The Albanese Labor Government has handed a further $11 billion to the Australian subsidiary of a British weapons manufacturer to build just the steel hulls for three Hunter Class Frigates, making them some of the most expensive ships ever built, according to a Greens senator.
The initial $2.25 billion contract was for just the design and “productisation” of the Hunter Class Frigate, however, it was amended without tender in July and jumped to nearly $15 billion. It is understood that the additional $11 billion provided by the Government is just for the hulls of three ships, not including any weapons, radar or other essential equipment.
At $4 billion each, the Albanese Labor Government is now overseeing one of the most expensive ships ever built. The ship’s design has also been plagued with issues, as it is significantly outclassed by other ships that cost significantly less.
This contract change comes a decade after the project was initiated and following the review of the Australian Navy’s surface fleet earlier this year that slashed the number of ships from nine to six. The Greens referred the Hunter Frigates program to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) last year.
Senator David Shoebridge, Greens Spokesperson for Defence, said: “The Hunter Frigate program is turning into a black hole for the Labor Government to pour billions of dollars into. The Albanese Labor Government has now had multiple opportunities to course correct but they have doubled down on failure. If we look at countries like South Korea they are manufacturing bigger and better-equipped ships for a fraction of the price. This is not about investing in defence, it’s about rewarding failure by politicians who repeatedly prove themselves incapable of holding Defence to account. The Greens referred this program to the NACC because it showed clear signs of corruption, but this whole program also shows a complete disregard for the public interest, value for money and what is in the best interests of the defence of Australia. Over the next decade, the Albanese Government has planned for nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars to be spent on Defence. If that spending looks like the Hunter Frigates program we will blow endless billions of dollars and end the decade far less safe.”
For Editorial Inquiries Contact :
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
The Korean destroyers are not equipped much for ASW only anti-air warfare (AAW) in which the Hunters are par-excellence.
There seems a great Australian ignorance of the threat to our trade of Iron ore and gas as well as our submarine internet cables from enemy submarines. AAW destroyers cannot defend against these.
The Hunters price has escalated above the RN Type 26 because we wanted to fit the CEAFAR radars and make them more AAW. Just look at how the USN cost of their Constellation frigates is blowing out and delayed 3 years based on the Italian competitor for the Hunter class.
I think you will find that the Korean frigates all have a combination of hull mounted sonar, towed array,lightweight ASW torpedoes and an ASW helicopter. That’s not as effective as the Hunter because that’s a much larger ship that can deploy a huge active/passive low frequency towed sonar, but is fine for a smaller ship. I was a bit surprised by the Constellation – they seemed to be doing very well for the first few years of the project, but that’s so often the case.
The issue with the Hunters is not their effectiveness – they will be excellent in the ASW role – but more their cost and the slow schedule. I worry about obsolescence management, among other things. You are correct about the huge impact of CEAFAR. How the Type 26 was originally assessed as being mature and low risk is something of a scandal.
You would of thought the ELSFC review and the Albanese Government’s decision to reduce the planned build from from 9 to 6 would have lit a fire under BAESMA’s arse to get the production running ahead of schedule at the very least but they seem content on taking their time. It could be political too though as the slower delivery was originally planned to prevent a shipbuilding “valley of death”. In any case, the Hunter Frigate program should proceed at full economic pace to at least attempt to lower the overall costs if not to accelerate delivery of the program. “Continuous Naval Shipbuilding” is only a useful model in a benign strategic environment.
I need to do some more digging because at the IODS conference in Perth one of the speakers mentioned deliver of the first Hunter class in 2034. Unless I misheard – always a possibility – that would be a further 2 year delay. Let’s hope I’m wrong.
Unfortunately 2034 was the official delivery year noted at the steel cutting ceremony for the first of class back in June… 10 years away!
Thanks Nick – that appears to be a further delay. I’ll see if I can get official confirmation – hahahaha.