By Dan Middlemiss, 28 May 2024
The Australian government recently confirmed plans to procure 11 new, Tier 2 warships as part of the force mix structure outlined in its Enhanced Lethality Surface Combat Fleet design study. These smaller and lower capability ships will operate independently with the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) existing Hobart-class air warfare destroyers and also its new Hunter-class frigates now being constructed.
To lower the procurement risk and to fast-track the introduction of what the government sees as urgently needed naval capabilities, the government will adopt a ‘zero design change’ approach to this Tier 2 acquisition. Rear Admiral Stephen Hughes, Head of Navy Capability, has been quoted as saying that “acquisition of a ‘zero design change’ solution was the only way which to have an acquisition programme underway and on contract before the end of 2026, with a first ship delivery to follow in 2029.”[1]
This new shipbuilding approach will entail a clear change from the traditional ‘Australianised’ military-off-the-shelf (MOTS) model previously used for RAN surface combatant procurements. The navy has stated that it will develop no requirements for the procurement plan, and has stated that it will be happy with whichever warship design is selected from the four ‘exemplar’ designs under consideration.
Australia will also employ a hybrid ‘offshore then onshore’ build strategy. As Rear Admiral Hughes elaborated: “We’re going to build initially three offshore, and then we’ll build three [more] of the same baseline onshore. And then what happens for ships 7 through 11 is something for future decisions around where that design goes.”
It will be very interesting to watch how this plan unfolds. The logic seems to be sound, but navies and naval shipbuilders always seem to find ingenious ways to justify at least some design customization, and this in turn always introduces risk, delays and higher costs.
Notes:
[1] Richard Scott, "Australian Navy capability head : ‘zero-change’ is right strategy for Tier 2 general purpose frigate", www.navalnews.com, 28 May 2024. (accessed at: https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cne-2024/2024/05/australian-navy-capability-head-zero-change-is-right-strategy-for-tier-2-general-purpose-frigate/)
8 thoughts on “Attempting the Impossible?”
Hello Dan. For Australia to even consider building these Tier 2 Frigates “off shore” with no Aussie modifications, for the first 3 at least, is a very brave thing to do, but possible. It’s something Canada should at least consider when replacing our 12 Kingston class. Their “4 options” to choose from are anywhere from 3-5000 tonnes, and all seem to be quite capable with at least 16-32 Mk 41 VLS cells and the 127mm Mk 45 gun. Not as capable as what their Type 26 Hunter class will be but, not bad … not bad at all. What will Canada acquire to complement the CSC Type 26 Frigates? Nothing nearly as capable as these units no doubt! Attempting the impossible? Maybe, but Australia has always been above the curve. Canada, well … we can’t even see the curve let alone be above it!
Has DND actually released a timeline projecting the anticipated dates of commissioning the new CSC’s and decommissioning the Halifax class ships in order to estimate fleet size between 2030 and 2050? Is it realistic to think that the Halifax frigates will be operational, let alone relevant, in the late 2030’s and beyond? Maybe we also need some offshore-built, “out of the box” tier 2 ships delivered in the early 2030’s to bridge the gap and the supplement the CSC’s.
Hello Wayne. The contracts for the CSC Frigates have not even been signed yet so no projected time lines for one-for-one Halifax class replacements. Again…. nothing from this secretive government. Canada is only “considering” Kingston class replacements with no contracts signed….yet. They haven’t even considered the naming of the CSC 8,080 tonne (not the final loaded weight – possibly around 9,400 tonnes) ‘frigates.’ There has been talk about the Vard Marine (Leonardo) ‘Vigilance’ class but they will just be that, replacements and nothing more. No Tier 2 CSC supplements as of now. In my opinion, I would consider the UK Type 31/32 a good Tier 2 ship to consider, however, Canada can not afford this ship as of right now so the government seems to think. Let’s at least get the naming of the CSC frigates done this year…..Maybe?
Canada has stood up the Canadian multi mission Corvette project. It’s currently in the identification phase and determining the high level requirements before moving forward. While it will be a Kingston Class replacement, it’ll probably be very different but not a new tier of warships to bridge the gap as of yet.
Hi Ted – a few questions.
1. Has the Corvette project been publically confirmed from an official source? A web search didn’t bring anything up.
2. To my understanding, the term “Corvette” implies a small but serious warship, something more than a patrol ship. Does this mean that the Vard proposal is unlikely to be considered?
3. Most modern corvettes seem to have a displacement of greater than 1000 tonnes, which is nominally the maximum size for vessels to be constructed outside the three first tier NSS yards. However the first tier yards appear to have no spare capacity within the next decade. Is it likely the size restriction will be relaxed, or will a fourth yard be qualified as an NSS partner?
Respose to Michael Peirson 5 June 2024, 12:56 pm
1. Vanguard magazine mentions the project in an article and I believe the CRCN has mentioned it in some of his town halls. The project is just starting with only a few personnel. It won’t be expanded until AOPS is finished as there simply are not enough people available to staff it.
2. It does but as it’s only determining what they want to do with it. I can say that the ship will be quite different from the Kingston class in its use. Globally deployable, 26 plus knots, hangar for drones, small caliber naval gun, payload capable. The question is will they add missiles, probably not in my opinion. Will Vard be considered? probably but will be competing with the many other options out there.
3. I figure greater than 1000 but less than 2000. Built by who I don’t know but possibly by a yard in the Great Lakes. Keep in mind the ships are not in the strategic plan of the RCN or even funded currently and competing against the canadian patrol submarine replacement program for funding. Also keep in mind that we can have all the ships tied up at the jetties we want but if we do not have the sailors it’s a moot point. We have at least 4 Kingston Class tied up with personnel diverted to AOPS and JSS.
Thanks for this, Ted. I agree with your concerns about the limits of staff and funding.
It appears the ship you describe will be quite capable if it is built.
Hello Wayne,
DND has not released a hard timeline as far as I am aware however, they have stated that the first CSCs were largely finalized in order to get them into the water as quickly as possible. “Early 2030’s” is what we’ve heard for the first CSC coming into service but it will likely take longer. The Halifax frigates will need to limp along to the point where they can be replaced by the CSC as it is politically and financially untenable to do an interim procurement as you describe. Canada is looking to domestically source one main hull for its combatants which are fitted to their specifications, ordering a class of lesser vessels to a foreign design abroad flies entire in the face of those carefully laid plans.
The RCN is going to have to make do with the Halifax class until they can begin to be replaced by the CSC, I would expect to see ships be retired and put alongside to act as training platforms and parts bins for other ships.