Australian Defence Force

[tomuk]

I found the transcript,

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/se ... %2F0000%22



Not sure where you are getting you weight figures from,

The 10,000t is the figure in the press and is what the senators wanted Mr Hudson to confirm or deny which he wouldn't only quoting the light ship figure as the other is apparently classified.

[inch]

Could I put it to you this is all just smoke and mirrors that the people with the purse strings don't like the cost and just trying to wiggle out of the t26 design for something cheaper,with a American led report helping this and other foreign companies putting boot in as is the business way to buy their products,that's it I'm thinking,all this about probs with the t26 is just guff that could be sorted out but they don't want too ,,that's just my take on it all rightly or wrongly,money men guff spewing a narrative that will fit ,where a workaround could be got

[SW1]

So they don’t meet warship standards and can’t persist as much.

Not necessary. We know Mexican POLA is built to OPV standard, but not sure about the version proposed for Romania (on which I based my cost discussion). It is NOT inherent to the hull, but depends on internal arrangements.

Given your looking at transiting long distances and to be used or a least come up against a peer enemy seems like a problem.

Building frigates will power constraints hasn’t worked to well for the RN this last 15 years maybe we shouldn’t be repeating that.

It all depends on the need, number or quality. 9 heavy-frigates can provide only 3 hull in the front line at most (sometimes only 2). 15 heavy-corvettes/light-frigates can do 5 (or 4). If you have 5 tasks you cannot gap, and if it the threat level and logistic support framework is acceptable with heavy-corvettes/light-frigates, surely the latter is the better option. If vice-versa, heavy-frigates are the better option.

Just it.

So the opv is built to opv standards for the only one in service.

That’s not entirely true the legacy 3 to 1 ration is for distant persistent enduring commitments it is not for non enduring or conflict related calculations. It’s also about crewing. We can keep ships at sea for longer with crew rotations the RN have proven that with type 23 and other nato navies has also proven that.

There is not a large difference in crewing numbers between ships that are required to be at action stations for a conflict and are equipped similarly no matter if they are classed as heavy or light.

There is also the question of thru life support, more densely packed ships will take longer to maintain and maybe in dry dock longer as a consequence. They will be more expensive as a result. Purchase cost is the smallest part of the ownership cost but gets the most attention because it easier to hid the thru life costs and people usually lose interest because something tangible is sitting there even if it can’t be used because of defects or no spares are available.

[donald_of_tokyo]

So the opv is built to opv standards for the only one in service.

That’s not entirely true the legacy 3 to 1 ration is for distant persistent enduring commitments it is not for non enduring or conflict related calculations. It’s also about crewing. We can keep ships at sea for longer with crew rotations the RN have proven that with type 23 and other nato navies has also proven that.

Yes and no. I see no example any modern navy successful in keeping 3 to 1 ratio. It is more like 4 to 1, even if crew rotation is taken into account. 3 to 1 is for (enduring) war time. For short war, nearly 2 to 1 is possible, but it is not sustainable longer than a half a year (see Falklands war).

But, this applies to both frigate and corvettes.

...
There is also the question of thru life support, more densely packed ships will take longer to maintain and maybe in dry dock longer as a consequence. They will be more expensive as a result. Purchase cost is the smallest part of the ownership cost but gets the most attention because it easier to hid the thru life costs and people usually lose interest because something tangible is sitting there even if it can’t be used because of defects or no spares are available.

Exactly, that is why I like Gowind-2000 or Tamadare-class better. And, when talking about Damen 10514, I am talking about reducing the equipment. And I think the equipment onboard T31 "as-is" can be packed in a 3000t vessel without being "densely packed".

Another cost is fuel cost. In the late 2000s, the fuel cost has blown up and because of lack of fuel budget, many ships were moored in the port, RN, US, Japan, many navies. In war time, fuel cost is even more a concern. Smaller ships are much better here. Also, smaller make it more stealthy, more silent (smaller engine), and even visibly smaller.

As you stated, too much densely packed armament requires penalty, especially in its refit. But too much large hull needs to pay larger fuel cost. So, a good balance is the key. Don't get me wrong. When we are talking about a patrol frigate with, 1x 57/76 mm gun, 2x 25-40mm guns, 12x SAMs and 1x helicopter (see T31-RFI), it is a 3000t vessel which has the good balance. Even adding ASW kits, it will be a 3500-4000 vessel. If we want to go further = keep room for future expansion and/or have very long range/endurance, much larger than most of the frigates in the world, larger hull is of course a better choice. I think T31 sits in here.

Thus, I keep saying that is just a matter of choice.

Modern heavy-corvette/light-frigates are larger than T12M Leander class frigates. Thus, they have "so-so" sea-keeping and range. It is very different from the "corvettes" in the 1990s = short range/endurance and bad sea-keeping. So, exactly as you've suggested, it is (only) the equipment density which matters. As such, equipment defines the size of a "balanced" warship.

[wargame_insomniac]

I found the transcript,

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/se ... %2F0000%22

Not sure where you are getting you weight figures from,

The 10,000t is the figure in the press and is what the senators wanted Mr Hudson to confirm or deny which he wouldn't only quoting the light ship figure as the other is apparently classified.

If you were to take the 8,200t Hunter Lght Displacement quoted by Mr Hudson (@R6860) and assume a similar margin as per Iver Huitfeld from a 5,452t Light and Full load 6649t, a 22% increase on Light to Full and apply that to Hunter's 8,200t Light Displacement that would give Hunter Full Load Displacement of 9,840t, which near enough the 10,000t quoted in the press, anyone see any flaws in this assumption?

[SouthernOne]

The most pragmatic decision may be to just carry on as planned and insist BAE sorts out the problems.

But the problems are largely not BAE. It is the Aus DOD. The requirement to fit a complex radar\CMS system and change the ship into a quasi cruiser. Although the requirement to do so was in the original contract it is clear that the power\cooling\weight requirements for the radar\cms have grown as the programme has progressed.

A few points to keep in mind.

The RAN did not order "Type 26" frigates. It contracted BAE to develop and build the Hunter class which uses the BAE Global Combat Ship as the base or "reference" design. The design of the Hunter class has not been finalised, or at least has not been released, so how close to or different from the Type 26 it is we don't yet know.

The competition for the Hunter class was abundantly clear that whatever base design was selected, the Hunter class would need to be equipped with AEGIS and CEAFAR along with other Aus specific systems like MU90 and Nulka. A scaled version of CEAFAR has already been integrated into the smaller ANZAC class frigates.

The USN is going through a similar process for the Constellation class, as are the Canadians with the CSC, and as did all the MEKO class derivatives decades ago.

[tomuk]

The most pragmatic decision may be to just carry on as planned and insist BAE sorts out the problems.

But the problems are largely not BAE. It is the Aus DOD. The requirement to fit a complex radar\CMS system and change the ship into a quasi cruiser. Although the requirement to do so was in the original contract it is clear that the power\cooling\weight requirements for the radar\cms have grown as the programme has progressed.

A few points to keep in mind.

The RAN did not order "Type 26" frigates. It contracted BAE to develop and build the Hunter class which uses the BAE Global Combat Ship as the base or "reference" design. The design of the Hunter class has not been finalised, or at least has not been released.

The competition for the Hunter class was abundantly clear that whatever base design was selected, the Hunter class would need to be equipped with AEGIS and CEAFAR along with other Aus specific systems like MU90 and Nulka. A scaled version of CEAFAR has already been integrated into the smaller ANZAC class frigates.

The USN is going through a similar process for the Constellation class, as did all the MEKO class derivatives decades ago.

What point are you trying to make? I acknowledged that the requirement to fit Aus specific systems was in the original requirements.
As to CEAFAR on the Anzacs. How much ballast are they now carrying to stop them rolling over?

[SouthernOne]

The most pragmatic decision may be to just carry on as planned and insist BAE sorts out the problems.

But the problems are largely not BAE. It is the Aus DOD. The requirement to fit a complex radar\CMS system and change the ship into a quasi cruiser. Although the requirement to do so was in the original contract it is clear that the power\cooling\weight requirements for the radar\cms have grown as the programme has progressed.

A few points to keep in mind.

The RAN did not order "Type 26" frigates. It contracted BAE to develop and build the Hunter class which uses the BAE Global Combat Ship as the base or "reference" design. The design of the Hunter class has not been finalised, or at least has not been released.

The competition for the Hunter class was abundantly clear that whatever base design was selected, the Hunter class would need to be equipped with AEGIS and CEAFAR along with other Aus specific systems like MU90 and Nulka. A scaled version of CEAFAR has already been integrated into the smaller ANZAC class frigates.

The USN is going through a similar process for the Constellation class, as did all the MEKO class derivatives decades ago.

What point are you trying to make? I acknowledged that the requirement to fit Aus specific systems was in the original requirements.
As to CEAFAR on the Anzacs. How much ballast are they now carrying to stop them rolling over?

What is actually a pretty typical design process is presented as a "problem" caused primarily by one party.

[tomuk]

The most pragmatic decision may be to just carry on as planned and insist BAE sorts out the problems.

But the problems are largely not BAE. It is the Aus DOD. The requirement to fit a complex radar\CMS system and change the ship into a quasi cruiser. Although the requirement to do so was in the original contract it is clear that the power\cooling\weight requirements for the radar\cms have grown as the programme has progressed.

A few points to keep in mind.

The RAN did not order "Type 26" frigates. It contracted BAE to develop and build the Hunter class which uses the BAE Global Combat Ship as the base or "reference" design. The design of the Hunter class has not been finalised, or at least has not been released.

The competition for the Hunter class was abundantly clear that whatever base design was selected, the Hunter class would need to be equipped with AEGIS and CEAFAR along with other Aus specific systems like MU90 and Nulka. A scaled version of CEAFAR has already been integrated into the smaller ANZAC class frigates.

The USN is going through a similar process for the Constellation class, as did all the MEKO class derivatives decades ago.

What point are you trying to make? I acknowledged that the requirement to fit Aus specific systems was in the original requirements.
As to CEAFAR on the Anzacs. How much ballast are they now carrying to stop them rolling over?

What is actually a pretty typical design process is presented as a "problem" caused primarily by one party.

So there isn't a problem then? Or there is a problem and that problem isn't down to Aus DoD?

[R686]

The most pragmatic decision may be to just carry on as planned and insist BAE sorts out the problems.

But the problems are largely not BAE. It is the Aus DOD. The requirement to fit a complex radar\CMS system and change the ship into a quasi cruiser. Although the requirement to do so was in the original contract it is clear that the power\cooling\weight requirements for the radar\cms have grown as the programme has progressed.

A few points to keep in mind.

The RAN did not order "Type 26" frigates. It contracted BAE to develop and build the Hunter class which uses the BAE Global Combat Ship as the base or "reference" design. The design of the Hunter class has not been finalised, or at least has not been released.

The competition for the Hunter class was abundantly clear that whatever base design was selected, the Hunter class would need to be equipped with AEGIS and CEAFAR along with other Aus specific systems like MU90 and Nulka. A scaled version of CEAFAR has already been integrated into the smaller ANZAC class frigates.

The USN is going through a similar process for the Constellation class, as did all the MEKO class derivatives decades ago.

What point are you trying to make? I acknowledged that the requirement to fit Aus specific systems was in the original requirements.
As to CEAFAR on the Anzacs. How much ballast are they now carrying to stop them rolling over?

What is actually a pretty typical design process is presented as a "problem" caused primarily by one party.

So there isn't a problem then? Or there is a problem and that problem isn't down to Aus DoD?

It would be interesting to see what this report if it ended up happing said.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/feasibi ... -launched/

[Poiuytrewq]

Could anyone give an update on the reasoning behind the Australian OPV procurement please?

Is it politically untouchable?

[R686]

Could anyone give an update on the reasoning behind the Australian OPV procurement please?

Is it politically untouchable?

In reality no program is untouchable as long as they come up with a viable alternative, talk is that some may be transferred to ABF, but they have their own problems in getting crew etc and the government wants Austral to build OPV for them. So, it's a political hot potato all-round.

[NickC]

Mr Hudson's statement (@R686) explained the differences to the T26 hull required to increase the Hunter's displacement and will be be mainly driven by the need to be able to accommodate the ships much higher top weight due to the weight of the much higher performance of the S and X band CEFAR flat panel array radars compared to the T26 limted single rotating S band Artisan plus the attendent additional weight and power plant required to power and cool the much more powerful radars. The displacement increase was achieved by increasing the beam and he said the hydrodynamic modelling performance showed surprisingly limited impact on speed.

Another point raised in the questioning was margin built in for future growth, all ships increase in weight over their life, Mr Hudson's answer was 3.3% which is on the low side, USN destroyers design specification is for 10%, though saying that with the new USN Constellation frigate its only 5%, don't know the figures for RN frigates but think 10%, you only have to look at how T23 extra weight has increased its displacement over the years.

PS Does anyone know the T26 light displacement figure and how it compares to Hunter's 8,200t.

[tomuk]

Mr Hudson's statement (@R686) explained the differences to the T26 hull required to increase the Hunter's displacement and will be be mainly driven by the need to be able to accommodate the ships much higher top weight due to the weight of the much higher performance of the S and X band CEFAR flat panel array radars compared to the T26 limted single rotating S band Artisan plus the attendent additional weight and power plant required to power and cool the much more powerful radars. The displacement increase was achieved by increasing the beam and he said the hydrodynamic modelling performance showed surprisingly limited impact on speed.

CEAFAR2 on Hunter is S and L band (upper and lower sextupel arrays) plus the X Band target illuminators (cardinal point arrays).

Another point raised in the questioning was margin built in for future growth, all ships increase in weight over their life, Mr Hudson's answer was 3.3% which is on the low side, USN destroyers design specification is for 10%, though saying that with the new USN Constellation frigate its only 5%, don't know the figures for RN frigates but think 10%, you only have to look at how T23 extra weight has increased its displacement over the years.

PS Does anyone know the T26 light displacement figure and how it compares to Hunter's 8,200t.

AIUI although the design margin maybe 10% much of that has been used up on the Burkes. The T26 light displacement from wiki is 6900t

[SW1]

If the radar is what is causing the big issues then maybe better trying to integrate something like the Thales seafire but then that may not meet the local content requirements

[tomuk]

If the radar is what is causing the big issues then maybe better trying to integrate something like the Thales seafire but then that may not meet the local content requirements

Not putting CEAFAR on it would be more than a bit embarrassing. CEA is the torch bearer for Aus homegrown defence tech.

[Jake1992]

If the radar is what is causing the big issues then maybe better trying to integrate something like the Thales seafire but then that may not meet the local content requirements

Not putting CEAFAR on it would be more than a bit embarrassing. CEA is the torch bearer for Aus homegrown defence tech.

So why no leave it off the Hunters ( bring them closer to City class ) and instead join the RN in the T83 project with CEAFAR being on the RAN version and aim for 5-6 to replace the Hobart class ?
Kills 3 birds with 1 stone, solves the issues around Hunter class, keeps CEAFAR on a major RAN class also giving time to improve and shave off weight, allows for the increase escort fire power.

[Poiuytrewq]

In reality no program is untouchable as long as they come up with a viable alternative, talk is that some may be transferred to ABF, but they have their own problems in getting crew etc and the government wants Austral to build OPV for them. So, it's a political hot potato all-round.

Thank you.

It’s seems like an odd fleet balance with 3x DD 9x FF and 12x virtually unarmed, slow and short legged OPVs. Are the Arafura class really a priority when the vessels they are due to replace are not really that old?

If the Hunter program is delayed or partly cancelled should the OPV program divert to fill the gaps temporarily?

A meaningful amount of extra funding looks unlikely as the AUKUS bills start to build up. Therefore would 6x long endurance OPVs with a helo and 8x NSM slotted in to be built quickly at Henderson with the $3bn OPV budget give the Hunter program the breathing space to succeed? The Arafura build could then continue when the Long range OPV build concludes.

Interesting that of all of the options being proposed, the Arafura OPV program doesn’t seem to enter the discussion.

[tomuk]

If the radar is what is causing the big issues then maybe better trying to integrate something like the Thales seafire but then that may not meet the local content requirements

Not putting CEAFAR on it would be more than a bit embarrassing. CEA is the torch bearer for Aus homegrown defence tech.

So why no leave it off the Hunters ( bring them closer to City class ) and instead join the RN in the T83 project with CEAFAR being on the RAN version and aim for 5-6 to replace the Hobart class ?
Kills 3 birds with 1 stone, solves the issues around Hunter class, keeps CEAFAR on a major RAN class also giving time to improve and shave off weight, allows for the increase escort fire power.

But in any sensible world the Hobarts don't need replacing they were only commissioned 3-6 years ago. What are the CEA bods going to do for the next 15-20 years until the radar is required for their replacements.

[tomuk]

In reality no program is untouchable as long as they come up with a viable alternative, talk is that some may be transferred to ABF, but they have their own problems in getting crew etc and the government wants Austral to build OPV for them. So, it's a political hot potato all-round.

Thank you.

It’s seems like an odd fleet balance with 3x DD 9x FF and 12x virtually unarmed, slow and short legged OPVs. Are the Arafura class really a priority when the vessels they are due to replace are not really that old?

10 of the 14 Armadales the Arafuras are replacing are already decommissioned. They are shorter legged and less armed than the Arafuras were planned to be, had longstanding issues and have been thrashed too.

Interesting that of all of the options being proposed, the Arafura OPV program doesn’t seem to enter the discussion.

It has entered the discussion. The Gov\RAN don't want the things and want to put the money towards the Tier 2 requirement but as they are already contracted and protecting jobs is the utmost concern they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Poiuytrewq]

But in any sensible world the Hobarts don't need replacing they were only commissioned 3-6 years ago. What are the CEA bods going to do for the next 15-20 years until the radar is required for their replacements.

Also if Hunter is scrapped and 3x Hobart’s and 6x A140’s are quickly built by the end of the decade that will be the end of Australian naval shipbuilding for a generation.

Haven’t heard too much about the end of Australian Escort building in the discussion so far.

[SW1]

Would be ironic but I wonder if they would go back to the French for this lighter frigate and buy the FDI frigate.

[Jake1992]

If the radar is what is causing the big issues then maybe better trying to integrate something like the Thales seafire but then that may not meet the local content requirements

Not putting CEAFAR on it would be more than a bit embarrassing. CEA is the torch bearer for Aus homegrown defence tech.

So why no leave it off the Hunters ( bring them closer to City class ) and instead join the RN in the T83 project with CEAFAR being on the RAN version and aim for 5-6 to replace the Hobart class ?
Kills 3 birds with 1 stone, solves the issues around Hunter class, keeps CEAFAR on a major RAN class also giving time to improve and shave off weight, allows for the increase escort fire power.

But in any sensible world the Hobarts don't need replacing they were only commissioned 3-6 years ago. What are the CEA bods going to do for the next 15-20 years until the radar is required for their replacements.

I’m it suggesting replacing them right now are the RN doing the T83 program right now, I’d suggest the the Hobart’s are replaced by hulls 3-5 or 4-6 if the RAN can go for 5-6 T83s.

This will give the continuation of escort building once Hunter build is coming to wind down and also give the time needed to perfect CEAFAR

[Poiuytrewq]

It has entered the discussion. The Gov\RAN don't want the things and want to put the money towards the Tier 2 requirement but as they are already contracted and protecting jobs is the utmost concern they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

No need to jeopardise jobs.

Just get them building something the RAN can put to meaningful use.

The hard part would be convincing the RAN to learn from RN’s T31 experience and accept an off-the-shelf design. That could be the difference between success and failure.

[Poiuytrewq]

Would be ironic but I wonder if they would go back to the French for this lighter frigate and buy the FDI frigate.

Really can’t see it.

If it’s not a long range OPV design it really should be A140.

All those Mk41 cells will just be too tempting.