Navy frigates in a $30bn race to the future (Australia)

Per Hesselberg leans forward in his chair, a portrait of his queen behind him, and explains why Denmark should design our new fleet of warships. “We are the country of Lego,’” the Danish navy captain says with a smile.

“And our frigates are like Lego frigates … they are built from blocks and are flexible, multi-role ships, so that you can pluck and play with and create exactly the warship you want.”

Outside Hesselberg’s office, winter rain sweeps across the Korsor Naval Base in a remote pocket of Denmark, almost obliterating the giant grey frigate moored in the distance.

If Denmark has its way, that frigate will form the rump of Australia’s future navy.

It’s the least they could do, the Danes joke, for Australia giving them their beloved Tasmanian-born princess Mary.

To do this, Denmark will need to fend off at least five other larger nations circling like vultures to grab the second largest Defence contract in Australia’s history, the $30 billion project to build nine new frigates.

Since the defence white paper was released last month, the headlines have been all about the $50bn future submarines — while the Future Frigate project largely sails under the radar.

But in many ways the stakes involved in building the fleet of navy frigates to replace the eight Anzac-class frigates are just as high as for the submarines — and certainly more immediate.

Unlike the future submarines, which will not be built until the early 2030s, the government promises it will begin cutting steel on the new frigates in Adelaide in 2020 — almost tomorrow in shipbuilding terms.

What’s more, the success or failure of this project will determine the future of the nation’s struggling shipbuilding industry and thousands of jobs.

For the first time, it will herald the start of a continuous shipbuilding project, ensuring a rolling-production line of frigates into the future.

The glittering prize of the Future Frigate contract has captured attention at the highest levels in Paris, Madrid, Rome, London and Copenhagen as each capital steps up its lobbying campaign to seduce Australia’s Defence officials.

Yet already the project is tainted by controversy and shrouded in secrecy. Defence will barely speak about it — it took four days for The Australian to elicit fundamental answers about the project.

Defence refuses to say which countries are bidding or even what size warships the navy wants. The Australian understands there are five defence giants and one minnow in the race. These include the industrial powerhouses of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Then there is Denmark, the enfant terrible of the competition and a country with a proud seafaring tradition. “Why not Denmark,” Hesselberg asks as we lunch in the naval base’s Viking room under a painting of a Viking boat in stormy seas.

“We have come up with a frigate where you get value for money and which can match anything with the capability of its weapons, its stealth, acoustics, sensors and its endurance. You can sail from Denmark here to Indonesia on one tank of fuel. That is very unusual.”

As with almost every aspect of Australia’s troubled naval shipbuilding industry, the project to replace the navy’s Anzac frigates from the mid-2020s, known inside Defence as SEA 5000, is buffeted by politics and controversy.

In 2014, the government was unnerved by the huge blowouts in cost and schedule for the building of the three air warfare destroyers in Melbourne and Adelaide. (The three AWDs and nine new frigates will form the firepower of the future surface fleet.)

So it commissioned a study to see if it could create some economy of scale by using the same hull of the AWD, designed by Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, as the base for the Future Frigate.

Other competitors for the frigate contract cried foul, saying that this gave Navantia an unfair advantage. Navantia claims this study showed that its AWD hull could be adapted to meet the requirements of the Future Frigate program, but Defence refuses to divulge the results of the study, which concluded in September, saying only, “No decision has been made on whether this particular option will progress.”

Also, early last year, there was an internal row within Defence over the frigates.

The navy presented Defence Secretary Dennis Richardson with a plan that called for its new frigates to be super warships, at twice the size and with twice the firepower of the Anzac-class boats.

Richardson threw the proposal back at the navy, asking it to refine its wishlist to a more affordable ship.

Even so, the final negotiated outcome for the Future Frigate is understood to be a substantially larger warship, in the range of 6000 tonnes to 7000 tonnes, compared with the 3800-tonne Anzac boats.

The Future Frigates will have more firepower than any previous Royal Australian Navy warship — a capability the navy believes is essential when China is investing billions on developing a navy that can project power far from its shores.

By having a strong antisubmarine focus, the frigates will be able to complement and support the navy’s 12 new submarines.

In August, the Future Frigate program was again turned upside down when Tony Abbott became panicked by poor opinion polls in the shipbuilding state of South Australia. The then prime minister rewrote the shipbuilding schedule to try to save jobs and win votes by bringing forward the construction schedule for the new frigates by two years, from 2022 to 2020.

Experts say that by fast-tracking such a complex project for political purposes the government has increased the risk and dangers associated with the future frigate program.

The government said the move would save more than 500 jobs by reducing the gap between the end of the AWD project and the start of the frigate construction, which will be a rolling build.

But, shipbuilding expert Mark Thomson of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says: “The frigate project is at least as risky, if not more risky, than the AWD project.” He says the expectation that the frigates will need to be modified to fit US combat and weapons systems and the CEAFAR radar used on the Anzacs was already risky enough without bringing the schedule forward.

“We are going to cut steel on the frigates earlier than we would have, not because there is anything wrong with the Anzacs,” Thomson tells The Australian.

“I don’t think it is a dark secret that this is all about addressing South Australia’s expectations about being provided a more or less continuous line of work to keep things going.”

The Abbott decision to bring forward the project means that Defence has had to rush its processes. In October, a few months after Abbott’s announcement, Defence began its so-called competitive evaluation process — a global search for the right frigate for Australia.

The secretive Rand Corporation was engaged to help evaluate suitable designs from around the world, and through this process a long list of potential bidders was drawn up. This also has annoyed some of the larger bidders for the project. They say Rand Corp had asked them for details of highly sensitive stealth features of their boats — details some were reluctant to provide.

“The Rand Corp was engaged to assist with the gathering and analysis of information to support the analysis of alternatives,” a Defence spokesman says.

“The first step is identification of the mature ship design options available in the market, and then narrowing of the field of designs for further development. A number of designers/builders are involved in this process but their names cannot yet be made public.”

The defence white paper provided little detail on the frigate project beyond saying that Australia will build nine new frigates in Adelaide configured especially for antisubmarine warfare operations.

Australia has been weak on antisubmarine warfare capabilities for many years, when the number of submarines, especially Chinese submarines, in the Indo-Pacific is fast rising.

The government says that later this year it will narrow the field of contenders for the Future Frigates — most likely to a shortlist of three — before deciding the winner in 2018, barely two years before construction is scheduled to begin.

Britain is offering Australia its yet-to-be-built Type 26 frigate; Germany wants to sell an anti-submarine warfare variant of the MEKO 400 family of frigates; Spain is offering a frigate based on its F-105 AWD hull; and France and Italy are offering their own variants of the FREMM European multi-role frigate.

Denmark is offering its highly capable 6650-tonne Iver Huitfeldt frigates, three of which are in service with the Danish Navy.

The ship’s designer, Odense Maritime Technology, is proposing to modify the design to give it the antisubmarine warfare focus that Australia wants, by expanding its helicopter hangar to hold two ASW choppers and installing a towed array sonar to hunt subs.

Denmark’s biggest selling point is that the Iver Huitfeldt boats are significantly cheaper to build — and to maintain — than comparative frigates.

This is largely because Denmark, home to the world’s largest commercial shipbuilding company, Maersk Group, uses its own commercial shipbuilding practices and parts for its frigates, driving down the cost of production.

The Danish Navy also managed the project as the prime contractor, rather than another defence company, which keep costs lower.

These factors, coupled with highly efficient shipyards, meant Denmark built its frigates for $US340 million each, less than half the projected costs of the other SEA 5000 competitors.

The ship also includes a modular design allowing for the wholesale replacement of units such as guns, computers and other equipment, reducing maintenance costs.

These cost factors alone will ensure the Danish bid is closely scrutinised by Australian Defence officials, who have visited Denmark four times in the past 18 months, with another visit due next month.

“We think the frigate platform Denmark has developed fits pretty well with the requirements that Australia has for frigates and we believe we can transfer that production capability to Australia,” says OMT chief executive Kare Christianson, who oversees Denmark’s frigate bid from an old whitewashed thatched cottage north of Copenhagen.

Denmark’s Chief of Navy, Rear-Admiral Frank Trojahn, tells The Australian that he hopes Australia closely examines the Danish option.

“I know we do have a good product, it has shown its worth in exercises, in live operations, and the Americans trust it 100 per cent; so from my point of view that is a stamp of guarantee,” he says.

John White, who oversaw the successful construction of the Anzac frigates in the 1990s, says the Future Frigate project must be carefully managed to avoid the mistakes of the past.

“The success of the Anzac frigates project was based on using a privatised shipyard organisation in Australia to team with an overseas design-and-build partner that had proven, successful experience in designing similar vessels,” White says.

White is an optimist. He believes that, despite the problems of the past, Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry has a bright future. The frigate project will be its first big test.

“It will provide a sovereign Australian naval industry to meet our future strategic requirements.”

JV: "Interesting too that the tonnage is so light."

The article says 6,000 to 7,000 tons, for a Frigate.
I think US Frigates are all decommissioned now (to be replaced by "littoral combat" ships?), but the most recent Perry Class Frigates ran circa 4,000 tons.
And those were nearly 1,000 tons heavier than the previous Brooke class Frigates.

Current US destroyers are bigger, with Burkes up to 10,000 tons and the new Zumwalts over 14,000 tons.
These compare to the typical WWII destroyer of about 2,500 tons.

Point is: definitions of words like "frigate" and "destroyer" change over the years.
So 7,000 tons for a "frigate" is huge, a bit small for a modern destroyer.

What's the difference?

14,000 tons displacement would have gotten you a pre-dreadnaught battleship.

BB-10 Maine - commissioned 1902 disp. 12,846
BB-15 Georgia - launched 1904 disp 14,948

Even the HMS Dreadnaught (1906) only displaced 18,410 tons with a normal load.

These new frigates will be a significant investment by the Royal Australian Navy. They will replace the six Perry-class missile frigates (FFG) in-service; four purchased in the U.S. and two built in Australia. The new frigates will be more modern and very well armed against threats. They should have increased endurance over the current FFGs. Unfortunately, the U.S. Navy is not as smart as the RAN. The USN wants a revamped Little Crappy Ship (LCS) as its replacement for the FFG-7 class it has retired and either scrapped or sold off. The LCS is an awful disaster of a program and the USN ought to buy many of the advanced frigate designs already available. Unfortunately the USN suffers from the Not Invented Here (NIH) disease and that will not happen.

Central_va: "Frigates are single screw and slower than a destroyer.
Their primary mission is convey ASW screening with some limited AAW capabilities."

I'm ex-Army, not Navy, so there's a lot I don't know, but what you're describing sounds like what they used to call destroyer-escorts.
When I was a boy, one of my uncles commanded a small fleet of reserve DEs out of Baltimore.
Took me out one Saturday on a training mission.
I got seasick in the Chesapeake Bay!
Closest I ever came to being "in the Navy now". ;-)

MG-1: "The USN wants a revamped Little Crappy Ship (LCS) as its replacement for the FFG-7 class it has retired and either scrapped or sold off."

I don't disagree with making Navy ships bigger, better, faster, more capable, etc.
Every year the threats change and every new ship has to respond.

Think of those little 2,500 ton WWII destroyers serving picket duty around carriers near Japan.
They would be utterly useless today.
Only the latest & greatest would have a chance of survival and mission accomplishment.
So, if Zumalt's have to be 14,000 tons to do their jobs, so be it.

As for "Littoral Combat Ships", I don't "get" them.
That's not a knock on LCS's, I'm just too old & stupid to figure out what the h*ll their for.
Maybe they're a good idea, but all I can think is "sitting ducks" -- too close to the enemy, not enough protection.
But hey, what do I know?

MG-1: "USN ought to buy many of the advanced frigate designs already available.
Unfortunately the USN suffers from the Not Invented Here (NIH) disease and that will not happen."

It'll be a sad day indeed, when Americans can't even design & build our own Navy ships.
Sure, maybe under President Hillary, but in The Donald administration, I think, not so much.

If you are wondering what the LCS is supposed to do, you aren't the only one. In my contacts list are some very senior retired Navy officers and we are all asking exactly the same thing about the Little Crappy Ship. So far, no one has come up with any really good ideas what it is useful to do. However, we have a growing list of things it cannot do and the Navy really needs to start over with a clean slate.

There is no way on God's Green Earth that you can morph the LCS into a useful warship whose only ability is it can run at 45 knots but little else. The LCS is undermanned, underarmed, short endurance, and grossly overpriced. The modules that are supposed to make this into an ASW, AAW, and Mine Hunter aren't likely to get built or have failed miserably in trials. This isn't good because it strikes directly at the whole LCS concept of modularity.

We (my correspondents and I) are convinced that NavSea does NOT know how to build a well balanced corvette/frigate type ship. There are plenty of good frigate designs in the European navies that are worth a look; the Brits, French, Danes, and Germans all make very good and advanced corvette/frigate types that we could build here in our yards. However, NavSea will not do it because it advertises they don't know how to build ships of this size any more. The same can be said for advanced diesel-electric submarines.

MasterGunner01: "We (my correspondents and I) are convinced that NavSea does NOT know how to build a well balanced corvette/frigate type ship."

Believe it or not, I've been mulling this over for days, because it bothers me, and here's what bothers me most:

This just can't happen, regardless.
Regardless of how ignorant and loathsome our own political leadership is, this just can't be.

Crappy little boats don't do the job, and should be nowhere near enemy forces, unless, unless they are being effectively covered by much more powerful ships.
We say, "don't send boys to do a man's job", and just as well, "don't send boats to do a man-of-war's job".

I seriously don't care if our Navy ships cost a $billion, or $5 billion each, but where-ever and when-ever they go, nobody messes with us.
Especially those despicable half-human creatures whose greatest desire in life is to die as martyrs...
Let them.

The biggest problem for the Navy (as well as the rest of our Armed Forces) is the Obamanation’s restrictive Rules of Engagement tie our guys’ hands behind their backs. Just as Hillary and Barry did at Benghazi, the humiliation of the US military continues. This seizure of two riverine boats by the Iranians (and their subsequent release) is just another coffin hail by our feckless traitor-in-chief.

In so far as the Navy's construction goes, their ship choices have to leave one scratching one’s head. They keep building these huge, gray, multi-role monsters, that suffer from bloated budgets and late deliveries, that drive up costs still further. The USN doesn't need very few, big, expensive, ships; it needs less expensive, capable, numerous small ships to free up the huge “battleships” we now call DDGs, CGs, CVNs, LPDs, LHDs, and LHAs. We have eliminated our frigates with no replacement and don't have enough of the smaller combatants for the littorals. We could select a good foreign design and build it here, but NavSea will not listen to that (NIH is well-entrenched at NavSea).

The Navy has a lot of problems; its ship mix is but one of them and largely a self-inflicted wound. The ROE are set by the WH and they are the biggest impediment our warfighters have to live by and with. One thing certain, we must get rid of BHO and not elect HRC.

MasterGunner01: "The USN doesn't need very few, big, expensive, ships; it needs less expensive, capable, numerous small ships to free up the huge “battleships” we now call DDGs, CGs, CVNs, LPDs, LHDs, and LHAs.
We have eliminated our frigates with no replacement and don't have enough of the smaller combatants for the littorals."

Sir, with all due respect...
Any ship is a target, so the question is, can it defend itself?
If not, then it doesn't belong in the US Navy, period.

US Navy ships go anywhere & everywhere in the world, with no guarantees as to who, what or when they may be attacked.
If they are attacked unexpectedly (and there is no other kind of attack), they have to be capable.

Is there no role then for Little Crappy Ships?
Sure there is, just so long as they are under the strong protection of some Large Heavy-*ssed & Deadly Destructive Gun ships.
Otherwise, small ships are just targets with no real value added, seems to me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.