With the new “minimum viable capability” mantra I am not sure we would now pick the type 26 at all. I wonder if Canada will end up building all 15 vessels. Last I saw of the Canadian variant budget estimate was pushing up towards $80 billion.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
What is announced is very often not the same as what is delivered.
I would imagine everyone is looking at the tier 2 program and what comes out. Japan has never really exported a military ship before, not in this way, and this competition between Korean and Japan, where they bench each other very aggressively is commercially very interesting. They aren't just exporting ship designs, or just a ship, they are exporting indigenous weapons, radar, combat, munitions, too, something neither side has done a great deal of in that particular way. And not to Australia's seemingly quite high requirements.
Australia as a customer is also interesting. They have money, but want a good deal, they have need, but often the requirements go through the roof. Not do to lack of interest, but too much interest. This isn't a 2 ship build to some small nation, this is a different, demanding customer. Also the selling countries and buying country have absolutely very important security goals in common, including second supply, military cooperation, basing etc.
It is highly likely everyone who presented a model at the recent conference will find interested buyers in their products or similar products. Smaller, more numerous ships are very sexy now.
Pretty much every mega ship project runs over budget, and has issues. Much like with battleships, the projects becomes so vast, so complex, so expensive, its legitimate if you need to ask if you need to make so many of them and having a cheaper smaller ship design you can ramp up is perhaps better for the immediate threats. Are really big ships possibly now getting too big. Remembering that large heavy cruisers, battle cruisers etc at around 10,000t+ previously, definitely got into that space.
While at the start of WW2 this may have been more limited in treaty, the sizes were based around engineering and efficiencies. Is it that surprising that in the world of the 10,000t frigate, people ask if not perhaps two 5,000t frigates is not perhaps to have a mix of the two sizes, than just one size fits all fleet.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
This article is 2 years old but from access to reliable information, it appears that the UK Type 26 will cost more than the Hunters (assuming that the article is quoting US$). As it appears that the Hunters will be more capable, it makes them reasonably good value.
How much is each ship expected to cost?
‘Defence Insight’ says that given the cost of the first contract, the unit cost has been estimated on average at $1.59 billion each.
“This is for construction only, therefore the programme value years have been estimated by spreading the estimated unit cost across the construction period of each vessel. The construction value of the first ships sits at $4.77 billion.”
How much is each ship expected to cost?
‘Defence Insight’ says that given the cost of the first contract, the unit cost has been estimated on average at $1.59 billion each.
“This is for construction only, therefore the programme value years have been estimated by spreading the estimated unit cost across the construction period of each vessel. The construction value of the first ships sits at $4.77 billion.”
Why do we insist on such a large and comprehensive radar for the Hunter's with so few VLS. 6x large-aperture L-band arrays + 6x medium-aperture S-band arrays + 12+ small-aperture X-band arrays seems disproportionately excessive compared to say the JMSDF's massive forthcoming 128-cell ASEV cruisers with 4x SPY-7(V)1 arrays or the more similarly sized Constellation class frigates with only 3x SPY-6(V)3 arrays. Presuming a field of view of 120+ degrees per array, why not redesign the mast and cut back the number of arrays of each by 1/3 or even 1/2 to reduce the top weight, may even permit the S2087 to be retained on a 96 cell variant.
It is a beast of a radar.
I'm not aware of any other integrated tripple banded AESA radar on the water. Most (including the venerable spy series) run an s band single frequency ASEA/PESA panel with a more traditional single point x band fire control. Few ships have much L band capacity at all outside of basic navigation.
The advantage of the wide spectrum is that it is more effective at picking up low obervable objects (which tend to be low obervable only in limited ranges) and more resistant to jamming (it is very difficult to interfere with the frequencies across all three bands simultaneously). The system energy (which is gigantic) also enables it to burn through smaller enemy jamming systems (typically aircraft based) more easily. This means it always has eyes and is unlikely to be blinded even in the most difficult environments.
The radar package also has substantial EW capabilities of its own (i.e it can jam others), while simultaneously continuing to track. Most other ships rely on stand alone systems for this, and they can't put out the sheer energy the ceafar system can (jamming is in large part all about the energy sent out).
I should also note that a common radar concealment technique is to rapidly frequency hop, such that emmissions mimic background noise. The broader the frequency range, the better this capability.
To the point on panel numbers, AESA systems are weaker at the more oblique angles. The more panels in a 360 deg radius, the less this exposure. A four panel is more effective than a three panel, and a six even better. You fit three panels if you are cost conscious. Additionally it provides redundancy. The other panels can cover the gaps from a damaged panel more easily.
The Americans have been impressed with the capability of the ANZAC ceafar system, and the Hunter package is a level above this. There is a reason the government is prepared to build a ship around the radar system, and pay a small fortune to achieve this outcome. It is world beating.
Its limitation is top weight. It integrates a lot of the equipment into the panels rather than having a separate control box that can be placed lower in the ship. This is something that other competing systems do that is better than CEA, but recognise there are disadvantages to this, including reduced power output. Hopefully they will find a solution to this in time. It's also very electricity and cooling hungry, but this relates to its sheer power. The Hunter design also allows the radar to sit very high up, increasing its range. The Burke and Constellation radar configurations by comparison are much lower. This helps them with top weight but costs capability.
I would suggest that the Hunter radar package is an example of what is achievable if you take an uncompromised approach. It is better than any other system on the market and that includes the American spy 6 and 7s.
I am personally less concerned about the missile holdings, as the Hunter will be able to call on the weapons from other platforms, be that another ship, land battery or an aircraft. It is the quarterback.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If CEAFAR is indeed a significantly superior radar solution, its weight disadvantage means larger ship. Perhaps it is best suited for a future AUKUS destroyer/cruiser (12,000-15,000 tons). Sadly, like T-26 frigates, users can't seem to agree on a minimally modified design. A successful AUKUS sub program might change this.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I have been following the discussion of potential GPF builders for the RAN. Happily IMO whether the RAN chooses the Japanese or Korean option, we should be able to get a good outcome provided the navy is competent in specifying what it wants. I have previously expressed a preference for the Meko A210 or Mogami FFM due to their size and 32 VLS. Now that Hanwha has also displayed the Ocean 4300 frigate design at the Indian Ocean 2024 Conference, Japan and Korea both have good offers.
www.navalnews.com
From a shipbuilding capability viewpoint, Japan and Korea and the most capable shipbuilding nations in the western world by far. Their biggest shipbuilding companies each have yards with 5 or more large drydocks or floating docks per yard, with capacity to simultaneously build a half dozen ships in parallel. Shipbuilding is highly automated, including tasks like welding done by machines like in a car plant, especially in Japan. Cost competitiveness is achieved by economies of scale without sacrificing quality or reliability. They back this up with huge in-house design naval architecture capability.
www.marineinsight.com
One more point. There is no possibility of a joint Japan-Korea build. Apart from the tortured history of Japanese occupation of Korea up to WWII, Japanese and Korean shipbuilding firms are fierce rivals.
Hanwha Ocean FFX Batch II, Ocean 4300 Frigate Shown In Perth
Korean builder Hanwha showed three frigate designs including FFX Batch II and the new Ocean 4300 at IODS 2024, targeting Australian SEA 3000.
www.navalnews.com
From a shipbuilding capability viewpoint, Japan and Korea and the most capable shipbuilding nations in the western world by far. Their biggest shipbuilding companies each have yards with 5 or more large drydocks or floating docks per yard, with capacity to simultaneously build a half dozen ships in parallel. Shipbuilding is highly automated, including tasks like welding done by machines like in a car plant, especially in Japan. Cost competitiveness is achieved by economies of scale without sacrificing quality or reliability. They back this up with huge in-house design naval architecture capability.
Top 10 Largest Dry Docks in the World
Marine Insight - The maritime industry guide.
www.marineinsight.com
One more point. There is no possibility of a joint Japan-Korea build. Apart from the tortured history of Japanese occupation of Korea up to WWII, Japanese and Korean shipbuilding firms are fierce rivals.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Plus, if the Hunter goes out with a primarily AA missile loadout it can carry up to 128 ESSM. That's a significant magazine.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
John, that's why the Hunter's all up weight is so high. You're right about CEAFAR's suitabilty for a future AUKUS destroyer/cruiser. Now is the time to get serious about it. The RN have to look at a replacement for the Type 45 and the USN for the Ticonderoga. No time like the present. A pity Canada aren't on board. The Russkies are really punchy these days so they might need something with a bit more punch.
justinterested
New Member
Thanks for these articles Scott. The immense shipbuilding capacity of these two nations is hugely impressive.I have been following the discussion of potential GPF builders for the RAN. Happily IMO whether the RAN chooses the Japanese or Korean option, we should be able to get a good outcome provided the navy is competent in specifying what it wants. I have previously expressed a preference for the Meko A210 or Mogami FFM due to their size and 32 VLS. Now that Hanwha has also displayed the Ocean 4300 frigate design at the Indian Ocean 2024 Conference, Japan and Korea both have good offers.
Hanwha Ocean FFX Batch II, Ocean 4300 Frigate Shown In Perth
Korean builder Hanwha showed three frigate designs including FFX Batch II and the new Ocean 4300 at IODS 2024, targeting Australian SEA 3000.
From a shipbuilding capability viewpoint, Japan and Korea and the most capable shipbuilding nations in the western world by far. Their biggest shipbuilding companies each have yards with 5 or more large drydocks or floating docks per yard, with capacity to simultaneously build a half dozen ships in parallel. Shipbuilding is highly automated, including tasks like welding done by machines like in a car plant, especially in Japan. Cost competitiveness is achieved by economies of scale without sacrificing quality or reliability. They back this up with huge in-house design naval architecture capability.
Top 10 Largest Dry Docks in the World
Marine Insight - The maritime industry guide.
One more point. There is no possibility of a joint Japan-Korea build. Apart from the tortured history of Japanese occupation of Korea up to WWII, Japanese and Korean shipbuilding firms are fierce rivals.
Marles has stated the need for the construction of a large dry dock in Henderson, but some qualified experts have indicated concern at the lack of preparation and funding for this project. - Link. The final sentence of this Breaking Defense article states -
"Industry sources here were critical of the government’s approach, noting that it takes the UK and the US a decade to plan for, pay for and build a dry dock capable of handling the unique requirements of a nuclear-powered submarine."
I honestly think that it has taken us this long to start building the Hunter Class… when it comes to building the Destroy which will follow the Hunter class build then it should just be and upgunned and variation of the Hunter.. pack in more missiles and direct energy weapons..this will provide cost savings across our asw and DDG fleet.. and best of all we can build them
CEA regard themselves as being 10-15yrs ahead of the rest in radar development and this is the first opportunity they've had to build a system from scratch and integrate it into AEGIS. The T26 will be the new standard in ASW frigates and the Hunter class will be the benchmark for a multi-band AESA AEGIS battlefield management system. Media 'opinion' pieces about cost and capability deficiencies like lack of VLS are disingenuous at best, future developments like CEC, G-VLS and LOCSV easily challenge the thinking behind them.
It's just a pity that it will take 10-15 years to come into service.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Is that a timeframe that is due to limitations on industrial capability?
Or is it more likely due to artificial constraints of planning laws and government tender rules?
An extension to this…
British sea lord assures Australian officials troubled warship program 'stabilising'
Britain's visiting naval chief has declared Australia will eventually operate the world's best anti-submarine warfare (ASW) frigates because a closely linked shipbuilding project in the UK is now "stabilising" after suffering damaging initial setbacks.www.abc.net.au
"During an international military conference in Perth last week, Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond singled out Japan's shipbuilding industry for praise as the Asian nation pushes for its "Upgraded Mogami" frigate to be selected.
Japan has done an exceptional job of leveraging emerging technology to reduce the crew size of their frigates and when you look at all four candidates that are under consideration for SEA 3000 for the General Purpose Frigate program," he said.
"We're looking at base crews of 90 to 100. You throw the helicopter team on board, you're up to about 120. Anzac crew, about 180. Go and put it in the Red Sea, 200-220. You know, we can replace the Anzac ships with 11 general purpose frigates without increasing the crew liability."
Base crew of 90-100 would only leave the Mogami and Alfa 3000 as options. A140 also, but not an exemplar.
Core crew, Chungnam 120, Daegu 140, MEKO A200 120.
What I would say is one of our colleagues here, Japan, has done an exceptional job of leveraging emerging technology to reduce the crew size of their frigates, and when you look at all four candidates that are under consideration under Sea 3000 for the general purpose frigate program, we're looking at a crew, base crews of 90 to 100, you throw the helicopter team on board, you're up to about 120. Anzac crew, about 180. Go put it in the Red Sea, 200, 220.
You know, we can replace the Anzac crews, the Anzac ships with 11 general purpose frigates without increasing the crewing liability for the Royal Australian Navy. That is the promise of technology.
There are different ways of doing business, different ways of driving ships, reducing the crew footprint, which we are learning more about through the Sea 3000 process, and concurrently we've had Autonomous Warrior underway now for many, many years. We are fielding in water uncrewed capabilities at an ever‑increasing rate, and some of those uncrewed surface vessels, for example, are already in the field in maritime border protection duties at the moment, for example, and that in itself, will hopefully one day ‑ and I saw Admiral Sonter in the audience early today ‑ hopefully commander ‑ Maritime Border Command can reduce the demand signal for on‑water crewed surface vessels as we prove the value of autonomy.
So, it is a key part of the future, it's a key capability we are getting after at speed now, and it is going to free up our people for our less dangerous, less dull and more important missions.
And the last point on that, I would say mine warfare is one of those where we're particularly focused. Do I want to put a clearance diver with a small‑shaped charge on the seabed to deal with a problem? Not particularly. There are other ways of doing these things without putting our people in harm's way, and that's what we're all about up here.
Neither. It was a conscious decision to spread the build drumbeat so as to be able to maintain a continuous build over this class and into the future. Of course, that presupposed the 9 ship build, so presumably they are now looking at a three ship, or 6 year, surface ship “ valley of death” with no construction going on, sometime in the late 2030s or early 2040s
SammyC
Thanks for a very nice summary about the advantages of AESA.
Australia should be justifiably proud of their achievements with CEA.
The ANZAC radar updates with this system are truly a generational change in capability and, as you say, the Hunters will be world leading; especially when integrated with the other combat systems over the range of radar and EW domains.
As an AB supporter I remain mystified why RNZN didn't fight harder to get CEA with their FSU. I know resources were the limitation but there seems to have been a blind spot in naval staff work when comparing the ability of an integrated active radar system like CEA as apposed to a single AESA panel on a rotating radar head.
Sadly, its not just personnel and the number of units in the Naval Combat Force that have been hollowed out in Kiwi. The relative understanding of technology when looking at the current ANZAC classes updates says a lot about the operational priorities of RAN and RNZN.
Cheers
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, a joint destroyer/ cruiser for AUKUS makes sense. As for Canadian involvement, let’s see how the River class ships progress. Without positive results on the first batch, better Canada is left out.
The late 2030s early 2040s is a when the replacement for the Hobart's is due.
Fingers crossed, whoever is in government leading up to then doesn't make the same mistake we made in the mid and late 90s and defer replacement programs.
I've expressed my opinion many times that it was the defferral of the DDG replacement and effective cancellation of the FFGs replacement, that caused our current situation with ship numbers and crewing.
That, along with moving the location of the builds resulted in the shipbuilding blackholes and loss of skills in the sector.
It would be interesting if someone much smarter than me reasserched a paper on what we did, versus what was planned. I suspect continuous building resulting in a larger, younger fleet, and a sustainable industry, with larger pools of sailors and workers, while likely more expensive, would have been better value for money.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I can’t comment on every aspect of US and UK shipbuilding but I would add that both industries have suffered from decades of underinvestment i.e. since the 1990s. For example the USN closed most of its navy owned shipyards in the 1990s and used mainly private contractors since then. IT somewhat irks me that through AUKUS we are now paying for things both countries should have invested in years ago.
US and UK ship design capability has definitely suffered as well. The USN and RN do not have the large in-house design capabilities they did in the cold war e.g. the US Bureau of Ships. US and UK private shipbuilders do not have as many trained naval architects as they did decades ago either. A limited number of naval projects, combined with an almost total inability to compete in the civilian shipbuilding market, means there was not enough work to sustain large design teams. Modern digital design should have speeded up design time for warships (it has for Japanese shipbuilders) yet the design development time of new US and UK warships has blown out. I would argue that may be due to lack of skilled people.
No work in infrastructure construction means you not only no longer have modern dock infrastructure, but you don’t have any people who know how to design and build it either. So your efforts to build it when you do restart investment will be slow and costly as you rebuild expertise.
I have thought for some time that the RAN reliance on UK and USA for shipbuilding expertise is outdated (except for US SSNs via GDEB, who are still the world’s experts in that field). I am not suggesting we drop the alliance, but we really should be talking to Japan and/or South Korea more.
IMO Japan is particularly impressive on shipbuilding. They do more with fewer people. Their design is efficient. Their shipyards are highly automated. Their ships are highly automated. Their closest competitor is in Korea, not USA or Europe.