Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
is the MK41 instead of the 24 CAAM cells or in addition to those cells.
If you look at the plan view on the site below
Developing the Type 31 frigate | Navy Lookout
1684370173348.png
compared to the latest link
Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

1684370308241.png
It does appear that Mk41 are going where the SeaCeptor cells were going to go. However, both sites appear to suggest that the vessel was always going to have space and weight for the Mk41 (not sure the original concept drawings had upto 32 cells).

The image appears to show the the SeaCeptor data link remains in place so it may have both (given the T26 has both) it is just not shown in the image. This is simply my best guess in the absence of any other information.

Certainly an upgrade on the original design.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If you look at the plan view on the site below
Developing the Type 31 frigate | Navy Lookout
View attachment 50505
compared to the latest link
Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

View attachment 50506
It does appear that Mk41 are going where the SeaCeptor cells were going to go. However, both sites appear to suggest that the vessel was always going to have space and weight for the Mk41 (not sure the original concept drawings had upto 32 cells).

The image appears to show the the SeaCeptor data link remains in place so it may have both (given the T26 has both) it is just not shown in the image. This is simply my best guess in the absence of any other information.

Certainly an upgrade on the original design.

That looks like a pretty useful ship. Crew of 80-100 though.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It is very hard not to get caught up in fantasy fleets and speculation, that's why it is important to wait for the various, nested reviews to come out.

The DSR is providing the high level strategic guidence, the high level AUKUS plan has been released, the review on the surface fleet is proceeding, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a more detailed review into the ADFs littoral pivot.

Selecting platforms, before this work is done is pointless.

Now for my gut feelings and fantasy fleet .

Australia's geography dictates cruisers, that is traditional cruising ships of war, as opposed to ships of the line / battleships / capital ships in task forces battle squadrons / battle fleets, built around major fleet units, or sea denial coastal forces centred around localised geographic areas.

The original cruisers were sail, sail and steam, wood, ironclad, or steel frigates, sloops and corvettes. They provided presence, trade protection, communications, transport, scouting, plus many other roles.

The ships of the line were the heavy hitters, they were a force in being to counter the enemies equivalent. Basically they worked on numbers, hulls, guns, combined weight of fire. Over the decades (centuries) they came to be supported by torpedo boats, torpedo boat destroyers, destroyer killers (light fleet cruisers), specialist scouts, fleet ASW, fleet air defence, and of course carriers.

Then you have the coastal forces, MTBs, sub chasers FACs, (larger ones being called corvettes or even light destroyers), even monitors and gun boats. Designed as short range heavily armed, hard hitting area denial capabilities.

The overlap was convoy warfare, where ASW required slow light ASW ships, and eventually carriers, as well as battleships on the other extreme to counter surface raiders (carriers with a small number of strike aircraft replaced these).

SSNs especially those with cruise/strike missiles are the spiritual replacement for heavy or battle cruisers in everything except trade protection and presence.

Our large, multirole destroyers and frigates are very much filling the larger cruising ship role, i.e. the traditional sail/steam frigate role, latter filled by the likes of the WWI Town class cruisers, or our WWII modified Leanders and Counties.

The inter war sloops and to a lesser degree the wartime River and Bay class frigates were the second tier, still multirole cruising sloops. It could be argued the the frigates where more improved corvettes than sloops, they were after all designed for the RN as replacement for their corvettes for convoy escort, while the Blackswan class sloops made up most of the ASW hunter killer groups.

The large Tribal, Battle and Daring class destroyers were very much designed to the interwar small cruiser, large fighting, or gun destroyer concept, often refered to by other navies as Destroyer Leaders (DL) and post war by the USN as Frigates (later cruisers).

The seaward defence vessels, the famous Bathurst class minesweepers/corvettes, were very much the lower end on the general purpose cruising ship of war. Not ideal, but what could be built in numbers at the time.

There were also transferred and legacy fleet destroyers, motor gun boats and motor launches but by far the majority were cruising ships, used in cruising ship roles.

Australia has never been big on fleets, task force's, battle groups, squadrons or flotillas as tactical formations. We will integrate with those of other nations but don't usually form our own. The RAN has traditionally, and remains a cruiser and sloop navy.

Looking through this filter the SSNs are battlecruisers, destroyers and frigates are the cruising frigates, ANZACs are the cruising sloops, and any smaller open water combatants are cruising corvettes.
 
Last edited:

Brissy1982

Active Member
is the MK41 instead of the 24 CAAM cells or in addition to those cells.
Based on the image in the article it looks like the Mk 41 is in the same place the Sea Ceptor silos were shown in earlier CGI images, between the bridge-foremast and the exhaust stacks. So it looks like they are instead of, not in addition to. But the decision to go with Mk 41 definitely improves both defensive and offensive missile capacity. 8-16 cells quad-packed with ESSMs or Sea Ceptors allows a very respectable 32-64 anti-air missiles to be carried, leaving 16-24 cells free for anti-ship/strike weapons.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Based on the image in the article it looks like the Mk 41 is in the same place the Sea Ceptor silos were shown in earlier CGI images, between the bridge-foremast and the exhaust stacks. So it looks like they are instead of, not in addition to. But the decision to go with Mk 41 definitely improves both defensive and offensive missile capacity. 8-16 cells quad-packed with ESSMs or Sea Ceptors allows a very respectable 32-64 anti-air missiles to be carried, leaving 16-24 cells free for anti-ship/strike weapons.
And you can bolt on the LM ExLS for Sea Ceptor anywhere you have space.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Ironically I think the more they do with the Type 31 the less likely Australia would ever buy it. I can see it being of interest to NZ however.

The reason I think Australia is less likely to want it though is that it is starting to look more like a lite version of the Type 26. You just know that Australia would want to add CEAFAR, NSM and other kit as well. The crew size would need to be increased. The price will go up. Then of course there are also going to be cost penalties for any reduction in the Hunter order. At at the end of the day you would be paying out more or less the same money for around the same capability.

The lessons I am taking from the British experience of opting for a more cost effective vessel to suppliment the Type 26 is that you are going to see mission creep that is also going to also have a price creep attached to it.

I am not sure what the navy review will recommend but it would be odd if they simply recommended a slightly downgraded version of a ship we are already building in the hope that this would somehow save money.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
If you look at the plan view on the site below
Developing the Type 31 frigate | Navy Lookout
View attachment 50505
compared to the latest link
Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

View attachment 50506
It does appear that Mk41 are going where the SeaCeptor cells were going to go. However, both sites appear to suggest that the vessel was always going to have space and weight for the Mk41 (not sure the original concept drawings had upto 32 cells).

The image appears to show the the SeaCeptor data link remains in place so it may have both (given the T26 has both) it is just not shown in the image. This is simply my best guess in the absence of any other information.

Certainly an upgrade on the original design.
Its a handsome ship, but I'm not sure where it fits into the RAN.
I doubt it would be built any sooner than we could build the first of the Hunter Class.
Maybe an aspiration to build these at Henderson while we continue the Hunters at Osborne.
A more robust fleet in the 2030s and maybe also an increase in fleet numbers later in that decade.
ANZAC's get phased out early for a more capable ship, sounds good long term but does not cover the 2020's.


Until the review it's speculative.

For all it's attributes I would not bet the house on it.

My guess time and budget will govern what is selected to complement our major fleet units.
Not thinking anywhere near the size and capability of a Type 31.


Cheers S
 

swerve

Super Moderator
If you look at the plan view on the site below
Developing the Type 31 frigate | Navy Lookout

compared to the latest link
Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

It does appear that Mk41 are going where the SeaCeptor cells were going to go. However, both sites appear to suggest that the vessel was always going to have space and weight for the Mk41 (not sure the original concept drawings had upto 32 cells).

The image appears to show the the SeaCeptor data link remains in place so it may have both (given the T26 has both) it is just not shown in the image. This is simply my best guess in the absence of any other information.

Certainly an upgrade on the original design.
CAMM has been integrated into Mk 41 via Host ExLS, & also fits stand-alone ExLS. Test firings were done some years ago. The data link would be needed whatever launcher is used. I've read that the Canadians will use ExLS for Sea Ceptor.
Host ExLS
 

Brissy1982

Active Member
And you can bolt on the LM ExLS for Sea Ceptor anywhere you have space.
Agreed. Also, based on the CGI image in @old faithful's post, I am thinking that there would still be space for canister-launched AshMs just forward of the Mk 41 VLS, as shown in earlier CGI renderings of the Type 31. The RN is acquiring the NSM for its Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers. As the Type 23 frigates are decommissioned , I think the NSMs and their launchers could well be recycled from the Type 23s onto their Type 26 and Type 31 replacements to provide an additional AShM punch. If that is indeed feasible then the Type 31s could prove to be quite potent ships!
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
The announced addition, by the RN, of 32 strike length Mk41 VLS on the Type 31 makes it an even better fit for the RAN as a General Purpose Frigate. Even the shape of the mast lends itself to having the dual band CEAFAR 2 setup similar in shape to what’s installed on the Anzacs.

Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout
You might have come up with a brilliant idea with that last sentence If they decide to go with type 31s after a review which I’m not saying they will or should. Taking the Anzacs mast-ceafar2 and putting it on some type 31s.
NZ may be interested in a faster more familiar replacement of the current RNZN Anzacs and some updated RAN Anzacs might be a good option over a much more expensive replacement In the 2030s.
This would all save some time, some money and make a little, potentially covering the cost of atleast 1 type 31 if the government were to go down this path.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
CAMM has been integrated into Mk 41 via Host ExLS, & also fits stand-alone ExLS. Test firings were done some years ago. The data link would be needed whatever launcher is used. I've read that the Canadians will use ExLS for Sea Ceptor.
Host ExLS
Yes, that is the RCN plan. Still somewhat disappointed about only 24 VLS but the Sea Ceptor in the ExLS compensates fewer cells being available for ESSM in the Mk41 setup.
 

Julian 82

Active Member
You might have come up with a brilliant idea with that last sentence If they decide to go with type 31s after a review which I’m not saying they will or should. Taking the Anzacs mast-ceafar2 and putting it on some type 31s.
NZ may be interested in a faster more familiar replacement of the current RNZN Anzacs and some updated RAN Anzacs might be a good option over a much more expensive replacement In the 2030s.
This would all save some time, some money and make a little, potentially covering the cost of atleast 1 type 31 if the government were to go down this path.
Why not just put the ANZAC Ceafar 2 radar on the Type 26, use the Saab cms in place of AEGiS and call it a day. I assume it would solve a lot of top weight and electrical power issues for the Hunter design.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Apologies if this smacks of fantasy fleets but I had a question regarding RAN options if the Hunter frigate project is reduced in numbers. Navantia was reported previously to have offered to build 3 more Hobart design destroyers for the RAN in Spain. Some here pointed out that this was now quite an aged design without the latest version of AEGIS etc.

I note that Navantia is progressing the design of the following Spanish F110 class to a more modern standard for construction now, with AEGIS updated to baseline 10 etc. My first question is if the Navantia Hobart AWD design were upgraded to the same standard, would it then be a viable option for the RAN, or are there other issues with the Hobart design that make this undesirable? I am only asking about ship design and capability, not issues relating to where it might be built.

My second question is similar. Fincanterri was the other unsuccessful bidder for the ASW frigate project, based on their Fremm design. Since then the US navy has adopted it as the Constellation class frigate. This is fitted with many of the systems the RAN specifies, including Aegis baseline 10, Tomahawk, ESSM, NSM, all fired from 32 x mk41 VLS and MH60 helicopter. Why not build these to increase hull numbers, which are much cheaper?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Apologies if this smacks of fantasy fleets but I had a question regarding RAN options if the Hunter frigate project is reduced in numbers. Navantia was reported previously to have offered to build 3 more Hobart design destroyers for the RAN in Spain. Some here pointed out that this was now quite an aged design without the latest version of AEGIS etc.

I note that Navantia is progressing the design of the following Spanish F110 class to a more modern standard for construction now, with AEGIS updated to baseline 10 etc. My first question is if the Navantia Hobart AWD design were upgraded to the same standard, would it then be a viable option for the RAN, or are there other issues with the Hobart design that make this undesirable? I am only asking about ship design and capability, not issues relating to where it might be built.

My second question is similar. Fincanterri was the other unsuccessful bidder for the ASW frigate project, based on their Fremm design. Since then the US navy has adopted it as the Constellation class frigate. This is fitted with many of the systems the RAN specifies, including Aegis baseline 10, Tomahawk, ESSM, NSM, all fired from 32 x mk41 VLS and MH60 helicopter. Why not build these to increase hull numbers, which are much cheaper?
The F110 is a touch smaller than the F101/Hobart design at 145m and 6100t and only carries 16 VLS, they are basically a like for like replacement of the Santa Maria class(Spanish built Perry's). There primary mission is ASW but only have a limited AAW capability unlike the Type 26, Type 31 and Constellation classes. If the RAN goes with a GP Frigate to supplement the Hunter and Hobarts then the F110 is likely to be Navantia's offer but they are neither an AWD nor the high end FFG Hunter is.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
My first question is if the Navantia Hobart AWD design were upgraded to the same standard, would it then be a viable option for the RAN, or are there other issues with the Hobart design that make this undesirable? I am only asking about ship design and capability, not issues relating to where it might be built.
The F-105 design was updated for the US frigate bids. They being Navantia and G&C completely reworked the ship in a number of areas, and it would be essentially a flight II of the design if built. The US paid for this work, it was extensive, Warren was talking about it before stepping down. The F-105 proposal went quite far, but eventually lost out to the FREMM proposal that is now the constellation class which also has extensive changes.

Not long after the F-110 final version appeared, and seemed to feature many of the same type of modifications, but now reconfigured as a light frigate. Navantia also claims it could build a large ship very quickly which would be "simular" to a Hobart class. They are also going to update the F-101-105 ships.

The F-110 while similar in size and hull form to the Hobart/F-105, is quite different in bridge stucture and fitout, only one gas turbine, 4 diesels etc. It has far less crew, 150 vs ~230..

Navantia's proposal is being assessed by RAND for viability, which seems to indicate it is broadly suitable for the RAN. There would be no need to assess it unless it was broadly suitable.

We don't know what exactly being assessed. If it is new build, improve F-105 as proposed for the Constellation class. Or New build F-105 for the Sea5000, or F-110 frigates, or F-110 hulls with 48 VLS and a destroyer type fitout, or some classic form of the Hobart class made to meet modern code and equipment as older equipment is not available anymore and not up to code. The F-110 has been designed to operate alongside the F-105 and Spain intends to keep both classes operating.
My second question is similar. Fincanterri was the other unsuccessful bidder for the ASW frigate project, based on their Fremm design. Since then the US navy has adopted it as the Constellation class frigate. This is fitted with many of the systems the RAN specifies, including Aegis baseline 10, Tomahawk, ESSM, NSM, all fired from 32 x mk41 VLS and MH60 helicopter. Why not build these to increase hull numbers, which are much cheaper?
These are still quite crew intensive ships of approximately 200 people. The design intention overlaps with the existing Hobart class, so you would either build one or the other, not both. We already have quite a few Navantia ships and Navantia Australia is a real thing that has delivered real ships. Cheaper is also a bit of misnomer, if we were building them they would be much more expensive, and countries cost programs differently. Famously people thought Virginia submarines would only cost $1 billion USD each.. We now know that is not what they cost even if they are built in the USA, even if we buy old Virginia subs.
There primary mission is ASW but only have a limited AAW capability unlike the Type 26, Type 31 and Constellation classes.
Type 31 has unlimited AAW capability?
***looks at the proposed fitout of the Type 31 and the F110 ***
Im not sure I agree with that. 16 Mk41, 5" 2 30mm, 8 x NSM and 2 x mk32 + aegis and Spy 7 on the F-110 and HMS Venturer (Type 31) is being fitted with 57mm, 2 40mm gun and 24 CAMM with Thales NS110 and tacticos.

64 of the bigger, longer ranged, more capable ESSM II in 16 strike length tubes vs 24 short ranged light CAMM, 5" vs 2" guns, Aegis 10and Spy 7 vs Tacticos and NS110.

Not sure I agree that the Type 31 is in the same class as the the Type 26 and Constellation class. I would argue the F-110 is closer to the Constellation class or the Hunter interms of weapons than the Type 31 as it is currently being built.

Type 31 doesn't even have ship launched torpedo's or ship launched antiship missiles. So yes, F-110 has a ASW and ASuW capability, it has a towed array and a hull mounted sonar, the type 31 has no a lot in that space, at this point in time. I believe the British seem to prefer just having a pre armed helo for that mission. The problem is that both the F-110 and the Type31 are currently being built so many systems may not have been announced or procured as of yet. The British are famous for fitting for, but not with. Comparing two as of yet, unfinished, not in service platforms is perhaps jumping the gun.

Not sure I agree that a Type31 is as capable as a proposed Hunter class or a Constellation class.

Which really gets back the why the mission for any new platforms must be set out first. What do we want and what is the priority. We don't even know if Babcock is interested in tendering for any Australian builds. They aren't a huge outfit, it may be that the RN program is keeping them quite busy.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The F-105 design was updated for the US frigate bids. They being Navantia and G&C completely reworked the ship in a number of areas, and it would be essentially a flight II of the design if built. The US paid for this work, it was extensive, Warren was talking about it before stepping down. The F-105 proposal went quite far, but eventually lost out to the FREMM proposal that is now the constellation class which also has extensive changes.

Not long after the F-110 final version appeared, and seemed to feature many of the same type of modifications, but now reconfigured as a light frigate. Navantia also claims it could build a large ship very quickly which would be "simular" to a Hobart class. They are also going to update the F-101-105 ships.

The F-110 while similar in size and hull form to the Hobart/F-105, is quite different in bridge stucture and fitout, only one gas turbine, 4 diesels etc. It has far less crew, 150 vs ~230..

Navantia's proposal is being assessed by RAND for viability, which seems to indicate it is broadly suitable for the RAN. There would be no need to assess it unless it was broadly suitable.

We don't know what exactly being assessed. If it is new build, improve F-105 as proposed for the Constellation class. Or New build F-105 for the Sea5000, or F-110 frigates, or F-110 hulls with 48 VLS and a destroyer type fitout, or some classic form of the Hobart class made to meet modern code and equipment as older equipment is not available anymore and not up to code. The F-110 has been designed to operate alongside the F-105 and Spain intends to keep both classes operating.

These are still quite crew intensive ships of approximately 200 people. The design intention overlaps with the existing Hobart class, so you would either build one or the other, not both. We already have quite a few Navantia ships and Navantia Australia is a real thing that has delivered real ships. Cheaper is also a bit of misnomer, if we were building them they would be much more expensive, and countries cost programs differently. Famously people thought Virginia submarines would only cost $1 billion USD each.. We now know that is not what they cost even if they are built in the USA, even if we buy old Virginia subs.

Type 31 has unlimited AAW capability?
***looks at the proposed fitout of the Type 31 and the F110 ***
Im not sure I agree with that. 16 Mk41, 5" 2 30mm, 8 x NSM and 2 x mk32 + aegis and Spy 7 on the F-110 and HMS Venturer (Type 31) is being fitted with 57mm, 2 40mm gun and 24 CAMM with Thales NS110 and tacticos.

64 of the bigger, longer ranged, more capable ESSM II in 16 strike length tubes vs 24 short ranged light CAMM, 5" vs 2" guns, Aegis 10and Spy 7 vs Tacticos and NS110.

Not sure I agree that the Type 31 is in the same class as the the Type 26 and Constellation class. I would argue the F-110 is closer to the Constellation class or the Hunter interms of weapons than the Type 31 as it is currently being built.

Type 31 doesn't even have ship launched torpedo's or ship launched antiship missiles. So yes, F-110 has a ASW and ASuW capability, it has a towed array and a hull mounted sonar, the type 31 has no a lot in that space, at this point in time. I believe the British seem to prefer just having a pre armed helo for that mission. The problem is that both the F-110 and the Type31 are currently being built so many systems may not have been announced or procured as of yet. The British are famous for fitting for, but not with. Comparing two as of yet, unfinished, not in service platforms is perhaps jumping the gun.

Not sure I agree that a Type31 is as capable as a proposed Hunter class or a Constellation class.

Which really gets back the why the mission for any new platforms must be set out first. What do we want and what is the priority. We don't even know if Babcock is interested in tendering for any Australian builds. They aren't a huge outfit, it may be that the RN program is keeping them quite busy.
The Type 31 is quite capable of taking the 5in / 127mm gun. It's just that the UK chose that fit out as a cost saving measure. The hull design and machinery is based on a very good frigate design.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Type 31 has unlimited AAW capability?
***looks at the proposed fitout of the Type 31 and the F110 ***
Im not sure I agree with that. 16 Mk41, 5" 2 30mm, 8 x NSM and 2 x mk32 + aegis and Spy 7 on the F-110 and HMS Venturer (Type 31) is being fitted with 57mm, 2 40mm gun and 24 CAMM with Thales NS110 and tacticos.

64 of the bigger, longer ranged, more capable ESSM II in 16 strike length tubes vs 24 short ranged light CAMM, 5" vs 2" guns, Aegis 10and Spy 7 vs Tacticos and NS110.

Not sure I agree that the Type 31 is in the same class as the the Type 26 and Constellation class. I would argue the F-110 is closer to the Constellation class or the Hunter interms of weapons than the Type 31 as it is currently being built.

Type 31 doesn't even have ship launched torpedo's or ship launched antiship missiles. So yes, F-110 has a ASW and ASuW capability, it has a towed array and a hull mounted sonar, the type 31 has no a lot in that space, at this point in time. I believe the British seem to prefer just having a pre armed helo for that mission. The problem is that both the F-110 and the Type31 are currently being built so many systems may not have been announced or procured as of yet. The British are famous for fitting for, but not with. Comparing two as of yet, unfinished, not in service platforms is perhaps jumping the gun.

Not sure I agree that a Type31 is as capable as a proposed Hunter class or a Constellation class.

Which really gets back the why the mission for any new platforms must be set out first. What do we want and what is the priority. We don't even know if Babcock is interested in tendering for any Australian builds. They aren't a huge outfit, it may be that the RN program is keeping them quite busy.
Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout
The Type 31 is now going to be fitted with 32 Mk 41 VLS.
 

Oldbeagle

New Member
Well it seems we are all being a bit premature, according to a report today in the Australian Defence Magazine the aging ANZAC ladies are going through yet another upgrade. This is supposedly going to lower the top weight while providing new though unspecified capabilities, how the technical wizards propose to institute these changes will become clearer in time.
How this impinges on the other new classes or capabilities will probably now wait on the review.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
We are slipping back into solution space, nominating platforms with specific systems outfits again.

We don't yet know what the recommendations of the report will be and suggesting variations, requiring significant design work, of design already rejected by Australia, won't increase leathality in the near term.

Anything that displaces Hunter work will result in a reduction of capability as lead times increase.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Type 31 is now going to be fitted with 32 Mk 41 VLS.
Uhuh..
we also need to advance our ability to deliver lethal long-range offensive fires against our adversaries. Hence the decision to ensure the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Silo is fitted to the Type 26 and, I am delighted to say, we intend to fit it also to our Type 31 frigates.
Such strong language.
From the same weblink
1SL did not specify if the Mk41 cells will be fitted from the outset on ship 1
Equally important will be a funding line to purchase a good stock of missiles to fill the Mk41 cells to ensure the RN is not left with missile tubes filled with nothing but fresh air.
So no order for mk41 systems, no order for missiles, no money announced to acquire, but an intention, to perhaps, fit, at some time, mk41 into the type 31.

By the same token, this is as real as the Hunter class getting 150 VLS.

It doesn't mean its impossible, or that its bad, or that it isn't happening. But I am cautioning reading into that its has happened a sure thing.

We as of yet don't really understand what the Naval review is really trying to achieve and how it intends to go about it addressing it. Hunter isn't the only program with issues. The Hobarts, Anzacs, Collins are all undergoing upgrades at the same time. There are issues with all platforms.

At this point, we may have to stop building Hunter entirely to conduct upgrades. Those upgrades may not meet Australia's needs even if they were successfully completed on time and on budget. Those upgrades may be more critical than work on Hunter.

I throw some ideas out there. It may not be about building more ships. Or building different ships. It may involve other solutions to address the issues. Hunter is about replacing Anzacs. That isn't actually the critical issue at the moment.

Collins is hypercritical. Australia has a sub problem more than a frigate problem.
If the Anzacs can be fitted with 16 VLS as part of their upgrade, I would imagine the urgency over corvettes will evaporate. After all what is the rush to replace the refitted anzacs with frigates with essentially the same amount of firepower.

Bridging Collins LOTE is a wholely different matter, while at the same time doubling the size of the RAN submariner force. Maybe acquire the archer class as a training platform?
 
Last edited:
Top