Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Agreed, Astute is history. The last boat should be in the water in 2024ish which means PWR2 build has already wound down - and PWR3 won’t fit. There is not going to be a modified Astute.
More likely a genuine 3 way collaboration, with timing as per SSN(R). Of course Australia will need to forgo reactor assembly but will likely end up building some modules for the RN, easing production bottlenecks.
Incidentally RR are investing big in civilian Small Modular Reactors, aim to start production in the 2030s, suspect some of that scaling up might have cross over benefits to the military side
I don't believe there was any suggestion that Australia would do any reactor assembly. The notion that we be capable of doing that would send the nuclear non proliferation cause into meltdown ( bad pun) and we already have accusations that using a nuclear *powered* sub will make us inevitably a nuclear armed country. China loves that. More to arm their sycophants with, and to further worry genuinely concerned independent nations.
oldsig
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I reckon it will come sealed inside a complete Hull module and all that needs to happen at Osborne it is connected to the front half and the aft section containing all the drive gear, Engineering etc.
Seems quite possible and would certainly appease those lobbies *slightly* more than building the hull module here and fitting a sealed reactor unit into it in construction. The later would appease those who hope we can keep ALL the jobs here *slightly*
Very pleased these decisions are not mine to make.
oldsig
The trilateral collaboration piece could be interesting, would mark a pretty big change for the UK as well, the US SSN(X) has already been stated as being an evolved Virginia Class. The timings of the SSN(R) timelines, at this stage, do not seem to match with the US program already pushed back.
Would not be surprised however if the Dreadnought's slipped anyway, but at least it has been put to bed, now time to look forward and await the outcome of the Defence review and the submarine assessment.
Cheers
BAE Assembles Steel Block Prototype for Australia’s First Hunter-Class Frigate
BAE Systems Australia has completed the first steel block prototype of a Hunter-class frigate for the Royal Australian Navy.
www.thedefensepost.com
I'm a bit behind, but it's good to see the Hunter Class moving forward in a timely and sensible manner. I'm really looking forwards to seeing a mostly trouble free Hunter come off the lines in a few year's time.
As an aside, I'd love to see the RAN test out the "increasing tempo" part of the shipbuilding that's supposed to be included as part of the overall design, just to test it out and iron out any bugs. eg push out ships 3 and 4 in 18 months, instead of 24 (or even 12?). By ship 3, the workforce should be hitting it's stride.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would think a similar or better performance can be expected. The Hunter build will also have UK input on any hipcups that might arise during their T26 production. Canada’s CSC build will also benefit from Australian and UK experiences with their programs…assuming our former failed drama teacher PM doesn’t derail the program.
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.
It has been said before but with the benefit of hindsight we should have kept building Hobarts until the Hunter design was ready. Problem now is we are moving into one of the most dangerous periods in Australia’s history with a navy largely dating back to the last century.
Well, BAE Systems did sell us a reference design for a "Global Combat Ship" not a "ASW frigate". It's a large surface combatant with enhanced ASW capability built into the design. Add in CEAFAR and AEGIS and you've also got enhanced AAW capability.
Personally, I think it would be worthwhile to rethink Hunter's classification as a 'Frigate' - especially if her cell count ends up being on par with Hobart. Keeps things simple, and better aligned with classifications in our region.
With modern design packages it is becoming more efficient and less risky to define your systems requirement then design an appropriate platform around them. Fitting new kit to an existing platform design offers few if any advantages and many disadvantages.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it, the differences in warship classification like what is considered a frigate vs. a destroyer currently, has more to do with the main/primary role of the vessel, rather than a warship's size, displacement, or weapons loadout. At this point it seems as though a destroyer's (DDG)
primary role is air defence, whilst a frigate is more to provide a GP or ASW escort capability.
With that in mind, I see no issue with the Hunter-class being designated as a frigate.
But if a destroyer is primarily for anti air warfare are the sensors of the Hobart class in this so superior to that of the Hunter class in what we know?
Its not just the sensors, it is the sensor combat system package. The combination of CEAFAR and SAAB systems is said to be very capable and certainly the outcomes of the test firings of ESSM against supersonic targets seemed to demonstrate that. I would suggest that the fact both the Hunter and now the DDG will have both AEGIS (at a future baseline) and the 9LV tactical interface indicates that this a more capable solution for the combat system.
I doubt you are going to find anything in the public domain that compares the CEAFAR suite with the SPY 1D but we would have to assume both are capable.
I doubt you are going to find anything in the public domain that compares the CEAFAR suite with the SPY 1D but we would have to assume both are capable.
If its a destroyer, why do we need Hobarts? Best to get rid of them if we have 9 other destroyers. So goes common thinking..
I think its useful to have two different types of ships. It makes their role clearer to others, even if there is some capability overlap between them.
Given the direct things seem to be taking the Hobarts look like being more closely following the US destroyers with AEGIS and possibly Spy6. They may be slightly quicker (although lots of disclaimers, and the efficient speed of the hunter is likely quicker than the Hobarts) and probably a more obvious choice to integrate into US carrier fleets.
The Hunters are a bit more sovereign, with the CEA radar, which may create a bit more work for weapons and fleet integration, upgrades, perhaps. They will certainly be more flexible, with more flex space and a larger helo landing capability (chinook!) and a stronger ASW capability.
Even if they carry similar amounts of missiles, we don't know exactly how that works. I doubt the Hunters will get more than 48 strike Length VLS. If if they do, I doubt Australia is going to buy a bunch of SM-3 for final weapons integration and shoot a couple of ICBM's or sats. So Hobart's may end up being focused in that area, if SM-3 get acquired.
Its very hard to compare an existing in the water ship like the Hobart facing its first upgrade, with a ship that is not in the water, and whos details are still yet to be confirmed. Are the Anzacs more capable than the Perth Class destroyers? Should the Anzacs be called DDG's too? Seems like murky water/slippery slope.