Australian Defence Force

[R686]

Could that mean the oZ gov might build ( to get the experience & skillset ) for example 4 or 5 T31 then when their "Hunter" design is finalised build the complex/expensives ships later ?

Anything is possible but highly unlikely with this government as long as it does not have to stump up the $$$

Personally, I think they will just build a couple more Arafura-class in Osborne whilst finalising the Hunter design with a reduced numbers to help pay for the nuc submarines

[Poiuytrewq]

Happy to see my personal preference for more Hobarts in the mix. Did not realise that a radar upgrade for the Hobarts was being considered as well. Interesting.

That appears to be a commonly held view.

Why not build a simpler T26 style Hunter class to secure both the program and the investment already committed and then add 2 or 3 Hobart’s to thicken the AAW pot?

If the Attack and Hunter clashes are both cancelled what will the ultimate cost be to the Australian taxpayer with absolutely nothing to show for it?

[SW1]

Are any of these actually built or production ready or just a sales brochure concept? As I said what is left out to get the cost of the design dwn by 50% from the a140?

The Samuel Beckett doesn’t have a helicopter capacity are we or even Australia really wanting vessels that can’t embark helicopters.

The closest vessel configuration to what your after that actually exists in a roughly comparable market is the Italian ppa and they are not cheap.

Its for Australian to decide. A Vard OPV configured as a light Frigate is never going to be a Hunter, Constellation, FREMM or T26 but it has a use up to a point.

The RAN cannot afford endless Frigates especially if insisting on the 22carat everywhere so if hull numbers are important then they will have to be cheaper and less capable. That shouldn’t be controversial, it’s just common sense.

Current planning has the RAN putting 3 or 4 Frigates at sea at any one time. Is that enough? Looks a bit light to me.

Cutting hulls 7,8 and 9 in the Hunter program isn’t really going to help unless the drumbeat is slowed also. That would increase the cost of each Hunter but it might also produce a A140 every couple of years. The penalties inside the Hunter contract could be potentially huge so perhaps little would be saved.

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

I’m challenging the idea this vard opv exists and how it will be 50% less than something like the a140 not how Australia should configure its future fleet.

The Australian navy has taken a leaf out of RNs book and lost its mind attempting to replace the Anzac class frigates with a cruiser much like the RN has done with type 23. Now the fiscal reality of those decisions are biting hard and there is not many good choices to get out of it. In Australias case they add the complication of getting into the nuclear submarine game and the full costs of that decision and if you have to pick and they will then you pick the ssn.

[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.

[R686]

Happy to see my personal preference for more Hobarts in the mix. Did not realise that a radar upgrade for the Hobarts was being considered as well. Interesting.

That appears to be a commonly held view.

Why not build a simpler T26 style Hunter class to secure both the program and the investment already committed and then add 2 or 3 Hobart’s to thicken the AAW pot?

If the Attack and Hunter clashes are both cancelled what will the ultimate cost be to the Australian taxpayer with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Hunter will not be cancelled, delayed and reduced yes. if they did this (cancel), they will be crucified at the next election it about jobs, jobs and more jobs whilst reducing cost

Every review is about pushing the funding down the road, all the while making it look like they are doing something

[Poiuytrewq]

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.

I think most would agree with that.

I was suggesting that BAE may offer to produce a simpler version, much more in line with T26 to get the program back on track.

The insistence on large numbers of VLS on Australian Frigates is odd. Something like 24x or 32x Mk41 plus another 32x CAMM or ESSM and 16x NSM in canisters would seem more than adequate.

[serge750]

Taking a page from the UK playbook !

[R686]

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.

I think most would agree with that.

I was suggesting that BAE may offer to produce a simpler version, much more in line with T26 to get the program back on track.

The insistence on large numbers of VLS on Australian Frigates is odd. Something like 24x or 32x Mk41 plus another 32x CAMM or ESSM and 16x NSM in canisters would seem more than adequate.

RAN wants a Burke like Hunter. they lost the best solution due to cost which was the Baby Burkes that the RAN wanted under the AWD project

BAE are already drawing up plans for an expanded AWD version to submit to government which most likely that they will install additional strike-length VLS in the multi-mission bay, which makes sense as they will be on a hot production line once the ASW version is completed

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-ne ... rng7qxv0wi

And this is from an Australian article earlier in the year its subscription based but found it on reddit



This I can see eventually getting up (below), although I would prefer that 9x ASW Hunter still be build and go to the South Koreans to build 6x hulls of KDX-III Batch II and fit out in AU once 3x KDX-III Batch II are in the water sell of the Hobarts in the early 2030 should get good money for them.

Under BAE’s new proposal, it would build the first three ­Hunter-class frigates and then, in 2035, it would build its first air ­warfare destroyer.

The company would then build, alternately every two years, another frigate and then another destroyer until nine ships in total were built – six frigates and three destroyers – although final numbers and configuration would be up to the government.

[SouthernOne]

Happy to see my personal preference for more Hobarts in the mix. Did not realise that a radar upgrade for the Hobarts was being considered as well. Interesting.

That appears to be a commonly held view.

Why not build a simpler T26 style Hunter class to secure both the program and the investment already committed and then add 2 or 3 Hobart’s to thicken the AAW pot?

If the Attack and Hunter clashes are both cancelled what will the ultimate cost be to the Australian taxpayer with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Hunter will not be cancelled, delayed and reduced yes. if they did this (cancel), they will be crucified at the next election it about jobs, jobs and more jobs whilst reducing cost

Every review is about pushing the funding down the road, all the while making it look like they are doing something

Project delays also push funding down the road.

The ANAO report was so critical of the program, any defence minister will want some form of independent cover or advice for proceeding with the Hunter class, even in a modified form.

[Mercator]

From an old news article back in June 2022:

Navantia recently offered to develop a further three destroyers to the RAN by 2030, doubling the size of the fleet to six.

The program would cost an estimated $6 billion – $2 billion for each vessel.

Navantia Australia managing director Israel Lozano Barragan told The Australian the additional Hobart Class destroyers could be built locally, in Spain or via a “hybrid model” across both countries.

This, he said, would depend on the capacity of South Australia’s Osborne Shipyard.

Ahead of Prime Minister Albanese’s meeting with Prime Minister Sanchez, he was asked if acquiring three additional vessels would form part of the discussions.

“I would expect that will be one of the topics that will come up today,” he said.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval ... peculation

There are definitely options available. Pursuing this option does not mean that the Hunters are finished, but anything after vessel number three is at risk, IMHO. In yearly budget terms, paying for new vessels – new Hobarts – especially if you can secure a fixed price, is not too devastating to the budget. It's in the out years, crewing these vessels, arming them with missiles and paying for the 'at sea' time that's the expensive part. That would be somebody else's problem though.

[new guy]

Do they need it? They are damaging their ASW capability so much.

[R686]

Do they need it? They are damaging their ASW capability so much.

As far as i am aware they have not compromised its ASW capabilities by adding CEFAR, just increased its surface Air warfare capabilities.

Obviously if the eat into the multi mission bay to increase its VLS than yes it will reduce its flexibility unless they put a hull plug in them and increase length but that's more $$

Yes the RAN needs the extra VLS irrespective if they operate independently or part of a task group, no point going out there and using all its weapons then needing others to escort it its run out

[tomuk]

Do they need it? They are damaging their ASW capability so much.

As far as i am aware they have not compromised its ASW capabilities by adding CEFAR, just increased its surface Air warfare capabilities.

Hunter is apparently broader in beam than T26 so will need more power to push it along. The question is does this increased width effect the noise performance of the hull and does the generation of the extra power emit more noise or alternatively to keep both in spec will the speed\ overall range be reduced.

Yes the RAN needs the extra VLS irrespective if they operate independently or part of a task group, no point going out there and using all its weapons then needing others to escort it its run out

But is 150 required? 100 more than the actual AAW destroyer Hobarts and 50 odd more than the benchmark much desired Arleigh Burkes?

[tomuk]

Happy to see my personal preference for more Hobarts in the mix. Did not realise that a radar upgrade for the Hobarts was being considered as well. Interesting.

That appears to be a commonly held view.

Why not build a simpler T26 style Hunter class to secure both the program and the investment already committed and then add 2 or 3 Hobart’s to thicken the AAW pot?

If the Attack and Hunter clashes are both cancelled what will the ultimate cost be to the Australian taxpayer with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Hunter will not be cancelled, delayed and reduced yes. if they did this (cancel), they will be crucified at the next election it about jobs, jobs and more jobs whilst reducing cost

Every review is about pushing the funding down the road, all the while making it look like they are doing something

Project delays also push funding down the road.

The ANAO report was so critical of the program, any defence minister will want some form of independent cover or advice for proceeding with the Hunter class, even in a modified form.

Critical of the process and the Defence Department not necessarily the product of it.

[tomuk]

From an old news article back in June 2022:

Navantia recently offered to develop a further three destroyers to the RAN by 2030, doubling the size of the fleet to six.

The program would cost an estimated $6 billion – $2 billion for each vessel.

Navantia Australia managing director Israel Lozano Barragan told The Australian the additional Hobart Class destroyers could be built locally, in Spain or via a “hybrid model” across both countries.

This, he said, would depend on the capacity of South Australia’s Osborne Shipyard.

Ahead of Prime Minister Albanese’s meeting with Prime Minister Sanchez, he was asked if acquiring three additional vessels would form part of the discussions.

“I would expect that will be one of the topics that will come up today,” he said.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval ... peculation

There are definitely options available. Pursuing this option does not mean that the Hunters are finished, but anything after vessel number three is at risk, IMHO. In yearly budget terms, paying for new vessels – new Hobarts – especially if you can secure a fixed price, is not too devastating to the budget. It's in the out years, crewing these vessels, arming them with missiles and paying for the 'at sea' time that's the expensive part. That would be somebody else's problem though.

The obvious question would be why weren't six Hobarts built at the time? Were there program issues? Was there criticism of the meagre VLS size? I don't necessarily need answers to the last two questions as I can both guess or am already aware.

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

[R686]

Do they need it? They are damaging their ASW capability so much.

As far as i am aware they have not compromised its ASW capabilities by adding CEFAR, just increased its surface Air warfare capabilities.

Hunter is apparently broader in beam than T26 so will need more power to push it along. The question is does this increased width effect the noise performance of the hull and does the generation of the extra power emit more noise or alternatively to keep both in spec will the speed\ overall range be reduced.

Rumors only have seen nothing concrete to say they have actually increased the beam.

RAN link to Hunter shows a beam of 20.8m

https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boa ... future/ffg

BAE link to City class shows a beam of 20.8m

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/g ... ombat-ship

Yes the RAN needs the extra VLS irrespective if they operate independently or part of a task group, no point going out there and using all its weapons then needing others to escort it its run out

But is 150 required? 100 more than the actual AAW destroyer Hobarts and 50 odd more than the benchmark much desired Arleigh Burkes?

Think people are getting mixed up between cells and missiles!

If it had 150 cells and were all quad packed that's 600 missiles.....thats would actually be 152cells or 19 MK41 systems per ship




If all 150 missiles were quad packed that's only 40 cell MK41 system

Hobart has a 48 cell system which equates to 192 missiles if they were all quad packed.

[Mercator]

From an old news article back in June 2022:

Navantia recently offered to develop a further three destroyers to the RAN by 2030, doubling the size of the fleet to six.

The program would cost an estimated $6 billion – $2 billion for each vessel.

Navantia Australia managing director Israel Lozano Barragan told The Australian the additional Hobart Class destroyers could be built locally, in Spain or via a “hybrid model” across both countries.

This, he said, would depend on the capacity of South Australia’s Osborne Shipyard.

Ahead of Prime Minister Albanese’s meeting with Prime Minister Sanchez, he was asked if acquiring three additional vessels would form part of the discussions.

“I would expect that will be one of the topics that will come up today,” he said.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval ... peculation

There are definitely options available. Pursuing this option does not mean that the Hunters are finished, but anything after vessel number three is at risk, IMHO. In yearly budget terms, paying for new vessels – new Hobarts – especially if you can secure a fixed price, is not too devastating to the budget. It's in the out years, crewing these vessels, arming them with missiles and paying for the 'at sea' time that's the expensive part. That would be somebody else's problem though.

The obvious question would be why weren't six Hobarts built at the time? Were there program issues? Was there criticism of the meagre VLS size? I don't necessarily need answers to the last two questions as I can both guess or am already aware.

At the time the ANZAC class still had years in them (the midlife update was underway), so another class of frigate was envisaged further down the track, probably with an ASW/GP focus. The Hobarts themselves were always considered to be replacements of a previous three vessel AAW destroyer class (the Charles F Adams). as time wore on and China became more belligerent, the sorts of heavy duty fleet actions that this sort of class would need to survive became more obvious. [It may be that securing choke points in the second island chain was the original mission and now the focus is shifting to assist in the first island chain as well. None of this will be obvious outside of high-level cabinet considerations. And every government is reluctant to commit themselves to a strategy or alliance obligations in that sort of detail.]

Those that were fixated on the ASW aspect obviously won the 'future frigate' program, but apparently it was not the Navy's recommendation to choose the T26. Industrial considerations probably had more to do with this decision and the fact that it was completely in the design phase when it made the shortlist (against notional rules for that sort of thing) suggests that a heavy political consideration was already in play. Whoever was chosen as the winner of the competition would ultimately end up being the operator of Australia's premier shipbuilding capability for the next 30 odd years, so government wanted a team player. In the end, the choice was British, Spanish or Italian, and the start of a long partnership – so that probably played on the minds of government (and that is not entirely unfair).

Navantia had a bruising experience building the Hobart class and obviously did not win a lot of friends in government (correctly pointing the finger at people responsible for certain decisions does annoy them). BAE's reputation was hardly much better (some of the blocks they delivered were atrocious), but obviously it's possible to secure a better reputation behind closed doors; they have long been established in Australia and the Spanish probably were no good at the politics. Now BAE find themselves in the same situation (having difficulties with delivery timetables) and Navantia gets to return the favour (with a good product floating around and memories fading).

The ASW mission of the proposed 'frigate' is still relevant to a degree, but concerns about survivability are now much more prominent. It was definitely an oversight 10 years ago that this was not much more relevant – but perhaps it was and was overlooked by government for industrial purposes, or the mission changed. Without the full story it's hard to judge. The Hobart's themselves are not terrible at the ASW mission and their survivability is less questionable. Plus it would not surprise me that there is a faction simply asking for double the existing AAW capability and robbing Peter pays Paul. If there was simply extra money available to purchase three more Hobarts, it's very likely there would be no 'backgrounding' quietly knifing the Hunter program. But capability delivery is a blood sport in Australia.

[R686]

From an old news article back in June 2022:

Navantia recently offered to develop a further three destroyers to the RAN by 2030, doubling the size of the fleet to six.

The program would cost an estimated $6 billion – $2 billion for each vessel.

Navantia Australia managing director Israel Lozano Barragan told The Australian the additional Hobart Class destroyers could be built locally, in Spain or via a “hybrid model” across both countries.

This, he said, would depend on the capacity of South Australia’s Osborne Shipyard.

Ahead of Prime Minister Albanese’s meeting with Prime Minister Sanchez, he was asked if acquiring three additional vessels would form part of the discussions.

“I would expect that will be one of the topics that will come up today,” he said.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval ... peculation

There are definitely options available. Pursuing this option does not mean that the Hunters are finished, but anything after vessel number three is at risk, IMHO. In yearly budget terms, paying for new vessels – new Hobarts – especially if you can secure a fixed price, is not too devastating to the budget. It's in the out years, crewing these vessels, arming them with missiles and paying for the 'at sea' time that's the expensive part. That would be somebody else's problem though.

The obvious question would be why weren't six Hobarts built at the time? Were there program issues? Was there criticism of the meagre VLS size? I don't necessarily need answers to the last two questions as I can both guess or am already aware.

RAN was supposed to get three baby Burkes from Gibbs & Coxs which was the preferred position up until Howard government went to selection with Navantia which was government selected on the basis that a 4th option would be bought, well guess what there were problems in the early day between AWD Alliance and Navantia. ACS got the blame for delays and the 4th option was dropped.


https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gi ... led-02510/

At 7,370t/8,100t full load, the ship is much closer to the DDG-51 destroyers in size, with 64 vertical launch missile cells, 2 close-in defense weapons, 2 helicopter hangars, extended range, and good future growth capabilities. As a matter of comparison, Britain’s new Type 45 Daring Class external link anti-air warfare destroyers reportedly weigh in at 8,000t full load

[SouthernOne]

Happy to see my personal preference for more Hobarts in the mix. Did not realise that a radar upgrade for the Hobarts was being considered as well. Interesting.

That appears to be a commonly held view.

Why not build a simpler T26 style Hunter class to secure both the program and the investment already committed and then add 2 or 3 Hobart’s to thicken the AAW pot?

If the Attack and Hunter clashes are both cancelled what will the ultimate cost be to the Australian taxpayer with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Hunter will not be cancelled, delayed and reduced yes. if they did this (cancel), they will be crucified at the next election it about jobs, jobs and more jobs whilst reducing cost

Every review is about pushing the funding down the road, all the while making it look like they are doing something

Project delays also push funding down the road.

The ANAO report was so critical of the program, any defence minister will want some form of independent cover or advice for proceeding with the Hunter class, even in a modified form.

Critical of the process and the Defence Department not necessarily the product of it.

Not sure you can entirely separate out the two, though. If the process is harshly criticised (rightly or wrongly depending on your view), the result is tarnished at least a little by implication. So maybe its just best to reset the politics, or at least the political risk, of the program through an independent review.

Time will tell.

[tomuk]

Do they need it? They are damaging their ASW capability so much.

As far as i am aware they have not compromised its ASW capabilities by adding CEFAR, just increased its surface Air warfare capabilities.

Hunter is apparently broader in beam than T26 so will need more power to push it along. The question is does this increased width effect the noise performance of the hull and does the generation of the extra power emit more noise or alternatively to keep both in spec will the speed\ overall range be reduced.

Rumors only have seen nothing concrete to say they have actually increased the beam.

RAN link to Hunter shows a beam of 20.8m

https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boa ... future/ffg

BAE link to City class shows a beam of 20.8m

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/g ... ombat-ship

The BAE Austalia CEO confirmed at the recent select committee hearing that reating growth margins

...was done by some adjustments to the hull.

A ship doesn't go from 8000 to 10000 without a change to the hull. He was also happy to confirm that it was still within Aus DoD requirements when asked if it retained the capabilities of T26 as regards ASW following modifications.

Yes the RAN needs the extra VLS irrespective if they operate independently or part of a task group, no point going out there and using all its weapons then needing others to escort it its run out

But is 150 required? 100 more than the actual AAW destroyer Hobarts and 50 odd more than the benchmark much desired Arleigh Burkes?

Think people are getting mixed up between cells and missiles!

If it had 150 cells and were all quad packed that's 600 missiles.....thats would actually be 152cells or 19 MK41 systems per ship




If all 150 missiles were quad packed that's only 40 cell MK41 system

Hobart has a 48 cell system which equates to 192 missiles if they were all quad packed.

No no confusion I and as far as I can see the commentariat and I are talking about cells. AB has 96. Type 055 128. Sejong the great 130.

[R686]

Do they need it? They are damaging their ASW capability so much.

As far as i am aware they have not compromised its ASW capabilities by adding CEFAR, just increased its surface Air warfare capabilities.

Hunter is apparently broader in beam than T26 so will need more power to push it along. The question is does this increased width effect the noise performance of the hull and does the generation of the extra power emit more noise or alternatively to keep both in spec will the speed\ overall range be reduced.

Rumors only have seen nothing concrete to say they have actually increased the beam.

RAN link to Hunter shows a beam of 20.8m

https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boa ... future/ffg

BAE link to City class shows a beam of 20.8m

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/g ... ombat-ship

The BAE Austalia CEO confirmed at the recent select committee hearing that reating growth margins

...was done by some adjustments to the hull.

A ship doesn't go from 8000 to 10000 without a change to the hull. He was also happy to confirm that it was still within Aus DoD requirements when asked if it retained the capabilities of T26 as regards ASW following modifications.

Yes the RAN needs the extra VLS irrespective if they operate independently or part of a task group, no point going out there and using all its weapons then needing others to escort it its run out

But is 150 required? 100 more than the actual AAW destroyer Hobarts and 50 odd more than the benchmark much desired Arleigh Burkes?

Think people are getting mixed up between cells and missiles!

If it had 150 cells and were all quad packed that's 600 missiles.....thats would actually be 152cells or 19 MK41 systems per ship




If all 150 missiles were quad packed that's only 40 cell MK41 system

Hobart has a 48 cell system which equates to 192 missiles if they were all quad packed.

No no confusion I and as far as I can see the commentariat and I are talking about cells. AB has 96. Type 055 128. Sejong the great 130.

Ok in regard to cells, just have to wait and see what is finally announced.


Do you have a source link for the BAE CEO comments by chance?

[R686]

Do they need it? They are damaging their ASW capability so much.

As far as i am aware they have not compromised its ASW capabilities by adding CEFAR, just increased its surface Air warfare capabilities.

Hunter is apparently broader in beam than T26 so will need more power to push it along. The question is does this increased width effect the noise performance of the hull and does the generation of the extra power emit more noise or alternatively to keep both in spec will the speed\ overall range be reduced.

Rumors only have seen nothing concrete to say they have actually increased the beam.

RAN link to Hunter shows a beam of 20.8m

https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boa ... future/ffg

BAE link to City class shows a beam of 20.8m

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/g ... ombat-ship

The BAE Austalia CEO confirmed at the recent select committee hearing that reating growth margins

...was done by some adjustments to the hull.

A ship doesn't go from 8000 to 10000 without a change to the hull. He was also happy to confirm that it was still within Aus DoD requirements when asked if it retained the capabilities of T26 as regards ASW following modifications.

Yes the RAN needs the extra VLS irrespective if they operate independently or part of a task group, no point going out there and using all its weapons then needing others to escort it its run out

But is 150 required? 100 more than the actual AAW destroyer Hobarts and 50 odd more than the benchmark much desired Arleigh Burkes?

Think people are getting mixed up between cells and missiles!

If it had 150 cells and were all quad packed that's 600 missiles.....thats would actually be 152cells or 19 MK41 systems per ship




If all 150 missiles were quad packed that's only 40 cell MK41 system

Hobart has a 48 cell system which equates to 192 missiles if they were all quad packed.

No no confusion I and as far as I can see the commentariat and I are talking about cells. AB has 96. Type 055 128. Sejong the great 130.

Ok in regard to cells, just have to wait and see what is finally announced.


Do you have a source link for the BAE CEO comments by chance?

Edit

I only found these,

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... c_Hearings

[Mercator]

The Hobart class copped just as much flak at around vessel number one as the Hunter is now. ANAO was just as critical of the process and especially the cost at that time. By vessel number three, however, they were quoting the price as industry standard and the learning curve as internationally comparable. ANAO was right to criticise the process in both instances, because it is shit. But if the first vessel turns out all right, a lot will be forgiven.

Hunter is not safe from massive cuts by any means. But unless they cancel the whole thing outright, anything can happen. Even if they say that they will cancel the program at three vessels, that's more than six years away, at least. The world could easily go to hell in that timeframe and all they need to do is find new money and demonstrate efficiencies. As the talk of resurrecting more Hobarts demonstrates, nothing is final or irrevocable.

[R686]

I found the transcript,

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

Mr Hudson: In terms of margin, the margin tonnages, cooling weight margins are classified. I've got to talk
around this topic. I hope you understand. I did get a briefing from the team yesterday. I made sure I had current
information. It's not a fair or accurate statement that the ship has no margin. The ship has significant margin for
future growth. That was done by some adjustments to the hull. When you look at hydrodynamic performance and
how the modelling works, the change in speed for the platform is—again, I'd love to be able to tell you—very
small. I was very surprised again yesterday at how small the difference in speed is. Our understanding—and that's
why I have to keep going back to it—is it meets the Navy's requirements in terms of range and payload. There is
margin for the future. No-one wants a ship that doesn't have growth. That does meet the customer requirement,
and range and payload meets the customer requirement. We're in the bounds of an acceptable solution, as I
understand it

Not sure where you are getting you weight figures from,

Senator REYNOLDS: Could you also describe full load displacement and what that actually is?
Mr Hudson: We talk about lightship and deadweight essentially. Lightship currently sits at about 8,200
tonnes for the ship. That's the ship fully equipped with everything fitted to it but essentially empty. So, personnel,
crew and equipment are not fitted to the ship. Deadweight is essentially the weight the ship displaces in the water
at full and maximum capacity.
Senator REYNOLDS: And what's that?
Mr Hudson: I would have to take that on notice. I can tell you the lightship—
Senator REYNOLDS: You said that was 8,200?
Mr Hudson: Yes, lightship is 8,200, is the information I received from the team yesterday. To the best of my
knowledg

CHAIR: So, on 17 February 2022—and it might be one again to take on notice for the department listening at
home—the late Senator Kitching asked Ms Lutz from the department:
Can you explain that to me? Is the additional weight going to be lessened by any other factors?
The department's response was:
No. The hull has been broadened so that we're able to recover some of the in-service weight growth margin. In other words,
you've got a weight margin, which I've stated previously is 270 tonnes, 3.3 per cent, and that enables you to include future
capability changes.
I absolutely accept the fact that your team has told you that the margin is classified. I'd just suggest the
department listening at home may want to reflect on that, given they have previously talked explicitly about the
weight margins in public.