Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    234
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think 32 is the minimum, nice to see that officially offered. I got to say, I was reading something the other day and they were talking about 48 like it was a done deal. Wasn't official, but seemed informed. I think most people would hope for 32 VLS fitted, room for 48, even if its just 16 VLS additional self defense type cells, ideally in a 2nd location. To withstand damage from attack, or from miss fires.

    I don't believe the Hunter program can be accelerated any more than it already is in terms of cutting steel. We pushed as far as we can with that realistically. We might be able to increase drum beats. But that will take time. I wonder if we could build frigates at the WA build site, or blocks of the hunters there to speed up production.

    Really for a proper air defence ship based off the hunters, increasing the number of cells is probably the only key requirement. Radar, combat system, CEC, self defence etc is as good if not better than the DDG's.
     
    BPFP and Milne Bay like this.
  2. vonnoobie

    vonnoobie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Melbourne
    In regards to the future Hobart replacement production should actually start before 2038. It will be around then when the last of the planned Hunterts are commissioned so if you base it off that time frame we would have started to cut back on the workforce. I would say steel cutting for the Hobart replacement without any increase in Hunter numbers beyond those already planned should be around 2035 so as that we actually retain the workforce. As to hen we should start looking at the replacement for them in regards to design I reckon no later then 2020 we should start truly discussing what we want and what our options are with design work starting no later then 2025. Yep its a long time from design to build but with politics and possibility that it could be a unique ship design the extra time is better to have and not need then need it and not have it.

    In regards to increasing the drum beat well we very well could be launching one a year if we wanted to if we spread the build out and made sure that everything was getting done right at each location (Failed to do so with the Hobarts) but I dont think that would be in our best interest. With a dozen ships on an 18 month build cycle you get a life time of each ship around 18 years, Any less then that and it starts to cost you money to do so unless you can get the build cost down enough. Perhaps a small increase in fleet numbers and skipping a mid life upgrade common around the 15 year mark and we could do one ship annually but I personally don't know if we would have the extra bodies for an expanded fleet or if there is any negative side in skipping a mid life upgrade.
     
  3. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    qld
    Under the Shipbuilding plan the last Hunter is due in 2042 and the first Hobart replacement 2044. The plan is for a smooth transition from the Hunters to the new Class. Workers will finish working on the Hunters one work day and start work/Trg/prep on the new class the next work day.
     
  4. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    234
    Location:
    Sydney
    I actually think designs will evolve during the build process. I think it's highly likely the intention is for BAE to build the DDG replacements, based on the continuously evolving Type 26 hull. More in line with the Japanese style build rather than traditional Aussie builds where we go with a clean sheet every build type. This risk with traditional procurement is too great and too disruptive and too expensive.

    There is actually some of this info I had pasted into the RN thread. The diagram (uncredited) seemed to indicate BAE would still control ASC until after the DDG replacements are built, indicating the replacements would be of a BAE evolved design. https://defense.info/partners-corner/2018/06/bae-type-26-selected-for-sea-5000/

    The type 26 is a decent modern design, incremental developments would keep it highly relevant going forward. With 3 quite large build programs, we won't be evolving it by ourselves either. Developments could be sold on to other partner projects, and we can pick and choose their upgrades. We can benchmark other ships and builds and adjust to their levels. But with 30+ ships being built and the newest design and the biggest design, I imagine the Type 26 will be hard to beat.
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  5. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    qld
    Yea my feeling is something evolved from the Type 26 would be a strong chance. But I can see it being somewhat larger. I think the RAN will want another 16-24 VLS Cells at least compared to the Hobarts, with the possibility of LACMs and VLS SSMs entering the picture for the RAN, 48 Cells may not cut it.
     
    hairyman likes this.
  6. hairyman

    hairyman Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    8
    Why not start off building the ships earlier as suggested, build an additional three ships, make them better armed and heavier, and call them destroyers? Problem solved.
     
  7. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,135
    Likes Received:
    971
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Funding, politics, pollies, build location, design, build capacity, detrimental impacts upon the Hunter FFG and Attack SSK builds and drumbeats, what capabilities would you delete from the ADF in order to afford this?
     
    Takao likes this.
  8. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    234
    Location:
    Sydney
    Because the yard looks like this.
    [​IMG]
    Many steps to go before cutting steel. Don't want to overtake the UK.
     
    Michael12 likes this.
  9. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    95
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    Actually, it’s a bit more advanced than that. The steelwork on the block shed is virtually complete, while the assembly hall is probably at about 30%
     
  10. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    234
    Location:
    Sydney
    That was from late March. There is huge pressure, but still much to do. We tried to hurry the build, BAE fought against it. Hence why we are building opvs.
    We are also frantically upgrading the anzacs.
    Currently the ADF has a tremendous amount on. Land, sea and air. Unless it an off the shelf purchase of an existing system from an external supplier, supporting it would be tricky.

    As for vls cell counts. Hunter has space and margin, which if you could live with less flex space could be used. Or lengthen the hull. NSM box launches could fit 12 or possibly more and the Canadians show off ram launchers. But realistically, we won't face peer threats alone.
     
  11. hauritz

    hauritz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    122
    According to Janes BAE Australia is considering developing the Hunter class as a Hobart Destroyer replacement.
    Future Frigate prime considers options for Air Warfare Destroyer replacement | Jane's 360
    Seems a tad premature since the last Hobart isn't even in service yet. Of course, Canada and Britain might also be interested in AWD versions of the Type 26.
     
    Oberon likes this.
  12. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    qld
    Unfortunately most of that article is behind a Pay Wall.
    Wouldn’t BAE have design Teams playing around with the design, pushing the design to its very limits? And with the export success wouldn’t they increase funding to those Teams? With both the T45 and Hobart replacements down the track BAE would definitely be thinking about the next Gen Destroyer and Canada is building a AAW version of the Type 26, probably before the ASW version.
     
  13. Hazdog

    Hazdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Agreed,
    32 VLS cells is a very low number considering the number of hulls the PLAN is planning and the number of missile cells on each individual ship.
    China’s latest class of warship makes its public debut.

    I cannot provide a link to this but, the Hunter class can fit up to 64 VLS cells IF the government wants. (I am happy for someone to correct me on this if they find a source).

    The problem with this IF is, that it is unlikely that any government would be willing to stick their neck out on it. Although it should be noted that more missiles in a self-defense scenario are definitely better than less. Again if it were me on those ships, I'd rather more missile cells than less, and I can expect that everyone else would also agree.
     
  14. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    234
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think going forward into the 2030 region, having something like 64 VLS on an air defence ship give significant options. Particularly if you can load up an additional 8 x harpoon (or more likely 12 or 16 NSM) from side launchers, and have 2x CIWS (either Phalanx or seaRAM launchers) plus counter measures like nulka not taking up any strike length VLS space. But that space isn't free, put something on, you lose something else. 32 strike length is I believe a reasonable number for a "frigate".

    VLS are a lot cheaper than the missiles that fill them. It is also relatively easy and quick to acquire more munitions than it is to refit a ship with additional VLS. We also only have a small number of SM-2, particularly if we wanted to fit out a fleet of 12 ships. However with Sm-2, SM-6, SM-3, LRASM, ASROC, ESSM etc all competing for cells depending on the mission.

    I would hope we don't wait until the end of the sea5000 program to build some air warfare variants. We should build some in the middle that can fill that role, particularly while the DDG get updated with new radars, etc. They wouldn't have to be significantly different, give the high spec of the Hunters already, additional VLS would be pretty critical.
     
    Morgo likes this.
  15. hauritz

    hauritz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    122
    I think BAE see an opportunity to dominate Australia's ship building industry for the next 50 or 60 years. By jumping in early and offering up the type 26 as a Hobart replacement they could set themselves up to continue building evolved versions of this design well into the foreseeable future. This would probably be a good thing. At the moment Australia is in the position where it relies on overseas ship designs for its navy. American designs are often too expensive and European designs are not always entirely suitable.
     
  16. Morgo

    Morgo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2019
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Australia
    I agree with all you’ve said. But we shouldn’t neglect the pretty serious cost implications of more VLS’, as the contents are very expensive.

    Take your extra 32 cells for example. From what I can see, the unit cost of an ESSM is around USD1m or AUD1.5m at current exchange rates. Say all 32 are quad packed with ESSM for the sake of argument, and you end up with an extra cost of $192m per hull or $1.7bn across 9 hulls. If you then assume there is enough held in inventory to perform at least one reload, you’re left with a total cost of $3.4bn, or around 10% of the total program cost. I’m sure I’ve got one of my numbers wrong here but I think the order of magnitude is illustrative.

    Personally I think that this is the right thing to do, as that price tag is much cheaper than an ASCM sized hole in a hull.

    Elsewhere I’ve also expressed the opinion that we should have a sovereign capability to produce ESSM / AIM-120 rounds to fill RAN VLS, RAAF pylons and Army NASAMS launchers onshore under license from Raytheon for both cost and strategic reasons. No idea if this is actually feasible or not but I hope this is being / has been explored by Govt. Could be complementary with the precinct being built around the new space agency in SA.
     
    Hazdog, blueorchid and BPFP like this.
  17. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    742
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    No one knows the future of naval warfare 50 years on so redoing today’s designs is madness.
    Allowing any company to dominate naval shipbuilding is also careless and the very reason why ANI have simply leased the Osborne yard for the duration of The T26 build.
    In 20 years time the naval capability requirements will be determined in the then current strategic environment and decisions will be made accordingly.
     
    Systems Adict and Morgo like this.
  18. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    234
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think the Australian gov has a sovereign licence of the design and its Australian evolution. BAE is contracted and the project is delivered under ASC.

    It has been setup that BAE won't be the only game in town. Civmec in wa could in the future bid or be diverted work. BAE could be kicked and ASC run by other agency in the future. Another international could come in and basically do the same.

    But you also want to be hold some entity accountable. Which was hard with the awd build.

    Given Australia's risk adverse environment, it is likely Hunter variant would be the logical basis choice for the AWD replacements. But I would imagine they would still have a competition and benchmark other existing designs. I though the future frigate would be based off the F-105. If BAE doesn't perform I expect swift action.

    However, I am more concerned about the Sub build. Its bigger, harder, more risky, and there are less builders you can just phone in to fix things.

    But neither can be accelerated. We have what we have currently.

    I think quad packing ESSM is misleading. SM-2 is our likely backbone missile, you can only fit one in a tube, and they go for under a million each approx. We really already have significant stocks of ESSM. We have a reasonable SM-2 stock (200>). It would be worth while ordering more SM-2 and SM-6 when the hunters come on line. I think a dozen or so LRASM would be worthwhile.

    I think its worth having two separate locations, as we have recently seen, firing missile can go wrong, and a miss fire could certainly temporary disable a ship.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  19. Hazdog

    Hazdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Melbourne
    You bring up some good points, I'd agree that the budget may be larger than expected but this could be accommodated I believe.

    Also, unless I am mistaken, the ships do not have to have all their cells loaded at all times?
    I'd advocate for a system which rotates missiles throughout the fleet, ready for surge deployment at any time. This system would be able to use the already planned purchases (I am yet to see the missile orders come through here; Major Arms Sales: May 2019 | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. ) to supply deployed ships with a relative number of missiles i.e. if it's deploying into a hot zone, more missiles; if it's deploying on a diplomatic mission, fewer missiles and so on.

    - The ADF has been underspending its budget over the last few years as per pg.31 of the May 2019 issue of ADM, implying that there 'may' be room to fit some more missiles into future orders to accommodate such an addition to the design.

    - I do think that your idea of building missiles in Australia would be extremely beneficial to multiple industry and defense projects, I'd like to see that pursed along with potentially joining the US and Japan in designing further SM-3 designs.
     
  20. Systems Adict

    Systems Adict Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    75
    It is a phallicy that R&D depts are constantly "pushing the design to its very limits" Many businesses in ship build & design do regularly take a 'current' or 'past' designs & tweak them, presenting variants as artist renderings, to test the water of the market, but generally it is specifically to meet the requirements of a customer nation who has put out RFI's (Requests for Information) & is looking at specifics to update their fleet. Speculation on this regarding BAE I think is pessimistic, as I've not seen any open source declarations that BAE have even considered the replacement for T45.

    While it's feasible that they may be working on something in the background (as it's been 10 years since DARING left the shipyard), there's nothing on their website. I am in no way disputing the reputability of the Jane's article, but it is Australian focused, so that implies somewhere within the RAN / Australian govt supply chain, that there has been a discussion / is a consideration.

    Looking at it from a practical point of view (putting the Hobart issue to one side), the T26 hull form, physical size & weight logically lends itself to being 'adapted' into an AWD hull. Purely from that point of view, it makes very astute sense that the RAN considers taking that hull design & adapting it to suit the future replacement for the Hobarts.

    20 years may seem like a long time to design a replacement for a hull form, but allowing for budget constraints, the practicalities of integrating new / advanced technology & getting the supply chain / equipment designers up & running with products that the RAN wants in their AWD, along with the contract negotiations / getting the RAN to define exactly they want the hull to do / lead times to manufacture & ship equipment to meet a build programme that doesn't start until after 2040, it does make sense that discussions are taking place just now.

    From a Govt point of view, it means that they are planning to maintain the fleet, advance it & more importantly, shows a will to keep the shipbuilding infrastructure & capability, 'alive & kicking' for the next 30 years. THAT is a big commitment & as it is the AUS Govt who are making the decisions on who is prime contractor / 'owner', of the yard / facilities, so any business / supplier whose prepared to partner up with the Govt, will have to be able to play ball & deliver on their promises.

    SA