Can you get behind the paywall for us?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Any chance VADM William H Hilarides has mates and he feeding them a custom spec to budget?Now to really put the fox in the hen house.
Gibbs & Cox Australian Light Frigate for Tier 2 | Gibbs & Cox Australia posted on the topic | LinkedIn
Australia needs Tier 2 combatants, and they need punch when they show up. The Gibbs & Cox Australian Light Frigate (AUSLF) delivers serious combat impact in… | 17 comments on LinkedInwww.linkedin.com
And yes, it lacks a medium calibre gun.
I do wonder how hard it would be to fit a 57 or 76mm if required.
I’d be highly skeptical of any Gibbs & Cox offering.
Their last clean sheet design was DDG-51 four decades ago. They haven’t designed a frigate from scratch in recent memory and they act more as a design agent / consultancy than as a prime, ie. they are not accountable for the complete design, system integration etc, just the platform. And recently they’ve always leveraged existing platforms as a starting point for LCS-1 and FFG-62.
If G&C are throwing their hat in the ring with what’s basically an unproven paper design (with some tenuous link to FFG-62), this may mean that the market believes that Australia is unlikely to follow a robust competitive process and that there is a window or opportunity to push for an arbitrary « captain’s choice » especially for those suppliers with strong US or UK links.
Their last clean sheet design was DDG-51 four decades ago. They haven’t designed a frigate from scratch in recent memory and they act more as a design agent / consultancy than as a prime, ie. they are not accountable for the complete design, system integration etc, just the platform. And recently they’ve always leveraged existing platforms as a starting point for LCS-1 and FFG-62.
If G&C are throwing their hat in the ring with what’s basically an unproven paper design (with some tenuous link to FFG-62), this may mean that the market believes that Australia is unlikely to follow a robust competitive process and that there is a window or opportunity to push for an arbitrary « captain’s choice » especially for those suppliers with strong US or UK links.
Last edited:
Suspect the reference design may be the Fremms for Indonesia, although if so the 26 date is probably just a little optimistic.
This little black duck would not take a frigate without a main gun. However, INDOPAC is about to start and one always sees a bunch of slightly out there designs at that. Not going this year, can’t be bothered with Sydney, but I’m sure they’ll be well covered by the specialist media, Xavier for example.
This little black duck would not take a frigate without a main gun. However, INDOPAC is about to start and one always sees a bunch of slightly out there designs at that. Not going this year, can’t be bothered with Sydney, but I’m sure they’ll be well covered by the specialist media, Xavier for example.
Basically Hunters cut to four and the build moved to Glasgow.
Unclear what would replace them in the queue at Osborne.
Seems like BS but who knows?
Doesn't look much like a FREMM, but that doesn't rule out FREMM as a basis for it. Calling a FREMM-based ship a "light" frigate seems to be pushing the boundary a bit, though. I didn't think F125 had become the standard. Would that make Type 23 a light corvette?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Does sound like a fair bit of BS, stopping a build at 4 vessels and moving it 12,000 miles would make very little sense. Just as well keep building Hunters at Osborne and build the "replacement" Overseas.
I highly doubt they move blocks overseas or stop the current production of the first Hunter. 5 of 22 blocks are already in various stages of construction. 1 + 4 or 2 + 4 potentially.
The Osborne main hall(190m x 90m x 50m) is bigger than even the new Glasgow hall under construction (170m x 80m x 46m). Possibly we build the destroyers/cruisers (around 170-180m) with ceafar or 3 ddgs(Hunter hull) and the u.k build our frigates (150m) where a drumbeat of 1 every 1.5 years is looking likely. That could potentially reduce the cost of each Hunter class Frigate.
Last edited:
I could understand a foreign purchase of a couple of ships in the near term to boost numbers asap.
The appeal of navantia offer.
That said I don't think it is either realistic or will happen.
As to a long term build of Frigates / destroyers overseas for the RAN.
Wont happen for many reasons, one of which is it would be political death for the party making the call.
Newspaper click bait
Cheers S
In a recent interview by Kym Bergmann with the chief of Navy VADM M Hammond , the Admiral stated our Hobart class were tier one ships and our Anzac class were tier two ships.
Maybe a pointer as to what we can expect in vessel size and class going forward.
Cheers S
Maybe a pointer as to what we can expect in vessel size and class going forward.
Cheers S
The US has its own crisis with submarines. They need more servicing capacity and ideally more build capacity.
The reason the Americans are willing to give us a Virginia has more about their problems than it has to do with Australia's needs.
Why would we go to Glasgow? Smaller yard, less capacity, less sovereignty, more expensive and UK build speed and costs aren't setting any benchmarks on fire. Building two of something and then moving production elsewhere is absolutely the worst economical model.
Mu90 has a 25 km range as launched from a ship. Perhaps one of the reasons why the RAN was so pursuant of the Mu90 over the mk54. But the ships carry Mk54 for the MH60Rs and we used them on the P8s.
If the RAN was interested in missile launched torpedos, they would probably look at MILAS, as its the rocket launched MU90. Launched from canisters, so TLAM would not be affected, we would just be removing box antiship missiles instead.
Again, I am not sure we need 30-50km launch capability from the ship. I am not sure ship sensors like a hull mounted sonar can detect subs that far for a realistic firing solution. If we are chasing things that far away, a helicopter or P8 would be much more effective and provide a lot more capability in sensor and area to cover.
Thats a lot of boxed launchers.Now to really put the fox in the hen house.
And yes, it lacks a medium calibre gun.Gibbs & Cox Australian Light Frigate for Tier 2 | Gibbs & Cox Australia posted on the topic | LinkedIn
Australia needs Tier 2 combatants, and they need punch when they show up. The Gibbs & Cox Australian Light Frigate (AUSLF) delivers serious combat impact in… | 17 comments on LinkedIn
I do wonder how hard it would be to fit a 57 or 76mm if required.
Maybe its not just VLS that the RAN is looking for. Perhaps with box launchers there is some capability of keeping some flex space and box launchers as required.
I think the RAN should have a look at 76mm capability for smaller ships. It is at least something we are familiar with.
Edit: The sub 100 crew is interesting.. Wonder what the ship is based on..
Last edited:
Tongue in cheek I presume but his analysis has been with govt for a while so there are plenty of possible sources.
If those are the requirements that went out then, unlike Arafura, there will be no difficulties with integrating the main gun!
Anyone seen this ??
HUNTER - November 2023 update from BAE
Sae this on my LinkedIn feed earlier today...
HUNTER - November 2023 update from BAE
Sae this on my LinkedIn feed earlier today...
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Interestingly the length is given as 151.4m, compared to the baseline Type 26 which has always been given as 149.9m, but the Canadian CSC version has always been given as 151.4m.
Also light ship displacement of 8200 tons. This compares to 6900 tons for the baseline Type 26. So it will be a helty ship.
What may also be of interest to Australia is that BAE Systems is to design and deliver a new deck launching system to the US navy. NGELS willbbe designed to operate surface to air and surface to surface missile systems for operations off flattop vessels in the USN.
BAE Systems awarded Next Generation Launcher design contract
BAE Systems was awarded a $37 million U.S. Department of Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC) contract to design the Next Generation Evolved SeaSparrow Missile Launch System (NGELS). The company will support the NATO SeaSparrow Program Office (NSPO) to design and deliver prototype deck...
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Reading this thread as someone not as knowledgeable as most (possibly any) of you, I am trying to get my head around what the dilemmas are here for Australia in regard to our surface fleet (such as it is). It seems to me that there is a drive to have more warships, but there is real concern that the number we have will actually fall long before it gets better.
My understanding being that we don't expect the first Hunter to be commissioned now until 2032 at the earliest, and that they will then be delivered two years apart. But Anzac herself will be 36 years old in 2032, and by the time the eighth Hunter is delivered in 2046 (at that rate of one every two years) the youngest Anzac, Perth, would have been in commission for 40 years.
I understand that there are doubts the Anzacs will last, in spite of their upgrade program, and there are crewing challenges, and speculation now too that the Hunters are to be cut to six ships, and that we then might go for an AAW version for the last three, and/or that we might get another class in the nearer term to deliver a larger fleet sooner, with tier 1 and tier 2 warships being discussed too. Most of it is speculation I guess.
I can see the logic in acquiring another class of warship sooner - like ASAP - maybe even built overseas to both ensure our existing fleet doesn't diminish in size and to instead try to grow the numbers.
Ideally, but also realistically though, what are we looking at? Could we get four ships ordered and delivered on a similar-ish schedule to the Hunters, preferably sped up to one every 18 months, so that we could replace the Anzacs one for one by, say, the end of 2037? Then the fifth and sixth Hunters would be extras, taking the force to 13 ships, and next an AAW version or a whole new class of maybe six could take us to 16, with the last three of those replacing the Hobarts from 2047 (when Hobart herself will be 30 years old)?
Is building an extra class - basically an interim frigate or maybe something more capable - and quickly the only way to guarantee our existing numbers and build up the surface force sooner? If so, is it feasible to build it here or is it best to look overseas? I'm really interested in the bigger picture thoughts here. Hope I'm making sense.
And just for a very left-field thought, could we be interested in looking to a country like Finland which is building a class of four corvettes (really light frigates) that will hit the water at a rate of one a year through to 2031? Only came across that program because it is the same shipyard that is building the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries.
My understanding being that we don't expect the first Hunter to be commissioned now until 2032 at the earliest, and that they will then be delivered two years apart. But Anzac herself will be 36 years old in 2032, and by the time the eighth Hunter is delivered in 2046 (at that rate of one every two years) the youngest Anzac, Perth, would have been in commission for 40 years.
I understand that there are doubts the Anzacs will last, in spite of their upgrade program, and there are crewing challenges, and speculation now too that the Hunters are to be cut to six ships, and that we then might go for an AAW version for the last three, and/or that we might get another class in the nearer term to deliver a larger fleet sooner, with tier 1 and tier 2 warships being discussed too. Most of it is speculation I guess.
I can see the logic in acquiring another class of warship sooner - like ASAP - maybe even built overseas to both ensure our existing fleet doesn't diminish in size and to instead try to grow the numbers.
Ideally, but also realistically though, what are we looking at? Could we get four ships ordered and delivered on a similar-ish schedule to the Hunters, preferably sped up to one every 18 months, so that we could replace the Anzacs one for one by, say, the end of 2037? Then the fifth and sixth Hunters would be extras, taking the force to 13 ships, and next an AAW version or a whole new class of maybe six could take us to 16, with the last three of those replacing the Hobarts from 2047 (when Hobart herself will be 30 years old)?
Is building an extra class - basically an interim frigate or maybe something more capable - and quickly the only way to guarantee our existing numbers and build up the surface force sooner? If so, is it feasible to build it here or is it best to look overseas? I'm really interested in the bigger picture thoughts here. Hope I'm making sense.
And just for a very left-field thought, could we be interested in looking to a country like Finland which is building a class of four corvettes (really light frigates) that will hit the water at a rate of one a year through to 2031? Only came across that program because it is the same shipyard that is building the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries.
WRT building overseas, if & as long as, domestic shipyards are already at capacity I don’t see a drama in expediting builds overseas.
I guess it might be influenced by how it’s explained, as an unfulfilled strategic capability imperative despite already building at capacity.
There might be some argument from that scenario of actually expanding ship building yet further, but that’d be a longer term scenario.
Also, domestic concerns could perhaps be mitigated by arranging greater share of fit outs to be completed domestically and involving domestic industry in ongoing maintenance?
I guess it might be influenced by how it’s explained, as an unfulfilled strategic capability imperative despite already building at capacity.
There might be some argument from that scenario of actually expanding ship building yet further, but that’d be a longer term scenario.
Also, domestic concerns could perhaps be mitigated by arranging greater share of fit outs to be completed domestically and involving domestic industry in ongoing maintenance?
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I am concerned that we are getting so far behind with shipbuilding that, assuming the current programs continue, we are still so far behind replacing our aging fleet that we almost need an overseas supplemental build to catch up. That is, a short term overseas build PLUS continuing local shipbuilding is the answer to our timing problem.