Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
One other thing though is I would not be surprised if the SSNs were named the Melbourne class
Melbourne
Darwin
Newcastle
Fremantle
Perth
Hobart*
Brisbane*
Sydney*
*Depending on availability of course.
Both the British and Americans have used traditional Battleship names for SSNs so using RAN Cruiser/Destroyer names would be a possibility.
 

Meriv

New Member
Yes, the design has not been finalised. And for those saying we should have gone for the Fremm or the F-100/110, they would be even worse off. We are trying to turn an ASW frigate into a multi role DLG.
Sorry for the ultra late answer, but this isn't an argument since also the FREMM was ASW and for the constellation class the USN is going through the same process of adapting the design. With first steel cut two weeks ago.

What's true on the other hand is there was no way to fit everything you wanted in a smaller platform that is the FREMM vs the bigger T26.

On the subjective side, IMHO, it was a matter of priorities capabilities vs timing.
Constellation vs Hunter/CSC are very comparable between them.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
On less crucial matters, I wonder if those warships would be able to pad Chinook helos as the Hunter class will. Would it be worth the cost/risk of redesign?
Any new hobarts? No way. The hunters have an enormous helo deck, it would be quite a big revision to adjust any F-105 based ship for that kind of capability, and honestly, while nice to have, how often would Chinooks be landing on a destroyer with no flex space to take advantage of that kind of heavy lift helo. On a Hunter, it kinda makes sense because it has flex space that could deploy a platoon sized something. Not a lot of flex space on the hobart. Hobarts will generally live along side the LHD, which has ample room for helo ops. The Frigates may on the other hand might do patrol by themselves.

About upgrading Hobarts, I see Spain is upgrading their ships. I will post in the appropriate thread.

Sorry for the ultra late answer, but this isn't an argument since also the FREMM was ASW and for the constellation class the USN is going through the same process of adapting the design. With first steel cut two weeks ago.
Not quite the same. The Constellation class has a significantly different fit out and generally less ambitious. 57mm, SPY-6(3) radar, 1 CIWS (SeaRAM), 2 rhibs, and one MH-60R. . Hunter is 5" gun, 2 x CIWS, and a "big" radar, 4 x rhibs, and can handle two MH-60R's (although likely only one embarked) or upto 10x 20ft containers, and have greater endurance. To compare even the basics between the two, they are quite different, and even then the US did significantly modify the class for its construction.

The hunter is a big global frigate, jack of everything. The Constellation is more like a modern FFG, cheap, cheerful, capable, but the US doesn't have to turn it into a destroyer.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No. There would be no real benefit and the redesign effort would be huge, requiring the ships to be lengthened in just about the worst possible place.

Although given this is a Navantia thought bubble with no current basis in approved reality,the point is moot.
 

Meriv

New Member
Not quite the same. The Constellation class has a significantly different fit out and generally less ambitious. 57mm, SPY-6(3) radar, 1 CIWS (SeaRAM), 2 rhibs, and one MH-60R. . Hunter is 5" gun, 2 x CIWS, and a "big" radar, 4 x rhibs, and can handle two MH-60R's (although likely only one embarked) or upto 10x 20ft containers, and have greater endurance. To compare even the basics between the two, they are quite different, and even then the US did significantly modify the class for its construction.

The hunter is a big global frigate, jack of everything. The Constellation is more like a modern FFG, cheap, cheerful, capable, but the US doesn't have to turn it into a destroyer.
Sorry if I didn't communicate well but I totally agree with you.

it is exactly what I meant. Capabilities (T26) vs Timing/cheap (FREMM).

T26 is the optimal solution for your needs (and Canadian ones). But you had tons of delays in the original program. Thus the parameters of the problem changed.

And as you all are discussing right now, the building timing and tempo, got a huge bump in priority.

Thus if we have to factor a temporal factor, the design FREMM choice and T26 choice becomes comparable (the post I answered was stating the opposite). This is what I meant.

Luckily for us (same for us Italians since our army is a procurement zombie) Putin self-called his bluff giving the US another 20-30 years of full dominance.

Edit: comparable only to see the outcome of the different choices just in case.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
T26 is the optimal solution for your needs (and Canadian ones). But you had tons of delays in the original program. Thus the parameters of the problem changed.
Did we really? We had delays, but mostly due to the ambitious/unrealistic time frame given for the project. There has been lots of complaining about it, but there were two delays.

The list of contenders was whittled down to three, who were funded to conduct design activities such as assessing the risk of modifying their designs. Those risks forced the government to acknowledge that it wasn’t possible to meet the 2020 construction deadline. So, the 2020 milestone was redefined as the start of ‘prototyping’ (that is, demonstrating that the new shipyard in South Australia worked), while the start of construction on actual ships was moved to the end of 2022.

None of the original contenders for Sea5000 were going to meet the 2020 steel cutting deadline originally set out in the project, not even the F-105 based design, of which ASC were already building hulls for, as it was a significantly different design with different systems and different capabilities. Including the doubling the size of the hangar for two helos, the massive and power hungry Ceafar2, etc etc. Selected in what 2018 and cut in 2020.. To make the 2020 date realistic, they should have moved the selection earlier than 28 jun 2018. Even if you had a reference design with no changes, just getting all the suppliers and contracts/acquiring short lead items sorted would have taken 18 months. You could build a hull, but no wire, plumbing, ventilation etc to put inside it.

For me to order a Toyota Landcruiser today, will take 18-24 months, and that is for a mass produced item from a factory making thousands. Why would someone expect a complete, bespoke high end surface combatant to take less time to draw up, modify, contract and start welding.

The second delay was from BAE of 18 months as the design had not yet been completed, again due to the large amount of ambitious capabilities we wanted in this design. Caefar2 is the full monty four face mega radar, not a 3 face radar using regular frigate levels of power like the UK and Canadian selections. All of this surprised few people, as the UK ship still isn't in the water, and wasn't expected to be in the water for some time. Political promises does not change engineering reality.

We could have chosen, just a regular radar like the smaller ones UK/Canada has chosen, and had normal amounts of endurance and other less ambitious systems, and started production earlier. Or we further customise and build later.

The Australian program was never going to overtake the UK program which had started construction in 2017 and main gated in 2015, designed for the RN from the outset.

The biggest problem with the Hunter program was that it wasn't given enough time to be such an ambitious program. I would argue the Attack class suffered from the same issues, as it had been delayed and put off so long (10-15+ years?), it was looking increasingly unlikely to meet ultra ambitious targets. We then decided to custom build a nuclear sub as a conventional, requiring billions of modifications and variations. Like going to a residential home builder, using their design, and turning single level home into an airplane, via variation.

I don't think things would have been different with FREMM. We would have spent just as long, and had a generally less capable platform and made it difficult to meet other project outcomes.

The success the US is having with Constellation isn't because they selected FREMM, and FREMM is magical, its because they didn't try to put the full size SPY-7 radar on it, make it have a 10,000 nm range, put in four helicopters, 4 CIWS, 8x landing craft, an 8" main gun and then say batch 2 will have 64 strike length cells.. I know that seems like hyperbolic exaggeration, but Hunter literally has twice the number or size of everything on the Constellation other than the VLS. Plus the hunters have come under pressure for only 32 vls.

They had a reasonable list of requirements for a low cost frigate. 57mm, smaller radar, single helo, 32 vls. Done. Even then they had to stretch the design.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
For those interested in the Navantia proposal for three new Hobarts.


The proposal is to use the Hobart as the baseline with improved anti-aircraft and anti-submarine capabilities.

Navantia present three options.

1. Entirely built in Spain
2. Shared construction with Australia.
3. Entirely built in Australia
As others have noted this is very much a speculative offer. It ignores the very large elephant in the room ..... the DDG has zero growth margin. The Australian version of the F105 is still deeper in the water than the Spanish version (in impact of increased weight) and it is going to be a job to shoe horn the combat system upgrades into the ship as part of hte upgrade project.

If the solution was to grow the vessel then you find yourself back into the same situation that the Hunters find themselves in with significant redesign (noting the Hunters had more volume to start with).

Finally the other issue ..... what is the lead time on the combat system and sensors and .............. and everything else that goes into one of these ships. The Hunter programme has been announcing contracts as they go. This oft ignored activity is as central to getting these vessels in the water as building the hull.

The 'quick' new build DDG has none of this in place .... the Hunter is pretty much assured of beating it into the water unless they strip equipment from that project. That would be a dumb idea IMHO.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry for the ultra late answer, but this isn't an argument since also the FREMM was ASW and for the constellation class the USN is going through the same process of adapting the design. With first steel cut two weeks ago.

What's true on the other hand is there was no way to fit everything you wanted in a smaller platform that is the FREMM vs the bigger T26.

On the subjective side, IMHO, it was a matter of priorities capabilities vs timing.
Constellation vs Hunter/CSC are very comparable between them.
Watch and wait.

Ask anyone on the Arliegh Burke design an build if that was straight forward and easy, it's not, it never is. For some reason we like to look at the difficulties instead of the success.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
One other thing though is I would not be surprised if the SSNs were named the Melbourne class
Melbourne
Darwin
Newcastle
Fremantle
Perth
Hobart*
Brisbane*
Sydney*
*Depending on availability of course.
Both the British and Americans have used traditional Battleship names for SSNs so using RAN Cruiser/Destroyer names would be a possibility.
Personally I would be happy to see the tradition of Collins Class SSKs named after past RAN heroes continued into SSNs. In fact the same names could be continued, with each SSN named after the SSK being retired for it. So SSK Sheehan retires; SSN Sheehan commissioned.

In going from six SSKs to eight SSNs we could then use the six Collins Class names plus two more. I propose the names of Australia's two first submarine commanders:
- HMAS Stoker and
- HMAS Besant
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Personally I would be happy to see the tradition of Collins Class SSKs named after past RAN heroes continued into SSNs. In fact the same names could be continued, with each SSN named after the SSK being retired for it. So SSK Sheehan retires; SSN Sheehan commissioned.

In going from six SSKs to eight SSNs we could then use the six Collins Class names plus two more. I propose the names of Australia's two first submarine commanders:
- HMAS Stoker and
- HMAS Besant
Both already in use...



Oldsig.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Personally I would be happy to see the tradition of Collins Class SSKs named after past RAN heroes continued into SSNs. In fact the same names could be continued, with each SSN named after the SSK being retired for it. So SSK Sheehan retires; SSN Sheehan commissioned.

In going from six SSKs to eight SSNs we could then use the six Collins Class names plus two more. I propose the names of Australia's two first submarine commanders:
- HMAS Stoker and
- HMAS Besant
I'd like to see some ships named after RAN/RANVR George Cross winners eg: Goldsworthy, Gosse, Mould, Syme, Rogers & Bagot. Noting the first 4 individuals won their GC's for mine disposal, maybe name some of the Huon replacements after them. Cheers.
 

76mmGuns

Active Member
Dont recall seeing this here, apologies if this has been discussed already. But our "parent ship", the Type 26, is due to hit the water in December. Be great to finally see the (nearly) finished product.

Of course our version will look just that much better ;)

 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Ahhh Darwin is a capital city for 250,000 Australians. I think if they went Melbourne Class, it would be.
Melbourne
Darwin
Newcastle or Fremantle

Tasmania is all but taken with the 3rd Hunter named Tasman, and there appears to be a unwritten rule about naming ships after states. With the DD Tasmania being the only time and that was in 1919 but none in the 103 years since.
Ahhh.....the entire NT population is 250,000.
Darwin is about 120,000, palmerston and rural area is about 50,000. Katherine around 12,000, Alice about 30,000 etc etc
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Ahhh.....the entire NT population is 250,000.
Darwin is about 120,000, palmerston and rural area is about 50,000. Katherine around 12,000, Alice about 30,000 etc etc
My meaning was Darwin is the Capital of the NT and the NT has a population of 250,000. I did not mean that Darwin has a pop of 250,000.
If you were confused my apologies.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Don't recall seeing this here, apologies if this has been discussed already. But our "parent ship", the Type 26, is due to hit the water in December. Be great to finally see the (nearly) finished product.

Hmmmm...

While the ship may hit the water, she will be far from finished. Based on the Type 45 lineage from steel cutting thru to commissioning / handover to the RN, each Destroyer took just over 6 years. Looking at that data, the ship was effectively on dry land for x3 years, was launched, then spent a further 3 years being fitted out...

T45 steel cut to handover - scroll to base for table

I have a feeling that Type 26 may be of a similar nature, noting the steel cutting ceremony for GLASGOW was 2017, CARDIFF 2019 & BELFAST 2021, with GLASGOW not expected to enter service until 2025 or 2026.

All that said, at the moment ASC have been building 'practice sections', steel hasn't been cut on HUNTER#1 & the ship isn't likely to enter RAN hands till circa 2028 ( ?? ). I am sure that any trials & tribulations coming from HMS Glasgow's build sequencing & installation will be getting fed back to Adelaide, to ensure that things go a little quicker / smoother...

SA
 
Last edited:

Milne Bay

Active Member
Hmmmm...


All that said, at the moment ASC have been building 'practice sections', steel hasn't been cut on HUNTER#1 & the ship isn't likely to enter RAN hands till circa 2028 ( ?? ). I am sure that any trials & tribulations coming from HMS Glasgow's build sequencing & installation will be getting fed back to Adelaide, to ensure that things go a little quicker / smoother...

SA
I can't find the reference, but the prototyping blocks ("Practice sections") have been progressing well, and some are so good that they will be used as production blocks in one or more of the Hunters.
So in a kind of a way steel has been cut on a Hunter...........
MB
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I can't find the reference, but the prototyping blocks ("Practice sections") have been progressing well, and some are so good that they will be used as production blocks in one or more of the Hunters.
So in a kind of a way steel has been cut on a Hunter...........
MB
The workforce is up to speed, what they need is a baselined design to build. This has always been the issue, the workers are the ones who are criticised for delays but the issue is rarely ever build quality or speed, it has been the failure to provide the design, quality material, and equipment in a timely manner, i.e. all the things successive governments have outsourced because it's "cheaper and more efficient".
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
The "when" of the Hunter is 2031, apparently

I'm looking forward to the long delayed National Shipbuilding Update which properly outlines the revised schedule, drumbeat etc.
I assume we'll finally get this early next year alongside the Defence Strategic Review?

Hopefully there's also a proper spec update on Hunter to come shortly too.
 
Top