Australian Defence Force

[new guy]

The 96 cell HunterB2 shows what I always thought is what a waste of space is the T26 mission equipment bay which was designed for Special Forces, personally don't think there is any logic in a frigate CONOPS for a SF element, better left to the properly fitted out amphib ships.

The Absalon-class is a ideal multi role frigate and are ideal when placed within a amphibious task group or independent operations. They are ideal for SF anti piracy or in the RAN case for the pre-landing force

Only frigate in the world to have a vehicle deck, even stuff like BAE ASF and Singapore MRCS all only have a rear work deck for boats about half the size; plus boat emphinages.

Don't nessiserally support it either.

Each to there own I guess

I think an improved 3/4x Absalon-class would be ideal for the RAN covers a wide range of contingencies from SF - HADR

I mean HMAS Choles rep programme ain't that far off....

[R686]

The 96 cell HunterB2 shows what I always thought is what a waste of space is the T26 mission equipment bay which was designed for Special Forces, personally don't think there is any logic in a frigate CONOPS for a SF element, better left to the properly fitted out amphib ships.

The Absalon-class is a ideal multi role frigate and are ideal when placed within a amphibious task group or independent operations. They are ideal for SF anti piracy or in the RAN case for the pre-landing force

Only frigate in the world to have a vehicle deck, even stuff like BAE ASF and Singapore MRCS all only have a rear work deck for boats about half the size; plus boat emphinages.

Don't nessiserally support it either.

Each to there own I guess

I think an improved 3/4x Absalon-class would be ideal for the RAN covers a wide range of contingencies from SF - HADR

I mean HMAS Choles rep programme ain't that far off....

Choules cannot defend itself no MK41 no NGFS

[new guy]

The 96 cell HunterB2 shows what I always thought is what a waste of space is the T26 mission equipment bay which was designed for Special Forces, personally don't think there is any logic in a frigate CONOPS for a SF element, better left to the properly fitted out amphib ships.

The Absalon-class is a ideal multi role frigate and are ideal when placed within a amphibious task group or independent operations. They are ideal for SF anti piracy or in the RAN case for the pre-landing force

Only frigate in the world to have a vehicle deck, even stuff like BAE ASF and Singapore MRCS all only have a rear work deck for boats about half the size; plus boat emphinages.

Don't nessiserally support it either.

Each to there own I guess

I think an improved 3/4x Absalon-class would be ideal for the RAN covers a wide range of contingencies from SF - HADR

I mean HMAS Choles rep programme ain't that far off....

Choules cannot defend itself no MK41 no NGFS

Thats still a priority?

[new guy]

(Australia maintaining both a requirement for heavy destroyers and corvettes simultaneously is quite hilarious...)

[new guy]

Found a take on BAE hunter class that I quite liked:

I'm not going to lie, this seems like a pretty bad idea.

The context of this is to replace the last three (of nine) Hunter-class frigates - which are being delivered in the 2040s, with the final ship being delivered in 2044.

So this would be taking a 2010s ASW frigate design, stuffing it to the gills with VLS to do the AAW role, and delivering it in the 2040s, at a point when the standard for an air defense destroyer is going to be things like DDG(X) and ships that will have replaced many of the AAAW designs of the 90s and 2000s, like Type 45, Horizon, Kongo, Atago, etc.

Quite frankly the RAN would be far better off by ordering a new DDG design in the 2030s to follow the first six Hunter's. Six of these could be built, not just to replace the last three frigates, but also to replace the Hobart-class in the long-term, as the latter half of this DDG program would be delivering ships in the late 2040s.

But trying to flog a DDG capability out of a 2010s ASW frigate that is going to have to serve from the 2030s to the 2070s is just a terrible idea every way you slice it.

[Mercator]

some more PR graphics of the Hunter B2

[SW1]

Found a take on BAE hunter class that I quite liked:

I'm not going to lie, this seems like a pretty bad idea.

The context of this is to replace the last three (of nine) Hunter-class frigates - which are being delivered in the 2040s, with the final ship being delivered in 2044.

So this would be taking a 2010s ASW frigate design, stuffing it to the gills with VLS to do the AAW role, and delivering it in the 2040s, at a point when the standard for an air defense destroyer is going to be things like DDG(X) and ships that will have replaced many of the AAAW designs of the 90s and 2000s, like Type 45, Horizon, Kongo, Atago, etc.

Quite frankly the RAN would be far better off by ordering a new DDG design in the 2030s to follow the first six Hunter's. Six of these could be built, not just to replace the last three frigates, but also to replace the Hobart-class in the long-term, as the latter half of this DDG program would be delivering ships in the late 2040s.

But trying to flog a DDG capability out of a 2010s ASW frigate that is going to have to serve from the 2030s to the 2070s is just a terrible idea every way you slice it.

It’s a take an idiotic take that doesn’t under standard production capacity thru life cost or what drives it but as such what else is new.

To reinforce that point a ship designed in 1980 will not only still be being modified and manufactured in the 2030s it will be the principle air defence asset of the usn for at least the next 40 years. People ask where the budget goes its right here continually starting again.

https://news.usni.org/2023/08/01/navy-a ... -year-deal

And a naval news article on it
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... australia/

[Mercator]

Found a take on BAE hunter class that I quite liked:

I'm not going to lie, this seems like a pretty bad idea.

The context of this is to replace the last three (of nine) Hunter-class frigates - which are being delivered in the 2040s, with the final ship being delivered in 2044.

So this would be taking a 2010s ASW frigate design, stuffing it to the gills with VLS to do the AAW role, and delivering it in the 2040s, at a point when the standard for an air defense destroyer is going to be things like DDG(X) and ships that will have replaced many of the AAAW designs of the 90s and 2000s, like Type 45, Horizon, Kongo, Atago, etc.

Quite frankly the RAN would be far better off by ordering a new DDG design in the 2030s to follow the first six Hunter's. Six of these could be built, not just to replace the last three frigates, but also to replace the Hobart-class in the long-term, as the latter half of this DDG program would be delivering ships in the late 2040s.

But trying to flog a DDG capability out of a 2010s ASW frigate that is going to have to serve from the 2030s to the 2070s is just a terrible idea every way you slice it.

There are three batches of three ships planned. So when they speak of batch two, they are referring to construction commencing in less that six years. That constrains the options for evolved T26 somewhat.

There is also a follow-on project that would replace the Hobart class after the existing Hunter build. The future, clean sheet, DDG conversation is probably more relevant to that. A smaller build of the Hunter class to expand the follow-on DDG numbers is a possibility, though again, if termination occurs at batch 1, there are very few realistic possibilities that don't involve significant delay.

[Mercator]

[R686]

The 96 cell HunterB2 shows what I always thought is what a waste of space is the T26 mission equipment bay which was designed for Special Forces, personally don't think there is any logic in a frigate CONOPS for a SF element, better left to the properly fitted out amphib ships.

The Absalon-class is a ideal multi role frigate and are ideal when placed within a amphibious task group or independent operations. They are ideal for SF anti piracy or in the RAN case for the pre-landing force

Only frigate in the world to have a vehicle deck, even stuff like BAE ASF and Singapore MRCS all only have a rear work deck for boats about half the size; plus boat emphinages.

Don't nessiserally support it either.

Each to there own I guess

I think an improved 3/4x Absalon-class would be ideal for the RAN covers a wide range of contingencies from SF - HADR

I mean HMAS Choles rep programme ain't that far off....

Choules cannot defend itself no MK41 no NGFS

Thats still a priority?

Priorities will be via CONOPS

But yes for ship self defence or having the ability to respond if a SF/pre landing force raiding party needs tactical overwatch then Absalon-class can give the RAN options for independent operations away from the main task force

Absalon-class are flexible support ships that improved versions could in theory carry the proposed under Land 8702 Phase 1 Army will be receiving riverine patrol craft that will provide close support to troops ashore. That could be any number of options such as CB90 combat patrol boat for example

[Mercator]

BAE revealed it had been in discussions with the navy for 12 months about how it could update the Hunter class design with a "detune" of its anti-submarine warfare focus, in favour of a guided missile frigate variant.

"Whilst the contract said all nine ships were to be of the same variant, we never expected that to be the case because technology will advance quicker than our design process can keep track," Mr Lockhart said.

"Within this evolution of the Hunter design, by changing only three design zones and one construction module only, we can add another 64 cells to the current capability, taking the full ship cell capability, vertical launch, to 96 cells."

[new guy]

what are the ASW capability impacts?

[Mercator]

what are the ASW capability impacts?

weirdly, it seems like the towed array gets dropped. Why the heck that would be, I don't know. Must be some weird displacement/stability thing. Let me see if I can find a reference for that. Read a lot of articles across this over the last day or so.

[Mercator]

here you go:

According to BAE the up-armed, Batch II Hunter, maintains 85% commonality with the existing ships that are under construction at Osborne, South Australia. The most significant difference is the removal of the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... australia/

[new guy]

what are the ASW capability impacts?

weirdly, it seems like the towed array gets dropped. Why the heck that would be, I don't know. Must be some weird displacement/stability thing. Let me see if I can find a reference for that. Read a lot of articles across this over the last day or so.

Money? 64 VLS ain't cheap.

[Mercator]

nah. Price won't be a problem. All other options will start from scratch (costing far more money) and still need those same VLS cells. No, if I had to guess, I would say that having all that weight for the new cells in a relatively high position on the superstructure means that they need to ballast down below for stability. Just a guess though.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Great movie, thanks Xavier-san!!

here you go:

According to BAE the up-armed, Batch II Hunter, maintains 85% commonality with the existing ships that are under construction at Osborne, South Australia. The most significant difference is the removal of the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... australia/

[Mercator]

US Navy sub boss reveals new details on AUKUS Virginia class sub sales to Australia
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/us- ... australia/

The optimal pathway for the AUKUS security pact will include sales by the US of the three initial Virginia-class submarines to Australia in 2032, 2035 and 2038, according to a senior US Navy officer.

Vice Adm. Bill Houston, commander of submarine forces, told reporters Tuesday at the Naval Submarine League the sales in 2032 and 2035 are planned to be in-service submarines while the sale in 2038 will be a new construction vessel from US production lines.

That new construction submarine will be part of Block VII, Houston said, meaning it will not have the Virginia Payload Module, the mid-body section equipped on certain Virginia-class submarines that increases the boat’s missile capacity.

Though the AUKUS security arrangement with its centerpiece nuclear-powered sub provision was announced with great fanfare in March, a workable timeline for the ambitious project has only emerged in drips and drabs since, with Houston’s comments providing the latest clarity on the first phase of Australia’s sub acquisition. Later clean-sheet design nuclear-powered subs, dubbed SSN-AUKUS, are expected to follow the Virginia-class transfers.

[Mercator]

This one is the Hobart class, Flight 2 that was overlooked in much of the discussions yesterday. The enormous cruiser-length Hobart Flight 3 was more an aspirational follow-on DDG proposal. The flight 2 is actually the real competition to the Hunter batch 2. Unlike the Hunter, it would retain some of its ASW capabilities as well.

[new guy]

This one is the Hobart class, Flight 2 that was overlooked in much of the discussions yesterday. The enormous cruiser-length Hobart Flight 3 was more an aspirational follow-on DDG proposal. The flight 2 is actually the real competition to the Hunter batch 2. Unlike the Hunter, it would retain some of its ASW capabilities as well.

idk, not any reason to, same number of VLS as hunter.

[wargame_insomniac]

here you go:

According to BAE the up-armed, Batch II Hunter, maintains 85% commonality with the existing ships that are under construction at Osborne, South Australia. The most significant difference is the removal of the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... australia/

I find that curious because I would not have thought that removal of towed array sonar would have have affected the ships top weight much as they are deployed close to the water, and I am surprised their weight is that signigicant compared to 64 fully loaded VLS cells. I get that continually adding extra weight does cause problems - but I can't imagine losing "the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems" will save that much weight.

Still it will be interesting to see what ship design(s) the RAN eventually goes for from the plethora of new designs from Navantia, Meko, Gibbs & Cox, BAE and even Babcock. Spread of choices from Corvettes, Light Frigates, Frigates and Navantia even sneaked in an updated destroyer design.

[Caribbean]

I don't think they removed the towed array to save topweight, more likely to save money, along with all the other ASW "detuning"

[Mercator]

I think it's more a matter of taking away things above the waterline so that they can add ballasting below the waterline. That's how they deal with stability issues from top weight.

Honestly, it can't be the money. Because the Hunter class already exists and the batch 2 has 85% commonality, it will almost certainly be enormously cheaper than any other proposal. Possibly something in the order of half as expensive (in the medium term). All other proposals still have a good chunk of design work and absolutely no existing in the country company assets. Even the Hobart class proposal relies on the BAE workforce – a good chunk of whom may have moved on since the last Hobart class was launched. And that's not counting the obvious delays each of these other proposals will have, which will involve continuing program overhead costs.

So, the Hunter proposal doesn't have to stress about money like the other contenders. What it does have to do, however, is tick all the capability boxes. If it does not, well then the powers that be may still decide to put up with the extra cost of the other proposals to get the capability they really want.

[Poiuytrewq]

….the powers that be may still decide to put up with the extra cost of the other proposals to get the capability they really want.

What do they really want?

Hunter appears to have covered all the bases now.

Surely if anything needs refinement it’s the CEAFAR requirement rather than the hull?

[NickC]

The November 7 "The Australian" view on the Hunter, some quotes

Cancellation

"It has been suggested that last year’s DSR thought that the entire Hunter project be scrapped but the government was scared to do anything that drastic and has instead passed the buck.

The fact that ministers Richard Marles and Pat Conroy insist on sitting on their response until January, when everyone is at the beach or watching the cricket, might be an indication that something very nasty is being planned.

To cancel the contract now would be a drastic move, especially since project expenditure is already more than $3bn. This is out of a total of $6.16bn for the current design and development phase before even a single ship is delivered – an unconscionably large number that seems well outside the usual range for start-up costs for naval shipbuilding contracts. BAE Systems would probably be entitled to sue for the balance."

Increase in size/displacement to install CEFAR radars

"It was always anticipated that the Australian-specific changes to the parent Type 26 UK design would add about 500 tonnes to the ship, mainly because of a different radar suite made by Canberra-based CEA and a US Aegis combat management system.

However, it now appears to be about double that, though both the Department and the builder are coy about the exact amount.
Appearing before Senate Estimates and other parliamentary inquiries, neither officials nor BAE Systems have covered themselves in glory, saying that the weight increase has no impact on the performance of the ship, which is logically impossible.

For reasons that are unclear, the design hasn’t been lengthened to adjust for these changes, but the hull has been made slightly fatter to increase internal volume without altering its overall dimensions."

PR

"The company has gone into some sort of funk and is no longer enthusiastic about media engagement, which is often – but not always – a sign that they don’t have anything positive to say about the project.

Mind you, this could be at the direction of the Department, which often incorrectly calculates that forcing everyone to bury their heads in the sand means their own actions will avoid serious scrutiny"

Hunt is on to see how many new frigates we’ll get | The Australian