Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Reptilia]

I think Australia could talk to Japan about co-designing a Teir one General purpose destroyer with increased VLS. Even something with 72 VLS would be very handy. In my mind, three AWD is not enough. The fleet looks unbalanced. I'm sure a modified Hunter would be great as well but, as far as I can see, working with BAE, means coming with an open cheque book.

Absolutely.
Japan ordered 2 ASEV, 1 under construction - service dates 2027 or 2028 and 2028 or 2029. (Not really suitable for RAN at this point in time.)
The new Destroyer for the 2030s(DDGX to replace the Kongo class is under development, so too the DDX to replace the Murasame class.)
BAE will have the Hunter AWD as an option and probably the Type 83.

 

[SammyC]

Should the 2nd batch of Hunters be the AWD variant? 3 of each is not enough(eg Hobarts) but 4 of each seems ok.
Cost is getting ridiculous.

(8) Tier 1 > ASW 2034/36/38/40 to AWD 2042/44/46/48 (replacing Hobarts)
(12) Tier 2 > GPF 2030/32/34/36/37/39/40/42/43/45/46/48 (Boosted to 18 month drumbeat after the first 4)

Keep a larger fleet of GPFs in our region and let the Tier 1s travel the globe.

In regards to BAE, I think working with any yard requires an open check book. BAE are no different. They are all expensive. Mitsubishi will have the same themes as well.

I will also point out that the cost explosion on the Hunters was self inflicted. We did this to ourselves with the large number of changes to the baseline T26. I suspect if we had stayed with the T26 and followed the methodology now applied to the upgraded Mogami (no changes), then we would be seeing the Hunter hull not far behind Glasgow and for a much lower price. Food for thought.

I think we will get the six ASW configured Hunters come what may. The cut steel date for the first three is Jun 2024 (done), 2026 and then 2028. So the first unit from the second batch will not commence until 2030 on this cadence, with a contract for the second batch unlikely before 2028. One would hope this contact will have a noticable reduction in per hull pricing from the first batch.

The IIP said that a project to replace the Hobarts needs to have commenced by 2027 at the latest. So we will not see this before that timeframe. If it is to follow the ASW Hunters, then 2036 is the earliest a build slot will be available in Osborne, so a selection is unlikely before say 2030.

I would be of the view, that unless there are profound problems with the construction phase of the Hunters, that becomes unresolvable, the AAW verstion of the Hunter will be in the box seat. We will know how to make it, and it will be low risk. It will be good enough.

If we have learnt anything from the last several ship projects, it is that a new hull design is immensely expensive, high risk and time consuming to bring into production. Overseas builds have learnt the same thing, with the era of bespoke exquisit designs fading in popularity. Everybody has been burnt badly, nobody wants to go though this again.

The clear message from the USN is that they will keep building evolved ABs, and Virginias for a long time. I don't think the Brits will ever fund a type 83, they can't afford it and the T42 has spent most of its life alongside resolving build problems. I think they will instead modify the T26 hull as a cheaper low cost AAW solution (i.e follow us).

The Japanese will not build any more ASEVs (they are hideously expensive with an orphan class of radar), and instead go back to updated Mayas based on spy6. I doubt the the Japanese DDX will ever stand up, they will instead stay with Mayas and continually improved Mogamis.

 

[Stampede]

In regards to BAE, I think working with any yard requires an open check book. BAE are no different. They are all expensive. Mitsubishi will have the same themes as well.

I will also point out that the cost explosion on the Hunters was self inflicted. We did this to ourselves with the large number of changes to the baseline T26. I suspect if we had stayed with the T26 and followed the methodology now applied to the upgraded Mogami (no changes), then we would be seeing the Hunter hull not far behind Glasgow and for a much lower price. Food for thought.

I think we will get the six ASW configured Hunters come what may. The cut steel date for the first three is Jun 2024 (done), 2026 and then 2028. So the first unit from the second batch will not commence until 2030 on this cadence, with a contract for the second batch unlikely before 2028. One would hope this contact will have a noticable reduction in per hull pricing from the first batch.

The IIP said that a project to replace the Hobarts needs to have commenced by 2027 at the latest. So we will not see this before that timeframe. If it is to follow the ASW Hunters, then 2036 is the earliest a build slot will be available in Osborne, so a selection is unlikely before say 2030.

I would be of the view, that unless there are profound problems with the construction phase of the Hunters, that becomes unresolvable, the AAW verstion of the Hunter will be in the box seat. We will know how to make it, and it will be low risk. It will be good enough.

If we have learnt anything from the last several ship projects, it is that a new hull design is immensely expensive, high risk and time consuming to bring into production. Overseas builds have learnt the same thing, with the era of bespoke exquisit designs fading in popularity. Everybody has been burnt badly, nobody wants to go though this again.

The clear message from the USN is that they will keep building evolved ABs, and Virginias for a long time. I don't think the Brits will ever fund a type 83, they can't afford it and the T42 has spent most of its life alongside resolving build problems. I think they will instead modify the T26 hull as a cheaper low cost AAW solution (i.e follow us).

The Japanese will not build any more ASEVs (they are hideously expensive with an orphan class of radar), and instead go back to updated Mayas based on spy6. I doubt the the Japanese DDX will ever stand up, they will instead stay with Mayas and continually improved Mogamis.

BAE will no doubt take note that a different ship is to built in a different state / nation for the RAN
Whatever the various long term builds look like in the later 2030’s the government has options.

BAE will hopefully get Hunter in the water on schedule.


Cheers S

 

[76mmGuns]

sort of cross between Pine Gap and a Mosque.....

Making our warships welcome in both the USA and muslim countries. Win Win

 

[hauritz]

In regards to BAE, I think working with any yard requires an open check book. BAE are no different. They are all expensive. Mitsubishi will have the same themes as well.

I will also point out that the cost explosion on the Hunters was self inflicted. We did this to ourselves with the large number of changes to the baseline T26. I suspect if we had stayed with the T26 and followed the methodology now applied to the upgraded Mogami (no changes), then we would be seeing the Hunter hull not far behind Glasgow and for a much lower price. Food for thought.

I think we will get the six ASW configured Hunters come what may. The cut steel date for the first three is Jun 2024 (done), 2026 and then 2028. So the first unit from the second batch will not commence until 2030 on this cadence, with a contract for the second batch unlikely before 2028. One would hope this contact will have a noticable reduction in per hull pricing from the first batch.

The IIP said that a project to replace the Hobarts needs to have commenced by 2027 at the latest. So we will not see this before that timeframe. If it is to follow the ASW Hunters, then 2036 is the earliest a build slot will be available in Osborne, so a selection is unlikely before say 2030.

I would be of the view, that unless there are profound problems with the construction phase of the Hunters, that becomes unresolvable, the AAW verstion of the Hunter will be in the box seat. We will know how to make it, and it will be low risk. It will be good enough.

If we have learnt anything from the last several ship projects, it is that a new hull design is immensely expensive, high risk and time consuming to bring into production. Overseas builds have learnt the same thing, with the era of bespoke exquisit designs fading in popularity. Everybody has been burnt badly, nobody wants to go though this again.

The clear message from the USN is that they will keep building evolved ABs, and Virginias for a long time. I don't think the Brits will ever fund a type 83, they can't afford it and the T42 has spent most of its life alongside resolving build problems. I think they will instead modify the T26 hull as a cheaper low cost AAW solution (i.e follow us).

The Japanese will not build any more ASEVs (they are hideously expensive with an orphan class of radar), and instead go back to updated Mayas based on spy6. I doubt the the Japanese DDX will ever stand up, they will instead stay with Mayas and continually improved Mogamis.

I think someone else mentioned that had we built enough Hobarts in the first place we probably wouldn't have needed anything as complex and the Hunter. If we had a balanced fleet with more AWD we simply wouldn't need an AEGIS equipped ASW vessel. Life would have been much simpler.

As things stand I think to justify all the time, money and effort poured into the Hunter we probably need to evolve it into an AAW destroyer. While I would be tempted with a MOTS Japanese DDGX you would have to think that with the Hunter already be in full production it should be the safest option. Having said that maybe swapping out the the mission bay for more VLS probably might not be as simple as it sounds.

 

[downunderblue]

sort of cross between Pine Gap and a Mosque.....

I managed to acquire a new image of the future HMAS Nambour with multiple arrays in in the P(1), I, N, E, A, P(2), P(3), L and E bands. She looks a rippa!

 

[downunderblue]

I think someone else mentioned that had we built enough Hobarts in the first place we probably wouldn't have needed anything as complex and the Hunter. If we had a balanced fleet with more AWD we simply wouldn't need an AEGIS equipped ASW vessel. Life would have been much simpler.

As things stand I think to justify all the time, money and effort poured into the Hunter we probably need to evolve it into an AAW destroyer. While I would be tempted with a MOTS Japanese DDGX you would have to think that with the Hunter already be in full production it should be the safest option. Having said that maybe swapping out the the mission bay for more VLS probably might not be as simple as it sounds.

Call me a heratic, but the hull cost and program risk will come down with more hulls. I really struggle with the reinvention the wheel some in the media keep promoting and the thoughts of replacing the Hobarts with Japanese ASEV makes absolutely no sense to me/ is a big kick in the teeth to the workforce.

Get the line pumping them out and give the suppliers and workforce certainty. Evolve as we go in batches, not start again with new designs/ contractors etc. This hull is modern and has a lot going for it so lets commit to a continual build from the line, and with Henderson doing the sane with the GPF design. Let's not deviate from the plan and provide certainty for workers, the RAN and CoA in fleet #'s and potentially export(?possibly not?) if possible.

This stop, start, stop, start process is just silly. If the Hunter can be evolved into a 96 cell AA/BMD ship to replace the Hobarts, then lets commit to it, as soon as practicable to give the workers and suppliers, and lower overall risk. Let's learn from the Japanese and the Spanish and just keep getting better at what we do.

Evolve, rather than reinvent.

Yes it looks like a Big Pineapple (and like a naval version of Fat Amy), but I can live with it. I'd prefer the vessel to be deadly and put seriously doubt in the mind of an adversary (which brings a certain attractiveness in itself) rather than sleek but perched on the bottom of the seabed.

 

[seaspear]

B.A.E has presented plans for modifications to the Hunter class for more V.L.S how far along this is and practical is another question BAE unveils ‘upgunned’ Hunter proposal - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[downunderblue]

B.A.E has presented plans for modifications to the Hunter class for more V.L.S how far along this is and practical is another question BAE unveils ‘upgunned’ Hunter proposal - Australian Defence Magazine

I remember this at the time, more as a last ditch attempt to avoid the 9 hulls being cut. I'd like to see what can be evolved from the existing line once it is up and productive, rather than a BAe UK model. Again the logic is it should be low risk as we know the design. With that said, much of the change occured from killing the multimission bay and replacing it with VLS cells. I dont know how that effects the stability of the ship which is already very heavy and top heavy as well.

 

[Going Boeing]

I remember this at the time, more as a last ditch attempt to avoid the 9 hulls being cut. I'd like to see what can be evolved from the existing line once it is up and productive, rather than a BAe UK model. Again the logic is it should be low risk as we know the design. With that said, much of the change occured from killing the multimission bay and replacing it with VLS cells. I dont know how that effects the stability of the ship which is already very heavy and top heavy as well.

I recall that BAES Australia said at the time that substituting 64 VLS cells for the Mission Bay would not require a major redesign, just a different module to go into that space. The weight issue was mentioned, the Mission Bay Handling Equipment is a very complex and heavy system and it’s removal would significantly offset the weight of the VLS. They also mentioned that the Towed Array Sonar would have to be sacrificed for weight reasons.

Refining the requirements for the Type 26 frigate mission bay - Navy Lookout

This Navy Lookout article gives an indication of the weight of various components involved in the changes.

 

[JBRobbo]

The Mogami frigate selection and subsequent ‘forced’ adoption of the Type-12/17 SSM and perhaps even the Type-23 (Chu-SAM Kai) SAM instantly makes them serious contenders for the Army’s LAND-8113 phase-2 ‘2nd long range fires regiment’ & the RAAF’s AIR-6502 ‘medium range ground-based air defence system’ (M-GBADS) projects

 

[iambuzzard]

I managed to acquire a new image of the future HMAS Nambour with multiple arrays in in the P(1), I, N, E, A, P(2), P(3), L and E bands. She looks a rippa!View attachment 53326

Moderators, please be gentle. This is absolute gold! And let's face it, in the current environment we all need a laugh.