 2 x OPV90 in each bay.

Austal also has 4 x nearly 100m bays in Henderson. I would imagine we would be more limited in our ability to fit a ship out than build halls to build them in. But they are configured for aluminium and have only a 2000t slipway.

Henderson Shipbuilding Operations and Service Capabilities

Austal Australia’s Henderson shipbuilding and service facilities comprise: Land Area 78,344m² Office Area 2,055m² Building Halls Bay 3 93.0m long x 21.0m wide x 14.9m high Bay 4 95.0m long x 30.0m wide x 21.8m high Bay 5 99.0m long x 35.0m wide x 21.8m high Bay 6 99.0m long x 23.0m wide x 14.9m...

australia.austal.com

Moving above 90m would make building capacity more limited and slower. This might be a reason why AUSGOV may choose a OPV90 over say a small 110m frigate etc. If more hulls faster is critical for them. While air is free and steel is cheap, build halls are limited. If you go larger than 90m then you might as well go big and build 140-170m ships. From a build hall point of view.

The A140 would be an interesting design. But no one really has it speced out just like Australia would want. Im not sure Babcock and BAE will be happy to work together, on a babcock design. I don't know enough about their dynamic. Would they get along or not at all, are we looking at a Thales and Naval group type issue.

At the same time the Americans are building a shit ton of Constellation class. But again, who would be prime for such a build and who would build it and who is able to accelerate the contracting and supplier portion.

Cutting back hunters any less than 6 would be pretty bad from a SME point of view.

Some excellent points.

There are several things worth considering. Wars can still go on for years. Even when a tiny power such as the Ukraine goes against a super power such as Russia it can hold out almost indefinitely. This could be time to put plenty of smaller ships into production. In Australia’s case we built a huge number of Bathurst class corvettes during WW2. There were 60 banged out between 1940 and 1942.

Building capital ships during war years is a lot more problematic though.

If a war were to break out tomorrow Australia would only have a handful of capital ships and would be incredibly reliant on accelerating production of ships such as the Arafura class. Let that sink in.

The time to build as many tier one vessels as possible is actually peace time. Tier two is still important but should still not be prioritised in production unless war is pretty much inevitable.

Perhaps the best way going forward is to keep the Hunter class as is and if anything look at accelerating production. At the same time maybe replace the Arafura class in production with something like the C90. Don’t necessarily build them in big numbers but merely having them in serial production gives you a chance to rapidly accelerate production in a crisis.

 

[Stampede]

Some excellent points.

There are several things worth considering. Wars can still go on for years. Even when a tiny power such as the Ukraine goes against a super power such as Russia it can hold out almost indefinitely. This could be time to put plenty of smaller ships into production. In Australia’s case we built a huge number of Bathurst class corvettes during WW2. There were 60 banged out between 1940 and 1942.

Building capital ships during war years is a lot more problematic though.

If a war were to break out tomorrow Australia would only have a handful of capital ships and would be incredibly reliant on accelerating production of ships such as the Arafura class. Let that sink in.

The time to build as many tier one vessels as possible is actually peace time. Tier two is still important but should still not be prioritised in production unless war is pretty much inevitable.

Perhaps the best way going forward is to keep the Hunter class as is and if anything look at accelerating production. At the same time maybe replace the Arafura class in production with something like the C90. Don’t necessarily build them in big numbers but merely having them in serial production gives you a chance to rapidly accelerate production in a crisis.

In a perfect world we would have a continuous ship building plan to replace every vessel within the RAN and Army.
We can aspire to achieve that end, but at the end of the day we have to work with the reality that what we have today and the near future is not what we desire.
We can argue the history, but it is what it is!

So do we stick with the long term plan to achieve an idealistic consistency in ship building service and replacement out for the next forty years?

Or do we try and find a balance to get greater maritime capacity ASAP and acknowledge it will have a potentially detrimental affect in the years ahead?

If we really want to walk the talk that is the gloom and doom suggested in the various reviews of recent times, then increased prudent and realistic military capacity should be sort.

Argue what that looks like, but I'd suggest that is the way forward until the Hunters and SSN's arrive in meaningful numbers to boost the RAN's deterrence capability.

What vessel and in what numbers, with what capability,can we get as a bridging capability ASAP?

Cheers S

 

[Todjaeger]

In a perfect world we would have a continuous ship building plan to replace every vessel within the RAN and Army.
We can aspire to achieve that end, but at the end of the day we have to work with the reality that what we have today and the near future is not what we desire.
We can argue the history, but it is what it is!

So do we stick with the long term plan to achieve an idealistic consistency in ship building service and replacement out for the next forty years?

Or do we try and find a balance to get greater maritime capacity ASAP and acknowledge it will have a potentially detrimental affect in the years ahead?

If we really want to walk the talk that is the gloom and doom suggested in the various reviews of recent times, then increased prudent and realistic military capacity should be sort.

Argue what that looks like, but I'd suggest that is the way forward until the Hunters and SSN's arrive in meaningful numbers to boost the RAN's deterrence capability.

What vessel and in what numbers, with what capability,can we get as a bridging capability ASAP?

Cheers S

A point I keep raising as the implications do not seem to be sinking in, is what would be a realistic timeline for an "ASAP" acquisition, and how long before the first units could be available for service.

More hulls could certainly be put into the water for the RAN, but if one was desiring combatants, there would be little sense in having even patrol frigates built if they are to be kitted out comparably to the Arafura-class OPV's. Without a fitout which includes capable radar, sonar and EO systems, as well as a combat data system to collect and collate that and other target data, then one would end up having a basic hull without much in the way of capabilities.

One errant thought which did occur to me, is whether there might be some value to the RAN in having new patrol boats built along the lines of the updated Hamina-class FAC in service with the Finnish Navy. One of the caveats with this thought though is that any such FAC would be to either augment or replace in service ACPB's and/or evolved Cape-class patrol boats. One of the other caveats with this though is that these vessels have much shorter legs than even the current RAN patrol boats, one of the trade-offs involved in fitting respectable firepower into such a small design. To make such an idea really work, the RAN would need to distribute small numbers of such a FAC across all RAN facilities as well as potentially open a few new shore establishments to base and support said vessels.

 

[Stampede]

The golden question

" what would be a realistic timeline for an "ASAP" acquisition, and how long before the first units could be available for service."

Others could advise, but I'm confident we wont see a Hunter Class frigate this side of 2030.
In fact our surface fleet will shortly look problematic for six years while the Hobarts go through a major refit and going into the 2030's the ANZAC's will be that much older and less capable in comparative terms to today.

Realistically late 30's for a meaningful number of Hunters to provide the type of service we want.

So ASAP would ideally be today ; but realistically any time table that provides improved capability quicker than the above time table.

Leave what that looks like to those that know.

Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

Be interesting to see how HMAS Maitland and its autonomous sea trials go later this year or is it now next year?. If it is proven within the next 2-3 years, austal could build 3(maybe even 4) autonomous evolved capes a year. That’s potentially 12-16 by 2030. What armament could they carry?

Photo of Evolved cape on Austals page

Autonomous Ships

ACCELERATING A SMART PATH TO AUTONOMOUS CAPABILITY Austal is working closely with the United States Navy and Royal Australian Navy to integrate and enhance - not replace – the mission capability of crewed platforms. Working together with government and Industry, we will transform, and improve...

www.austal.com

 

[Julian 82]

Some excellent points.

There are several things worth considering. Wars can still go on for years. Even when a tiny power such as the Ukraine goes against a super power such as Russia it can hold out almost indefinitely. This could be time to put plenty of smaller ships into production. In Australia’s case we built a huge number of Bathurst class corvettes during WW2. There were 60 banged out between 1940 and 1942.

Building capital ships during war years is a lot more problematic though.

If a war were to break out tomorrow Australia would only have a handful of capital ships and would be incredibly reliant on accelerating production of ships such as the Arafura class. Let that sink in.

The time to build as many tier one vessels as possible is actually peace time. Tier two is still important but should still not be prioritised in production unless war is pretty much inevitable.

Perhaps the best way going forward is to keep the Hunter class as is and if anything look at accelerating production. At the same time maybe replace the Arafura class in production with something like the C90. Don’t necessarily build them in big numbers but merely having them in serial production gives you a chance to rapidly accelerate production in a crisis.

The C90 will be a terrible platform for the RAN. Especially if it comes at the expense of a Hunter (or equivalent FFG). The 16 cell VLS is for MiCA missiles. Not quad packed ESSM. If you start packing it with weapons and sophisticated sensors you are eating into range.

If we are looking for an alternative or cheaper supplement to Hunter, we need to look at the Arrowhead 140. Keep it simple and pull through the systems, sensors and weapons from our modernised ANZAC frigates. No need to put AEGIS on it. CEAFAR and existing SAAB combat system should suffice. ESSM block 2 quad packed and NSM. Get the kiwis on board if they are keen and call it a day.

The C90 is fine for the Black Sea and Bulgaria but it won’t cut it for our area of operations. It’s crew is not much less than an Arrowhead so it is waste of our limited manpower.

 

[H_K]

The golden question

" what would be a realistic timeline for an "ASAP" acquisition, and how long before the first units could be available for service."

I don’t often comment here but I can answer this one.

If Civmec is as good as the best foreign yards, you’re looking at 2 years to build a ~3,000 ton light frigate, from first steel cut to first sea trials. Add ~8 months from contract signing to start of build, and ~4 months for builders trials and delivery.

So total ~ 3 years from contract signing. That’s the best case, using an off-the-shelf design already integrated with US weapons (luckily ESSM, NSM, RAM, MH-60 are common on the export market) and European sensors (Thales sonars & radars most likely).

Not sure that customizing with the RAN’s preferred radar (CEAFAR) and combat system (Saab 9LV) would be realistic… that would add delays and introduce risk.

Assuming the review is finalized in Q3 23, a program decision made in Q4, an accelerated selection process run in Q1-Q2 24, contract negotiations finalized in Q3 24 (all wildly optimistic assumptions) that puts your earliest delivery towards the tail end of 2027, with entry in service in 2028.

To end on a slightly more optimistic note, I do believe you can get solid all-domain capability and decent endurance on a ~3,000-3,500 ton hull, with fairly minor hull plugs needed to the existing designs from Damen/ Fincantieri/ Naval Group/ TKMS (which are all very modular) to increase fuel bunkerage and VLS capacity to fit 32 ESSM (+21 RAM) which would be quite sufficient for AA defence.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don’t often comment here but I can answer this one.

If Civmec is as good as the best foreign yards, you’re looking at 2 years to build a ~3,000 ton light frigate, from first steel cut to first sea trials. Add ~8 months from contract signing to start of build, and ~4 months for builders trials and delivery.

So total ~ 3 years from contract signing. That’s the best case, using an off-the-shelf design already integrated with US weapons (luckily ESSM, NSM, RAM, MH-60 are common on the export market) and European sensors (Thales sonars & radars most likely).

Not sure that customizing with the RAN’s preferred radar (CEAFAR) and combat system (Saab 9LV) would be realistic… that would add delays and introduce risk.

Assuming the review is finalized in Q3 23, a program decision made in Q4, an accelerated selection process run in Q1-Q2 24, contract negotiations finalized in Q3 24 (all wildly optimistic assumptions) that puts your earliest delivery towards the tail end of 2027, with entry in service in 2028.

To end on a slightly more optimistic note, I do believe you can get solid all-domain capability and decent endurance on a ~3,000-3,500 ton hull, with fairly minor hull plugs needed to the existing designs from Damen/ Fincantieri/ Naval Group/ TKMS (which are all very modular) to increase fuel bunkerage and VLS capacity to fit 32 ESSM (+21 RAM) which would be quite sufficient for AA defence.

I would anticipate the minimum time to get a new design built and into service is actually a bit more than a three-year best case scenario, with two major stumbling blocks.

The first would be how long between when some of the advanced systems might get ordered and when they would be delivered ready for installation aboard a hull under construction or fitting out? Consider for instance the timeline for SEA 1300, which selected NSM as the AShM replacement for Harpoon in RAN service. This selection was made last year, with the contract signed at the beginning of this year, with first deliveries expect to start some time in 2024. I could be mistaken, but I would imagine that acquiring and integrating a new AShM would be a bit faster and easier than having new sensor modules, work stations and then the combat data system built, tested and integrated. Even if the systems are readily available for export orders, they would still need to be built since I highly doubt that any of the manufacturers have such systems sitting in warehouses awaiting sale.

Related to the above, if any such build was to feature new to Australia kit, time would also need to be allocated to establishing the appropriate maintenance and supply chains to keep the new kit functional. Furthermore, there would also need to be time allotted to training personnel on the new systems and building experience with maintaining and operating them. IMO this would be particularly true if new vessels were fitted with something other than the 9LV CMS that the RAN has adopted was fitted, as how things would display to operators would likely be different from what they are used to, as well as how the operator would interact with a workstation and the CMS to achieve an outcome.