BAE Systems’ Hunter Class Frigate Program has successfully completed its Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The review, which started in July, is a technical assessment that ensures the design is operationally effective and underpins the more detailed work that will now be undertaken.
More than 1,800 people are now working on the Hunter program, which is transforming Australia’s shipbuilding industry by helping build a world-class, continuous naval shipbuilding capability.
BAE Systems Australia’s Managing Director Maritime, Craig Lockhart, said: “The Hunter Class Frigate Program has come a long way from initial head contract signing, to the acceptance of the shipyard, start of prototyping work, and commencement of the first Schedule Protection Block. The completion of the preliminary design review is another significant step forward for the program which is developing Australia’s sovereign industrial capability and is growing the nation’s engineering workforce.”
Companies from across Australia are working with BAE Systems to support the manufacture of the first batch of three Hunter class frigates. It is anticipated the program will create and sustain more than 5,000 jobs at BAE Systems and the wider Australian defence supply chain, including up to 1,000 apprentice and graduate roles.
“Through this national endeavour, we are committed to maximising opportunities for Australian industry. More than 80 contracts have been placed with Australian businesses to support the program,” said Lockhart.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net
BAE trying hard to keep good news coming for Hunter and I suppose this is encouraging, however: Have program costs stabilized and what is the current final estimate? What is the final full load ship design weight? What are the remaining design margins? Is 2032 for ship 1 and 2048 for ship 9 still expected delivery dates? Why will it take so long to produce the first ship?
They are all good questions and I can only answer some of them. The cost for this first phase – which is about design, facilities and some long lead time items is $6.16 billion. A production contract has not yet been negotiated but it is expected to be about an extra $40 billion for 9 ships – however the review into the surface fleet is expected to reduce that number. Everyone is being cagey about the maximum weight of the ship. The light weight has increased by 10% from 8,000 tonnes to 8,800 tonnes. The design margins are unknown but the RAN and BAE Systems say they are comfortably within them, despite the weight growth. Delivery of the first of class is still scheduled for 2032, though I repeat that there is not yet a production contract. The IOC of the parent Type 26 has very recently slipped a year from 2027 to October 2028 – not a particularly good sign. Why is it taking so long? I have no idea – it seems the slowest naval shipbuilding program in the western world.
Hi Kym. Earlier this year the RAN website detailing the Hunter Frigate was updated to reflect the changes to the ships beam and weight.
https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/future/ffg
“Displacement: Stability Lightship 8,167 tonnes (Feb 23)”
Seems a fair bit lower than 8,800 and that has been reported and I’m not sure what to make of it but it seems to be the “official” light ship displacement.
I hope the government ditches the slow build and steady drumbeat approach. This is no longer appropriate as the strategic circumstances have changed and the the build should be accelerated. Accelerating the build schedule will not only deliver the capability faster but will save money compared to stretching out the build schedule to avoid the shipbuilding “valley of death”.
I assume the website hasn’t been updated to take into account the latest information presented to Parliamentary committees by both the RAN and BAE Systems.
More important is how many VSL tubes will be fitted?
32. BAES say they could install more, but I don’t see any enthusiasm from Defence for what would be another major redesign task.
Kym Bermann. BAE systems Australia has already giving an option for 96 cell VLS as for batch 2 option within its current design. It’s upto Australian government and RAN to believe what suits them best. You can look up the 96 cell hunter class option on Google.
I personally believe RAN should give it atleast 48 cells 32 cells at the front and 16 cells in the middle of the ship allowing it to still have an internal bay and without losing any of its ASW capability. They can do that without any re design to the ship. Then build 4 more of the hunter class of the batch 2 for 96 cell VLS for AWDs to replace the current 3 F100 class AWDs with them.
BAE has offered 3 batch of hunter class types batch 1, of the 32 cell VLS with current design. Batch 2, of the 96 cell VLS but will lose some ASW capabilities such as the towed away sonar and it’s central bay for speed boats to accompany extra 64 cell VLS with current design. Batch 3, 128 cell VLS but has no main 5 inch gun.
I believe 32 cell is too small for ASW for today warfare. After all yes it’s suposed to be a frigate not a destroyer but they should atleast give it 48 cells VLS. This way it can carry double the ESSM of 64 missles to protect the ship and SM2 and some SM6 to strike back at some air targets if needed.
If they go for 96 cell for AWDs it will be brilliant option to be able to carry ESSM, SM2 SM6 and tomahawk and even new stand of missiles or extra anti ship missiles for the future. China has many destroyers with 110 cell VLS and frigates having as many as 64 cells. Australia navy is quite small we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be outgunned. The hunter class is such a big ship so why let it be undergunned.
If you are referring to the Hunter concept presented at Indo Pacific 2023 that was a design concept that is not ready to construct. Detailed design is still needed. BAE said that could be done and the 96 VLS option built as the second batch of 3 ships i.e. Hunters 4 to 6. The first 3 Hunters would be built as is i.e with 32 VLS.
Biggest flaw of Hunter Class frigate is lack of VLS with only 32 proposed. Should be upgraded to 96 with a 64 VLS in the mid section where the humanitarian cargo bays are, but then it would have to be upgraded to a destroyer. It is dumb in the geo political climate we are in. Taiwan and the South China sea are prime examples where China are flexing their muscles, these Hunter class ships have no where near enough armament.
I think it is so important that the Hunter program goes ahead – we need to get some credibility back in to Naval ship building in this country. If this fails then it will take years to come up with another option. Even worse we buy a foreign design and the Government decides to save a few bucks and build overseas. Perhaps the additional VSL tubes could be built in to the second build block. Would give time for redesign work to be done.
The smart thing to do is cancel the whole project on the grounds that it was never going to work. Somebody or everybody involved was either incompetent or misled on a major scale. The whole project is a perfect example of a good design officially interfered with.
If we cancelled the Hunter program to build instead something like the Constellation class (or any of the other proposed “off-the-shelf” ASW frigate designs) it would cost more money and take longer to acquire an inferior capability.
First we would need to pay some form of compensation to BAE for the cancelled project, just as we did for NAVAL Group. We would recieve no compensation for already ordered long lead times items of which most cannot be re-purposed. Then we would have to pay the workers at Osborne South to keep them busy while we wait even longer to contract and start building a new design otherwise it would cost significantly more money and time to retrain new staff. The design would have less Australian industry content than the Hunter class and those companies already contracted would suffer tremendous financial hardship, something the Australian defence industry already cannot cope with.
And we would do all this for a design with the same number of VLS, the major identified weakness of the Hunter class. We would require entirely new training regime for a completely new interface for the AEGIS combat system, again costing more time and money. And the complete lack of a multi mission bay which more and more new ship designs are featuring due to the inherit benefits of flexibility to conduct anti submarine warfare, uncrewed underwater vehicle support, mine counter measures and humanitarian and disaster relief roles.
How is now cancelling the Hunter program smart at all?
I agree with that, though critics of the program argue the design will never meet expectations. Too much time has elapsed and too much money has been spent for it to be cancelled – but it be scaled back to a smaller number of ships.
Actually you are absolutely correct in saying the cancellation of the Hunter Program at this stage isn’t very smart at all. The smart thing would have been to never enter into the project at all. The basic design was never meant to be what the Hunter Frigate morphed into, like Frankenstein it has taken on a life of its own. The original plan was to replace the ANZAC Class frigate with a proven design, the Type 26 that was offered in no way resembles the Hunter. The final (?) design is over budget, has limited Missile Capacity (most of which will be needed for self defence) and will not be in the water until it is probably obsolete. The entire project was a disaster waiting to happen, The project was interfered with by Politicians, Admirals stuck in the 19th Century and Lobbyists all wanting something different. So yes Robbo cancelling now would not be smart. Like the old saying “ Best way to survive a Disaster is not to have one…..
The hunter class will be a great ship no doubt about it for RAN. I just hope the Australian government and the RAN approve the larger missile cell option for maximum capability.
You would think with all the money and prestige spent or lined up for this project they would have designed in some margin for extra VLS so they could at least expand from 32 to 48 without having to redesign anything. Why do these sort of things seem so logical to laymen but so impossible for the navy. Surely a bit of extra room next to the current VLS for 16 more cells would have been logical/doable. if I remember correctly 32 was only chosen by Govt to save money, with hints navy preferred more to begin with.
For the genesis of the 32 cells you would need to speak to the Royal Navy about the original requirement for the Type 26.
I suspect we are about to pivot away from Hunter (and maybe also Arafura). The surface fleet seems to be at a similar point to where the sub program was at around 2020 i.e., still going with Attack but knowing it will really be ineffective for the circumstances and a huge waste of money. The pivot to other solutions is due early 2024 with the govt response to the surface fleet review.
The more I read about Hunter the more I struggle with the program. BAE says the integration of RAN requirements (CEAFAR 2 etc) has increased weight and caused delay. Yet the RN Type 26, RCN CSC and Hunter are all over-weight, delayed and over budget. There seem to have been problems with the parent design and completion of the gearboxes for the quiet drive by Sheffield Foregemasters.
The Hunter program is costing $45+billion, with design and cost still not finalised. Noting the $6 billion spent on the design and preparation phase (more than was spent on the design phase of the Attack Class) that leaves $39 billion for 9 ships or $4.3 billion per ship. That is a very high cost for a 10,000 tonne ship with 32 VLS.
From the parliamentary inquiry BAE advised local content was 54% aiming to be raised to 58%, (again worse than the cancelled Attack Class) which leaves an ASC build cost of $2.5 billion per ship. So the Hunter cost problem does not appear to be costs at ASC, but this still compares poorly to other programs. IF as reported Navantia/Spain was prepared to build more AWDs for $2 billion each in Spain or $3 billion in Australia, we could have build 9 more Hobarts instead and paid for the corvette program with the change ($12 billion).
The 96VLS option is a concept that is not ready to construct. It could be built for units 4 to 6 of the Hunter program, presumably at extra cost since it would require further detailed design work. If as reported it precludes carrying the VLS then the RAN would be spending a lot of money building a very stealthy ASW hull that has no towed array.
No doubt there are other here who know more than me and there must be some technical details that favour the Hunters. But from a cost and time viewpoint, they look poor value based on the published information.
A significant portion of the cost associated with the Hunter program is that we have agreed to build the ships on a slow even drumbeat (every two years from 2032) to avoid a shipbuilding “valley of death” that was in part responsible for the fiasco that was the Air Warfare Destroyer program. If the Hunter class was built at an economical speed (like the previous Anzac class) it would not only save money but also deliver the capability faster. To avoid the valley of death we can bring the future air warfare destroyer program forward and increase it’s size from the currently proposed three to six or preferably nine as we need a bigger navy with more lethality.