Delivering new general purpose #frigates for #Australia presents significant challenges. The recent Independent Review of the Royal Australian Navy surface fleet raised more questions than answers. https://lnkd.in/gJ9M_8pv Shephard Media There is no confirmation yet from Defence Australia whether the 'Tier 2' ship designs are a procurement shortlist or for general guidance. The four options seem limited and the selection looks like a Wikipedia exercise. Meanwhile Babcock International Group is talking to Defence about the Type 31 frigate and NAVAL GROUP said the 'Tier 2' frigate are "second rate"! Haha. What is the industrial strategy? Will the ships be modified with an Australianisation of the design or delivered close to the existing design employing indigenous systems? It is a case of speed of delivery vs compatability and there is no right choice. Can the ships deliver the right capability? If vessels be used for seaborne trade protection or for defending Australia's northern approaches, or both? These require a lot of capability on a small ship. It is not clear if Defence knows the answers. Maybe things will get clearer... Thanks for Richard Dunley and Marcus Hellyer for their comments and insight. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries thyssenkrupp Marine Systems HD Hyundai Heavy Industries Navantia, S.A., S.M.E Hanwha Ocean
Choonghoon Hyun
4mo
Thanks for your insight. #FFXII and #FFXIII are two different classes. The former is Daegu class and the latter is Chungnam class. There is no class named Daegu FFXII/III.
Andy Watts
5mo
Carried over from above. I’ve edited the post to add the caveat that it refers to the circumstances of the RNZN. Firstly, the adoption of a traditional multi-function design in which the mission systems are tightly coupled to the platform, as are all the candidate designs mentioned in the surface fleet review, is problematic. Threats and capability requirements will evolve over the life of the platform. This means that at some point, say 10-15 years into its life, the platform will require a mid-life upgrade. As the NZDF has discovered, such programs are fraught with cost and schedule risk. A modular platform, where mission systems are embarked in containerized modules, allows obsolescence to be managed by upgrading or replacing the module while the platform remains available for operations that don't require that module. For New Zealand, this is a very significant advantage. Secondly, NZ must reduce system diversity. Modularity could allow a single platform to be adopted for the next generation fleet, providing flexible but still credible capability. Modular systems are now well advanced, and the Royal Navy has published concepts that suggest it will be a feature of their next generation fleet.
Greg Elliott
5mo
Excellent commentary Andy Watts Given the potential for collaboration, important to develop an NZ perspective and informed feedback on pros/cons for those of us who are not shipbuilders.
Defence and Security Capability, Human Resources, and Organizational Leadership and Development
5moSome thoughts from an NZ perspective, given the obvious geopolitical imperative to at least consider cooperation with Australia on the "Tier 2" program. "Off the shelf" seems to be the preferred strategy for meeting the overriding requirement for speed of acquisition. As Marcus Hellyer points out, the logical corollary is that the selected design will be adopted in unmodified form. Any attempt at Australianisation will introduce delay and risk such that the quicker, lower risk option would be to design a Tier 2 combatant from the keel up using the depth of naval architecture and engineering talent and capacity that has been built up in Australia over many years. Such an option could adopt an integrated CEAFAR/CMS/weapon system package of the type already in RAN service and for which supply chains and training systems already exist. The package could be integrated with an Australian platform with space, weight, and services designed from the outset to accept it. The risk involved would be much lower than attempting to integrate standard RAN systems with someone else's platform.