Australia Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

mankyle said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

$7 billion total cost per frigate, are they sane ? USS Constellation is supposed to cost less tha 2 billion.

Australia Hobart class destroyer cost less than 4 billion and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer cost about US$2.2 billion per ship in 2024 ?

It is probably AUD not USD. i.e. $4.58 billion USD, not $7 billion.
That is what you get for a custom built design in a tiny series. That is built at your shipyard in the middle of nowhere.

gelgoog said:

It is probably AUD not USD. i.e. $4.58 billion USD, not $7 billion.
That is what you get for a custom built design in a tiny series. That is built at your shipyard in the middle of nowhere.

Click to expand...

Just figured out something strange... are the Hunter class frigate really bigger than the Hobart class destroyer ??? They talk about a 8000t for the Hunter class frigate and Hobart class destroyer is below 7000t destroyer ? Why calling it a frigate ?

weapons suite are mostly the same:

Hobart class destroyer:
Missiles
48-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System,
RIM-66 Standard 2 missile
RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile
2 × 4-canister Harpoon missile launchers

torpedoes
2 × Mark 32 Mod 9 two-tube torpedo launchers
Eurotorp MU90
Guns:
1 × Mark 45 (Mod 4) 5-inch gun
2 × 25mm Mk 38 M242 Bushmaster autocannons in Typhoon mounts
1 × Phalanx CIWS

Hunter class frigate:
Missiles
32 Mark 41 Vertical Launch System firing:
RIM-66 Standard 2
RIM-162 ESSM
2 x 4-canister advanced anti-ship missiles

Torpedoes:
MU90 Impact torpedoes

Guns:
1 × 5-inch 54 calibre Mark 45 Mod 4 dual purpose gun
2 × 30mm short-range gun systems
2 × 20mm Phalanx CIWS

I do not get these bloated "frigate" designs either. Neither the British/Australian ones nor the Franco/Italian FREMM nor the US Constellation class. Maybe it is the mission type since they are not supposed to defend against ballistic missiles.

Atomicfrog said:

Just figured out something strange... are the Hunter class frigate really bigger than the Hobart class destroyer ??? They talk about a 8000t for the Hunter class frigate and Hobart class destroyer is below 7000t destroyer ? Why calling it a frigate ?

Click to expand...

Hunter is a frigate because it is intended to replace the ANZAC-class frigates. Hobart is a destroyer because in doctrinal if not strict chronological terms it replaced the Perth-class (Charles F. Adams-class) destroyers. It was revealed some time ago that full-load displacement of the Hunter-class frigates is in excess of 10,000 tonnes, with most of the growth relative to the base Type 26 design owing to changes necessary to accommodate the larger, domestic CEAFAR 2 radar.

While many of the details are yet to be revealed, the most meaningful outcome emerging from this review seems to be a commitment to pursue a new, second-tier surface combatant program that will eventually translate to a meaningful increase in the total number of credible, missile-armed surface combatants. The major challenge impeding such an increase remains the same as it has always been: personnel.

Lethe said:

Hunter is a frigate because it is intended to replace the ANZAC-class frigates. Hobart is a destroyer because in doctrinal if not strict chronological terms it replaced the Perth-class (Charles F. Adams-class) destroyers. It was revealed some time ago that full-load displacement of the Hunter-class frigates is in excess of 10,000 tonnes, with most of the growth relative to the base Type 26 design owing to changes necessary to accommodate the larger, domestic CEAFAR 2 radar.

While many of the details are yet to be revealed, the most meaningful outcome emerging from this review seems to be a commitment to pursue a new, second-tier surface combatant program that will eventually translate to a meaningful increase in the total number of credible, missile-armed surface combatants. The major challenge impeding such an increase remains the same as it has always been: personnel.

Click to expand...

ANZAC-class are 3600t ship, that's quite a replacement. So ''Frigate'' is more an administrative name than a capability one in that case...

Six large and "optionally crewed" naval vessels heavily armed with missiles will be added to Australia's surface fleet under a dramatic $11 billion reshaping of the navy that will also see the acquisition of 11 new general-purpose frigates to be partly built overseas.

Labor has unveiled its long-awaited "Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet", which will include six Hunter-class frigates, reduced from an original plan of nine, as well as upgraded versions of the existing Hobart-class destroyers fitted with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Under the sweeping overhaul, Australia's current fleet of combat-ready warships would rise from 11 to 26, consisting of nine "Tier 1" frigates and destroyers and 11 smaller general-purpose frigates, as well as six optionally crewed vessels which will form a "Tier 2" force.

Australia's oldest currently serving warship, HMAS Anzac, will be immediately retired ahead of the gradual replacement of the aging Anzac-class fleet with new frigates which will first be built in either Germany, Korea, Japan or Spain.

The planned number of Offshore Patrol Vessels being built in Western Australia will be halved to six and will eventually form part of a planned fleet of 25 minor war vessels dominated by Evolved Cape Class patrol boats.

The government will consider the eventual replacement for the Hobart-class destroyers "in the context of the 2026 National Defence Strategy" to align with a continuous naval shipbuilding strategy at Adelaide's Osborne Naval shipyard.

Releasing the plan at Sydney's Garden Island Naval base, Defence Minister Richard Marles insisted the plan was "fully funded" and would inject an additional $1.7 billion over the forward estimates and $11.1 billion over the next decade into defence.

Click to expand...

My first response is that much of this simply will not come to pass. The notion that such a dramatic expansion of the surface combatant inventory is "fully-funded" is simply laughable. The choice to retire HMAS Anzac immediately, a ship that has reportedly spent much of recent history out of the water , suggests a force that is already confronting significant personnel and budgetary pressures such that it is unable to get the most out of the inventory that we currently have. Yet we are expected to believe that dramatic, nay -- spectacular expansions of both the submarine and surface inventory are "fully-funded"? This is simply not credible.

"The provision of Virginia-class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy depends on US industrial development, US military needs and US politics. Australia has no agency or leverage over any of these factors. So much for Australian sovereignty."

"Is there a plan B? Well, nobody in Canberra seems to have one, but the US certainly does. It is set out, in considerable detail, prepared by the US Congress and is described as a “Military Division of Labor” whereby Australia would have no submarines. The US navy would base some of their own in Perth, at the submarine base we are building for them, and Australia would invest the money it has saved into other capabilities. Or it could just hand over more cash to the US government – pay for our own protection perhaps, like South Korea or Japan do."

"What will Donald Trump’s attitude to Aukus be? Well, we have already agreed to give the Americans US$3bn as a contribution to expanding their submarine industrial base. Trump will no doubt be bemused that we would spend money on expanding HIS country’s industrial base rather than our own (and even more amazed we are sending a similar amount to the UK to support the construction of the Aukus SSNs). His natural instinct will be to ask for more money, both as a contribution to the US submarine construction industry and for the submarines, if we get around to buying one – although that is likely to be after his four-year term.

Trump’s second-favourite slogan is “America First” and that is very much the zeitgeist in Washington nowadays, on both sides of the aisle. So if there is any contention or suggestion that the US navy cannot spare Virginias for Australia, there is no mystery where Trump will land."

Article by the former PM, Malcolm Turnbull. He struck the sub deal with Macron which was subsequently (if you pardon my pun) torpedoed by his successor Scott Morrison.

At least he has some brains to realise that Australia is well and truly on the way of becoming a vassal state to the US like Japan and SK. Too bad Albanese lacked the balls to challenge the very stupidity of forking out hundreds of billions for vapourware submarines.

The French Naval Group got a deal to sell pretty much the same submarine design they intended to make and sell to Australia to the Netherlands just recently.

I think Australia should just buy some design off the shelf and be done with it. The Japanese Taigei, the South Korean KSS-III, or the Spanish S-80Plus could be viable options. And none were available during the last competition.

Australia should just do another competitive bid and go for conventional submarines.