The Hunter-class frigate (a Type 26 variant) programme has been cut from nine ships to six.
Australia will now look at Six Hunter class frigates, 11 new general purpose frigates and six new Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs).
Here’s the announcement in full.
“Today, the Albanese Government has released its blueprint for a larger and more lethal surface combatant fleet for the Royal Australian Navy, more than doubling the size of the surface combatant fleet under the former government’s plan.
This follows the Government’s careful consideration of the recommendations of the independent analysis of the surface combatant fleet, commissioned in response to the Defence Strategic Review.
Our strategic circumstances require a larger and more lethal surface combatant fleet, complemented by a conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet.
Navy’s future fleet will be integral to ensure the safety and security of our sea lines of communication and maritime trade, through operations in our immediate region. This fleet will constitute the largest number of surface combatants since WWII.
The independent analysis of Navy’s surface combatant fleet lamented the current surface combatant fleet was the oldest fleet Navy has operated in its history, and emphasised the need for immediate action to boost Navy’s air defence, long-range strike, presence and anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
In line with independent analysis’ recommendations, Navy’s future surface combatant fleet will comprise:
- 26 major surface combatants consisting of:
- Three Hobart class air warfare destroyers with upgraded air defence and strike capabilities
- Six Hunter class frigates to boost Navy’s undersea warfare and strike capabilities
- 11 new general purpose frigates that will provide maritime and land strike, air defence and escort capabilities
- Six new Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs) that will significantly increase Navy’s long-range strike capacity
- Six remaining Anzac class frigates with the two oldest ships to be decommissioned as per their planned service life.
The Government has also accepted the independent analysis’ recommendations to have:
- 25 minor war vessels to contribute to civil maritime security operations, which includes six Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs).
The Hunter class frigates will be built at the Osborne shipyard in South Australia, and will be followed by the replacement of the Hobart class destroyer. The Hobart destroyers will be upgraded at Osborne with the latest US Navy Aegis combat system.
The new general purpose frigate will be accelerated to replace the Anzac class frigates, meaning the Transition Capability Assurance (TransCAP) upgrades are no longer required. These new general purpose frigates will be modern, capable and more lethal, requiring smaller crews than the Anzac.
Consolidation of the Henderson precinct is currently underway, as recommended by the Defence Strategic Review. Successful and timely consolidation will enable eight new general purpose frigates to be built at the Henderson precinct, and will also enable a pathway to build six new Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels in Western Australia.
The Albanese Government is committed to continuous naval shipbuilding in Australia and the design of Navy’s future fleet will provide a stable and ongoing pipeline of work to the 2040s and beyond.
Budget
In order to implement the recommendations of the independent analysis, the Albanese Government has committed to funding the planned acquisition and sustainment of the future surface fleet.
This will see the Albanese Government inject an additional $1.7 billion over the Forward Estimates and $11.1 billion over the next decade in Defence for an accelerated delivery of Navy’s future surface combatant fleet and to expand Australia’s shipbuilding industry.
This comes on top of the Albanese Government’s investment of an additional $30.5 billion to Defence’s Integrated Investment Program out to 2032-33.
This additional $11.1 billion of funding for the future surface fleet alone brings both acquisition and sustainment investment in the fleet to $54.2 billion in total over the next decade.
This investment provides a clear pathway for the shipbuilding industry and workforce in South Australia and Western Australia. The Albanese Government thanks Vice Admiral William Hilarides, USN (Retd), Ms Rosemary Huxtable, AO, PSM and Vice Admiral Stuart Mayer, AO, RAN for their leadership of the independent analysis and contribution to the most comprehensive update to Navy’s fleet in decades.”
Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Richard Marles MP:
“The enhanced lethality surface combatant fleet will ensure the Navy is optimised for operations in our current and future environment, underpinned by the meticulous assessment conducted by the Independent Analysis Team. Australia’s modern society and economy rely on access to the high seas: trade routes for our imports and exports, and the submarine cables for the data which enables our connection to the international economy. The Royal Australian Navy must be able to ensure the safety and security of our sea lines of communication and trade routes as they are fundamental to our way of life and our prosperity.”
Minister for Defence Industry, the Hon Pat Conroy MP:
“This significant advancement in Navy capability that will be delivered under this plan requires a strong, sovereign defence industry. This plan ensures Navy’s future fleet can meet our strategic circumstances by delivering a larger and more lethal fleet sooner and secures the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia, supporting 3,700 direct jobs over the next decade and thousands of indirect jobs for decades to come.”
Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond AO:
“A strong Australia relies on a strong Navy, one that is equipped to conduct diplomacy in our region, deter potential adversaries, and defend our national interests when called. The size, lethality and capabilities of the future surface combatant fleet ensures that our Navy is equipped to meet the evolving strategic challenges of our region.”
The GP frigate requirement is an opportunity for Babcock to get a larger user base for those 50-crew Type 32s, and lower prices for all.
Comments under another article included, from Oscar Zulu:
I also heard that “Dave” is pitching his Rubber Boats (DRB’s) equipped with Long Bows and Arrows (LBA’s)….. Incredible capability, Incredible Value for money, the Aussie version can be fitted with Boomerangs too…..🤔
At least they will be reuseable and clean…should cheer up the greens.
So no go on the T31/T32 designs then?
Whats the spec on the 4 chosen for the short list.- and what has driven their inclusion above the UK offerings- are they just below par comparably or just a different beast entirely?
They are only looking at ships that are already in service. Our Hunter program has seen a couple of cost blow outs and has probably worn out the appetite for risk/ design work + they want them in service ASAP. So off the shelf only.
Interesting list all are smaller than the T26 / 31 with smaller crew requirements. The devil is in the detail and they require the First 3 to be built overseas which tells you one very important detail. They want these Frigates quickly. My quick take on those options and some odds. MEKO A200 is nowadays a fairly old design and building in Germany is never a quick or cheap option. And if I were an Australian Politician I’d take one look at their recent history of major faults and delivery issues with surface ships. Then I’d run like hell !… Read more »
If some are being built abroad then that is the answer. British yards will have no spare capacity until mid-2030s at least and it sounds like the Aussies can’t wait that long
It’s nothing to do with build capacity it’s down to size and capability and the T31 is just not comparable.
The 4 chosen are all modern designs and GT powered and the T31 is just a big old fashioned design and powered by Diesel.
And once you load it up with kit it isn’t actually cheap.
Babcock has capacity and if they want them.quick Poland could coproduce with Babcock as they’re ramping up production on T31.
Except you picked the wrong Navantia. it’s the alfa-3000 their looking at, of which Navantia Aust has made an aust version they call Tasman class with 16 VLS and 16 NSM SSM, and triple torpedo tubes, CIWS and 57mm gun and full seahawk helo capabilities. same weight as ANZAC class at 3600t (though this would be an estimate off the design only) and built on the existing Avante corvette hull form as used by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
The ALFA3000 seems to be favourite. Navantia are offering delivery of the first ship within three years. The dark horse is the Japanese Mogami class, Japan and Australia are increasingly cooperating on defence, and an order might suit both. Again a 3-year delivery time for the first ship, and a potential bargain price of under US$400M a unit for Mitsubishi built ships. Babcock has presumably been excluded as they would really struggle to compete on price – the T31 is cheap but not that cheap at an inflation adjusted c.US$500M – and it would also need to offer in-build RN ships, which… Read more »
Actually the (declassified version) report uses the word “exemplars” when listing these, as does the Minister. Meaning “typical examples / similar to”. These are in the 100-150% size of the existing Anzac frigates.
There’s certainly an opportunity for some synergy there….
I suspect the ‘optionally crewed’ platform will rapidly grow out of control cost and complexity wise and be replaced by a straight forward affordable reduced crew GP frigate.
T31 sounds perfect for that job
Sorry to burst your bubble Jon. The 4 possible suppliers of the light frigate are named in the doc. Babcock isn’t one of them.
Oh well.
Interesting, any idea why? Have their difficulties with adapting the T26 soured them to UK designs, I wonder?
They want 3 frigates built abroad in short order, which is obviously not an option for the Babcock factory rn.
Babcock can build 2 T31 size hulls simultaneously that was the point of the build hall. Poland can also produce T31 blocks, and Indonesia is also building T31s. So more globally there’s plenty of opportunity to ramp up T31 capacity.
They’re already building them as fast as can be done. And the Royal Navy ain’t afford to delay its T31 order.
Ah, that would do it. Spain it is, then!
What doc, thr independent analysis?,did Australia already run an RFI?
Not altogether surprising, that hull is not suited to air Defence, it as a MCH issue that everybody has known for a decade, it is a sub hunter, and a good one. Leave it at that. Shotrtly Oz will join the 83 program …as is well known…..
That hull is the same as the Danish Iver Huitfeldt Frigate and it is primarily an AAW platform. What it isn’t suited to is high end ASW warfare, it’s also now pretty old design and is basically an adapted Absalon with a re modelled stern section, smaller mission bay and twice the propulsion.
I think he’s talking about the T26.
Yep I got it 🙁
I think the comment was in relation to the Hunter class
I need Coffee 🥺
A navy that is equipped to conduct diplomacy in our region. Seems like the work of Spey and Tamar has not gone unnoticed.
Or perhaps the other way around with the RN following (albeit on a smaller scale) what the RAN has been doing for decades in the Indo-Pacific. The latest ADF regional engagement activity, Indo-Pacific Endeavour (IPE) 2023 visited 14 countries over a four-month period (Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Maldives, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Thailand and Vietnam). “IPE supports the Australian Government’s focus on deepening our diplomatic and defence partnerships across Southeast Asia and the Northeast Indian Ocean” IPE 2023 include military exercises, workshops, training, sporting events, and cultural activities and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief… Read more »
All good 🙂
Why do I get the impression that they have gold plated the T26 and now have decided its too expensive? Widened, lengthened, massive big heavy and expensive radar array…2 million vls boxes…they have tried to turn a top notch asw vessel into a jack of all trades. I know they don’t use camm, but surely 48 camm, 24 mk41 vls and (say) 8 anti ship tubes is a de ent load out? I would have thought that with all the sea out there, some decent ASW assets are what’s needed. It’s a taster of what the Type 83 could become.… Read more »
Then they have basically said RN is right you need specialist and generalists.
The generalists [T31] can just turn up to augment the specialists with their VLS and PODs.
How is the T31 a generalist without a sonar?
Build it with a sonar?
Indeed that was a choice not a necessity of the design.
Probably no surprise that Australia has followed the RN to adopt a ‘two tier’ fleet with the USN following a similar pattern with the reintroduction of smaller frigates (Constellation Class) to its fleet. Also interesting compare to see how the RN and RAN surface combatant fleet numbers will compare: RN Tier 1: 6 T45 + 8 T26 RN Tier 2: 5 T31 + 5 T32 RN Total: 24 surface combatants RAN Tier 1: 3 Hobart + 6 Hunter (T26) RAN Tier 2: 7 to 11 GP Frigates RAN Total:16 to 20 surface combatants Add in the 6 ‘optionally crewed’ (assuming… Read more »
Australia cannot man the ships we have at the moment. The advent of nuclear submarines and a larger surface fleet will require a much larger Navy. I think it will be very difficult to achieve this even allowing for reduced crew size and the introduction of uncrewed drone ships.
Agree it’s problematic but recruitment and retention is a problem for most Western navies including the RN.
More uncrewed or minimally crewed ships may be the way of the future.
I agree, there was talk of a total of eight SSNs, they would never crew them all. Four SSNs with double crew wouldn’t work either. You only need a lack of (say) Cooks and that would stop them deploying
Hi OZ. So does this news mean the RAN will reduce the planned Arafura class OPV’s to six then ? Not a bad development, this piece of news.
Apparently yes. Agree that its a sensible thing.
Somehow the RAN has managed to reverse ‘gold plate’ the Lurseen design for Brunei by removing the AShMs and larger gun making them as ineffective as the RN’s River class in combat.
The less RAN crew put on floating defenceless ‘targets’ the better. Should transfer them to Border Force to use for coast guard duties.
much obliged OZ!
Arafura class are a bloody joke, armed with two 12.7mm machine guns. Our Navy seem to stuff around with every design they look at. Hunter class are 3,000T overweight and under powered
Which is a good reason to reduce the numbers of the Arafura buy! I was unaware of the tonnage issue re the Hunters.
Hi OZ,
Your analysis assumes we will get the T32. There has been precious little said about and many have their doubts if it will ever see the light of day.
I really, really hope I am wrong on this one! We need the T32!
The RCN have ordered 15 T26 as well.
It is possible a two tier scenario may occur for Canada as well in regards to having dedicated air defence ships out of that 15.
The Iroquois Class destroyers that were decommissioned a few years back is a air defence gap that the RCN needs filling.
RN is not right as we now have another example with Iran, Houthis.
Air defence is essential. All ships need to have 100km range anti air.
Which is why CAMM-ER [in Italian service] and CAMM-MR [under development] with Poland are important.
A lot of continental combatants that carry ASTER carry A15 not A30. So no real gain over CAMM.
By a lot I take it you mean just 2 ? France and Italy and Italy is ditching the 15s for CAMM.
Carriers are combatants…..
A15 was added to a strange mix of platforms. But they are not in full length strike tubes.
Italian Navy has not ordered CAMM.
All Italian combatants Horizon, FREMM’s, PPA’s full can fire the A30’s. Not sure about Cavour.
FREMM for example have been tested in ABM function in NATO exercises.
I understand they have ordered CAMM-ER. But not the original CAMM.
Would like to know more about these LOSV’s … anyone any links ?
It is perhaps the most interesting announcement from the review, both because of its potential for a new style of naval CONOPS but also somewhat suspect for its lack of detail. Presumably the 6 large ‘optionally crewed’ missile equipped ships would need to be at least corvette or frigate size to have a meaningful missile loadout. Somewhat paradoxically the announcement says that they will initially be crewed. This could be problematic given recruitment and retention issues for a now expanded surface fleet not to mention SSNs. Suggestions made in some reports that they be acquired from the US although there… Read more »
Yes absolutely… this unknown has a certain exciting aura around it… i’m aware of the US programme but most US ship designs seem to cost mega bucks…. It’ll be rather interesting to see how this develops.
Ghost Bat seems to be ahead of the game too.
One of the participants in the US programme is a design from Austal, which is an Australian company. Not saying who will win in US, but it does give Australia an option regardless.
LOSV is the name Australia is using for LUSV. O for “optionally manned” rather than U for “unmanned” to counter concerns raised with the legal status of lethal autonomous vessels which has yet to be resolved under international law.
Interesting, although I think more of a statement about the state of the rest of their fleet and the problems they’re having with adapting the T26 design than the core design itself.
Shame they apparently aren’t looking at T31 for their GP frigate- would be interested in understanding that one. Could it be that T26 conversion to Hunter has soured them, or they’re worried about putting too many eggs in one basket, when we’re already providing them T26 and AUKUS SSNs?
Or Babcock didn’t bid.
I think Babcock has proposed the T31/A140 to NZ. Be interesting to see what NZ might go for and if they’ll be tempted to get an extra 2nd hand Aus Anzac at a bargain price.
Highly unlikely that any of the RAN’s ANZAC class frigates will see service with the RNZN. The review has announced the immediate retirement of the oldest in the class HMAS ANZAC which will reduce the number of frigates available for tasking to seven with only 6 of those (presumably the newest hulls) receiving their final upgrades. Any new build GP frigates to replace the ANAC class are likely to be (optimistically) at least 5 years before they are in service and by then the remaining ANZAC hulls will be virtually time expired. In any case they would be orphans in… Read more »
Hi OZ, you never know. Yes something new would be best but the Kiwis might want a bargain! Better you $5…lol 😆
$5 AUD or $5 NZD??
Will go with AUD! Don’t want to lose out on Forex! In all seriousness, hope some of this good news of a large RAN uplift rubs off on the RN too. I’m an Aussiefied Pom, so want the best for 🇦🇺 and 🇬🇧 and have family in NZ too so include them as well!
Hi Quentin I think this is an excellent opportunity for the RNZN. Watch this space!
Morning Klonkie, That’s two of us at least! Lol 😁. And will the RNZN ever get some AShMs and new helos I wonder?
Awesome Mate – liking your enthusiasm! 😉
Actually Babcock have put in an offer re T31, albeit rather late.
My speculation for front runner would be the Navantia ship, in part because of Australia’s current Navantia platforms in the RAN fleet (Canberra, Hobart and Supply class) and the Hobarts and the Canberra superstructure built and fitted out here – so their is an established working relationship with Navantia. Plus they have a design office in Australia which has produced a number of detailed design proposals inluding LPD, 10,000 tonne destroyer and ASW frigate designs which all incorporate Australian components/technology (CEAFAR etc). The Alpha 3000 (109.6 metres in length, 15.35 metres beam and a displacement up to 3,600 tons –… Read more »
Just what i was thinking….. the 2000 model has a great mix of systems already for a small Corvette, not much heavier than the River B2’s… the 3000 model has even more. Navantia are very well established there too so it just might be the winner….
They weren’t even short listed. And to be honest I’m not too surprised it’s a budget design adapted from one which is now over 25 years old.
The RAN is going for 3 very modern designs and the MEKO which although the design is of a similar age it’s still a very good design.
It isn’t T31s age that is the issue here. All 4 frigates they short listed are much smaller than T31 at 3-3.5k tons.
T31 isn’t a good fit in any sense, too big, purely Diesel powered, relatively large crew (that’s important to RAN) and it’s hampered by being an old design which is built using 20th Century methods. But its design age does matter as these days virtually no one builds ships the old fashioned keel up, small build block way. It’s archaic, slow, difficult to pre fit so inefficient and was designed purely for Diesel propulsion. It didn’t even start out as a Frigate design, but a developed and adapted Absalon Multi Role vessel with a redesigned stern, less cargo space and… Read more »
I guess so, I’d have thought they’d have jumped at the chance. Someone else noted that the bid called for 3 to be built abroad in short order though, which is probably outside of Babcocks ability to deliver at present.
It is very odd that they are looking outside of AUKUS for the frigate.
No one within AUKUS has an existing ‘light frigate’ ship that’s already in service or the yards to build an initial batch ASAP.
T31 is a design that is in service…..
Not when you class in service as having been put to sea and tested and of proven abilities. Their still putting the 1st of class together. (unless I missed something recently)
I suspect there is a reason the RAN have specifically ruled out a UK ship design like the T31, AUKUS notwithstanding. Given the government has announced that some of the GP frigates will be built overseas it suggests that they are looking for a (relatively) rapid acquisition. So the choice of ship design may come down to shipyard capacity with UK shipyards already committed to T31/T32/T26 production for the RN. Also the review has announced the immediate retirement of the oldest in the class HMAS ANZAC which will reduce the number of frigates available for tasking to seven. Any offshore… Read more »
I seem to remember when the T31 shipyard was under construction it was specifically built so we could build for export and domestic orders at the same time. What’s gone wrong?
It wasn’t. One of Babcocks main selling points is that the T31 could be built anywhere, hence pretty much any country could build one.
It was too large to be considered for Aus anyway.
Exactly ^^^
T31 is too large for Aus. The four ship classes being considered are much smaller.
Type 055 is not really a threat to T26/Hunter. It might have 112 VLS but most will be filled with air defence missiles.
A Hunter would never be truly alone either, given China could put to sea 6 Type 055 max, US carrier based aircraft/land based aircraft/subs would be very interested.
Agree the T31 is too large for the RAN requirement.
The Chinese Type 055 has one dedicated 24 cell HQ10 launcher.
The remaining 112 cells can be configured with a mixed of air defence or AShMs including subsonic YJ18 and supersonic (allegedly Mach 6+) YJ21.
The question is how many ant ship missiles would be needed to overwhelm a Hunter’s defences?
Assuming the YJ21 will be in service by the time the Hunters are operational, and just 25% of the loadout of those 112 cells are anti-ship, the exchange ratio odds are likely to fall the way of the PLAAN.
China only has 8 Type 055. Let’s say at a push they can deploy 6 of them. They are not using their primary air defence platform to hunt lone Australian frigates when they have so little.
HQ10 is a VSHORAD missile comparable to RAM which usually isn’t counted in overall missile numbers as it’s fitted instead of gun systems.
Notwithstanding the Type 055’s primary air defence role, it begs the question why they would develop the Y21 supersonic anti-ship missile if the Type 055 is the only platform that can deploy it and the Type 055 isn’t intended to also be their most advanced surface combatant? And the PLAAN also have 25 Type 052D in service (6 more under construction) each with 64 longer range VLS cells which no doubt will have a mix of SAMs and YJ 18 ant ship missiles as part of a standard loadout. So if the RAN Hunters are hunting Chinese subs in the… Read more »
“The question is how many ant ship missiles would be needed to overwhelm a Hunter’s defences?” The fact is that rarely would a PLAN warship face an Aus T26 1 to 1. The PLA would probably be in flotillas, more than just a single Type 055, & have also aircraft launching AShMs in a mass, overwhelming attack. Most likely that even with allied AUKUS+ warships in a task group, PLA would seek to deploy overwhelming force. Shame RAN is dropping T26 numbers, but at least they are trying to expand their navy rapidly in the face of imminant treat by… Read more »
I think you are missing my point (or maybe have just proven it). RAN ships lack magazine depth. The ANZACs only have one 8 cell VLS (albeit quad packed) and the Hobarts have just 48 cells (it could have had 96 cells on an Arleigh Burke which was bid for the AWD contract). The relatively small load out on the Hunters just exacerbates this problem. Even the USN is recognising this issue is key to a conflict with the PLAAN with DARPA’s rapidly evolving large unmanned surface vessels (LUSV) program, which are effectively floating missile batteries. Hence the RAN plan… Read more »
Also, the Hobart replacement is to start build immediately after the Hunter build, which for continuous shipbuilding tends to suggest that may be a 6 ship build as well. If the Hunters work as expected, the AWW version of Hunter or T83 would be a good bet.
One thing recent (Hobart), current (Hunter) and future ship building plans show is that, unlike the RAN of the past, Australia no longer buys off the shelf designs from other countries (Leander UK or Perry US) without question or modification if they don’t meet Australia’s unique strategic and geographic needs. However, both the Hunter class and the French Barracuda submarine sagas illustrate the time and cost blowouts that occur when a design is a compromise for different navy’s needs. In the case of the T26 three navies with competing needs – what the RAN is a shaping is a multirole… Read more »
Perhaps not the T83 (it’s not even a paper ship at this stage anyway), however if Hunter works as BAE says it will, then it has a big advantage for the destroyer build. Its AAW version is 85% identical to the ASW version. Training for crews is way easier. Supply chains already exist. Hunter has already been ‘Australianised’. The shipbuilders would hardly notice the change over. You wouldn’t be waiting 10 years for ship one to appear. The destroyers are also to be built in the same shipyard with the same ASC workforce as the Hunters. The GP light frigates… Read more »
Sounds like compelling logic doesn’t it and to be sure there are significant benefits in transitioning the workforce and supply chains directly from one ship variant to the next of a common hull type. Not to mention the in service benefits for training. operations and ongoing maintenance. Unfortunately it doesn’t always play out that way otherwise Navantia would have won the ASW ship competition and we would probably already have the first boat in the water by now. Navantia proposed an ASW variant of the Hobart hull with twin helicopter hangers, mission bay, CEAFAR radar etc. with all the potential… Read more »
The Type 055 ships are certainly a threat, 8 active, 16 ordered, they are Stealthy multi mission Destroyers with ASM’s as well as a considerable AAW loadout, plus they really are an unknown quantity.
On paper that outguns anything, even US ships one to one, but missile load out will no doubt be only part of the equation in any direct case conflict.
True tactics and technology can be offsetting factors but as the saying goes ‘quantity has a quality all its own’
Sounds a little bit like they’re in the same boat as us- retiring some vessels early to build the force over the next 5-10 years.
Just a bit of a shame for the National Shipbuilding Strategy that we couldn’t take advantage of this one, but there we go.
It all depends on the hit-to-kill ratio of the missiles?
Well if OZ change there mind once T26 in service sure the UK government will sell 2 or 3 to make RAN numbers up 🤗 🇬🇧
Stop that right now….. 😂
Sharp idea Andrew!
Why haven’t they decided to upgunned the hunter.class to become the next AWDs if they choosen 11 new smaller lethal frigates. Including 2 large multi-purpose vessels and 6 other partly crewed vessels. The navel posture looks to be focused more on ASW. The hunter.class frigates was cut back from 9 to 6 vessels due to being way over budget. That’s understandable. But why 6 ASW hunter.class. when they could have built 5 of them as the new AWDs and each having an armament of 96 cell VLS. Australia coukd had 5 new Hunter heavily armed AWDs. 3 light Hobart AWDs.… Read more »
Wow, Australia is investing very serious money in its navy. So under current plans the RAN will be roughly in strength to the RN in strength by the mid-2030’s as the 3-5 Virginia class SSN’s enter service, and probably superior by the early-2040’s. And that assumes the RN gets 5 T32’s in the early 2030’s – far from certain. The RN may still have the edge on carrier strike, but not by a huge amount if the long debated purchase of F-35B’s primarily for operation from the the two Canberra-class LHD’s finally gets approval. The RFA used to be a clear… Read more »
Maybe – political ‘announceables’ are as easy to change as the paper they are written on. We’ve recently seen some major changes or reversals to programs – French Barracuda submarines, reducing IFV numbers for army in favour of HIMARS, and now the reduction in Hunter Class numbers so some cautious optimism is warranted at least until the first keel is laid. Fingers crossed. But naval combatants aren’t the only service where Australia is approaching parity with the UK. The RAAF’s frontline combat aircraft now number108 (all ASEA radar equipped) with Australia having more 5th generation stealth aircraft (72 F35A) than… Read more »
Not disagreeing overall but you can’t seriously compare F-35 on Canberras (as great ships that they are for their prime purpose) with F-35s on two proper Aircraft Carriers… well at least unless we never get the fill out that the carriers with their all round capability are capable of 😈.
Ok, I will bite. JC1/Canberra class can handle somewhere between 8-12 STOVL fighters (f35b, probably more like 6-10). This was similar to Falklands era “Harrier carriers” (& early CATOBAR jet based fleet (eg Skyhawk) carriers). Yes, you could jamb more on, but realistic operational numbers were somewhat around that. The JC1 design was as a multi role LHD. One of these roles was ability to act as a light carrier. The Spanish navy did have at the time a dedicated carrier (as did Italy). The JC1 was never intended to be Spain’s carrier, it was to be the backup during… Read more »
They say the Hunter will be cutback but really they will probably use it as a reference design for whatever eventually replaces the Hobart. That decision won’t be made until the 2030s and BAE have their foot well and truely jammed in the door.
The light frigate are just that, light. They need to be built quickly which means no paper designs. In fact the first 3 will need to be built overseas. Not sure Babcock could deliver on that.
LOSVs are a pipe dream. Long way into the future.
So independent analysis conducted by a US Admiral a Finace minister and Australian Admiral.
Independent maybe but probably biased 😅 .
The document states far too many times its independent 😅.
I would think there will be challenges from other interested parties as to the ‘independence’ of the report.
About as independent as you are going to get if you want only a small number of people over a relatively short time. Part of the reason for the review was that the in place shipbuilding plans were pre SSN announcements. That really gives only a choice of ex RN or ex USN Admiral. Add an Australian Admiral to make sure what they come up with will actually work for RAN, and an Australian finance person (not a politician), to insure Australia can actually afford to pay for it.
It would be a good idea to have at least a small crew on the “optionally manned” vessels, if only for damage control and defending the craft from boarders.
If the optionally manned vessels could carry fuel to refuel their paired frigate that would be like getting biscuits with your beer. Unrep from a craft like this would be problematic but the upside is real. Large walk in freezers for fresh frozen food for the frigate crew would be useful as well.
We are talking Pacific distances and time frames.
Wishful thinking.
There is currently a legal problem with large unmanned ships at sea. So unless that changes (& it is an international agreement so no one nation can change it), there has to be some crew onboard for general sea lane use.
Just thinking if the LOSV purchase might also be a complementary option for GBAD, which if the UK is reluctant to pursue then put them at sea or coastal, rivers etc with 4 x MK41s or other silos, a bit like a missile barge/arsenal ship, all with shared inventory potential. Would be interesting to see a LOSV operate within a CSG.
The problem with using LOSV as a GBAD system is sensors & control. From what I gather, LOSV uses CEC from nearby CEC capable warships to fire its missiles. It doesn’t have high end radars on board. The land ceptor system can fire CAMM/CAMM-ER using remote sensors, so somewhat similar ability. But I would think Land Ceptor would work out way cheaper, more separation (taking out a single LOSV would mean loss of 128 (quad packed) missiles) & ability to work inland. At sea, LOSV is paired with a warship with a similar or even more missiles & high power… Read more »
Thanks DJ, good comments. Let’s hope a CAMM-ER/MR GBAD (land) or even a mix with Aster SAMP/T eventuates. Just in case something gets lobbed over the NATO fence!
CAMM-ER fills the gap between CAMM & Aster 30. It’s more a ESSM spec missile, whereas CAMM is a very long ranged RAM spec. The land systems were designed to handle both in expectation. It’s the one of the few thing the army has got right. As Ukraine is currently finding, ammo is more important than weapons.
It’s an ambitious plan. RAN has @ 14500 personnel ( @ 50% of the RN minus marines) and like others struggles to recruit and retain. I think it highly unlikely that the plan will be achieved in its entirety.
Given the vast area Australia has to protect, the candidates for the patrol frigate don’t seem best suited. For long range operations, a large hull and diesel power would make more sense.
Navantia offering has CODAD propulsion but still looks on the small side with a much lower range than T31.
I am just wondering why the Australians need to UK to build warships for them?
I don’t get you. It’s been many decades since UK has built a warship (or a submarine), for Australia. UK did (stupidly), sell a near new Bay class to Australia, but that was the sale of a second hand ship that was ‘surplus to requirements’. It was not built for Australia. If by UK, you actually meant BAE, they have been in Australia since before BAE itself existed (by that I mean component companies that eventually became BAE). BAE own 2 shipyards in Australia (amongst other things). However, the BAE Hunter/T26 build is at the government owned ASC shipyard (BAE… Read more »
“The” Navy. What idiot writes this madness.
It’s in plain English who wrote it, chief.