Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

The gov't kicked the RAN out of the project after they asked for a short list of acceptable ships. Are they going to let them back in to negotiate changes? All evidence suggests that the RAN is getting an unmodified design from the builder and will have to adjust to that design, not adjust the design to them.


There kinda is IMHO. There are limited options available for an A200 when you look at the catalog. You can pick between three(ish) different guns, two(ish) different CWIS a few different sensors thst will actually fith within the cooling, power and space limits etc... but it's relatively limited what can be integrated and what can't with the baseline. I really like the A200 except for the exhaust issue fogging the stern at low speeds. Tugs and harbour evolutions may be challenging if your breathing in diesel exhaust while trying to work lines.

You are missing the point entirely, the Commonwealth of Australia is the flag authority, and the signatory to the various regulations and treaties. The RAN has no say in it, they are what the CoA signed up to and the RAN, CASG, NSSG, the builders and designers, are obligated to meet.

Waivers can be obtained but the process is strict and complex. The obligation from the government is to where possible meet the requirements.

Imagine a government determining it was cheaper to import unmodified cars from the US without seat belts.

 

[Massive]

One concern wrt the GPF program is whether this will result in an inadequate number of Tier 1 combatants.

For example, are we building enough Hunters and is a 1:1 replacement of the Hobarts sufficient.

Would a better balanced fleet be to build 8 GPF, increase the Hunter build to 8, and then participate in the 13 ddx (expected to have a lot of the automation features of the Mogami) program for a class of 8.

Not about the precise numbers, more the balance across classes.

Thoughts?

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

One concern wrt the GPF program is whether this will result in an inadequate number of Tier 1 combatants.

For example, are we building enough Hunters and is a 1:1 replacement of the Hobarts sufficient.

Would a better balanced fleet be to build 8 GPF, increase the Hunter build to 8, and then participate in the 13 ddx (expected to have a lot of the automation features of the Mogami) program for a class of 8.

Not about the precise numbers, more the balance across classes.

Thoughts?

Massive

Think of the Hunters as long overdue FFG replacements and the Hobart's as Perth replacements.

Personally I would rather see batches of four or five ships for majors. Four to provide a single ship on one coast, able to surge and another for two, and five to provide one on each coast with another along side to surge two (four total).

I can see a need for an air defence Hunter derivative to replace the Hobart's and would like at least four, preferably five, even if it results in cutting the base Hunter to five to maintain total numbers at nine.

Going forward twelve or fifteen total would be good. Five batch 1 hunters, five Hunter AWD, and five of something else.

Drone carriers may be interesting in the future.

Imagine a DDH or light carrier sized flat deck warship, with or without ski jump. Helicopters, half a dozen F-35 (able to surge to a dozen or more), able to operate a variety of UCAVs, extensive maintenance facilities for their air group as well as helps and ucavs from the task group. Maybe a 3D printer and artisans to fabricate complex items for repair, modification etc. of aircraft, UCAVs, UUVs ships etc.

Of course extensive command and control facilities and lots of space to adapt to other roles.

A standard task group could have a Hunter and AWD, a carrier, a GPF (or two), and an optionally manned escort.

 

[d-ron84]

Think of the Hunters as long overdue FFG replacements and the Hobart's as Perth replacements.

Personally I would rather see batches of four or five ships for majors. Four to provide a single ship on one coast, able to surge and another for two, and five to provide one on each coast with another along side to surge two (four total).

I can see a need for an air defence Hunter derivative to replace the Hobart's and would like at least four, preferably five, even if it results in cutting the base Hunter to five to maintain total numbers at nine.

Going forward twelve or fifteen total would be good. Five batch 1 hunters, five Hunter AWD, and five of something else.

Drone carriers may be interesting in the future.

Imagine a DDH or light carrier sized flat deck warship, with or without ski jump. Helicopters, half a dozen F-35 (able to surge to a dozen or more), able to operate a variety of UCAVs, extensive maintenance facilities for their air group as well as helps and ucavs from the task group. Maybe a 3D printer and artisans to fabricate complex items for repair, modification etc. of aircraft, UCAVs, UUVs ships etc.

Of course extensive command and control facilities and lots of space to adapt to other roles.

A standard task group could have a Hunter and AWD, a carrier, a GPF (or two), and an optionally manned escort.

As a little side note, the LHDs were actually fitted out with a 3D Printer. Adelaide's was given to FSU in Sydney as they had no use/training/supplies for the unit

 

[Armchair]

One concern wrt the GPF program is whether this will result in an inadequate number of Tier 1 combatants.

For example, are we building enough Hunters and is a 1:1 replacement of the Hobarts sufficient.

Would a better balanced fleet be to build 8 GPF, increase the Hunter build to 8, and then participate in the 13 ddx (expected to have a lot of the automation features of the Mogami) program for a class of 8.

Not about the precise numbers, more the balance across classes.

Thoughts?

Massive

Interesting. A fleet with better ships would seem better balanced but the negatives (assuming the cost and crewing are similar of which I am dubious) I see are: 1. That model only gives a 5 ship run to Henderson. Valley of death looms. 2. Adding two more Hunters would delay the Hobart replacement by 2 x Hunter drumbeat (by which time the Hobarts will be very old). 3. The growth of the fleet to 20 frigates would likely be pushed out to the 2050s. If the expansion is about having more ships in more places to hunt subs etc then that may be problematic.

Also I don’t think there is a public statement that there would be a 1:1 replacement of DDG - just that it would be built at Osborne. Maybe there will be some clarity in the shipbuilding plan.

 

[Reptilia]

Atm it seems like the plan is
6 ASW Hunter followed by 3-6 AWD Hunter or 3-4 Type 83
11 GPF followed by a larger ship build replacing AOR, LPD, LHD etc.

A switch may see larger vessels built at Osborne beginning mid way through the Hunter program and let Henderson build the destroyers. 13DDX?, after the Mogami/Upgraded Mogami / A400 after the A200/A210?

 

[Volkodav]

As a little side note, the LHDs were actually fitted out with a 3D Printer. Adelaide's was given to FSU in Sydney as they had no use/training/supplies for the unit

Sounds about right.

It has a lot of potential but people need to know how to use it.

I also suspect the RAN engineering types don't have the exposure to materials engineering and structures that may be required.

What would be useful is an approved parts list, and qualified artificers to setup and QA the jobs.

 

[iambuzzard]

Think you are looking at 2 year drumbeat in both yards. (Maybe 18 months Henderson)
It would be hard to have continuous shipbuilding otherwise with a faster drumbeat.

Eg
2024 - Begin Hunter 1 build (Osborne)
2026 - Begin GPF 1 build (foreign yard)
2029 - GPF 1 (foreign yard)
2029 - Begin GPF 4 build (Henderson)
2031 - GPF 2 (foreign yard)
2033 - GPF 3 (foreign yard)
2034 - Hunter 1 (Osborne)
2035 - GPF 4 (Henderson or from foreign yard if behind schedule)
2036 - Hunter 2 (Osborne)
2037 - GPF 5 (Henderson)
2038 - Hunter 3 (Osborne)
2039 - GPF 6 (Henderson)
2040 - Hunter 4 (Osborne)
2041 - GPF 7 (Henderson)
2042 - Hunter 5 (Osborne)
2043 - GPF 8 (Henderson)
2043 - Hunter 6 (Osborne)
2045 - GPF 9 (Henderson)
2045 - Hobart replacement 1 (Osborne) - build began sometime mid 2030s. (You would think 3-6 will be built)
2047 - GPF 10 (Henderson)
2048 - GPF 11 (Henderson)

-Patrol Boats, Landing Craft and LOSVs would be built simultaneously at Henderson.
-Now or in the next few years would be a good time to get AORs built overseas so that follow ons or other larger vessels could be built locally in the 2040s with delivery in the 2050s.

Very informative. Thanks

 

[SammyC]

One concern wrt the GPF program is whether this will result in an inadequate number of Tier 1 combatants.

For example, are we building enough Hunters and is a 1:1 replacement of the Hobarts sufficient.

Would a better balanced fleet be to build 8 GPF, increase the Hunter build to 8, and then participate in the 13 ddx (expected to have a lot of the automation features of the Mogami) program for a class of 8.

Not about the precise numbers, more the balance across classes.

Thoughts?

Massive

I would have thought there will always be more of the simpler platform. Its bulk, with low staffing for cheap cost. For what its worth, if we go with the evolved Mogami, then I would suggest this is closer to a Tier 1.5 on our scale than a Tier 2.

If we need more of something, then this is the easiest platform to accelerate numbers of type.

I would view that the eventual Hobart replacement is tied to the success or otherwise of the LOCSV concept. If this works then I don't see a need for a dedicated 100 cell AAW vessel. A Hunter with two LOCSVs would have the same capability, probably more because it wouldn't sacrifice any of its current capabilities with drones. Possibly even an upgraded Mogami with some LOCSVs in tow would perform a similar function.

If the LOCSV works, then I would see a continuation of the Hunter class to nine, same standard as the first six, upgrade of the GPFs to have virtual Aegis, and then a lot more LOCSVs, say 12, 18 or 24.

I have a personal view that the big missile battery destroyers time in the sun is waning, and like the battleship, it's reducing in effectiveness. The distributed platform is taking over.

 

[Reptilia]

I would have thought there will always be more of the simpler platform. Its bulk, with low staffing for cheap cost. For what its worth, if we go with the evolved Mogami, then I would suggest this is closer to a Tier 1.5 on our scale than a Tier 2.

If we need more of something, then this is the easiest platform to accelerate numbers of type.

I would view that the eventual Hobart replacement is tied to the success or otherwise of the LOCSV concept. If this works then I don't see a need for a dedicated 100 cell AAW vessel. A Hunter with two LOCSVs would have the same capability, probably more because it wouldn't sacrifice any of its current capabilities with drones. Possibly even an upgraded Mogami with some LOCSVs in tow would perform a similar function.

If the LOCSV works, then I would see a continuation of the Hunter class to nine, same standard as the first six, upgrade of the GPFs to have virtual Aegis, and then a lot more LOCSVs, say 12, 18 or 24.

I have a personal view that the big missile battery destroyers time in the sun is waning, and like the battleship, it's reducing in effectiveness. The distributed platform is taking over.

Enough time to determine the viability of LOSVs with Hobart replacement planning late 2020s and build beginning mid 2030s?
-Not even the United States will be able to determine LOSVs full capability by decades end.

Type 83 makes more sense as the tier 1 Hobart replacement, larger mast, very large missile load with mission bay still available, space for DEWs/system, space for ‘growth’ VLS and integration of hypersonics, min 1 LOSV as a picket ship but multiple possible.
Probably can’t fit all of these capabilities on a Hunter hull.

 

[Bob53]

Atm it seems like the plan is
6 ASW Hunter followed by 3-6 AWD Hunter or 3-4 Type 83
11 GPF followed by a larger ship build replacing AOR, LPD, LHD etc.

A switch may see larger vessels built at Osborne beginning mid way through the Hunter program and let Henderson build the destroyers. 13DDX?, after the Mogami/Upgraded Mogami / A400 after the A200/A210?

Well folks here talk about commonality at length so having one class with multiple versions AWD, ASW, seems to make sense. Hunters could be in continual build for another 30-40 years …think Arleighs first laid down in 1980 I think. Common systems layouts with the main variation in weapons.

 

[Bob53]

Very informative. Thanks

4 ships delivered over the next 10 years……. Not what you would call a rapid build lead up to the most dangerous period of the last 80 years.

 

[Reptilia]

4 ships delivered over the next 10 years……. Not what you would call a rapid build lead up to the most dangerous period of the last 80 years.

8(6+1+1) by 2035 is possible if they build 6 GPFs overseas, 1 at Henderson, 1 Hunter.

 

[StevoJH]

Type 83 makes more sense as the tier 1 Hobart replacement, larger mast, very large missile load with mission bay still available, space for DEWs/system, space for ‘growth’ VLS and integration of hypersonics, min 1 LOSV as a picket ship but multiple possible.
Probably can’t fit all of these capabilities on a Hunter hull.

I didn’t think that Type 83 had a size or configuration announced yet?

Type 83 could be anything from a Type 26/Hunter with different configuration or a slight stretch all the way through to a UK designed analogue of the US DDX.

 

[Reptilia]

I didn’t think that Type 83 had a size or configuration announced yet?

Type 83 could be anything from a Type 26/Hunter with different configuration or a slight stretch all the way through to a UK designed analogue of the US DDX.

Correct, but it would have to get larger to incorporate new technology.
-If you use the Hunter hull, 96 cells loses the mission bay and ASW suite.
-If you add Dragonfire, you lose multiple containers for use in the mission bay.
-Not known if growth VLS, wider and longer than strike length cells can be installed.

The only released concept drawing of the Type 83 from BAE so far is this one…

 

[old faithful]

Its not a Mogami 30. It wasn't on the short list. And it's not sailing now. So unless less they change the publicly stated parameters for the selection then I don't think it is competing. Lots of countries offered lots of things, doesn't mean those offers were even looked at (A210 for example was offered last year).

Of course if they changed things I'm fine with that, but I'm not wasting hopium.

As far as I am aware, the Mogami FFM was short-listed, and the FFM is the evolved Mogami with 32 cells.

Yes I know it's Wikipedia, but if you scroll down to export....

Mogami-class frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is a link that states the FFM is short-listed.

Australia shortlists designs for A$11bn general purpose frigate contract

Australia has reportedly shortlisted two warship designs for the navy’s A$11bn ($7.24bn) general purpose frigate (GPF) contract.

www.naval-technology.com

.

 

[John Fedup]

This is Naval News’ latest article on Sea3000. I wasn’t aware Australia has an election due in 2025, a potential delay I assume?

Germany And Japan Left Standing in Australian SEA 3000

Naval builders from Germany and Japan remain preferred candidates in Australian SEA 3000 requirement for up to eleven new frigates.

www.navalnews.com

 

[old faithful]

This is Naval News’ latest article on Sea3000. I wasn’t aware Australia has an election due in 2025, a potential delay I assume?

Germany And Japan Left Standing in Australian SEA 3000

Naval builders from Germany and Japan remain preferred candidates in Australian SEA 3000 requirement for up to eleven new frigates.

www.navalnews.com

Speculation is that the election will be called late January or early February 2025 as that time line suits the incumbent government better strategically.

 

[StevoJH]

Correct, but it would have to get larger to incorporate new technology.
-If you use the Hunter hull, 96 cells loses the mission bay and ASW suite.
-If you add Dragonfire, you lose multiple containers for use in the mission bay.
-Not known if growth VLS, wider and longer than strike length cells can be installed.

The only released concept drawing of the Type 83 from BAE so far is this one…

The British MOD released an RFI in September regarding Nuclear powered surface ships.

If the power requirements for Type 83 are high enough to justify nuclear propulsion that is likely going to one very big and very expensive ship.

It’s way too early to look at Type 83 or DDX as options for the Hobart replacement. Luckily they are young ships and a decision doesn’t have to be made right now.

 

[Meriv90]

Partecipating in the development and design isn't considered?
It would be way cheaper and you would have a ship tailored to your needs and not adapted to your needs