Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

To those involved, the F100 selection was not a surprise.

I copped a very stern look when I commented at the time that the F-100 looked like it was going to get up after bids for a fourth ship were requested.

Some I know were very surprised but those closer to the technical.elements weren't. It was only later I discovered how much the final had changed from the initial concept.

 

[MickB]

Basic patrol duties don’t require a warship, but war-fighting does.

Warships can do patrol, but patrol ships can’t do war-fighting.

As the Hunter Class and SSN show, we don’t have a resource poor navy, we have a personnel poor navy.

Relatively dinky little ships that do nothing but patrol shouldn’t be operated by our navy. Warships should.

We have an absolute plethora of agencies that can do those civilian maritime roles. They could easily take on what the RAN does in that space. Plenty of other nations do it that way, per attached as just one example.

We have one agency that can do war-fighting and that should be the beginning and the end of the capability discussion for it. Use LHD logic and apply war-fighting capabilities to non war-fighting roles from time to time, especially when politically convenient sure, but the logic behind every capability they maintain should be that they are war-fighting machines first and everything else comes second.

We are literally putting frigates on blocks for want of sailors, while we have 500+ sailors devoted to civilian maritime roles…In a strategic environment described as ‘the worst since the 1930’s’ by our own defence ministers.

It’s completely crazy.

View attachment 50980

It is my understanding that the one major reasons that the Navy retains control of PBs and OPVs is the training pathways they provide.

Think posting for first time Captain or first time Bosun etc;
The more command slots you have the more command trained and experienced officers you have, now expand that idea across the whole Navy.

 

[Systems Adict]

Saw this & thought I'd pass it on...

Hunter completes Preliminary Design Review

 

[Volkodav]

Th

It is my understanding that the one major reasons that the Navy retains control of PBs and OPVs is the training pathways they provide.

Think posting for first time Captain or first time Bosun etc;
The more command slots you have the more command trained and experienced officers you have, now expand that idea across the whole Navy.

They are however very different in a number of key ways. How small vessels are operated and maintained is quite disconnected from the majors.

You could quite easily carve them off into a separate coast guard with little impact on warfighing or maintainance expertise in the fleet as a whole.

There are no engineering officers, no principle warfare officers, no combat system operators, no aviation. The only training they provide that is really useful to the fleet is probably RHIBs and boarding parties.

Some specialist areas, and giving technical sailors greater responsibility benefitthe RAN as a whole, but then again the systems and capabilities of a PB are so different that the benefit is limited.

 

[ASSAIL]

Th

They are however very different in a number of key ways. How small vessels are operated and maintained is quite disconnected from the majors.

You could quite easily carve them off into a separate coast guard with little impact on warfighing or maintainance expertise in the fleet as a whole.

There are no engineering officers, no principle warfare officers, no combat system operators, no aviation. The only training they provide that is really useful to the fleet is probably RHIBs and boarding parties.

Some specialist areas, and giving technical sailors greater responsibility benefitthe RAN as a whole, but then again the systems and capabilities of a PB are so different that the benefit is limited.

The opportunity to experience “command” for young warfare officers is the best preparation for a future career.
It’s similar for the “Charge” engineers.
There is no chance of deferring above when meeting immediate crisis and from personal experience there are crisis to be had.
You list RHIBs and Boarding parties but there is much more; ship handling, passage planning, reading the weather and sea states as they effect operations, responsibility for reporting activity to higher command, responsibility for unit effectiveness at every level and the list goes on.
Sure, it doesn’t prepare you for serious “warfighting” as such but the career path normally (or used to) takes a young officer directly to specialist warfare training after a posting “in command” which itself is great training for those courses.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hunter completes Preliminary Design Review

IMO the hunter program is too far along to kill. We are committed to it. Being the largest possible and most capable ship there are options available to improve capabilities. We will be seeing 6+ hulls of this type, at which point it will keep evolving and takes us 20+ years into the future. I expect more from BAE, but they probably won't be called hunters and probably will be significant evolved.

The small ships are still in a state of flux. We are going to see early decommissioning of Anzacs effectively immediately (at least 2, which frees up ~400 sailors). This combined with the fleet upgrades leaves the navy woefully incapable and asset deprived in the short term, but also significantly short in the medium term. The remaining Anzacs, are already growth limited platforms, designed for peaceful times, and even the remaining ones will need to go out for service and upgrade.

The political state is like day/night shift. Both work, but try to push problems off onto one another. Neither is particularly great at solving problems, and in solving problems often create new problems that the other shift doesn't want to fix or even admit exist. Hence why both labor and the coalition have agreed that major defence projects are bipartisan. If there is now a failure, both teams have to wear it. If there is a problem with bipartisanism, then that also needs to be fixed.

I would urge avoiding the political debate here, because it will achieve nothing. Frankly no government loves defence spending. Both parties have defence make up a sector of their supporting base. Both agree defence spending is required.

If the current labor government is dropping the ball on defence, then it is a joint Labor/Coalition problem. It needs to be communicated how labor was able to do this, circumvent existing bipartisan agreement, and how it needs to be fixed. Not just have someone jump up and down. Most of the time terrible things have happened, its because of factions within the major parties fighting and pissing on and destroying everything. Australia is one of the few modern democracies that seems to have recognised this and both parties quite willingly went bipartisan to solve their own internal factional issues. Which is good. Decisions are still hard. The current government has shown, if the coalition puts forward a workable idea better than its own, the government will implement it without change.

But we have a problems, one that has developed based on the delays of Sea5000, the age and hard life of Anzacs, and the need to upgrade most of the fleet all at once.

The problem we have is now 8 of our hardest working ships are now knackered. They have been outclassed in concept for a while, and certainly will be more so in the future in places like the SCS. We need solutions.

Navantia is swinging. I think the Alpha 3000 is something that would meet what is possibly required. Its fairly low risk with some modifications, its fairly capable, its can be built locally and overseas. It may also be possible to base the F-105 here while Hobart upgrades happen.
I think NVL is also swinging their C90 concept MPV90, which has some production advantages, would also be low risk, with some modifications, and can be built locally and overseas but the overseas build has more risk, and NVL isn't sovereign backed.

I think the type31e, meko300 etc are ships that will be benchmarked, but I don't think they are ready to go compared to NVL who is building a similar ship right now, and Navantia who has sold a heck of a lot of tonnage to Australia and is backed by Spain and has the support of the Spanish government and the Spanish navy.

I expect early next year some sort of speedy/limited acquisition of a ~3000t, 90-105m, <100 crew, 5-6000nm range, 30+ day endurance, small combatant. Ceafar, 9LV, 16 ESSM, 8 NSM, CIWS, hangar, ASW. With something like a 6-8 ship build, 2 overseas, 4-6 locally.

I expect the money to come from shelving the Anzac upgrade and early decommissioning and maybe from the mine hunters ships. Crew will come from Anzacs and mineships (Sea1905). Hunter will continue as planned, as Hunters come online smaller ships can be sold off, but that won't have to happen for a while, maybe 10 years.

 

[SwingShift]

Warships can do patrol

They can, but they’re not an efficient base for this task, and better utilised potentially as a surge or opportunistic patrol vessel, given potentially 3-4 times the crew, more expensive as a capital purchase, OPEX and maintenance.

I‘m more agnostic in regard to whether the function, and in turn the vessels are RAN or ABF. There’s seemingly arguments for both.

Would they be easier to recruit and retain staff with an ABF paint job and operated as such? If yes, that may be a factor. If not, it’s the same mission that needs to be addressed by these smaller ships, the same tax revenues funding the ships and personnel, and the same population providing the talent pool.

I’m not arguing against whether the RAN needs more and bigger ships, or whether the RAN or ABF operate these smaller ships. I’m arguing that there‘s still a need for them, and for that need, they’re seemingly a reasonable option. I disagree that addressing the work previously and currently undertaken by Armidales and Capes with warships is a feasible solution given recruitment, capital and time.

 

[Reptilia]

[

IMO the hunter program is too far along to kill. We are committed to it. Being the largest possible and most capable ship there are options available to improve capabilities. We will be seeing 6+ hulls of this type, at which point it will keep evolving and takes us 20+ years into the future. I expect more from BAE, but they probably won't be called hunters and probably will be significant evolved.

The small ships are still in a state of flux. We are going to see early decommissioning of Anzacs effectively immediately (at least 2, which frees up ~400 sailors). This combined with the fleet upgrades leaves the navy woefully incapable and asset deprived in the short term, but also significantly short in the medium term. The remaining Anzacs, are already growth limited platforms, designed for peaceful times, and even the remaining ones will need to go out for service and upgrade.

The political state is like day/night shift. Both work, but try to push problems off onto one another. Neither is particularly great at solving problems, and in solving problems often create new problems that the other shift doesn't want to fix or even admit exist. Hence why both labor and the coalition have agreed that major defence projects are bipartisan. If there is now a failure, both teams have to wear it. If there is a problem with bipartisanism, then that also needs to be fixed.

I would urge avoiding the political debate here, because it will achieve nothing. Frankly no government loves defence spending. Both parties have defence make up a sector of their supporting base. Both agree defence spending is required.

If the current labor government is dropping the ball on defence, then it is a joint Labor/Coalition problem. It needs to be communicated how labor was able to do this, circumvent existing bipartisan agreement, and how it needs to be fixed. Not just have someone jump up and down. Most of the time terrible things have happened, its because of factions within the major parties fighting and pissing on and destroying everything. Australia is one of the few modern democracies that seems to have recognised this and both parties quite willingly went bipartisan to solve their own internal factional issues. Which is good. Decisions are still hard. The current government has shown, if the coalition puts forward a workable idea better than its own, the government will implement it without change.

But we have a problems, one that has developed based on the delays of Sea5000, the age and hard life of Anzacs, and the need to upgrade most of the fleet all at once.

The problem we have is now 8 of our hardest working ships are now knackered. They have been outclassed in concept for a while, and certainly will be more so in the future in places like the SCS. We need solutions.

Navantia is swinging. I think the Alpha 3000 is something that would meet what is possibly required. Its fairly low risk with some modifications, its fairly capable, its can be built locally and overseas. It may also be possible to base the F-105 here while Hobart upgrades happen.
I think NVL is also swinging their C90 concept MPV90, which has some production advantages, would also be low risk, with some modifications, and can be built locally and overseas but the overseas build has more risk, and NVL isn't sovereign backed.

I think the type31e, meko300 etc are ships that will be benchmarked, but I don't think they are ready to go compared to NVL who is building a similar ship right now, and Navantia who has sold a heck of a lot of tonnage to Australia and is backed by Spain and has the support of the Spanish government and the Spanish navy.

I expect early next year some sort of speedy/limited acquisition of a ~3000t, 90-105m, <100 crew, 5-6000nm range, 30+ day endurance, small combatant. Ceafar, 9LV, 16 ESSM, 8 NSM, CIWS, hangar, ASW. With something like a 6-8 ship build, 2 overseas, 4-6 locally.

I expect the money to come from shelving the Anzac upgrade and early decommissioning and maybe from the mine hunters ships. Crew will come from Anzacs and mineships (Sea1905). Hunter will continue as planned, as Hunters come online smaller ships can be sold off, but that won't have to happen for a while, maybe 10 years.

6 Tasman class was the option put forward. Looks like an ok short term solution to replace Anzac but not a long term one. it was supposed to be in addition to Anzacs as a tier 2 corvette and not a replacement. Quickest way would be 3 built in Henderson and 3 in Spain and would cost $4-5 billion if you go off Navantias offering last year. The Government would probably want all 6 built here though… $5-6 billion.

Tasman class(Alpha 3000)
Designer/Builder - Navantia/Civmec/Austal
L - A109m
W - A15m
T - A3,400+
MS - A25-27knts
R - A4,500-5,000nm at 15knts
MG - 57mm
VLS - 16 (16SL)
SSM - 16 nsm
Radar - Ceafar2L
ASW - 2 x triple torpedo launcher, Optional Hull sonar, Towed array(Captas 4C)
H - 1 x Seahawk
Protection - 1 x CIWS, 2-4 RWS, 2 x DL
Crew - A100-110
Propulsion - CODAD
Rate of production(overseas) - A1 every 10-12 months after FOC(Spain building Saudi Arabian corvettes)


MMPV90, too slow, short range.
Arrowhead 140 is a possible solution but is it really a tier 2 ? NZ would love this.
MEKO 300 is no chance, they offered the A210.
Other options were the Alpha 5000 and the MogamiB2.
My preference would be the Gibbs & Cox designed 117m Aus Light Frigate. 2 in service late 2026(Taiwan), with a potential order of 10 more.

@Reptilia Seven Day ban for not providing sources as per Moderator Warning.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Volkodav]

The opportunity to experience “command” for young warfare officers is the best preparation for a future career.
It’s similar for the “Charge” engineers.
There is no chance of deferring above when meeting immediate crisis and from personal experience there are crisis to be had.
You list RHIBs and Boarding parties but there is much more; ship handling, passage planning, reading the weather and sea states as they effect operations, responsibility for reporting activity to higher command, responsibility for unit effectiveness at every level and the list goes on.
Sure, it doesn’t prepare you for serious “warfighting” as such but the career path normally (or used to) takes a young officer directly to specialist warfare training after a posting “in command” which itself is great training for those courses.

Fair call, I was going to mention that this is where corvettes, or even FACs would be better and littoral patrol or support craft, even LCU types, just as good.

I really wasn't impressed with the Armidales, and my bias is showing. The Arafuras are somewhat undercooked for what they could or should be.

 

[StingrayOZ]

6 Tasman class was the option put forward. Looks like an ok short term solution to replace Anzac but it was supposed to be in addition to Anzacs as a tier 2 corvette and not a replacement. Quickest way would be 3 built in Henderson and 3 in Spain and would cost $4-5 billion if you go off Navantias offering last year.

I imagine we won't decommission all the anzacs tomorrow. They will be phased out.
Local industry will want the majority of the work 2/4 split IMO. But 3/3 is possible.

MMPV90, too slow, short range.
Arrowhead 140 is a possible solution but is it really a tier 2 ? NZ would love this.
MEKO 300 is no chance, they offered the A210.

MMPV90 has speed and range issues. IMO that they didn't have a model at IP23, and didn't seem to be saying anything makes me think they are out in the cold, and their design doesn't really meet the needs of Australia. Their industry partner, Civmec signing with Navantia also, significant blow. They may be proposing an enlarged design, but that comes with risks and costs.
A140 is too close to a fully blown future frigate. Its going to create tension all over the place. Babcock doesn't have a free yard and can't wheel and deal like Navantia can with Spanish backing and a Navy. The Type 31 is in a dispute process currently.

Type 31 frigate programme dispute resolution process paused

In April shipbuilder Babcock initiated a DRP with the UK MoD to determine liability for increased costs of the Type 31 frigate programme.

www.naval-technology.com

The 300 and a210 are again not exactly what we are looking for.

At 3000t with layered defence, they aren't really corvettes.

If we want to grow the navy, operating smaller ships, that are then replaced with larger ships might assist with that growth in total platform number.

If in 10-20 years the RAN started to dispose of ~3000t crew efficient, already built ships, I imagine they would have no problem finding buyers. That is exactly what a lot of smaller nations would like. A fixed price, fairly new, already in service platform, with a decent modern fitout with useful range and endurance.

 

[H_K]

Alpha 3000 is something that would meet what is possibly required. Its fairly low risk with some modifications, its fairly capable, its can be built locally and overseas.

I expect early next year some sort of speedy/limited acquisition of a ~3000t, 90-105m, <100 crew, 5-6000nm range, 30+ day endurance, small combatant. Ceafar, 9LV, 16 ESSM, 8 NSM, CIWS, hangar, ASW. With something like a 6-8 ship build, 2 overseas, 4-6 locally.

I expect the money to come from shelving the Anzac upgrade and early decommissioning and maybe from the mine hunters ships. Crew will come from Anzacs and mineships (Sea1905

A 2+4 light frigate buy does seem like the best way to deliver additional capability quickly (ie. before the end of the decade). With Navantia in pole position thanks to their ability to quickly start building abroad, Civmec partnership for the local build, plus their willingness to integrate 9LV and Ceafar.

(Gibbs & Cox don’t have a foreign yard, TKMS have a checkered history partnering with Saab, Damen can’t match the Civmec partnership… all have good ship designs but would likely have trouble offering a completely compliant package).

Only thing I would change would be to cancel Arafura hulls 7-12 to help fund & crew these new light frigates. Some cuts to the Anzac fleet might still be needed but I would try to keep as many Anzacs as possible and have at least half the fleet go through Transcap… the goal being to increase overall capability after all.

 

[Reptilia]

A 2+4 light frigate buy does seem like the best way to deliver additional capability quickly (ie. before the end of the decade). With Navantia in pole position thanks to their ability to quickly start building abroad, Civmec partnership for the local build, plus their willingness to integrate 9LV and Ceafar.

(Gibbs & Cox don’t have a foreign yard, TKMS have a checkered history partnering with Saab, Damen can’t match the Civmec partnership… all have good ship designs but would likely have trouble offering a completely compliant package).

Only thing I would change would be to cancel Arafura hulls 7-12 to help fund & crew these new light frigates. Some cuts to the Anzac fleet might still be needed but I would try to keep as many Anzacs as possible and have at least half the fleet go through Transcap… the goal being to increase overall capability after all.

Hopefully Arafura 1-6 are not upgunned and are moved to ABF along with the Capes.
-Austal expanding, could that mean an Austal designed corvette/Light Frigate after the Landing craft build in 2028/29?
-Navantia(Spain) will collaborate with anyone if it gets them a percentage. The Tasman class(Alpha 3000), Concept Alpha 5000 and Concept Flight III cruiser are pretty good designs.
-HII(USA) now with a presence in Henderson, WA for AUKUS. This could open the door for a Gibbs & Cox Aus Light frigate build and Constellation/Burke sustainment. Supply chain increase as both u.s/aus frigates would have common parts. The DDGX also something we may be interested in.
-SAAB/Babcock have been heavily involved at Osborne Souths ASC, SA. Could the Collins yard become a corvette/light frigate build Hall. Eg Lulea Class or Arrowhead 140.
-Japanese, Korean, German, Dutch builders look to be left out.

 

[Volkodav]

Crewing is a problem.

If the government was able buy new or used ships, maybe Taiwan sells their DDGs and FFG-07s to us, 14 additional ships overnight, we would not be able to crew them.

We simply would not have enough executive officers, PWOs, HODs, MEOs WEOs, let alone senior sailors. The pipelines for these people is years, not months, and that's assuming you can attract enough suitable people.

I'm not talking gender, sexuality, race or religion "suitable" but qualified, experienced, intelligent enough, fit enough, and with the right attitude.

This is were the reduction in the effective number of major fleet units has hurt the most, especially when combined with the decision to stick with patrol boats instead of acquiring corvettes as originally planned. Basically the fleet shrunk to the point there has been great difficulty in qualifying sufficient numbers of suitable officers and senior sailors, in particular in critical specialities.

Major fleet units can be and are run on very lean crews, these crews can be supplemented with trainees, yet to qualify and non specialist personnel. Minor warfare vessels often cannot embark significant numbers of trainees and yet to qualify personnel. It's not just accommodation space, it having a sufficient number of competent, qualified personnel to supervise and develop them.

PBs may be a cheap way to police our EEZ but they have virtually no combat capability and are an opportunity cost in regards to seagoing billets. There are a lot of people who joined the Navy to go to sea who hardly ever get to do so because their specialities relate to majors and submarines.

There are also a lot of people who should be at sea who are ashore filling roles that should be filled by public servants. This is because government also gutted the APS.

We need the fleet to have a higher percentage of warships with actual combat power to have any chance of growing the skilled crews we need going forward.

 

[old faithful]

Crewing is a problem.

If the government was able buy new or used ships, maybe Taiwan sells their DDGs and FFG-07s to us, 14 additional ships overnight, we would not be able to crew them.

We simply would not have enough executive officers, PWOs, HODs, MEOs WEOs, let alone senior sailors. The pipelines for these people is years, not months, and that's assuming you can attract enough suitable people.

I'm not talking gender, sexuality, race or religion "suitable" but qualified, experienced, intelligent enough, fit enough, and with the right attitude.

This is were the reduction in the effective number of major fleet units has hurt the most, especially when combined with the decision to stick with patrol boats instead of acquiring corvettes as originally planned. Basically the fleet shrunk to the point there has been great difficulty in qualifying sufficient numbers of suitable officers and senior sailors, in particular in critical specialities.

Major fleet units can be and are run on very lean crews, these crews can be supplemented with trainees, yet to qualify and non specialist personnel. Minor warfare vessels often cannot embark significant numbers of trainees and yet to qualify personnel. It's not just accommodation space, it having a sufficient number of competent, qualified personnel to supervise and develop them.

PBs may be a cheap way to police our EEZ but they have virtually no combat capability and are an opportunity cost in regards to seagoing billets. There are a lot of people who joined the Navy to go to sea who hardly ever get to do so because their specialities relate to majors and submarines.

There are also a lot of people who should be at sea who are ashore filling roles that should be filled by public servants. This is because government also gutted the APS.

We need the fleet to have a higher percentage of warships with actual combat power to have any chance of growing the skilled crews we need going forward.

perhaps we could crew them with all the Commodores, Rear and Vice Admirals , and Admirals?! (Tongue firmly in cheek!)

Growing number of senior officers in 'top-heavy' Australian Defence Force

New research reveals the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military has almost doubled over the past twenty years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SMC]

While this does need to be looked at in some depth when we are compared to the US and the UK…..I would rather have a top heavy defence force than the other way around. It takes decades for a senior office to gain the type of experience and skills needed for “flag rank” whereas it only takes months/years to turn out a soldier that is more than halfway capable.

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile, the only reason I bother tracking the Sydney to Hobart is back in training for this year's race, here's to beating Army again :
"Crew members from Navy One bring the yacht alongside Double Bay wharf in Sydney, New South Wales." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"HMAS Brisbane berthed alongside Guam, United States during a regional presence deployment." Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[ADMk2]

It is my understanding that the one major reasons that the Navy retains control of PBs and OPVs is the training pathways they provide.

Think posting for first time Captain or first time Bosun etc;
The more command slots you have the more command trained and experienced officers you have, now expand that idea across the whole Navy.

Navy staff already go across to Australian Border Force… I don‘t see that being much different under a different scenario…

But the question has to be asked. Is that benefit worth having such a sizeable chunk of Navy’s ‘at sea’ personnel tied up in non -warfighting roles?

The best navy in the world doesn’t do civilian patrol. It leaves that to the Coast Guard and it seems to manage it’s command training okay…

 

[ADMk2]

They can, but they’re not an efficient base for this task, and better utilised potentially as a surge or opportunistic patrol vessel, given potentially 3-4 times the crew, more expensive as a capital purchase, OPEX and maintenance.

I‘m more agnostic in regard to whether the function, and in turn the vessels are RAN or ABF. There’s seemingly arguments for both.

Would they be easier to recruit and retain staff with an ABF paint job and operated as such? If yes, that may be a factor. If not, it’s the same mission that needs to be addressed by these smaller ships, the same tax revenues funding the ships and personnel, and the same population providing the talent pool.

I’m not arguing against whether the RAN needs more and bigger ships, or whether the RAN or ABF operate these smaller ships. I’m arguing that there‘s still a need for them, and for that need, they’re seemingly a reasonable option. I disagree that addressing the work previously and currently undertaken by Armidales and Capes with warships is a feasible solution given recruitment, capital and time.

They are not efficient no, but political expediency often trumps efficiency in regards to border protection. Nothing will ever stop a PM from allocating defence assets to a “problem”. But just as the push is occurring to not have Army tied up with natural disasters, so too should a push be made not to have the RAN performing civilian maritime law enforcement duties, imho…

 

[76mmGuns]

Saw this & thought I'd pass it on...

Hunter completes Preliminary Design Review

I don't understand why people say the Hunter isn't progressing. It seems to be moving along at a steady pace. Just look back to the Collins and Hobart class builds. Man, now that was a mess. Covid delayed things, but that's about it. The Hunter program seems to be doing exactly what was intended- learning from the mess of the Hobart's- doing it properly, a proper organisational structure, no conflicts between large groups like unions, the Aust govt, Navantia, (a bit of the Spanish govt), to develop a long term sovereign naval industry, ticking all the boxes. It's not fast, but from the reports published, I'm quietly confident when the first Hunter comes off the line, it'll be a nice ship with relatively few problems.

 

[Reptilia]

I don't understand why people say the Hunter isn't progressing. It seems to be moving along at a steady pace. Just look back to the Collins and Hobart class builds. Man, now that was a mess. Covid delayed things, but that's about it. The Hunter program seems to be doing exactly what was intended- learning from the mess of the Hobart's- doing it properly, a proper organisational structure, no conflicts between large groups like unions, the Aust govt, Navantia, (a bit of the Spanish govt), to develop a long term sovereign naval industry, ticking all the boxes. It's not fast, but from the reports published, I'm quietly confident when the first Hunter comes off the line, it'll be a nice ship with relatively few problems.

The Arafura although not very good seems to be pushing along also and gaining ground. After the Eyre was launched, a pic came out online showing Civmec Hall, Hull 3(Pilbara) was complete and under a tarp cover, Hull 4(Gippsland) was 3/4 complete, Hull 5(Illawarra) 1/3 complete, Hull 6(Carpentaria), units all over the place. Project of concern may be linked to the first and third hull and also Fit out taking alot longer.
Both Arafura and Eyre look to be in service next year, By the looks of things, Hull 3 2025, Hull 4 2025, Hull 5 2026, Hull 6 2026. Civmec state Arafura 7 to commence in early 2024, whether that goes ahead or not is anyone’s guess.
If 6 more were to be built, that pushes them to 2029/2030 for completion of all 12. After being 2 years behind, they would gain a year back.