Australia announces the outcome of it's Frigate competition

A political decision if ever there where one, the Hunter is neither "Proven" (One of the main criteria for consideration) nor the best choice from a practical viewpoint
 
Welcome to the forum. GSC-A/HUNTER satisfied the RAN's requirements:
The Commonwealth is seeking the delivery of nine Ships that:

a. are based on a Military-Off-The-Shelf design with Minimum Change to reflect the
Commonwealth’s requirements and that is capable of evolving over time to
respond to the Commonwealth’s changing capability requirements and to manage
materiel obsolescence;

b. meet the requirements of the contracted Mission System Specification and the
Commonwealth's capability requirements;

c. are designed and built in accordance with a design development process,
shipbuilding strategy, production program and other project management
arrangements that represent an acceptable risk having regard to the other Project
Objectives; and

d. are supported by a mature Integrated Logistics Support program that will ensure
that that the Commonwealth's capability outcomes can be achieved.
The Aussies felt that BAE sufficiently proved the maturity of their design to meet their MOTS goal, and that having the RN program running a bit ahead of their own would reduce the likelihood of unforeseen developmental problems occurring in their hulls.

As for best choice from a practical standpoint, I'd be willing to see your thoughts as to why you don't think it rates. The reasons given by the Australian government include that it was the most capable, both generally and specifically for the ASW mission, and had the most growth margin.
 
A political decision if ever there where one, the Hunter is neither "Proven" (One of the main criteria for consideration) nor the best choice from a practical viewpoint
Agree.


Regards
Pioneer
 
A political decision if ever there where one, the Hunter is neither "Proven" (One of the main criteria for consideration) nor the best choice from a practical viewpoint
Disagree.

The "Proven" criteria is a bit of a through away line that's meant to make non technical decision makers feel more comfortable, for the simple reason there is no "proven" i.e. off the shelf design that meets all of the operationally relevant criteria.

Australia has a small blue water navy, there are three AEGIS frigates masquerading as destroyers and eight patrol frigates that have been upgraded to the limits of their stability to become GP frigates. Quite simply the RAN is too small to be able to operate sufficient single role ships to meet operational requirements, this means, no matter their specialty, every major combatant has to be multi role and with Chinas growing capabilities, has to have a high end air defence system.

The experience with the Hobart Class (Navantia F-104 baseline plus) was that it was too tight and too limited in terms of future growth. Additionally, although the primary reason the existing design was selected over the G&C International frigate, was risk reduction buying a "proven" inservice design (as well as anticipated but not achieved cost factors), the build was pretty much always in advance of baselined design data, i.e. Navantia was changing the "existing" design as the ships were being built, usually to fix issues that had been found on the earlier ships, rectified, but not baselined.

Lessons learned, ensure the designer has skin in the game, ensure the design is sorted and properly baselined before steel is cut, ensure you have a robust and enforceable contract and engineering change process, and above all, select a suitable design rather than one that seems to work ok for someone else.
 
I am not sure what "proven" means these days.
The days of navies buying a stock ship from the shipbuilder's catalogue are over. FFG(X) is based on a FREMM but is patently not a baseline FREMM. The Hunter will be based on a Type 26 hull but clearly will be quite different.
All that "proven" means these days is that the naval architects save time designing something from the keel up, they get the 3D files of the ship and tinker with them to suit local needs. Saves time, whether it saves money is open to question. Once you start changing components for local supply chains etc. plus all the larger sensor, weapon and machinery items then you are effectively making quite serious design changes in terms of effort and cost and "risk" increases are therefore inevitable. They are never going to want to change the mould lines and major bulkhead moves, but everything else is up for grabs.
 
I am not sure what "proven" means these days.
The days of navies buying a stock ship from the shipbuilder's catalogue are over. FFG(X) is based on a FREMM but is patently not a baseline FREMM. The Hunter will be based on a Type 26 hull but clearly will be quite different.
All that "proven" means these days is that the naval architects save time designing something from the keel up, they get the 3D files of the ship and tinker with them to suit local needs. Saves time, whether it saves money is open to question. Once you start changing components for local supply chains etc. plus all the larger sensor, weapon and machinery items then you are effectively making quite serious design changes in terms of effort and cost and "risk" increases are therefore inevitable. They are never going to want to change the mould lines and major bulkhead moves, but everything else is up for grabs.
The AFR article that kicked of the discussion the shipbuilder responded to stated that the Hunter design was being increased in size and displacement to fit the systems to meet Australian requirements, referencing "industry sources". This resulted in a flurry of activity from Fincanteri marketing types about how the FREMM was a "proven design" that satisfied all the stated requirements and that the Type 26 shouldn't have been selected because it was an unproven "paper" design, unlike the already in service FREMM that was the better ship to boot.

This raises the obvious question, if the Type 26, already the largest of the offered designs, supposedly needs to be "redesigned" with increased size and displacement to fit all the required systems, then how can the smaller FREMM meet the same requirements without a redesign to increase its size and displacement? As for the F-100 derivative, it was simply too noisy for the required ASW performance, it too would require substantial redesign to achieve the required noise levels.
 
I suppose "proven" is a label that could be applied to the F-4 Phantom, F-86 Sabre, or even the Sopwith Camel, it doesn't meant its the best option for a fighter that meant to serve in the 2030s and 2040s. Same with ships, HMS Victory was an outstanding example of a capable warship of her time, as was USS Constitution, HMS Warrior, etc. etc. "proven" and highly effective in their time, but are of no military value today.
 
Sounds like the frigates are turning into another Aussie procurement disaster. This gap should have been predictable and avoidable.

A bit late in the game now to be talking about buying more Hobart class destroyers… which will need to be modified for a towed VDS sonar.
 
A bit late in the game now to be talking about buying more Hobart class destroyers… which will need to be modified for a towed VDS sonar.
Not really. The first Hunter class is planned to commence construction this year and is not expected to be commissioned until 2031. This proposal plans to deliver the first ship in 2027 and the third in 2029. It would also be a known design.
 

Fascinating that the Italian FREMM was high on their list. If they'd waited a bit, they could have just bought FFG-62s...
 

Fascinating that the Italian FREMM was high on their list. If they'd waited a bit, they could have just bought FFG-62s...
That option may yet lie ahead of them
 
The thing that cements for me the ignorance of the report that triggered this is that the report criticizes the increase in size of the RAN T26 - while recognizing that the increase was to meet the RAN's needs - and then claims that the smaller Fremms had a lesser need for modification!
 
Seems to be an attempt to head of criticism over VLS numbers, albeit at the cost of the Mission Bay, Sonar Type 2087, and potentially the 5-inch (that is you want 128 VLS cells).

 
IMHO, taking off the 5-inch gun is a bit silly: What happens if you want to put 'shot across bow', and the helo is not available ??

Beyond lofting star-shells, could lead to daft situation where crew are hand-shooting flares from bow, while the marines are deploying Barret, 'bazooka' and/or 'recoilless'...
 
IMHO, taking off the 5-inch gun is a bit silly: What happens if you want to put 'shot across bow', and the helo is not available ??

Beyond lofting star-shells, could lead to daft situation where crew are hand-shooting flares from bow, while the marines are deploying Barret, 'bazooka' and/or 'recoilless'...

It's also noteworthy that the recent USN engagement against Houthi drones and cruise missiles involved at least some 5-inch gun kills. So, the day of the gun may not be as done as some of us thought (myself included).
 
I will say that the Navantia Flight III destroyer seems appealing, though it lacks stand-alone ASCMs (maybe assuming the presence of LRASM-SL?)


1699464000963.png
 
I will say that the Navantia Flight III destroyer seems appealing, though it lacks stand-alone ASCMs (maybe assuming the presence of LRASM-SL?)


View attachment 711240
HMAS Conehead looks pretty good, but what gun is that CIWS using? Barrels look inordinately long for Vulcan.
 
HMAS Conehead looks pretty good, but what gun is that CIWS using? Barrels look inordinately long for Vulcan.

Sure it's not the Optimized Gun Barrel (99 calibers instead of 76, and much chunkier)?
 
Sure it's not the Optimized Gun Barrel (99 calibers instead of 76, and much chunkier)?
The support frame around the barrels is much shorter on Block 1B with OGB, at least usually.
 
HMAS Conehead looks pretty good, but what gun is that CIWS using? Barrels look inordinately long for Vulcan.

Better image here. Looks like it's the OGB (but not the normal Block 1B electro-optics). Also interesting to see 6 RWS mounts along the deck (looks like probably .50-cals) and five launch hatches on each side of the flight deck for drone swarms or counter-drone swarms.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/17poy8x/navantia_australias_proposed_flight_iii_destroyer/
 
That Hunter batch two proposal with 96 VLS and AsHM increased from 8 to 16 with 5" maintained looks scary, its literally matching if not exceeding the firepower of a Tico class cruiser in something inflation adjusted is probably 1/3rd the price.
 
That Hunter batch two proposal with 96 VLS and AsHM increased from 8 to 16 with 5" maintained looks scary, its literally matching if not exceeding the firepower of a Tico class cruiser in something inflation adjusted is probably 1/3rd the price.

No way that comes in at a third of the inflation-adjusted price of a Tico. The last Ticonderoga was US$1 billion in 1994, or about US$2.1 billion today. The unit price for the current Hunter class is in the vicinity of $2-3 billion depending on who you ask. Adding more VLS isn't going to save money, though killing the towed sonar will.
 
A$6.2 has been quoted as construction cost for the first three which is 6.2/ 3 / A$ 2.06bn average.
Compare that to the first Ticonderoga alone which cost $400m per thousand tons according to Congressional Budget Office or $3.92bn in 2008 price index, that's $5.33bn in 2022 money for comparison to the Australian figure year, though Military inflation costs have faster than consumer prices due to increasing technology complexity. That is closer to twice than three times but you've gotta admit its more bang for the buck in a similar sized package of just under 10,000 tons displacement.

 
Last edited:
A$6.2 has been quoted as construction cost for the first three which is 6.2/ 3 / A$ 2.06bn average.
Compare that to the first Ticonderoga alone which cost $400m per thousand tons according to Congressional Budget Office or $3.92bn in 2008 price index, that's $5.33bn in 2022 money for comparison to the Australian figure year, though Military inflation costs have faster than consumer prices due to increasing technology complexity. That is closer to twice than three times but you've gotta admit its more bang for the buck in a similar sized package of just under 10,000 tons displacement.


I think comparing lead ship of a large class to average price of three ships isn't quite an even comparison, which is why I took the cost of the last Tico, which is pretty close to its average unit price. And that works out about 75 percent of a Tico for a standard Hunter. This super-Hunter with many more VLS will cost significantly more.
 
A$6.2 has been quoted as construction cost for the first three which is 6.2/ 3 / A$ 2.06bn average.
Compare that to the first Ticonderoga alone which cost $400m per thousand tons according to Congressional Budget Office or $3.92bn in 2008 price index, that's $5.33bn in 2022 money for comparison to the Australian figure year, though Military inflation costs have faster than consumer prices due to increasing technology complexity. That is closer to twice than three times but you've gotta admit its more bang for the buck in a similar sized package of just under 10,000 tons displacement.

Do not EVER compare first in class costs to the cost of other ships! USN accounting puts all the development costs for the entire class on the bill for the first ship of the class.

The last ship of a class is as close as you will get to an incremental price for USN hardware.

How do the Aussies do their ship accounting? Where do the development costs get assigned, because $6.2bn sure doesn't sound like a development + 3 hulls price...
 
Aussies do whole life cost accounting, they lump design, construction, fuel, crew, maintenance and refurbishments along with dedicated shore facilities all together into a single figure. For the Hunter Class its A$46bn for a 9 ship class in 2020 price index. So each ship in their lifetime would be expected to cost an average of A$5.1bn to design, build and operate which cant be compared to US accounting where on aircraft they often dont even include the engine in the unit price! A$ 6.2bn has been quoted in 22/23 prices as the actual construction cost of the first three together which is the figure TomS has been using, and that will include equipment and weapons fit as well as Hulls whereas the Tico last boat cost is purely the shipyard cost.

There are some comparison figures in the document I previously shared suggesting US amortises design and shipyard gearing over the first two ships and prices gradually fall for each successive batch (so comparing the 27th Tico cost to the average of the first 3 Hunters really isnt fair).
Zumwalt first two cost $3.2bn each while the next five cost $2.3bn
DDG-1000 first two DDG-1000 predicted $5bn next five $3.6bn (Though CBO warning similar tonnage Virginia were 17% overbudget with first 11% and second 25% while first two littoral ships were 100% overbudget and the LPD-17 were 80% overbudget) and 7th would be $2.4bn with the actual hull construction cost excluding government furnished equipment and commissioning from the 7th on would be $1.9bn each.
 
Last edited:
Aussies do whole life cost accounting, they lump design, construction, fuel, crew, maintenance and refurbishments along with dedicated shore facilities all together into a single figure. For the Hunter Class its A$46bn for a 9 ship class in 2020 price index. So each ship in their lifetime would be expected to cost an average of A$5.1bn to design, build and operate which cant be compared to US accounting where on aircraft they often dont even include the engine in the unit price! A$ 6.2bn has been quoted in 22/23 prices as the actual construction cost of the first three together which is the figure TomS has been using, and that will include equipment and weapons fit as well as Hulls whereas the Tico last boat cost is purely the shipyard cost.
Interesting.

As to aircraft, the engine falls under Government Furnished Equipment. Like the combat systems on the ships, GFE is accounted for under a separate budget item, as there may be many different items using that chunk of GFE.


There are some comparison figures in the document I previously shared suggesting US amortises design and shipyard gearing over the first two ships and prices gradually fall for each successive batch (so comparing the 27th Tico cost to the average of the first 3 Hunters really isnt fair).
You'd expect prices to drop over the succeeding ships as the workers figure out how to build the ships faster and with less rework or overwork.


Zumwalt first two cost $3.2bn each while the next five cost $2.3bn
DDG-1000 first two DDG-1000 predicted $5bn next five $3.6bn (Though CBO warning similar tonnage Virginia were 17% overbudget with first 11% and second 25% while first two littoral ships were 100% overbudget and the LPD-17 were 80% overbudget) and 7th would be $2.4bn with the actual hull construction cost excluding government furnished equipment and commissioning from the 7th on would be $1.9bn each.
SSN775 was built by those incompetent idiots at Newport News, and wasn't delivered until after EB had commissioned 776. That entire overrun was due to their needing to get their submarine welders up to competence. And since half of 774 was built at NNSY, I'd be willing to bet that most of the overage there was caused by NNSY, too.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom