I still think there will be more than 6 hunters because they'll build a guided missile/anti air variant of the hunter. This was in the proposed possible plan released back years ago, and was listed as building starting around late 2030's. BAE already released a design for it, with 96 Mk 41's. But I can imagine Australia might cut it back to, say, 64, given the number of missiles we have in our stockpile, and the extra space might allow the AAW to carry unmanned units. I understand the 96 VLS variant meant there is no tower sonar array.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
It’s possible they might go with the 96 cell(or less) variant from Batch II.
3xASW + 3xAWD + 3 Hobart(and future replacement)
How many tier 1s do we need?
Or if they build 6 of the 32 cell variant, from then on the most likely candidates to replace the Hobarts are
-Hunter with 96 cells(or less)
-Type 83 cruiser
-13DDX (if we go with Mitsubishi as the tier 2)
Regards the AAW Hunter version, I think the towed sonar was removed to reduce cost, rather than manage weight or space. I think there is a way for an AAW version to retain this capability. I could be wrong.
The AAW version also had a higher top speed by removing some of the silencing systems on the propulsion shaft.
I would have thought going for the full 96 VLS, but only filling as necessary would be the better strategy. Keep the enemy guessing.
In regards to the T83. My money is on an evolved T26 platform, possibly even the AAW Hunter. The Brits can't afford a new design, particularly when they have something very close to what they want already available.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The UK is also operating on a very different timeline and build tempo to the RAN.
The UK is planning on commissioning a new ship every 12 months from mid way through the program. By the time the RAN commissions the first Hunter, BAe is likely to be building the first Type 83.
The UK is planning on commissioning a new ship every 12 months from mid way through the program. By the time the RAN commissions the first Hunter, BAe is likely to be building the first Type 83.
Thanks for this info. I didn't know either of them.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
This article confirms what Sammy said about the towed sonar and noise reduction systems.
It appears that BAES design for the Type 83 AAW Destroyer is still in contention. The fact that a lot of design work for the Hunter class makes it suitable for an AAW version means that, if it is selected as the basis of the Type 83, it can be procured for a lower price and built in an expeditious time frame.
It certainly would make a very good AAW destroyer for the RAN, either to complement the Hobarts, or to replace them.
The Type 83 Destroyer – The MoD must get this right
It appears that BAES design for the Type 83 AAW Destroyer is still in contention. The fact that a lot of design work for the Hunter class makes it suitable for an AAW version means that, if it is selected as the basis of the Type 83, it can be procured for a lower price and built in an expeditious time frame.
It certainly would make a very good AAW destroyer for the RAN, either to complement the Hobarts, or to replace them.
The Type 83 Destroyer – The MoD must get this right
Ironically I asked a few of the crew of Choules when she was in port last Saturday, had they sailed recently through TC Alfred and what it was like. They mentioned they hadn’t and hadn’t in fact ever done such a thing and din’t know what it was like.
Well, they do now…
From:
Paul Garvey
The Australian
4 March 2025
"US and Australian submarines and an air warfare destroyer have been spotted leaving the HMAS Stirling naval base south of Perth as Chinese warships near Australia’s west coast.
As a flotilla of three Chinese naval vessels continued to move westward along Australia’s southern coast, images posted to social media on Monday appeared to show the US and Australian submarines that had been moored at HMAS Stirling on the move.
The USS Minnesota nuclear-powered submarine was photographed sailing out to sea while one of Australia’s Collins-class submarines could be seen moving past Rottnest Island in what appeared to be a conspicuous show of force.
The air warfare destroyer HMAS Hobart was also photographed sailing out of HMAS Stirling".
"The Chinese flotilla was in waters between Albany and Esperance as of Monday morning".
Paul Garvey
The Australian
4 March 2025
"US and Australian submarines and an air warfare destroyer have been spotted leaving the HMAS Stirling naval base south of Perth as Chinese warships near Australia’s west coast.
As a flotilla of three Chinese naval vessels continued to move westward along Australia’s southern coast, images posted to social media on Monday appeared to show the US and Australian submarines that had been moored at HMAS Stirling on the move.
The USS Minnesota nuclear-powered submarine was photographed sailing out to sea while one of Australia’s Collins-class submarines could be seen moving past Rottnest Island in what appeared to be a conspicuous show of force.
The air warfare destroyer HMAS Hobart was also photographed sailing out of HMAS Stirling".
"The Chinese flotilla was in waters between Albany and Esperance as of Monday morning".
MSN
To add further concern, the above article states Jim McDowell has resigned (I understand retired). He was heading up the GPF program.
I think he was the person that the minister corrected on when a decision of the GPF platform would be made during senate estimates.
I don't know him but I understand he was very experienced.
To add further concern, the above article states Jim McDowell has resigned (I understand retired). He was heading up the GPF program.
I think he was the person that the minister corrected on when a decision of the GPF platform would be made during senate estimates.
I don't know him but I understand he was very experienced.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I’m sure that there’s a lot more to the story of Jim McDowell’s resignation - it certainly appears that the Minister wasn’t happy with the timeline that he thought was logical. He was probably correct allowing that amount of time for the decision process in a normal environment but, essentially we have to be taking decisions as if we are on a war footing and can’t wait another year for a decision thus delaying the ordering and construction phases.
Senior defence official quits amid tension over $10 billion warship project
That article just says the guy who was saying the decision wouldn't be made until next year is out. This is the same guy the deputy PM/defence minister just publicly slapped down.
A decision this year still seems likely, unless the defence minister is completely out of the loop.
I'm betting there is worry about the process not being followed properly - expect the ANAO to issue a scathing report in 2 to 3 years.
Look, it reads like the guy putting up roadblocks just got his marching orders. Good for getting a decision sooner, maybe bad for other things in the program.
Edit: What Going Boeing says.
Would be a good consideration down the line, if the Mogami is chosen.
I love the speed of the GPF program, I cross my fingers for its success! If it does indeed work out well, it will set a good precedent for future programs, or if it doesn’t, another expensive lesson!
with all the discussion of magazine depth, it would be crazy if, we were to choose Hunter for AAW, to not go with the proposed 96 cells, you’re spot on, we don’t have to fill them all. It would be a damn site easier when and if required to fill empty cells, than to reconstruct 32 more cells into an existing ship.
I was expecting an announcement just prior to or just after the federal election.
I know these decisions usually take time, but the initial strategic review was close to 3 years ago, with an emphasis on "urgent", off the shelf to speed things up. To be honest, I thought the decision would have been made by now.
I know these decisions usually take time, but the initial strategic review was close to 3 years ago, with an emphasis on "urgent", off the shelf to speed things up. To be honest, I thought the decision would have been made by now.
There's real world urgent and "committee" urgent
Reminds me of a time where I'd decided to join a condo owners committee, where there were 3 newbies (inc me) and 2 long timers. First meeting, we had an issue with garbage disposal, it was stinking up the place, we discussed it a bit, then the head guy said we'd put it in the minutes and make a decision at the next 3 month committee meeting. A newbie and I were stunned at the deferral, instead of fixing it then and there.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
One word, "Politics"!
I wonder if the time to make a decision is reflected in the reality of time to manufacture.
I hope not, but the reality is as most have observed over the years /decades ship construction is a complicated endeavour that takes time from the starters gun going off to select a vessel, to the physical reality of the first of class being commissioned.
SEA 3000 is ambitious.
History will judge its success.
For now, however frustrating we can only hope the first ships are delivered to meet our expectations on time and equally we can produce domestically to the same expectations.
I can only share the frustration and anxiety.
it’s an ambitious project on many levels.
It’s our plan B , C and D for the mistakes of the past.
It just has to work and regretfully I’m just not that confident it will.
Cheers S