Is Australia's Navy Adequate?

[Birdman70]

Is Australia's Navy adequate to defend Australia?

The Aussie combat capable fleet http://www.navy.gov.au

8x ANZAC frigates
Main armament - 5 inch Auto
Secondary Armaments - Sea Sparrow Anti-Air missiles
2x triple mounted mk32 anti-sub torpedoes
6x .50 cals
Others - Air detection Radar, Hull mounted sonar, advanced combat data system and flies 1x Seasprite (have they worked out their problems yet?)
does a bit of everything, seems ok

6X Adelaide Guided Missile Frigates
Main Armaments - Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles
the 'standard' Surface to Air missiles
Secondary armaments - 76mm rapid fire gun
2x trple mk32 Anti-Submarine torpedoes
Vulcan Phalanx close in surport weapons system
Others - Medium range Sonar, Air and Surface detection Radar, Electronic Warfare Surveillance equipment and flies 2x Seahawk


14x Armidale Patrol boats
main armament - 25mm deck gun
secondary armament - 2x .50 cal
others - low light optical, communication direction finding and radar
looks like 14 more targets

5x fremantle class patrol boats (the rest are decomissioned, these may also go)
main armament - 40/60 bofor
seconadary armament - 2x .50 cal
others - Radar


6x collins class submarines
main armament - 6x tubes capable of either mk-48 torpedoes or sub-harpoon missiles
others - (can't find info on this)



From what i see the RAN is rather small for the size of our country.
It may be effecient at capturing illegal fishing vessels but could it protect our country without America's surport (it may be possible we loose it if that Obama guy is elected and we still have John Howard) from a large scale invasion from China or India?

If it is not, what capabilities are need to be increased to make it so that it can defeat most threats in our region?
what would be the ideal fleet composition for Australia (considering population and budget to some degree)?

One more question
When the AWD's hit the seen are they worth the loss of the Adelaide, i dont doubt they will be effective but would more hulls be better as they can be in more places?

[Rich]

Frankly the biggest deterrence I see there are your submarines. Having boats that capable, with crews that good, an with that range, would tie down a huge component of any aggressors Navy.

[Aussie Digger]

The weapon and sensor system in your list with respect to the Adelaide and ANZAC class frigates are a bit out of date. They have and are being significantly upgraded.

Both classes have served Australia well and will continue to do so til at least 2017-2020. The 3x AWD's will provide a massive boost to our surface combat power.

There is some discussion at present whether the AWD's will REALLY replace the FFG's or will be an addition to them. RAN apparently plans on a future surface combatant force of 14 ships, 3 up from now...

The 6x Collins Class Submarines are getting continual updates, advanced new torpedo's and are widely considered amongst the very best "conventionals" on the planet. It is also a LARGE force in regional terms.

As to the Armidales, they are NOT meant to be used in front line combat roles. If they were, they would have a greatly enhanced sensor, weapon and combat system. They would also need a greater hull size and better electrical generation system. As they currently are, they certainly WOULD be a target if used in a "frontline" role. The Fremantles will be retired very shortly, if they haven't all gone yet.

As to the size of the Australian Navy, it's certainly "large" and relatively powerful by regional standards. For the size of our nation (physical I presume) population and GDP wise we are rather small on the World scale.

With the capabilities of the AWD's to be added to the Navy, as well as new LHD's, new helo's, the follow-on frigate project (to replace the ANZAC's and perhaps FFG's as well) and new weapons (ERGM, Harpoon II, MU-90, Mk 48 ADCAP Mod 7, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, Mini-Typhoon etc) RAN will be amongst the most capable Navies in the world. Small yes in terms of relative fleet size, but as they say, "size isn't all important"...

[Dave H]

For a population of 20 million the Aussie fleet is very impressive and proportionate to other western countries. As with most western countries there is only so much that the population will tolerate in taxes to pay for defence.

We in the UK have three times your population. If you times the Aussie fleet by three and compared to UK equivalents you would have 15 Type 42 (we only now have 8), 24 Type 22 and 23 frigates (we now only have 17), 18 subs (we will have 8 but SSN). You have a decent amphibious assets as well. The RN looks quite light in destroyers and frigates because we have Trident, Three small carriers, Ocean, LPD's and numerous other money draining projects on the go.

If you add capabilities such as carriers then as with the UK, your other assets would need to be trimmed. Can you afford the cost? Or like us, have you spent a vast fortune on wars in the last 5 years that will eat into the budget? Australia has the benefit of distance between your rival. Frankly India isnt going to invade, China highly unlikely. The may be a China "creep" as its influence increases on its neighbours. To prevent the hypothetic invasion by such huge countries you would need to buy the equivalent of the USN or embark on a programme to develop a nuclear deterrent...probably quite economically viable and as you have vast deserts, it could be land based without scaring the public.

[Aussie Digger]

For a population of 20 million the Aussie fleet is very impressive and proportionate to other western countries. As with most western countries there is only so much that the population will tolerate in taxes to pay for defence.

We in the UK have three times your population. If you times the Aussie fleet by three and compared to UK equivalents you would have 15 Type 42 (we only now have 8), 24 Type 22 and 23 frigates (we now only have 17), 18 subs (we will have 8 but SSN). You have a decent amphibious assets as well. The RN looks quite light in destroyers and frigates because we have Trident, Three small carriers, Ocean, LPD's and numerous other money draining projects on the go.

If you add capabilities such as carriers then as with the UK, your other assets would need to be trimmed. Can you afford the cost? Or like us, have you spent a vast fortune on wars in the last 5 years that will eat into the budget? Australia has the benefit of distance between your rival. Frankly India isnt going to invade, China highly unlikely. The may be a China "creep" as its influence increases on its neighbours. To prevent the hypothetic invasion by such huge countries you would need to buy the equivalent of the USN or embark on a programme to develop a nuclear deterrent...probably quite economically viable and as you have vast deserts, it could be land based without scaring the public.


Australia is pretty well off air and naval wise thanks to successive Australia Governments focusing our defence posture on an ability to intercept any possible attacks in the "air - sea" gap to our North.

Any serious attacks would come from that direction, hence the attention paid to capabilities that would be useful in conducting the kinds of operations that would make it difficult for any attacker to succesfully carry out operations against our mainland.

As Dave H correctly pointed out, our geography works massively in our favour and allows us to provide credible defence options, on a (relatively) limited budget. This is also helped by the (relatively) weak economies of the potential "threat nations" near us.

Our defence spending is specifcally designed to allow us to maintain an "overmatch" against our regional neighbours in most critical capabilities. Nothing more. We do not seek an extensive warfighting capability (though clearly our Economy would allow us to do this if necessary) and we spend only 1.9% of our GSP on defence. This still provides us with around $17b a year in current year dollars.

An interesting study (one of the the few) conducted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute showed that a 1% of GDP increase in defence spending (EASILY achievable in a time of some "crisis") would allow us to purchase and maintain a force comprising 6x AWD destroyers, 8x upgraded ANZAC class frigates, 2x VSTOL carriers each operating a Squadron of F-35B fighters, up to 5x squadrons of F-35A fighters for RAAF and a 2nd mechanised brigade for Army.

Such a force would give us significant "offensive" capability without resorting to a nuclear option and of course makes no attempt to discuss how we could possibly man such a force, but does provide an insight to the sort of capability we could afford in a time of real crisis...

As I mentioned before, RAN through AWD, LHD's, ANZAC and Collins upgrades is heading for a VERY capable force structure, though limited in size. It will however be more than a match for any of our regional neighbours and that I suppose is the most important thing...

[Dave H]

I wouldnt advocate Australia becoming a nuclear power, thats entirely australia's business. As long as non of your threat nations to the north have them then you are more than a match militarily, just in Birdmans thread He cites India and China. I suppose we just need to see who else gets them in the next 20 years.

I dont know a great deal about Aussie shipbuilding capacity but in this "time of crises", could you build your own VSTOL carriers etc or would they be purchased from abroad?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Tha ANZACS are produced locally in williamstown victoria i think (or assembled there at least), the collins are largely built in adelaide SA. I know some light carriers would be alot bigger and more complicated that an ANZAC but i'm sure we could manage it.

[jaffo4011]

it would be adequate if it aquired a carrier or two.australia could have 2 invincible class carriers from the royal navy,complete with sea harrier frs2 (amraam carrying) for a knock down price to tide them over until thay purchased something a little more recent.just think,if they changed their f35 order vto the vtol version then they have an impressive capability for the minimum(ish) cost...problem solved!:p:

[ren0312]

Australia is pretty well off air and naval wise thanks to successive Australia Governments focusing our defence posture on an ability to intercept any possible attacks in the "air - sea" gap to our North.

Any serious attacks would come from that direction, hence the attention paid to capabilities that would be useful in conducting the kinds of operations that would make it difficult for any attacker to succesfully carry out operations against our mainland.

As Dave H correctly pointed out, our geography works massively in our favour and allows us to provide credible defence options, on a (relatively) limited budget. This is also helped by the (relatively) weak economies of the potential "threat nations" near us.

Our defence spending is specifcally designed to allow us to maintain an "overmatch" against our regional neighbours in most critical capabilities. Nothing more. We do not seek an extensive warfighting capability (though clearly our Economy would allow us to do this if necessary) and we spend only 1.9% of our GSP on defence. This still provides us with around $17b a year in current year dollars.

An interesting study (one of the the few) conducted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute showed that a 1% of GDP increase in defence spending (EASILY achievable in a time of some "crisis") would allow us to purchase and maintain a force comprising 6x AWD destroyers, 8x upgraded ANZAC class frigates, 2x VSTOL carriers each operating a Squadron of F-35B fighters, up to 5x squadrons of F-35A fighters for RAAF and a 2nd mechanised brigade for Army.

Such a force would give us significant "offensive" capability without resorting to a nuclear option and of course makes no attempt to discuss how we could possibly man such a force, but does provide an insight to the sort of capability we could afford in a time of real crisis...

As I mentioned before, RAN through AWD, LHD's, ANZAC and Collins upgrades is heading for a VERY capable force structure, though limited in size. It will however be more than a match for any of our regional neighbours and that I suppose is the most important thing...

Well I think Australia needs a budget of between 2.5 and 3 per cent of GDP for defence, this will give it the capability that is somewhere between an offensive force and a traditional "overmatch force" doctrine, so that if Australia ever finds the need to transition to a formidable offensive force, it will be easier budget wise, and from a perspective of building up the armed forces, based on your figures, I really think that Australia is spending much more than 1.9 per cent of GDP on defence, since 17 billion US dollars for defence will equal to about 2.43 per cent of GDP using your 2005 GDP figures, which is around 701 billion US Dollars, so a defence budget of 2.8 per cent of GDP for that year will amount to 19.62 billion US dollars, which is quite acheivable politically, considering that 17 billion US dollars is not that far away from that figure.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Our GDP is just over $1 trillion AUD for fiscal year 2006/7, and our defence budget is $17 billion AUD not USD, thats 1.7% GDP pa. At 2.7% to 3% of GDP, which isn't large by any standard, you would be looking at about <$30 billion AUD PA. Thats alot of cash for aquisitions of new capabilities. At 5% which would be a reasonable wartime footing your looking at over $50 billion AUD PA.

personell is another problem, were having masive problems with retention at the moment.

The reason we only spend 1.7% when we could afford alot more is that it costs alot to maintain the massive infastructure needed here to alow our economy to thrive. We are the size of the continental US with the population of california, so we need to maintain all the communications infistructure to suppport commerce over such large distances. We also have public healthcare, welfare, publicly funded primary secondary and tertiary education, various forms of government aid and international aid. Some of these would have to suffer if we drastically increased spending on defence, but the budget looks to be at a $10 billion AUD surpluss for this fiscal year, so theoretically if we spend $10 billion AUD more on defence this year, without making any other changes we would still ballance the budget.

[tphuang]

Our GDP is just over $1 trillion AUD for fiscal year 2006/7, and our defence budget is $17 billion AUD not USD, thats 1.7% GDP pa. At 2.7% to 3% of GDP, which isn't large by any standard, you would be looking at about <$30 billion AUD PA. Thats alot of cash for aquisitions of new capabilities. At 5% which would be a reasonable wartime footing your looking at over $50 billion AUD PA.

personell is another problem, were having masive problems with retention at the moment.

The reason we only spend 1.7% when we could afford alot more is that it costs alot to maintain the massive infastructure needed here to alow our economy to thrive. We are the size of the continental US with the population of california, so we need to maintain all the communications infistructure to suppport commerce over such large distances. We also have public healthcare, welfare, publicly funded primary secondary and tertiary education, various forms of government aid and international aid. Some of these would have to suffer if we drastically increased spending on defence, but the budget looks to be at a $10 billion AUD surpluss for this fiscal year, so theoretically if we spend $10 billion AUD more on defence this year, without making any other changes we would still ballance the budget.
actually, from your ministry's document, http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/to_defend_australia.pdf
it says that you spend $19.6 billion on national defense.
Can't comment on your nation's needs, but you certainly do spend more than Canada in terms of % of GDP.

[Dave H]

The sea harriers have gone...scrapped. Even India didnt want them. Also the invincibles wont be sold until the first new ship is in service and by then will be 30 plus years old.

[Tasman]

Is Australia's Navy adequate to defend Australia?

The Aussie combat capable fleet http://www.navy.gov.au

8x ANZAC frigates
Main armament - 5 inch Auto
Secondary Armaments - Sea Sparrow Anti-Air missiles
2x triple mounted mk32 anti-sub torpedoes
6x .50 cals
Others - Air detection Radar, Hull mounted sonar, advanced combat data system and flies 1x Seasprite (have they worked out their problems yet?)
does a bit of everything, seems ok

6X Adelaide Guided Missile Frigates
Main Armaments - Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles
the 'standard' Surface to Air missiles
Secondary armaments - 76mm rapid fire gun
2x trple mk32 Anti-Submarine torpedoes
Vulcan Phalanx close in surport weapons system
Others - Medium range Sonar, Air and Surface detection Radar, Electronic Warfare Surveillance equipment and flies 2x Seahawk


14x Armidale Patrol boats
main armament - 25mm deck gun
secondary armament - 2x .50 cal
others - low light optical, communication direction finding and radar
looks like 14 more targets

5x fremantle class patrol boats (the rest are decomissioned, these may also go)
main armament - 40/60 bofor
seconadary armament - 2x .50 cal
others - Radar


6x collins class submarines
main armament - 6x tubes capable of either mk-48 torpedoes or sub-harpoon missiles


One more question
When the AWD's hit the seen are they worth the loss of the Adelaide, i dont doubt they will be effective but would more hulls be better as they can be in more places?

As AD has stated the Anzacs and the FFGs have/are being updated, but 2 FFGs have been earmarked for scrapping. One, Canberra, has already gone but the second, Adelaide, has been kept in service a bit longer to cover delays with the FFG upgrade program.

As updated the RAN has:

8x ANZAC frigates

Main armament - 5 inch Auto
Secondary Armaments - ESSM Anti-Air missiles
2 x 4 Harpoon SSM in 2 - being fitted to others
2x triple mounted mk32 anti-sub torpedoes
4x .50 cals (2Mini Typhoon in RWS))
Other - Air detection Radar, Hull mounted sonar, advanced combat data system, Nulka decoy system and flies 1x Seahawk

5 (reducing to 4)X Adelaide Guided Missile Frigates

Main Armaments - Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles
SM-I (being upgraded to SM-2 Surface to Air missiles)
Secondary Armament 76mm rapid fire gun
ESSM anti airmissiles (in 1 - being fitted to others)
2x 3 Mk32 Anti-Submarine torpedoes
Vulcan Phalanx CWIS
4x .50 cals (2 Mini Typhoon in RWS)
Other - Medium range Sonar, Air and Surface detection Radar, Electronic Warfare Surveillance equipment, Nulka decoy and flies 2x Seahawk

Add:

6 Huon class MCMV also used for patrol

Speed 14 knots
Weapon Systems 1 x 30 mm DS30B rapid fire cannon.
2 x .50 calibre HMG
Two SUTEC Double Eagle mine disposal vehicles.

Delete:

The remaining Fremantles will be withdrawn when all 14 Armidales are in service.

Because of the cost and the extent of the upgrades some of the FFGs could continue in service after the AWDs come into service if the RAN/government sees fit. I suspect the two youngest, (Melbourne and Newcastle), will remain on for some time. There are also pressures for a 4th AWD. Again as AD has said the desire of the RAN is to have a surface combat fleet of 14 vessels.

Another important asset is the amphibious force. The major units also have a significant capability to provide command facilities and act as a base for additional helos to be deployed.

Cheers

[Tasman]

I wouldnt advocate Australia becoming a nuclear power, thats entirely australia's business. As long as non of your threat nations to the north have them then you are more than a match militarily, just in Birdmans thread He cites India and China. I suppose we just need to see who else gets them in the next 20 years.

I dont know a great deal about Aussie shipbuilding capacity but in this "time of crises", could you build your own VSTOL carriers etc or would they be purchased from abroad?

Australia is certainly capable of building sophisticated warships. Examples are the Collins class SSKs, the Anzac class FFHs and the Adelaide class FFGs (last two built in Australia). The new AWDs are to be built here and it is hoped to build the LHDs locally. If Australia is able to build a ship of the size of the LHD and the sophistication of the AWD and SSK I see no reason why it would not be able to build a light carrier.

The need for such an acquisition is another matter and has been argued on other threads. I'd rather see additional funds allocated to bringing the submarine force up to the 8 the navy has always wanted, building 3 follow on AWDs and adding some F35Bs to the JSF order (operated as a joint RAAF/RAN squadron) so that these could go to sea on the LHDs if the need arose. This would give the navy the 14 surface combat vessels and 8 SSKs it feels it needs and also provide the capacity to embark fixed wing aircraft.

I believe that this would provide a credible force that is within Australia's budgetary capacity.

Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

Australia is concidering a few "flat tops".

The Canberra class is going to be either the spanish made "BPE" or the French "Mistral". The BPE is 27,000 t ~230m long ship capable of supporting Harriers and F-35B's. The mistral isn't STOVL (although Australia requested the french to come up with a STOVL preposal for the mistral with extra length). The canberra class will be made up of two ships.

F-35B aquistion is certainly a possibility, and flying them off two BPE's is also a possibility. At the very least Australia will have 24,000 t ship supporting Tiger ARH helos with hellfire missiles, with NH90's etc. Which for our region is far more than anyone else. Bar the major powers.

The BPE is the favoured ship at the moment. The deal will be signed off closer to when the spanish have the first in the water. As a small carrier it seems to be capable. With the ability to hanger around 20 F-35B's if required. It also has a floodable dock so it, its primary use would be an amphibious but would seem to make a reasonable light carrier in war time or as required.

Collins is certainly the wild card. Running the latest USN weapon systems and Cbass. With numerous billion dollar improvements. The only navy with any thing remotely close in our region is Japan and its O boats. Having an extra 2 would have been even better. But replacement is already being drawn up.

AWD's will help protect surface assets, in particular the LHD's. With the UK's recent rumored cuts, Australia may get nearly as many destroyers as the Uk.

If you compare numbers Australia has an extremely capable navy. In war it would be nicer to have a few more in number. But as most of the ships are built here, its not impossible to add more frigates, destroyers and submarines as required.

[Tasman]

As to the Armidales, they are NOT meant to be used in front line combat roles. If they were, they would have a greatly enhanced sensor, weapon and combat system. They would also need a greater hull size and better electrical generation system. As they currently are, they certainly WOULD be a target if used in a "frontline" role.


Would the Armidales have the stability and structural strength necessary to be upgraded with a more powerful main gun (such as a 57mm or 76mm), Mini Typhoon in place of the manual HMGs and perhaps canister launched SSMs? . I am thinking of a situation arising in the future where they might be likely to encounter enemy fast attack craft and therefore find themselves, perhaps inadvertently, in a frontline role. Or would the RAN be better to meet such a threat with new construction and relegate the Armidales to safer waters?

Cheers

[Ozzy Blizzard]

actually, from your ministry's document, http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/to_defend_australia.pdf
it says that you spend $19.6 billion on national defense.
Can't comment on your nation's needs, but you certainly do spend more than Canada in terms of % of GDP.

sorry was going of AD's numbers and a using common sense equasion to correct a missunderstanding in an earlier post. You know 1.7% of a trillion is 17 billion.;).

By the way when has canada ever been under threat of invasion or been under sustained air bombardment. The only possible threat they have is the US, "defence of Canada" would be pretty accademic. The only need they really have is to fufill their treaty obligations. So thats not really a relevant comparison.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Would the Armidales have the stability and structural strength necessary to be upgraded with a more powerful main gun (such as a 57mm or 76mm), Mini Typhoon in place of the manual HMGs and perhaps canister launched SSMs? . I am thinking of a situation arising in the future where they might be likely to encounter enemy fast attack craft and therefore find themselves, perhaps inadvertently, in a frontline role. Or would the RAN be better to meet such a threat with new construction and relegate the Armidales to safer waters?

Cheers

Just a thought, would 25 knots be enough for the Armidales to function as a missile attack boat? Just put some canister launched Harpoon block II's, and see if they can do same quick runs at enemy surface formation's. They're probably not stealthy or fast enough but they could be a real pain in the ass.

[icelord]

Our defence spending is specifcally designed to allow us to maintain an "overmatch" against our regional neighbours in most critical capabilities. Nothing more. We do not seek an extensive warfighting capability (though clearly our Economy would allow us to do this if necessary) and we spend only 1.9% of our GSP on defence. This still provides us with around $17b a year in current year dollars.
I recall a Government pledge is to raise the defence spending above 1.9%
Not sure as to how much though, and whether it will happen.
But if the AWD, LHD and F-35 are added to budget, sounds bout right in the rise, as these plus the C-17 would not be added to GDP budget

[Ozzy Blizzard]

yeah but they're just aquisitions and will be replacing past systems, and therefore arn't really an expansion in our forces so dont requier any sustained rises in anual spending. So they dont really constitute a rise in the % of GDP going to defence, apart from the years just after aquisition. 2 New battalions are a different story.

[Tasman]

yeah but they're just aquisitions and will be replacing past systems, and therefore arn't really an expansion in our forces so dont requier any sustained rises in anual spending. So they dont really constitute a rise in the % of GDP going to defence, apart from the years just after aquisition. 2 New battalions are a different story.

This may be true so far as number of platforms is concerned but in all cases they will provide a huge increase in capability over the ships and aircraft they are replacing. Looking at the three example that were given in the post you replied to:

The new LHDs will be light years ahead of the LPAs. They will carry more troops, more equipment and will have a more efficient means of launching their landing craft. Above all they will each be able to carry up to 16 ADF helos compared with 3-4 in the LPAs.

The AWDs will have far more capability in both air defence and surface warfare than the vessels they will replace.

The RAAF is one of the few airforces in the world looking to replace earlier generation aircraft with a 5th generation fighter on a 1 to 1 basis.

Cheers

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Exactly, new platforms will cheaper to run, relativly, and apart from the aquisition costs should help long term spending. So the over all % of GDP after the aquisition stage sould not significantly increase due to these aqusitions. I'm not arguing that these arn't a good idea. All of the MOD's plans for aquistions are great and i'm exited about all of them (we need an IFV for true Mechanised capability though, i know this is in the works but it might be a while) and all of the examples above will give us a huge leap in capability. But the new battalions are the only significant expantion of the force structure, and therefore are the only development that will increase the long term % of GDP spent on defence. Thats the only point i was making.:)

[Tasman]

Thanks for the clarification Ozzy. :)

Cheers

[Aussie Digger]

sorry was going of AD's numbers and a using common sense equasion to correct a missunderstanding in an earlier post. You know 1.7% of a trillion is 17 billion.;).

By the way when has canada ever been under threat of invasion or been under sustained air bombardment. The only possible threat they have is the US, "defence of Canada" would be pretty accademic. The only need they really have is to fufill their treaty obligations. So thats not really a relevant comparison.

I think that figure includes the $2b "supplementary" funding for the C-17's. If supplementary funding is included in 2007, it's probably going to look more like $21-$22b in 2007... :)

[alexsa]

Would the Armidales have the stability and structural strength necessary to be upgraded with a more powerful main gun (such as a 57mm or 76mm), Mini Typhoon in place of the manual HMGs and perhaps canister launched SSMs? . I am thinking of a situation arising in the future where they might be likely to encounter enemy fast attack craft and therefore find themselves, perhaps inadvertently, in a frontline role. Or would the RAN be better to meet such a threat with new construction and relegate the Armidales to safer waters?

Cheers

In a word ... No. The Fremantles were fitted with space for a 76mm with a handling room (used as a store) located between the crew accomodation and forward wash room. In addition there was sapce for a basic combat system. No such provisions have been made in the case of the APB. In addition this is a very light hull and is not designed to take weopnary beyond the type for which it has been fitted (as was designed).

[Tasman]

In a word ... No. The Fremantles were fitted with space for a 76mm with a handling room (used as a store) located between the crew accomodation and forward wash room. In addition there was sapce for a basic combat system. No such provisions have been made in the case of the APB. In addition this is a very light hull and is not designed to take weopnary beyond the type for which it has been fitted (as was designed).

Thanks for the info alexsa.

I think that's a pity. As you say they were not designed for a heavier calibre and I think the manufacturer has done well in using a lightweight structure to meet the RAN's requirements. I just think it is a shame that the RAN's specifications didn't call for the ability to be 'upgunned' if circumstances change in the future.

Cheers

[alexsa]

Thanks for the info alexsa.

I think that's a pity. As you say they were not designed for a heavier calibre and I think the manufacturer has done well in using a lightweight structure to meet the RAN's requirements. I just think it is a shame that the RAN's specifications didn't call for the ability to be 'upgunned' if circumstances change in the future.

Cheers

It all comes down to "you get what you apy for". In this case the provider (DMS) was seperate to the builder (Austal). This package comes as a complete service with DMS offering the vessel and support package. It is understandable the DMS wanted to pay the absolute minimum on the vessle to maximise profit but it is also true such a move increases the risk that support costs and complications will arise. Austal only need to fulfil the construction contract and have no obligation to ensure ongoing servicability.

I will be interested to see how the APB is going in ten years time.:confused:

[Markus40]

Earlier in this forum there was some debate as to whether the RAN was up to strength size for the size of Australia. I believe it is CURRENTLY. That is if the Australian government doesnt down size the numbers or have the FFG replaced by the 3 x AAW Destroyers. So the strength size for regional projection is good in my opinion. We will also see the integration of the 2 x LHDs as well as a further "statement" of the governments intention of maintaining and expanding the RAN into a more global force than a regional one.

The weapon systems in all of the Australian warships are in line with regional/global deployment if that was required and secondly New Zealand does have a role to play in this as well. If you add New Zealands Naval contribution to the Australian Navy you have a rather formidable Naval element in this region. Thats why i believe that its important for New Zealand to align its defence procurement with Australias so as to have that commonality. Its interesting to read from someones thread today that at the Whenuapei Airshow the aircrew of the P-3 were saying that the P-3 will be armed with the Harpoon.

[Tasman]

Earlier in this forum there was some debate as to whether the RAN was up to strength size for the size of Australia. I believe it is CURRENTLY. That is if the Australian government doesnt down size the numbers or have the FFG replaced by the 3 x AAW Destroyers. So the strength size for regional projection is good in my opinion. We will also see the integration of the 2 x LHDs as well as a further "statement" of the governments intention of maintaining and expanding the RAN into a more global force than a regional one.

The weapon systems in all of the Australian warships are in line with regional/global deployment if that was required and secondly New Zealand does have a role to play in this as well. If you add New Zealands Naval contribution to the Australian Navy you have a rather formidable Naval element in this region. Thats why i believe that its important for New Zealand to align its defence procurement with Australias so as to have that commonality. Its interesting to read from someones thread today that at the Whenuapei Airshow the aircrew of the P-3 were saying that the P-3 will be armed with the Harpoon.

As has been stated earlier the RAN is believed to have a 'desire' for 14 major surface combat ships and 8 submarines to meet its needs. However it has never actually had more than six submarines in service and AFAIK there are no approved (or even publicly projected) plans for an extra two at present. As a lot of money is being spent on the FFG upgrade it seems reasonable to assume that these 4 ships could be kept on in service for some time after the AWDs enter service. However, ministerial statements don't suggest that this will happen and one of the Hobart class is to be named Sydney, which is the oldest of the FFGs that are being upgraded. In my opinion it will be a waste of an expensive upgrade program if at least the two newest FFGs don't serve on beside the Hobart class. To meet a target of 14 surface combatants a fourth AWD would be desirable to provide a fleet of 4 AWDs, 2 FFGs and 8 FFHs.

It would be good to see the Kiwi Anzacs brought up to similar standards as the RAN ships and plans are in hand to fit ESSM and mini typhoon to these ships. The Phalanx CIWS, which is not fitted to the RAN ships, is also to be upgraded, so these ships would be able to provide a worthwhile reinforcement to RAN operations.

Re the P-3K the NZ LTDP does provide for provision of an AShM for these aircraft, but I wonder if the comment about Harpoon is based on good inside knowledge or wishful thinking! :D

Cheers

[Markus40]

The comment passed down about the Harpoon you will need to address to the person who made it originally, however in my professional opinion it would be circumspect and logical to follow the lead and opinion of a fellow servicemans opinion. The Harpoon itself bought of the shelf will probably cost something around $500 000 each. Numbers may have to be limited. Not a purchase the government would make lightly, yet due to interoperability there may be no choice other than the Penguin, which the Australians have, or another european eqivalant.

Going back to the strength of the Australian Navy, i agree that any further naval asset purchases will add muscle to the Navy itself and for the future of the service. Adding numbers like the AAWs and the LHDs and then decommissioning the FFGs is only going to weaken the force structure. In my opinion it would be far better for the government of Australia to keep its structure in place and replace them in time when required. Not decommission them without further replacement.

Actually an 8 Submarine force would be better than the 6 as Australia has a far greater coastline and teritorial boundary to patrol. Not to mention the extra 2 being a buffer for an eventuality like Indonesia if this came to be. My argument also lies in the fact that Indonesia itself has purchased further submarines to its forces just recently thus probably giving the Australian Military a few late nights on the contingency plans of its own debating the issue.




As has been stated earlier the RAN is believed to have a 'desire' for 14 major surface combat ships and 8 submarines to meet its needs. However it has never actually had more than six submarines in service and AFAIK there are no approved (or even publicly projected) plans for an extra two at present. As a lot of money is being spent on the FFG upgrade it seems reasonable to assume that these 4 ships could be kept on in service for some time after the AWDs enter service. However, ministerial statements don't suggest that this will happen and one of the Hobart class is to be named Sydney, which is the oldest of the FFGs that are being upgraded. In my opinion it will be a waste of an expensive upgrade program if at least the two newest FFGs don't serve on beside the Hobart class. To meet a target of 14 surface combatants a fourth AWD would be desirable to provide a fleet of 4 AWDs, 2 FFGs and 8 FFHs.

It would be good to see the Kiwi Anzacs brought up to similar standards as the RAN ships and plans are in hand to fit ESSM and mini typhoon to these ships. The Phalanx CIWS, which is not fitted to the RAN ships, is also to be upgraded, so these ships would be able to provide a worthwhile reinforcement to RAN operations.

Re the P-3K the NZ LTDP does provide for provision of an AShM for these aircraft, but I wonder if the comment about Harpoon is based on good inside knowledge or wishful thinking! :D

Cheers

[Tasman]

The comment passed down about the Harpoon you will need to address to the person who made it originally, however in my professional opinion it would be circumspect and logical to follow the lead and opinion of a fellow servicemans opinion. The Harpoon itself bought of the shelf will probably cost something around $500 000 each. Numbers may have to be limited. Not a purchase the government would make lightly, yet due to interoperability there may be no choice other than the Penguin, which the Australians have, or another european eqivalant.



I would certainly like to see NZ get the Harpoon for its P-3Ks as I think they would offer a lot more capability than a missile like Penguin (which I still think is a good ASM). BTW, my comment about wishful thinking refers more to the time frame than to whether the Harpoon will be the missile chosen as part of the LTDP. Personally I would also like to see them on Te Kaha and Te Mana as well. Even if only a small number of missiles is acquired it may be possible to do a deal with Australia to draw on a shared 'pool' of missiles in an emergency.

Cheers

[Markus40]

You may have slipped a typo error on Te Kawa. Its Te Kaha. Yes, the Harpoon is a weapon that would or should be installed on the frigates. The NZ government hasnt at this point made any commitment to naming the missile to be deployed on the P3 or whether the same missile chosen for the P3 will be installed on the ANZACS.


I would certainly like to see NZ get the Harpoon for its P-3Ks as I think they would offer a lot more capability than a missile like Penguin (which I still think is a good ASM). BTW, my comment about wishful thinking refers more to the time frame than to whether the Harpoon will be the missile chosen as part of the LTDP. Personally I would also like to see them on Te Kawa and Te Mana as well. Even if only a small number of missiles is acquired it may be possible to do a deal with Australia to draw on a shared 'pool' of missiles in an emergency.

Cheers

[Markus40]

Does anyone know why there isnt a VLS version for Harpoon on US Naval ships and Australian ships? If the Tomahawk missile can be used by VLS why not the Harpoon?

[Tasman]

You may have slipped a typo error on Te Kawa. Its Te Kaha.

Thanks Markus- Some Aussies (well me anyway!) don't cope well with Kiwi names! :D

Cheers

[Tasman]

I just found a copy of the RAN's projected future naval strength based on a Parliamentary report tabled in June 2004. For 2015 it projects that the RAN will have the following fleet:

2 x air warfare destroyers (plus one building)
3 x Adelaide class upgraded FFG (presumably the oldest, Sydney, will have gone by then)
8 x Anzac class upgraded FFH
6 x Collins class SSK
12 x Armidale class patrol boats (2 more ordered since this paper was prepared)
6 x Huon class mine warfare ships
2 x large amphibious ships (new LHDs)
1 x Kanimbla class LPA
1 x fleet replenishment ship (AOR)
1 x auxilary oiler (AO)

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/maritime/report/chapter2.pdf

Whilst there would no doubt have been some changes since the report was written it can be seen that there are plans for some of the FFGs to remain after the AWDs enter service and the RAN plans to have 13 major surface combatants and 6 submarines in service in 2015.

Cheers

[Tasman]

Does anyone know why there isnt a VLS version for Harpoon on US Naval ships and Australian ships? If the Tomahawk missile can be used by VLS why not the Harpoon?

This is a good question. AFAIK the Harpoon Block I and Block II are not cleared for VLS launch but I recall reading somewhere that a proposed Harpoon Block III upgrade would be able to be launched using VLS. Unfortunately I can't find the source to confirm this. Perhaps someone else may be able to provide this.

Cheers

[AegisFC]

Does anyone know why there isnt a VLS version for Harpoon on US Naval ships and Australian ships? If the Tomahawk missile can be used by VLS why not the Harpoon

I asked that question a few years ago at a Harpoon handling class, and the answer I got was that the USN didn't feel the need to spend any additional money on a VLS Harpoon. Most USN (and allied) ships already have a set of Harpoon launchers that can handle 8 missiles so a VLS version is redundant, and the Flight IIA Burkes don't have the equipment to fire them anyways.

[Todjaeger]

I just found a copy of the RAN's projected future naval strength based on a Parliamentary report tabled in June 2004. For 2015 it projects that the RAN will have the following fleet:

2 x air warfare destroyers (plus one building)
3 x Adelaide class upgraded FFG (presumably the oldest, Sydney, will have gone by then)
8 x Anzac class upgraded FFH
6 x Collins class SSK
12 x Armidale class patrol boats (2 more ordered since this paper was prepared)
6 x Huon class mine warfare ships
2 x large amphibious ships (new LHDs)
1 x Kanimbla class LPA
1 x fleet replenishment ship (AOR)
1 x auxilary oiler (AO)

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/maritime/report/chapter2.pdf

Whilst there would no doubt have been some changes since the report was written it can be seen that there are plans for some of the FFGs to remain after the AWDs enter service and the RAN plans to have 13 major surface combatants and 6 submarines in service in 2015.

Cheers

IIRC, it is anticipated that the third (currently planned) AWD will commission sometime between 2015-2018. And for the Adelaide, the class is to be decommissioned in 2020. The timing is desired to coinside with the start of the Anzac replacement project, having been nearly thirty years since the start of that project. Hopefully by then another "bare-bones" frigate won't be selected. I do think a design provision leaving room to add additional weaponry and/or technology is a good thing. But "fitted for but not with," when taken to the level of the original Anzac launches, is a bad, potentially dangerous idea.

-Cheers

[Markus40]

Not a terribly good explanation, considering that USN is looking at designing and building stealthy ships for the future. The harpoon is roughly the same size as the tomahawk, perhaps not as long, but i really dont think an 8 cell launcher is the limit to the USN ability to store weapons like the Seasparrow only. Im sure a 12 cell launcher would make the ships more stealthy.

With the advent of the DDX destroyer coming on line i would expect that a VLS for the Harpoon or similar would be installed. The current cannisters are not stealthy and i would think surely that they (USN) would take this issue head on.



I asked that question a few years ago at a Harpoon handling class, and the answer I got was that the USN didn't feel the need to spend any additional money on a VLS Harpoon. Most USN (and allied) ships already have a set of Harpoon launchers that can handle 8 missiles so a VLS version is redundant, and the Flight IIA Burkes don't have the equipment to fire them anyways.

[Markus40]

Without being racist, its a Maori name. ! Good name for a warship though. :D



Thanks Markus- Some Aussies (well me anyway!) don't cope well with Kiwi names! :D

Cheers

[Todjaeger]

Not a terribly good explanation, considering that USN is looking at designing and building stealthy ships for the future. The harpoon is roughly the same size as the tomahawk, perhaps not as long, but i really dont think an 8 cell launcher is the limit to the USN ability to store weapons like the Seasparrow only. Im sure a 12 cell launcher would make the ships more stealthy.

With the advent of the DDX destroyer coming on line i would expect that a VLS for the Harpoon or similar would be installed. The current cannisters are not stealthy and i would think surely that they (USN) would take this issue head on.

Per globalsecurity.org the Harpoon (SLAM-ER) is about 4.5m long and weighs in at 629kg. The Tomahawk is about 5.5m (6.25 w/booster) long and weighs 1315kg (1587kg w/booster).

Here's additional information on the Mk 41 VLS
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm

Please note though that there appear to be three different versions of the Mk 41, based off of maximum missle cannister length. Given that the Mk 13 cannister (with Tomahawk) fits in a Mk 41 Strike VLS, a Harpoon would certainly fit. Development work would probably need to be done to modify the Harpoon flightpath, as well as designing an appropriate cannister. It appears that the work being done to further the Mk 41 is either for an AAW or land-attack role. Not quite sure why that is, though perhaps it is because some of the planned land-attack missles will have secondary roles as AShM.

-Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

I think the Aus navy is looking up..

If you compare its 2015 projections with what some are negitively predicting the RN will have in 2015 they are looking simular. RN is apparently now concidering only 4 missile destroyers. CVF is still fairly shakey.

While we only have 6 ssk's, the new generation of Australian made subs is on the drawing board. If a 4th AWD was to be built (delivered ~2020), the next generation of SSK's may not be too far behind. Which would be good, because it would keep ASC pretty busy and viable. When the first of the next gen of SSK's are to be delivered the collins can have a period of co-operation. This way we can phase in the new subs, while keeping the full capability of the collins. We can spread the build process out, so block obsolence is less of an issue.

The subs and AWD's would come into their own if we ever decided to operate the LHD's as mini carriers giving them a more offensive roll. The fixed wing component acting as a huge force multiplier. Allowing anti-shipping, anti sub, and ground strike as well as airsuperiority.

[Waylander]

I just found a copy of the RAN's projected future naval strength based on a Parliamentary report tabled in June 2004. For 2015 it projects that the RAN will have the following fleet:

2 x air warfare destroyers (plus one building)
3 x Adelaide class upgraded FFG (presumably the oldest, Sydney, will have gone by then)
8 x Anzac class upgraded FFH
6 x Collins class SSK
12 x Armidale class patrol boats (2 more ordered since this paper was prepared)
6 x Huon class mine warfare ships
2 x large amphibious ships (new LHDs)
1 x Kanimbla class LPA
1 x fleet replenishment ship (AOR)
1 x auxilary oiler (AO)

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/maritime/report/chapter2.pdf

Whilst there would no doubt have been some changes since the report was written it can be seen that there are plans for some of the FFGs to remain after the AWDs enter service and the RAN plans to have 13 major surface combatants and 6 submarines in service in 2015.

Cheers


Isn't one AOR and one AO a little bit less for a fleet of this size?
With keeping in mind that the distances between the next safe port and the operating ships should be bigger than for example the average distances around europe it looks not enough for me. Especially when you have to consider that one ship per class means that there is not always a AO or AOR available due to maintenance cicles.

[Tasman]

Isn't one AOR and one AO a little bit less for a fleet of this size?
With keeping in mind that the distances between the next safe port and the operating ships should be bigger than for example the average distances around europe it looks not enough for me. Especially when you have to consider that one ship per class means that there is not always a AO or AOR available due to maintenance cicles.

Both the existing AOR, Success, and the newly commissioned AO, Sirius, are expected to be replaced before 2020 by two new AORs. Hopefully the design of these vessels and the fact that a second AOR will substitute for the less versatile AO will provide a more flexible and capable force. For many years after WW2 the RAN had no tanker at all, and in the 60s and 70s it had only one. But at that stage the RAN was able to call upon British replenishment vessels for support when operating in the Far East. It wasn't until 1989 that a second hand tanker was acquired to serve as an AO to provide a second refuelling ship (albeit without the other capabilities provided by the AOR). The RAN normally deploys the AOR from Fleet Base East (Sydney) and the AO from FBW (near Perth, WA) but they sometimes deploy together during major exercises. Australia has plenty of refuelling bases along the East coast, between Hobart in the South and Darwin in the North but ships operating from FBW in the Indian Ocean have fewer 'home' ports available. The RAN, of course, works closely with the RNZN, which has a small AO, Endeavour, and the USN.

A third ship would be nice as it would ensure that at least two would normally be available and I guess this is similar to the German Navy situation where the same situation is being discussed on another thread. With a limited budget the RAN is opting at this stage to push for more surface combatants as its priority and is satisfied that 2 AORs will meet its needs.

Cheers

[Waylander]

Yeah we also have two big AORs in service but a third is approved and going to join the fleet.
But unlike the RAN we also have 2x Rhön fleet oilers, 2x Walchansee fleet oilers, 6x Elbe tenders and 1x Westerwald ammunition transport.

I am no pro when it comes to naval themes but for me one AOR and one AO (Even when being replaced by another AOR in the future) looks not that much for a navy which is nearly as big as the german one but which seems to have to cover a larger area of the sea.

[Tasman]

Yeah we also have two big AORs in service but a third is approved and going to join the fleet.
But unlike the RAN we also have 2x Rhön fleet oilers, 2x Walchansee fleet oilers, 6x Elbe tenders and 1x Westerwald ammunition transport.

I am no pro when it comes to naval themes but for me one AOR and one AO (Even when being replaced by another AOR in the future) looks not that much for a navy which is nearly as big as the german one but which seems to have to cover a larger area of the sea.

In WW2 the RAN was able to requisition oil tankers to serve as fleet auxilaries. Today, however, Australia only has 53 ships over 1000 tonnes on the Australian Register and only 6 of these are tankers.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html

Even in wartime it is doubtful that more than 1 or 2 of these could be requisitioned and taken off the coastal trade so the RAN would be dependent on support from US replenishment ships if it was operating in areas like the Gulf or North Pacific in a major conflict. However, the RAN would only be likely to be operational in these areas as part of a coalition with the USA.

Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

Could atleast another oiler be put on perhaps a simular system as the RN roro's. Operated by the merchant marines, and does commerical runs except when required by the RAN?

It would seem that Australia is opening itself up to to supply issues.

Particularly with the LHD's. Which will need to be resupplied regularly if ever used. With limited range and endurance. For say relief missions and even just command/hospital operations. 16 helicopters, possibly F-35's, certainly up to 1000 troops.

Also if any highspeed boats (Kanimbla style) were purchased, they would put additional strain on resupplying.

[Tasman]

Could atleast another oiler be put on perhaps a simular system as the RN roro's. Operated by the merchant marines, and does commerical runs except when required by the RAN?



I think this is a good idea. It would be good ,IMO, to do anything that would increase the number of vessels on the Australian trade routes that the government would be able to access in wartime. This could apply to oil tankers, RoRo ships, and even smaller vessels down to trawler size that could be used as auxilary minewarfare ships in wartime.


It would seem that Australia is opening itself up to to supply issues.

Particularly with the LHD's. Which will need to be resupplied regularly if ever used. With limited range and endurance. For say relief missions and even just command/hospital operations. 16 helicopters, possibly F-35's, certainly up to 1000 troops.




The LHDs will actually have a long range capability. The Mistral class, for example, is quoted as having a range of 19,800 nm at 15 knots. However, there may well be a need for auxilary supply ships, in the event of a sustained deployment, that could be filled by chartered or requisitioned merchant vessels, if they are available.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mistral-class-landing-platform-dock



Also if any highspeed boats (Kanimbla style) were purchased, they would put additional strain on resupplying.

As well as transporting troops these could also be useful for the high speed transport of supplies to troops who find themselves standing off a trouble spot in the LHDs for a sustained period.

BTW, the Kanimbla type is not a high speed ship. This is the current LPA class with a top speed of 22 knots.

Cheers

[alexsa]

Could atleast another oiler be put on perhaps a simular system as the RN roro's. Operated by the merchant marines, and does commerical runs except when required by the RAN?

.

Not as simple as it sounds. UNREP requires specialised equipment such as that fitted to HMAS Sirius and this takes time. The RN have used tankers to replenish the AOR's and AO's using a floating line but this involves stopping or very slow speed.

Given we managed to convert Sirius the methododgy for converting a modern handymax tanker is now known and so other ships should be able converted in a reasonable timeframe should the need arise. Hopefully with a better helo deck option than the abomination on Sirius.

[Tasman]

Not as simple as it sounds. UNREP requires specialised equipment such as that fitted to HMAS Sirius and this takes time. The RN have used tankers to replenish the AOR's and AO's using a floating line but this involves stopping or very slow speed.

Given we managed to convert Sirius the methododgy for converting a modern handymax tanker is now known and so other ships should be able converted in a reasonable timeframe should the need arise. Hopefully with a better helo deck option than the abomination on Sirius.

I think the idea would be to fit out a couple of tankers with the necessary specialised naval equipment and fittings and then lease them out for commercial service. This would have to be funded but it would eliminate the ongoing running costs when not required for naval service.

BTW, I have to agree that the helo deck on Sirius does look fairly awful in photos taken from some angles.

Cheers

[alexsa]

Nice idea but the RAS gear does compromise compliance with MARPOL to a degree and limits the vessel flexibility for commercial operations.

Sirius was a pretty good deal and was purchased new but operated by Teekay for a while as the Delos. A better option for a 'reserve fleet' would be to buy one or two tankers and hand them over to a commercial operator in the same manner with strict requirments on maintenacne. This would allow a modification to be designed for that specific vessel.

The idea would not to be to make a large profit but to have tonnage available but as freight rates are currently very high so money should be made and should pay back part (or all depending on how long thye are operated) of the construction cost and design work. It should be noted that ship building cost are currently high but there is a slow down so there may be opportunities for a good deal.

[Tasman]

Nice idea but the RAS gear does compromise compliance with MARPOL to a degree and limits the vessel flexibility for commercial operations.

Sirius was a pretty good deal and was purchased new but operated by Teekay for a while as the Delos. A better option for a 'reserve fleet' would be to buy one or two tankers and hand them over to a commercial operator in the same manner with strict requirments on maintenacne. This would allow a modification to be designed for that specific vessel.

The idea would not to be to make a large profit but to have tonnage available but as freight rates are currently very high so money should be made and should pay back part (or all depending on how long thye are operated) of the construction cost and design work. It should be noted that ship building cost are currently high but there is a slow down so there may be opportunities for a good deal.


This sounds like a good idea. It would overcome my main concern which is that there is such a shortage of available tonnage in the Australian Merchant Marine. It could even be worth subsidising an Australian operator (like Teekay for example). As well as providing a naval reserve I'm pretty certain this would be well received by the Maritime Union which is concerned about the increase in foreign vessels on the Australian trade.

Cheers

[Aussie Digger]

In WW2 the RAN was able to requisition oil tankers to serve as fleet auxilaries. Today, however, Australia only has 53 ships over 1000 tonnes on the Australian Register and only 6 of these are tankers.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html

Even in wartime it is doubtful that more than 1 or 2 of these could be requisitioned and taken off the coastal trade so the RAN would be dependent on support from US replenishment ships if it was operating in areas like the Gulf or North Pacific in a major conflict. However, the RAN would only be likely to be operational in these areas as part of a coalition with the USA.

Cheers

But overseas vessels such as Sirius was may be available. Afterall the ship purchase only cost $50m to which the cost of modifications (conducted over a roughly 6 month period) has to be added.

However I doubt the whole capability cost more than $150m which to a modern wartime budget, would be very small change.

An additional vessel for "each" coast would provide an outstanding capability level, but would cost only around $300m.

Compared to fighter and surface combatant costs, it's next to nothing...

[StingrayOZ]

Brain fry..

I was actually refering to HMAS Jervis Bay not Kanimbla. I know several navies have been throwing the idea around of a high speed ship of some sort and they are thirsty and have a short range.

While the LHD have quite a long range, they are most likely going to need some protection, including destroyers, frigates and submarines. This is going to be a thirsty task force. More so if they are going flat out somewhere.

[Todjaeger]

Brain fry..

I was actually refering to HMAS Jervis Bay not Kanimbla. I know several navies have been throwing the idea around of a high speed ship of some sort and they are thirsty and have a short range.

While the LHD have quite a long range, they are most likely going to need some protection, including destroyers, frigates and submarines. This is going to be a thirsty task force. More so if they are going flat out somewhere.

According to current plans, the proposed LHDs will replace one Kanimbla LPA and the Torbruk LSL. The second 2nd Kanimbla LPA will be replaced with some sort of HSV like the Jervis Bay or Westpac Express. No word yet on any characteristics though.

Personally, for the replacement of HMAS Success, I would like to see something like the planned Canadian Joint Support Ship. Albeit without the requirement for command & control of forces the Canadians have. When the Sirius is also set to retire, another could be added. This would give the RAN increased sealift, as well as RAS capacity.

Nice idea but the RAS gear does compromise compliance with MARPOL to a degree and limits the vessel flexibility for commercial operations.

Sirius was a pretty good deal and was purchased new but operated by Teekay for a while as the Delos. A better option for a 'reserve fleet' would be to buy one or two tankers and hand them over to a commercial operator in the same manner with strict requirments on maintenacne. This would allow a modification to be designed for that specific vessel.

The idea would not to be to make a large profit but to have tonnage available but as freight rates are currently very high so money should be made and should pay back part (or all depending on how long thye are operated) of the construction cost and design work. It should be noted that ship building cost are currently high but there is a slow down so there may be opportunities for a good deal.

Just seeking clarification on this. With the RAS gear, does the addition (on a civilian flagged vessel) mean that some ports might not allow the oiler to dock? Does the RAS gear make the vessel more difficult to operate/maintain? Basically trying to determine what sorts of issues will arise, and if there are ways around them. Or if it's even worthwhile.

Also, for the second part, commercial operation of a government tanker. Is the idea to have a government owned tanker (like MV Delos) used by a civilian operator until the vessel is needed by the RAN? With appropriate modifications for underway replenishment initiated when the RAN takes over the vessel? With the Sirius modifications taking approximately 6 months, would that be rapid enough to augment RAN capacity when needed? I'm thinking of situations like the fire aboard HMAS Westralia, taking that vessel out of service for a period.

-Cheers

[Rich]

Ive been watching this thread with interest, and learning instead of posting. At this point I would have to say "yes" the RAN is inadequate for the full range of possible missions it could be called upon to do. There is a significant lack of assets in refueling and resupply, a significant lack of assets needed for amphibious operations, and an inability to provide air cover outside the range of Land based air.

Surface ship-wise the RAN is also lacking. The Adelaide's are a nice design but with the upgrade program you are robbing Mary to pay Paul. 4 of these ships are simply not enough. The Anzacs too. This modernization program is certainly welcome but it should have been done years ago. The air defense DDs will be welcome but their keels haven't even been laid down yet, correct? And there are no plans for Tomahawk on any RAN platforms. Nor are there plans for F-35 VTOL even if you will have the LHDs to operate them on. It appears that even in the future the strike power of the RAN will be very Limited. Most of all if you dont at least buy the LASM for your VLS.

So what are we looking at here? Were looking at a defense force that will probably be capable of defending Australia but will be limited in its ability to bring the war home to an enemy. With the exception of the Collins and even they are incapable at striking land targets. By not purchasing Tomahawk your being penny wise but pound foolish. It just doesn't make much sense to build such excellent platforms like the Collins and the new DD and not arming them with Tomahawk.

I acknowledge the excellent training and skills of RAN personnel, and, acknowledge the benefits of a naval exercise program that keeps the RAN sharp. However the RAN is a green water navy in a situation and a region where you need more. More then anything Australia is a maritime nation.

In my opinion, "which means nothing", the Ran should build a navy capable of two missions at one time. The first mission should be "protecting the land mass and vital seal lanes". The 2nd mission should be supporting A,air cover, fire support of a amphib op outside the range of land air cover "for at least meaningful loiter times". B, would be the same thing only in support of a coalition attack. Heres what the RAN needs for this.

1, 4 new DDs, not 3. And at least two of them armed with Tomahawk.

2, A cruise missile strike capability for the Collins boats.

3, 2 carriers in the 25,000 ton range optimized for amphib ops and carrying F-35bs.

4, 2 amphib support LPDs in the 15,000 to 20,000 ton class.

5, A significant increase in fleet support auxiliaries. And not grabbing civilian ships but dedicated fleet oilers and replenishment ships.

The baseline I'm using is the Italian navy.

[Tasman]

Ive been watching this thread with interest, and learning instead of posting. At this point I would have to say "yes" the RAN is inadequate for the full range of possible missions it could be called upon to do. There is a significant lack of assets in refueling and resupply, a significant lack of assets needed for amphibious operations, and an inability to provide air cover outside the range of Land based air.

Surface ship-wise the RAN is also lacking. The Adelaide's are a nice design but with the upgrade program you are robbing Mary to pay Paul. 4 of these ships are simply not enough. The Anzacs too. This modernization program is certainly welcome but it should have been done years ago. The air defense DDs will be welcome but their keels haven't even been laid down yet, correct? And there are no plans for Tomahawk on any RAN platforms. Nor are there plans for F-35 VTOL even if you will have the LHDs to operate them on. It appears that even in the future the strike power of the RAN will be very Limited. Most of all if you dont at least buy the LASM for your VLS.

So what are we looking at here? Were looking at a defense force that will probably be capable of defending Australia but will be limited in its ability to bring the war home to an enemy. With the exception of the Collins and even they are incapable at striking land targets. By not purchasing Tomahawk your being penny wise but pound foolish. It just doesn't make much sense to build such excellent platforms like the Collins and the new DD and not arming them with Tomahawk.

I acknowledge the excellent training and skills of RAN personnel, and, acknowledge the benefits of a naval exercise program that keeps the RAN sharp. However the RAN is a green water navy in a situation and a region where you need more. More then anything Australia is a maritime nation.

In my opinion, "which means nothing", the Ran should build a navy capable of two missions at one time. The first mission should be "protecting the land mass and vital seal lanes". The 2nd mission should be supporting A,air cover, fire support of a amphib op outside the range of land air cover "for at least meaningful loiter times". B, would be the same thing only in support of a coalition attack. Heres what the RAN needs for this.

1, 4 new DDs, not 3. And at least two of them armed with Tomahawk.

2, A cruise missile strike capability for the Collins boats.

3, 2 carriers in the 25,000 ton range optimized for amphib ops and carrying F-35bs.

4, 2 amphib support LPDs in the 15,000 to 20,000 ton class.

5, A significant increase in fleet support auxiliaries. And not grabbing civilian ships but dedicated fleet oilers and replenishment ships.

The baseline I'm using is the Italian navy.

I would love to see a fleet similar to what you describe Rich. I am particularly keen for the RAN to add Tomahawk to its inventory. The debate in Australia has largely come down to whether we should have a strike force based on the RAAF's fast jets with standoff weapons like JASSM or a submarine based force based on Tomahawk. I would like to see both and I also think that buying a quantity of Tomahawks for the AWDs would further increease Australia's flexibility with strike options.

The problem, of course, is cost. Australia is already committed to sustaining a 3% annual increase in real terms (over and above inflation) in its defence budget until 2015/16, and recent purchases such as the FA-18F buy are being funded with supplementary funds on top of this. At this stage I doubt many people would support pushing defence spending beyond what is already planned and whilst it can be argued that the navy should be stronger it would be impossible to find areas of the army or airforce that could be cut back to pay for it. On the contrary, the army, in particular, could argue strongly for an increase and there are parts of the air force that are also fairly thin.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/overview/html/overview_13.htm

However, I am one of the few who would like to see spending increased and my 'ideal' fleet would comprise:

Combat Force
6 x Hobart class air warfare destroyers (1 extra plus 2 to replace the last FFGs)
8 x upgraded Anzac class frigates
8 x SSK (6 'Collins' plus the first 2 of 8 follow on SSKs)

Tomahawk missile for SSKs and sufficient stock of these missiles to enable them to be deployed in at least 2 destroyers.

Amphibious Force
2 x Canberra class LHDs
2 x LPDs
2 x HSV

RAAF and RAN to form a 'joint' squadron of F-35Bs for deployment from the LHDs

Support Force
2 x AOR
2 x AO

Minewarfare Force
6 x Huon class minewarfare ships

Patrol Force
14 Armidale class patrol boats supported by the customs patrol fleet.

Perhaps this is a pipedream but you never know! :)

Cheers

[alexsa]

According to current plans, the proposed LHDs will replace one Kanimbla LPA and the Torbruk LSL. The second 2nd Kanimbla LPA will be replaced with some sort of HSV like the Jervis Bay or Westpac Express. No word yet on any characteristics though.

I don't know where you got this from. The third ship will be an amphibious support ship but as far as I know a HSV is not the front runner. Some individuals I know have proposed a vessel in the order of 40000 tonnes with a RO-RO and self discharge capacity built in. The problem with most HSV's is they need a port to discharge and are a bit fragile when it comes to using them with LCVP or LCH's as shuttles.

Personally, for the replacement of HMAS Success, I would like to see something like the planned Canadian Joint Support Ship. Albeit without the requirement for command & control of forces the Canadians have. When the Sirius is also set to retire, another could be added. This would give the RAN increased sealift, as well as RAS capacity.

If the amphibious support ship is quite capable, this combined with the two LHD's will give us all the capacily we need even if one LHD is focused on air support. Something like the Canadian support ship is very useful but there is a compromsie in that it limits its uplift capcilty in fuel, stores and munitions on a given tonnage. Givne the capcity already planned in for amphibious support the Success replacment should be optimised in the support role.


Just seeking clarification on this. With the RAS gear, does the addition (on a civilian flagged vessel) mean that some ports might not allow the oiler to dock? Does the RAS gear make the vessel more difficult to operate/maintain? Basically trying to determine what sorts of issues will arise, and if there are ways around them. Or if it's even worthwhile.

Why spend 60million on a ship to fit it wiht RAS gear then give it to a commercial operator wiht resulting increased maintenace burden, reduced uplift and complaince issues. Not a very attractive option. This gear, as fitted to Sirius, does compromise complaince SOLAS and MARPOL but then there is a diferent focus in the use of the vessel.

Also, for the second part, commercial operation of a government tanker. Is the idea to have a government owned tanker (like MV Delos) used by a civilian operator until the vessel is needed by the RAN? With appropriate modifications for underway replenishment initiated when the RAN takes over the vessel? With the Sirius modifications taking approximately 6 months, would that be rapid enough to augment RAN capacity when needed? I'm thinking of situations like the fire aboard HMAS Westralia, taking that vessel out of service for a period.

-Cheers

The reasoning behind this suggestion is that there may be no need to take the vessel up from trade. As such it operates and pays for itself as an asset in waiting (with all the design work done), They may even make a profit. If the dreadful helo deck was done away with and a more bare bones option taken up then IMHO it is possible the work could be done in a shorter time.

What this means there are no operating cost for the RAN and no demands for crew. It also give you the opetion of rotating the vessel wiht a new one every 10 to 15 years so the assest remains currently compliant and benefits from technology change. Mindy you this I think this would very much be a leap too far for the likes of DMO.

[Aussie Digger]

Ive been watching this thread with interest, and learning instead of posting. At this point I would have to say "yes" the RAN is inadequate for the full range of possible missions it could be called upon to do. There is a significant lack of assets in refueling and resupply, a significant lack of assets needed for amphibious operations, and an inability to provide air cover outside the range of Land based air.

Surface ship-wise the RAN is also lacking. The Adelaide's are a nice design but with the upgrade program you are robbing Mary to pay Paul. 4 of these ships are simply not enough. The Anzacs too. This modernization program is certainly welcome but it should have been done years ago. The air defense DDs will be welcome but their keels haven't even been laid down yet, correct? And there are no plans for Tomahawk on any RAN platforms. Nor are there plans for F-35 VTOL even if you will have the LHDs to operate them on. It appears that even in the future the strike power of the RAN will be very Limited. Most of all if you dont at least buy the LASM for your VLS.

So what are we looking at here? Were looking at a defense force that will probably be capable of defending Australia but will be limited in its ability to bring the war home to an enemy. With the exception of the Collins and even they are incapable at striking land targets. By not purchasing Tomahawk your being penny wise but pound foolish. It just doesn't make much sense to build such excellent platforms like the Collins and the new DD and not arming them with Tomahawk.

I acknowledge the excellent training and skills of RAN personnel, and, acknowledge the benefits of a naval exercise program that keeps the RAN sharp. However the RAN is a green water navy in a situation and a region where you need more. More then anything Australia is a maritime nation.

In my opinion, "which means nothing", the Ran should build a navy capable of two missions at one time. The first mission should be "protecting the land mass and vital seal lanes". The 2nd mission should be supporting A,air cover, fire support of a amphib op outside the range of land air cover "for at least meaningful loiter times". B, would be the same thing only in support of a coalition attack. Heres what the RAN needs for this.

1, 4 new DDs, not 3. And at least two of them armed with Tomahawk.

2, A cruise missile strike capability for the Collins boats.

3, 2 carriers in the 25,000 ton range optimized for amphib ops and carrying F-35bs.

4, 2 amphib support LPDs in the 15,000 to 20,000 ton class.

5, A significant increase in fleet support auxiliaries. And not grabbing civilian ships but dedicated fleet oilers and replenishment ships.

The baseline I'm using is the Italian navy.

Whilst I agree with most of your sentiments, I disagree with some for the following reasons:

FFG's. They are to provide an interim air warfare capacity, until the introduction of the AWD's, only. As far as frigates go (which is all they are) they will provide excellent capability.

ANZAC's, agree with the much needed upgrade, however it doesn't go far enough. The full "warfighting improvement program" should have been conducted, which would have given: 3D radar and advanced naval combat system, VL SM-2 and ESSM capability, Mk 45 Mod 4 gun, Harpoon II, a CIWS and a new torpedo. They could have built 4 more vessels and completely replaced the Adelaide Class, leaving RAN with 1x surface combatant class, but a more capable fleet, with improved maintenance efficiencies.

AWD's: agree with your comments, however this proposal is very much dependant on which vessel is chosen. RAN desperately wants TacTom and BMD capability, plus the announced combat fit on the Gibbs and Cox design. It may be too expensive however and Government may end up opting for the F-100. If that happens, say goodbye to any RAN long range strike capability or BMD capability as the ships simply don't have the capacity for these AND their anti-air role.

As to the aircraft carrier idea: simply won't happen, despite the capability improvements they would obviously provide. The funding is unlikely to ever appear and RAN could not man the ships anyway. The introduction of such ships would require dedicated escorts, which would be over and above our existed and planned force structure.

The problem with this is that we can barely man our existing fleet. One of the main reasons in the reduction from 6x Adelaide class FFG's was our current parlous manning issue. We are not far from tying up existing combatants to the dock for lack of sailors to take them to sea. Conscription is political suicide in Australia so it's not likely to be introduced.

RAN's future land strike capability will revolve around the Mk 45 Mod 4 gun and ERGM rounds, plus the capability that Harpoon II has. Tactom is a possibility, a naval JASSM variant is also a possibility, as is a naval variant of NLOS-LS. VTOL UCAV aircraft may be a possibility in future as well.

An F-35B Squadron is unlikely but not a completely improbable option for RAAF. (RAN is unlikely to contribute pilots to this squadron, having NO fixed wing pilots). These would be more likely to operate from our planned LHD vessels, of which 2x in the 22,000 - 27,000 ton class, will be operated by RAN, eventually.

A future fleet of my wish list which is perhaps more realistic would be:

14x major surface combatants comprising:

3x AWD's.

3x upgraded FFG's (the 1st to be replaced by the last AWD and the remainder to be replaced under the "follow on frigate project).

8x upgraded ANZAC's.

6x upgraded Collins.

3x Amphibious warfare / sea lift vessels comprising:

2x LHD's.

1x Ro-Ro "sealift" ship.

6x "hi-speed" landing craft sufficient to transport vehicles up to and including M1A1 Abrams and heavy "armoured" Bulldozers.

A patrol / minehunter force comprising:

14x Armidale patrol craft.

6x Huon Minehunters.

A support force comprising:

2x fleet refuellers/replenishment vessels.

And a variety of other landing craft, survey craft and training vessels.

Anything beyond this, short of a serious threat appearing on the strategic "horizon" seems a bit far fetched to this "realist".

[StingrayOZ]

While not offical, I think the LHD will operate the F-35's. The BPE option is apparently favoured (bigger, more capable, cheaper, more flexable). While the offical word is no skijump, it could be added later or half way through the build process. The F-35A's won't be flying in Australia till ~2015 anyway, with B's flying sometime after that, and more like 2020 if Australia wanted them.

Amphib
2 x Canberra Fully equiped LHD's (BPE) able to operate as carrier and amphib.
1 x basic LHD (BPE) able to operate as an amphib (7 helo spots) no fancy radar maybe use existing landing craft. Replacing Kanimbla LPA (how long do they want this around for?) Maybe this is what they are planning. Its cheap at less than $300 million at current 2 ship buy. Radar, landing craft etc is where the real costs are. There may be enough budget in the Canberra class to do this.

With two ships sharing a total pool of 24 F-35B's (usual fixed air wing of 12 per ship) and all three also able to deck and hanger the current pool of Tiger, NH90 and chinooks. All three able to operate heavy UCAV's for AWACS. We should look at more tigers, more NH90's and possibly more chinooks.

This is supported by atleast one conventional RoRo of around 40,000 tons and atleast one AOR.

4 x awd's of the cheaper spanish design F-100, strike capability can be handled by the carriers etc. More would be nice but I don't see it happening.

Upgrades to the rest of the fleet inc SSK's and Frigates.

That would give Australia the ability to defend its territories, friendly nations and the ability to participate in multination missions on its own terms.

It would certainly make Australia a key defence player in the region.

Which is important because the US looks like winding back its carrier force significantly. Also Japan may get a some sort of carrier now it has no conventional carriers to port in Japan. The two small carriers would pack half a Nimitz F-35 airwing. Certainly a significant punch.

[Tasman]

A future fleet of my wish list which is perhaps more realistic would be:

14x major surface combatants comprising:

3x AWD's.

3x upgraded FFG's (the 1st to be replaced by the last AWD and the remainder to be replaced under the "follow on frigate project).

8x upgraded ANZAC's.

6x upgraded Collins.

3x Amphibious warfare / sea lift vessels comprising:

2x LHD's.

1x Ro-Ro "sealift" ship.

6x "hi-speed" landing craft sufficient to transport vehicles up to and including M1A1 Abrams and heavy "armoured" Bulldozers.

A patrol / minehunter force comprising:

14x Armidale patrol craft.

6x Huon Minehunters.

A support force comprising:

2x fleet refuellers/replenishment vessels.

And a variety of other landing craft, survey craft and training vessels.

Anything beyond this, short of a serious threat appearing on the strategic "horizon" seems a bit far fetched to this "realist".

I agree with the 14 major surface combatants, and this matches RAN wishes, but I would still push for the submarine force to be increased to 8. I will be surprised if the RAN doesn't make a strong case to government for this. I also wouldn't be surprised if once again they are unsuccessful! The navy wanted 8 'O' class and received 6 and they wanted 8 Collins and still only managed to get 6! :(

I'd still like to see the possibility of a joint RAAF/RAN squadron of VSTOL JSFs followed up. I realise that RAN fixed wing pilots (or rather the lack of them) would be a problem in the short term, but this could be a long term project.

Apart from the submarine numbers and consideration of the F-35B for the final JSF buy, I have to concede that anything more than what you have put forward is somewhat unrealistic at the present time.

Cheers

[Todjaeger]

I don't know where you got this from. The third ship will be an amphibious support ship but as far as I know a HSV is not the front runner. Some individuals I know have proposed a vessel in the order of 40000 tonnes with a RO-RO and self discharge capacity built in. The problem with most HSV's is they need a port to discharge and are a bit fragile when it comes to using them with LCVP or LCH's as shuttles.

I don't remember exactly where I read it, but I do remember mention of a fast landing ship as a replacement for the final Kanimbla vessel. I'll see if I can locate where I read it. I think it would be good for Australia to have one for operations in the region. Definately agree though on the shortcomings of HSV-style vessels when operating over open oceans and/or away from port facilities. Hadn't heard about at 40k ton Ro-Ro though. That would be a considerable increase for a trooplift vessel over the Tobruk or Kanimbla. Does the talk about such a design get into whether the vessel would be built milspec, or to commercial military standards like the RNZN Canterbury?


If the amphibious support ship is quite capable, this combined with the two LHD's will give us all the capacily we need even if one LHD is focused on air support. Something like the Canadian support ship is very useful but there is a compromsie in that it limits its uplift capcilty in fuel, stores and munitions on a given tonnage. Givne the capcity already planned in for amphibious support the Success replacment should be optimised in the support role.

Given my limited knowledge of ship design, here's a question. How much of a negative impact on fuel/ammo cargo is there, by including the provision for lane-meters to transport vehicles? I understand that the cargo tonnage used by vehicles being transported would reduce the amount of fuel/ammo cargo. Do the fittings needed to work well as a replenishment vessel preclude carrying deck cargo?


The reasoning behind this suggestion is that there may be no need to take the vessel up from trade. As such it operates and pays for itself as an asset in waiting (with all the design work done), They may even make a profit. If the dreadful helo deck was done away with and a more bare bones option taken up then IMHO it is possible the work could be done in a shorter time.

What this means there are no operating cost for the RAN and no demands for crew. It also give you the opetion of rotating the vessel wiht a new one every 10 to 15 years so the assest remains currently compliant and benefits from technology change. Mindy you this I think this would very much be a leap too far for the likes of DMO.

Okay, understand the idea now. Except for having a heli platform as a design requirement (when being initially constructed, not the bridal-train heli platform slapped on the stern of the Sirius) I think the idea is a good one. Already having a government owned vessel, with modification plans completed would significantly shorten the time to get into service if needed. And being operated commercially until taken into service (if ever done) could potentially cover the acquisition cost, and certainly the maintenance/upkeep costs. Unfortunately, I also agree that this looks too "outside the box" for the DMO currently.

-Cheers

[Tasman]

:unknown I don't remember exactly where I read it, but I do remember mention of a fast landing ship as a replacement for the final Kanimbla vessel. I'll see if I can locate where I read it. I think it would be good for Australia to have one for operations in the region. Definately agree though on the shortcomings of HSV-style vessels when operating over open oceans and/or away from port facilities. Hadn't heard about at 40k ton Ro-Ro though. That would be a considerable increase for a trooplift vessel over the Tobruk or Kanimbla. Does the talk about such a design get into whether the vessel would be built milspec, or to commercial military standards like the RNZN Canterbury?




The Australian Government's AusTender document says:
Joint Project 2048 will provide the ADF with increased amphibious deployment and sustainment capability to support a land force. Phase 4C will see the second LPA replaced with a strategic sealift capability in 2016. This capability will enable the ADF to transport bulk equipment, supplies and forces into a theatre of operations and provide significant ongoing support to deployed forces. Strategic sea lift is complementary to amphibious operations. The Contractor shall plan, develop and produce a report on the options available to achieve JP2048 Ph4C - Strategic Sealift in support of an enhanced deployed force. ... This report shall address the platform options available and the possible financial arrangements to achieve the capability requirement.

https://www.tenders.gov.au/federal/shared/rftdetail.cfm?p_id=2867&p_criteria=CMS2006-6-00476&p_advert=1

This suggests that the type of vessel or vessels to meet the requirement is extremely flexible and it will be up to contractors to put forward proposals. I guess these could range from one large ship to several small high speed vessels.

Cheers

[Rich]

As far as I know we plan to continue with 12 carriers. The new designs, along with new aircraft and equipment, should if anything increase our sortie rate and time on station.

My reason for 4 of the new AWDDs is so's the dual mission can be accomplished. One or two will always be in port for repairs and upgrade after all.

I agree the frigate upgrade program looks like a nice program. But a frigate is still a frigate even if wired into Aegis and the 5"/54 gun is unremarkable, even with erm, as a "only" land strike package. TacTom is not an option. The RAN absolutely needs it!

The full "warfighting improvement program" should have been conducted, which would have given: 3D radar and advanced naval combat system, VL SM-2 and ESSM capability, Mk 45 Mod 4 gun, Harpoon II, a CIWS and a new torpedo.

I thought all that was in the upgrade program? Maybe with the exception of the VLS on the Anzacs. I thought SeaRam was going to be installed, replacing the CIWS gun? As to the new torp your probably going to keep the M-46 correct?

Anything beyond this, short of a serious threat appearing on the strategic "horizon" seems a bit far fetched to this "realist".

We can hope right? Thats the problem with "threats". They can appear quickly.

[Aussie Digger]

As far as I know we plan to continue with 12 carriers. The new designs, along with new aircraft and equipment, should if anything increase our sortie rate and time on station.

My reason for 4 of the new AWDDs is so's the dual mission can be accomplished. One or two will always be in port for repairs and upgrade after all.

I agree the frigate upgrade program looks like a nice program. But a frigate is still a frigate even if wired into Aegis and the 5"/54 gun is unremarkable, even with erm, as a "only" land strike package. TacTom is not an option. The RAN absolutely needs it!


I thought all that was in the upgrade program? Maybe with the exception of the VLS on the Anzacs. I thought SeaRam was going to be installed, replacing the CIWS gun? As to the new torp your probably going to keep the M-46 correct?

We can hope right? Thats the problem with "threats". They can appear quickly.

The ANZAC's are getting a new 3D phased array CEA-FAR radar (with 6 panels) and the associated CEA-MOUNT phased array fire director, along with an enhanced combat system and passive IRST system to provide "multiple" channels of fire for ESSM. They are not getting SM-2, which the ANZAC Warfighting Improvement Program (WIP) would have provided.

The ANZAC's have had a single 8x cell Mk 41 VLS system installed from the beginning. The Anti-ship missile defence project "may" install an additional 8x cell Mk 41 to bring the total ESSM's up to 64x missiles. It "may" also introduce a "second layer" type of anti-air/anti-missile system, with MISTRAL previously being spoken of as the preferred system.

However since RAN and Government decided to go with the more capable 3D radar system (including an entirely new mast and attenae array), RAN is now studying whether ESSM alone will be sufficient. This is mainly because the project is designed to provide "reasonable" level of defence only, given the ANZAC frigates "2nd tier" role within RAN. "Mini-Typhoon" has already been ordered and introduced into service, to cover the close in anti-surface role, so RAN simply has to decide whether a gun or missile based CIWS is necessary for the ANZACS's. Personally I think a "stand alone" CIWS such as SeaRam would be a good addition, but I'd take 64x ESSM first, if the choice were 1 or the other...

As to the Mk45 gun, I agree the Mod 2 version IS unremarkable. This is the version that equips the ANZAC's and most other Mk 45 variants today. The Mod 4 is a more advanced variant, which even using the same ammunition, provides double the range of the Mod 2. With ERGM the strike range is over 100k's.

Little compared to Tactom I agree it's limited, but it is not an insignificant capability (particularly given the number of available shots, compared to any Tactom load out) in the littoral warfare RAN is likely to engage in mostly within our region. Such a capability for instance would have allowed RAN to provide NGS fires from multiple vessels for Interfet ANYWHERE in Timor in 1999, a capability we STILL lack.

TacTom would clearly improve our strike capacity, but it would take a strong committment from our Government, as our neighbours would see it as a provocative move and would attempt to match or better the capability.

Without significantly improved recruiting and retention, a 4th AWD would be tied up at the docks, the situation is that bad. It's pointless advocating a 4th at present. It's beyond our capacity to operate, let alone fund. You might as well advocate 10. I understand the thought behind the 4th AWD acquisition, particularly the maintenance and "rotation" of operational vessels benefits that would come from a 4th AWD, but it's simply unfeasible at the present time. A significant long term boost to recruiting would be necessary for RAN to do this and unfortunately the complete opposite has been happening.

On top of that, the cost is not insignificant, with the cost for 3x AWD's now reaching AUD $7b. A fourth would push it close to $8.5 - 9.0b...

As to the Torpedo, the European MU-90 torpedo has been chosen to arm the ANZAC's, FFG's, AWD's, Seahawks and AP-3C's... It's already integrated on 3x ANZAC's and (I believe) HMAS Sydney, the first FFG-UP...

Cheers

AD.

[Tasman]

The ANZAC's have had a single 8x cell Mk 41 VLS system installed from the beginning. The Anti-ship missile defence project "may" install an additional 8x cell Mk 41 to bring the total ESSM's up to 64x missiles. It "may" also introduce a "second layer" type of anti-air/anti-missile system, with MISTRAL previously being spoken of as the preferred system.

However since RAN and Government decided to go with the more capable 3D radar system (including an entirely new mast and attenae array), RAN is now studying whether ESSM alone will be sufficient. This is mainly because the project is designed to provide "reasonable" level of defence only, given the ANZAC frigates "2nd tier" role within RAN. "Mini-Typhoon" has already been ordered and introduced into service, to cover the close in anti-surface role, so RAN simply has to decide whether a gun or missile based CIWS is necessary for the ANZACS's. Personally I think a "stand alone" CIWS such as SeaRam would be a good addition, but I'd take 64x ESSM first, if the choice were 1 or the other...



I can understand the RAN's dilemma over whether to seek funding for an additional 8 cell VLS system for additional ESSMs or a VSRAD system such as SeaRAM, if funds are limited (which they almost certainly will be) but my worry is that the Anzacs will end up with neither. The failure to fit the Phalanx CIWS to the Australian Anzacs, at a time when their air defence relied on just 8 x Sea Sparrow SAMs to back up the 5" gun, suggests to me that the RAN have not seen hard kill close in air defence as a priority for these ships. On the other hand I believe the Anzacs are at the forefront of soft kill anti missile technology with 4 x 4 Nulka launchers in each ship.

I would be much happier to see both the extra VLS cells and a VSRAD system installed. I will be very disappointed if at least one of these options is not implemented in the upgrade.

Cheers

[swerve]

...And being operated commercially until taken into service (if ever done) could potentially cover the acquisition cost, and certainly the maintenance/upkeep costs. Unfortunately, I also agree that this looks too "outside the box" for the DMO currently.

-Cheers

The RN ro-ros were built to RN spec, while meeting commercial standards, but are owned & operated by a commercial company. Two have to be permanently available to the RN. In theory, the RN can relinquish them when they're not needed, but AFAIK in practice they're kept busy. The other 4 are operated on commercial contracts, but have to be available to the RN after a specified notice period.

This has saved money compared to buying & operating 6 RFA ships, but is far from cost-free. The 4 ships not in permanent use by the RN cost a little more than straight commercial ships, & because of the risk of them being commandeered by the navy, they're less in demand than other ships, so make less money. In practice, a lot of their custom comes from government agencies (e.g. they're used for the St. Helena run). Also, the armed forces have used them more than was forecast, because of the unscheduled increase in overseas deployments.

My point is that you shouldn't start thinking in terms of it being possible to completely cover acquisition & running costs for transport or support ships by commercial use when they're not in demand. But, that said, I think it's working pretty well for us. We have saved money, though not as much as the more optimistic forecasts, & we've got some damned useful ships. We'd have been scraping around all the time for suitable ships for private charter without them, & often having to make do with less than ideal ships, paying top dollar on charter rates. Their cost partly being covered by other government agencies is fine, as that money would have been spent anyway, & by all accounts we're getting good service from them.

So tell your lot to go for it! They can look at what we've done, & with a bit of luck improve on it. If the RN's done it, how far outside the box can it be?

BTW, Flensburg will happily build more to the same design, so if the RAN has any use for 23K ton ro-ros . . . . . :)

[alexsa]

My point is that you shouldn't start thinking in terms of it being possible to completely cover acquisition & running costs for transport or support ships by commercial use when they're not in demand. But, that said, I think it's working pretty well for us. We have saved money, though not as much as the more optimistic forecasts, & we've got some damned useful ships. We'd have been scraping around all the time for suitable ships for private charter without them, & often having to make do with less than ideal ships, paying top dollar on charter rates. Their cost partly being covered by other government agencies is fine, as that money would have been spent anyway, & by all accounts we're getting good service from them.

:)

If an owner who is bare boat chatering a tanker in the current market cannot recoup the vessel costs within ten years there is something wrong. Don't forget fuel and maitenace costs are to the chaterers account. The cream is when you sell the vessel at the end of that period. This should cover any outstanding costs and provide some profit. The princiapl here is to base the charter on a long term basis with a recall cost if the vessel is called in early.

The market is softening but handy size tankers are still very sought after provided some silly bugger does not stick RAS gear on them.

[ssmoore]

Have they tried all the tricks like the US as far as recruiting? Like bonuses and money for college?

Also what would be the feasability of the RAN getting one of our non nuclear carriers like the kitty hawk when we replace her with the new version. OOPS I remeber now that the Japanese dont like the idea of a nuclear carrier so she might stay. How about the kennedy? I just read its being decomissioned this month and stated it needs refusbishing and its flight decks were not certified. Would it be more economical to aquire this ship and rebuild her or would it be better to just start from scratch. Forgive me if these questions are stupid as I have just recently became interested in naval forces and have much to learn.

[Tasman]

Have they tried all the tricks like the US as far as recruiting? Like bonuses and money for college?



The ADF is open to ideas and the suggestion of paying for tertiary education is a good one. Bonuses have been offered to RAAF fighter pilots to stay on in the service but I'm not certain about the RAN using bonuses. I seem to recall bonuses being discussed for submariners. Perhaps someone else can help here.


Also what would be the feasability of the RAN getting one of our non nuclear carriers like the kitty hawk when we replace her with the new version. OOPS I remeber now that the Japanese dont like the idea of a nuclear carrier so she might stay. How about the kennedy? I just read its being decomissioned this month and stated it needs refusbishing and its flight decks were not certified. Would it be more economical to aquire this ship and rebuild her or would it be better to just start from scratch. Forgive me if these questions are stupid as I have just recently became interested in naval forces and have much to learn.


The addition of a carrier like Kittyhawk to the RAN would make a wonderful dream but there is no way that Australia could provide a crew or an airwing for the carrier, or acquire and man the additional escorts and support structures that would be needed. Basically neither the money nor the manpower is available. The manpower needed to operate Kittyhawk exceeds the combined crews of all the RAN frigates! In addition the age of the carrier means that it would be very costly to refit it for further service.

In addition the RAN has not identified a need for a 'super carrier'. Even when it had a fleet air arm the RAN always planned around a fleet of several light carriers and once budgetary constraints reduced the force to just one the writing was on the wall. As has been mentioned in a number of RAN threads there is very little likelihood of the Australian Navy getting back into the carrier business in the foreseeable future. Even providing VSTOL JSFs for operations from the LHDs would be a major project that seems beyond Australia's capacity at the moment.

The RAN is struggling to man its existing fleet of frigates and submarines and will be hard pressed to absorb new assets already planned like the 3 air warfare destroyers and the 2 large LHDs.


Cheers

[ssmoore]

well I suppose if we must dream then might aswell dream big.:D But you could just imagine her with a new coat of paint and a few F-35 lightinings and super bugs on her deck.

[Tasman]

well I suppose if we must dream then might aswell dream big.:D But you could just imagine her with a new coat of paint and a few F-35 lightinings and super bugs on her deck.

I often used to dream of an RAN fleet led by big carriers. In the 1960s they were ex Essex class. By the 1970s I had moved on to ex Midways and later I thought ex Forestals were the way to go. The trouble was I kept waking up and the reality was that the navy kept on getting smaller! :D

Cheers

[harryriedl]

I often used to dream of an RAN fleet led by big carriers. In the 1960s they were ex Essex class. By the 1970s I had moved on to ex Midways and later I thought ex Forestals were the way to go. The trouble was I kept waking up and the reality was that the navy kept on getting smaller! :D

Cheers

perhaps if you as the UK and French government nicely there be a CVF in RAN colors. it might be the most possible of the fantasy's carriers invisable crewing forestall weight and air wing

[AegisFC]

Have they tried all the tricks like the US as far as recruiting? Like bonuses and money for college?

The USN offers sign on bonuses for certain jobs and reenlistment bonuses as well for a lot of rates.

OOPS I remeber now that the Japanese dont like the idea of a nuclear carrier so she might stay.

I'm pretty sure they have agreed to let a nuke be stationed in Japan.

[quote]How about the kennedy? I just read its being decomissioned this month and stated it needs refusbishing and its flight decks were not certified.[quote]

That ship is the naval equivalent of a car on cinder blocks, the engineering plant is a mess (and has been for years), none of the catapults or arrester wires work you have voids that have rusted through to the water and all kinds of other problems. Best thing the USN can do is just get rid of it in a sink-ex.

[ssmoore]

So what your saying is that when the navy states they have 12 carriers its not true as only 11 are operational?

[Markus40]

The thought of having the Kitty Hawk for the RAN is a folly, and is from what i believe and read ready for retirement. The Australian Navy is far better going the way of the multi tasked LHDs its planning to build with less crew etc. This is the way of the future for the RAN, and i would go as far as to say that the LHDs do need to have a forward operating ability by operating the F35Bs once they are operational on the USN. This gives them awesome ability to be able to operate outside their regional envionment and in International waters where most likely they will be needed in a war time scenario.

[Tasman]

The thought of having the Kitty Hawk for the RAN is a folly, and is from what i believe and read ready for retirement. The Australian Navy is far better going the way of the multi tasked LHDs its planning to build with less crew etc. This is the way of the future for the RAN, and i would go as far as to say that the LHDs do need to have a forward operating ability by operating the F35Bs once they are operational on the USN. This gives them awesome ability to be able to operate outside their regional envionment and in International waters where most likely they will be needed in a war time scenario.

I totally agree with you Markus and I think your point about Kittyhawk has already been conceded. The LHDs are the way ahead and if it is possible to get F35Bs on board some time in the future then that would be an excellent outcome for Australia.

Cheers

[Markus40]

Dear John Key,


Re: New Zealand’s Defence Role and Relationship with Australia and Asian Countries as current for 2007.

The Overview.

Recently New Zealand’s Defence posture due to years of neglect and poor upkeep is now seeing resurgence in upgrades and procurements of equipment that our Defence forces require to maintain a certain level of operational effectiveness. We have seen this in Project Protector, the Army’s new vehicles and new weapons, and the Air forces new helicopters and Hercules upgrades just to name a few.

Its quite obvious that New Zealand in the past has not kept to its obligations with its defence partners by pulling its weight when emergencies have arisen where New Zealand has been called upon to participate in even limited action like the Yugoslavian war effort where we saw our C-130 Hercules unable to take off due to mechanical failures and our APCs (now decommissioned) unable to take on the tasks as required due to not having proper anti armour to protect them. We also have seen to the embarrassment of the Military and the government the LAV 111s are showing cracks in their superstructure. I can name many more examples of failures within our Defence Forces ability to operate with the right equipment and weapons needed to carry out the roles they are supposed to be assigned too.

Due to global terrorism and the increasing unstable nature of the governments within the South Pacific, New Zealand needs to take security of our region seriously, without relying on Australia to always do the job for us. It’s also been interesting to see a shift in the Labour government’s policy towards Defence, especially in light of the terrible disbanding of the A-4s. Something I would like to cover later in this document.

The Labour governments strategy is to lay out a further 4.5 billion dollars over the next ten years on top of the Defence cap for general Defence spending to cover further upgrades and to look at options of adding to the Defence Force further infrastructure and procurement that may be necessary to keep New Zealand at the so called cutting edge of our ability to operate alongside our key partners such as Australia.





Having checked and read New Zealand’s Long Term Defence Initiatives for the next Ten years and seen what New Zealand has done to replace the existing platforms it is plain to see that the 4.5 Billion that is required for the upkeep and further upgrading will not go far enough for the benefit of our Defence Forces and adequately maintaining the current force structure the way it is. Inflation in itself will have an effect on the proposed spending required as well as pay requirements for Defence personnel, and the government will be forced into a position of buying equipment that simply is urgent rather than what is required. We have already seen how a budget blow out has occurred for the purchase of the NH-90 Helicopters for the Air Force.

Australia as it is does to some extent rely on the New Zealand forces to work alongside with them and to do so in any theatre of operation that may be called upon. It is also obvious that Australia’s Defence strategy has extended dramatically to a more global one where we will see Australia more involved with coalition partners in any theatre of war or peace keeping worldwide, and to maintain its assets in those places of risk, will require New Zealand’s Naval assets in some respects to cover their normal operational tasks throughout South East Asia and South Pacific. An area that’s now becoming more unstable as we have recently seen.

Many New Zealand people are unaware that Defence arrangements made with countries in our region is vital for our own level of security, despite the benign level of an immediate threat to New Zealand throughout the South Pacific. Its also important for the general public to be aware that our trade routes through Asia remain open and threat free at all times as well as being able to train our personnel to a high level, equal to the technology of other armed forces, and also integrate our forces with others, where ever that may be.

Keeping a small yet effective Defence Force like New Zealand’s requires a lot of investment. However when needed its invaluable. Lastly, in any field of operation each section of the armed services can’t operate effectively without the other. If it continues to do so under fire then there can only be one result. Heavy casualties. The Navy needs the Airforce for Air cover, the Army needs both the Navy and Airforce for an Air strike and the Airforce needs the Army and Navy for communications and for self protection in a war zone.

Security is and should always be the first priority of any country regardless of how benign that may be; to being fully exposed to an aggressor and to be able to respond at a moments notice to any contingencies should they arise is vital.

As a National supporter I thought it prudent to contact you and see what Nationals policy is towards Defence now that the Cold War is over and the years of neglect that occurred under previous National lead governments are and what the National Governments policy will be when they come into government.


I would also like to briefly comment on some of the current short falls that seem to have not been addressed across our three armed services. These are what I would call major fundamental operational issues that need urgent attention and I hope that National will address these in the coming years in government.


Royal New Zealand Navy.

The Labour government’s policy on the Navy’s strategy is good. But we have a fundamental weakness by not having a third ANZAC frigate or similar that is able to operate at the same level with the same equipment as the current ANZAC frigates. Why I mention this is for two reasons:

1-If we have one ANZAC frigate in dry dock for refitting and maintenance we have only one for deployment if an emergency arose. Another ANZAC would give the RNZN more options and put the “teeth back into the tiger”

2-Currently our ANZACS are overworked. That means the ANZACS will need more maintenance work. Currently there is a stress on meeting our Exercise arrangements to keep the Navies systems at operational readiness, and Personnel working at levels required at war level, and Persian Gulf obligations with our partners, as well as putting stress on our personnel shore leave.

The OPVs will provide a limited option for operational use, but not at the capacity if required suddenly to replace the wide sea keeping ability such as the ANZAC. Unless of course the OPVs were equipped with self protection weapons such as a CIWS or a bigger gun. It’s worthy to note that the OPV is used for Patrol/Navy work and for the Fisheries protection currently.

3-The new MRV (HMNZS Canterbury) being the capital ship for the RNZN, does not have enough self defensive weapon systems to protect itself in a war zone if called upon. There should be at least one CIWS if attacked by missiles or aircraft. If the current NZ government is serious about its mission and what it transports then it would make sense to install a VLS carrying the Sea sparrow or a short range anti Aircraft Missile system like the Mistral.

4-It would appear that as a result of the purchase of the OPVs that an additional number of SH-4Gs would need to be supplied to augment the number already in operation and have the OPVs operating with their full mission ratios.


Royal New Zealand Air Force.

The Labour Governments policy on the Airforce is extremely poor. It’s a big bird with its wings clipped and caged for that matter. Our own Airforce can do better. The RNZAF has in the past been a proud flag bearer of our countries abilities to get Defence jobs done yet our Labour governments choices, by disbanding our small, yet effective fast jet fleet, was a nail in the coffin for specialised pilots and Defence force personnel that as a result went over seas. It’s sad to see today that we still have these old yet still capable aircraft still sitting in our hanger at Woodbourne.

However some improvements have been made through the purchase of the 757 and the replacement of the Iroquois helicopter. Just to name a couple of upgrades. Within our Air Force lies a deep, yet untapped ability that this country needs to be able to perform to the task it needs so it’s able to pull its weight fully with our partners. Let me list these issues.

1-New Zealand needs to look at a full replacement of our ageing C-130 Hercules Squadron with a longer reach Aircraft such as the very new Airbus A400M which has a maximum load range of 1700 nm (something New Zealand needs to reach places such as Fiji or Cairns or Darwin direct from Auckland without refuelling). The Aircraft is able to handle 2 x LAV 111s, or 116 fully equipped troops or 9 pallets of supplies.

This is mentioned in response that New Zealand requires a Military Transporter that is able to handle and carry heavier and vital equipment to an area of operation quickly rather than relying on HMNZS Canterbury to spend days on delivering the equipment and which the insurgency/skirmish would be over and done with. Thus costing the New Zealand government in having it sent in the first place. It’s interesting to note that the A400M can be refuelled from the air and Australia’s help with tanker support, could be invaluable.

2- There is a huge hole in our ability to be able to respond to a terror threat at sea and be able to neutralise it. As mentioned before, due to New Zealand’s location we don’t have an immediate threat coming from anywhere immediately. However, as New Zealand is being seen as a player against the war on terror, it can only be logical to suggest that New Zealand would be a country of target, like Australia, by would be terrorists using maritime routes to gain access into our country. Thus we need a rapid response air wing that is also able to interoperate with our Australian counterpart. This would mean a squadron of BAE Hawks or similar so as to maintain a ready reaction, fast attack wing and maritime surveillance platform, with a weapon that is able to neutralise this threat.

The BAE Hawke is an aircraft that is used as a trainer for the RAAF and our own pilots would have invaluable experience being able to train their skills with theirs on the same type of aircraft.

3-The P-3K Orion. Despite major overhauls of the fuselage and systems, the aircraft itself, despite being capable for maritime search and rescue, requires more advanced mission computers for surface warfare and weapons delivery packages. There is currently ECM packages on the existing mission computers and improved cockpit navigation upgrades, but no equivalent like the Australians have. This has a limiting factor on our personnel and Defence, which should be able to train and maintain systems for maritime warfare alongside our partners.

Let’s make no mistake the P-3 is the only surveillance platform that is able to take this role and it’s vital to maintain it. Its also important now to recognise that there is the possibility that Chinese submarines may be on the prowl through our waters undetected, not to mention the latest news that the Indonesian Navy has also now got a submarine capability that will give the war planners in Canberra a few late nights.

The Labour governments Long Term Defence Initiative requires the P-3s to be armed with an anti-ship missile, although from what I understand they haven’t at this point selected the type. This does of course go some way into giving our Defence Forces the ability for a maritime strike, but it doesn’t address the overall needs within our Air Force for rapid improved Air Strike capability like we used to have, and now desperatly need.


4-Another suggestion is that instead of the New Zealand Armed Forces funding its own combat wing that we base a squadron of Australian F-18 Hornets or F-35s in New Zealand as part of a closer Defence arrangement. This would mean keeping Whenuapai or expand another base such as Woodbourne as a home base. The Defence Department could work around such a commitment and having this closer Defence relationship would further enhance our Defence relationship.


Royal New Zealand Army


The Current Labour government’s policy towards the Army of late has been very good. The government has seen the Army as being pivotal to being on the front line of warfighting and peace keeping. This has been reflected in the government opening its purse strings to almost the whole inventory in the New Zealand Army. This included of course the replacement of the APCs with the LAV 111, and the importing of the transport vehicles from Austria, as well as new purchases such as the Mistral Surface to Air Missile, Anti-Tank Javelin Missile, and Communications Systems. These to name a few.

However, the current Labour government’s policy of tilting the Army into one of “peacekeeping” is a disincentive for those who joined the Army, who all they want, is to protect, serve and put the skill they have learnt with other countries into good use.


To conclude, New Zealand will never field the same qualitive numbers of military hardware like Australia, such as the proposed 2 x LHDs assault carriers, and the 3 x Air warfare destroyers to be built by Tennix. We don’t have budgets of larger western countries by putting ourselves in a position of competing with them. Its amazing to see that New Zealand has been able to contribute in the way it has to overseas commitments such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sinai, Solomon’s, East Timor, Persian Gulf, and others. For such a small country we do give a lot of our forces and put them into peacekeeping roles that helps free up other Armed Forces to do other work in other countries.


In the future New Zealand will need to step up its Defence spending and Defence commitments as well and most significantly of all, integrate more fully with Australians Policy of Defence. This requires New Zealand to forward our forces to exercise alongside Australia and Asian countries and just as importantly be able to deploy more effectively by using the New Zealand Armed Forces resources and platforms ourselves more independently. This will require more investment and focus by our government to turn round the years of neglect and bludging so we are making effective contributions in mostly all areas of Defence.

I will have to be honest and say it was a very hot and humid day in Sydney in 1986 at the Bi Centennial Airshow at Richmond Air Base to see the over pass of Number Two Squadron, which made all the New Zealanders, including myself, who were present, very proud to be kiwi and have our very own jet squadron flying for our country.

I do hope National will think about these traditions once again, in keeping with the RNZAF future in mind, and can also lead our Armed Forces into a place of pride and confidence to be able to utilise and use our systems effectively and with the proper training and implement them responsibly without a repeat of the decadent years of neglect that has only taken away New Zealand’s ability to work efficiently with its partners.

[StingrayOZ]

There is no need to buy a full carrier.

If the BPE design is choosen it will make a excellent carrier. It can hanger as many F-35's as the optimisitical preposed 75,000t French/UK CVF! Hanger space will be prime concideration for naval stealth aircraft. As a full carrier, at war, the canberras could pack an entire 100,000t USN Nimitz carrier F-35 Airwing! It has additional lifts for weapon rearming and is certainly long enough to launch heavily loaded F-35B's. Infact the only thing limiting them as a carrier is the number of planes (at most 24 F-35b's) and who will operate them (airforce or navy) and the commitment to do so.

Manning, inital price and on going costs are extremely reasonable. And will in part be made up by retiring some current ships.

Nimitz would be able to have a higher sortie rate, and be able to operate F-18's, proper AWAC etc. But this is only a real issue if you want to carpet bomb someone from a carrier. Something Australia will never have to do. These light carriers are exactly what Australia has always needed. Plus the F-35b's intergrate into the airforces F-35A's and US/UK forces.

The wave is smart ordinaces and smart delivery systems. With modern ordinaces even small airwings can pack huge punch. As air superiority, strike, anti shipping, anti submarine, surveliance etc. The F-35 will be able to perform all of these roles.

And we will have two of these carriers. They can also operate in mixed role as amphibious ships and supply a mix of fixed and nonfixed wing aircraft as well as landing craft, 1,000 troops and other equipment.

We can afford and look like getting two such capable ships. Thats more carriers than France, UK, Spain or Russia currently have. Anyway you cut it, tonnage, deck space, sorties, airwing. Australia looks like getting a great deal.

The Kitty hawk would cost atleast $3+ billion to get it semi serviceable. Manning would be prohibitive. Steam boilers. Health and occupation, running costs means even if it was free and brand new we still couldn't afford it. Certainly could not afford the airwing for it. And its only one ship, and would not be avalible for long periods during refits.

Not to mention the complete lack of amphibious capabilities.

The large US carriers have crewing requirements of 4-5,000 people. Even the Wasps require ~3,000 paychecks to get moving. We are talking huge % of the ADF if Australia tried to operate one. The BPE has a naval crew of ~170 people + aircrew. Entirely reasonable. Aircrew and aircraft would be drawn from existing pilots and equipment.

The LHD is a mind blowing good idea, and the BPE design is a stand out multirole platform. It can be justified for its amphibious capabilities, but as a light carrier it is a huge force multiplier. Suddenly the number of frigates or patrol boats is less important when you can back the few boats/ships you have with one or two dozen fixed wing aircraft anywhere in the region. Launching UAV's off them you can get huge coverage over the entire region. Illegal fishing and people smuggling will be come near impossible. Australia could project power to where ever it was needed single handedly. Atleast for a short while.

[ssmoore]

We already determined that it wasnt feasable. Now we can move on..

[Markus40]

WE ?? As i personally wrote up the article for John Key its not everybody that shares the same ideas. As most of us come from a military background, building up a case for the defence of our defence forces in NZ to the leader of the opposition could give me and you (keep you posted) a good idea of what National intend to do when they come to government.

As for the current Labour party, they dont listen. Not any more. So its pointless discussing it. Thats why its aimed to the National party. So once i get some sort of reply we can ummm, lets say "move on".


We already determined that it wasnt feasable. Now we can move on..

[Markus40]

I agree fully and iam with you 100% on this for the exception of one thing.

The LHDs are going to require more or less the current force of ANZACs and FFGs and attack Submarines and a AAW Destroyer as a means of a small but yet effective carrier battle group. Such like the UK, France, US. This is for protection of the LHD for forward operations if required. The LHD will be a principle Warship in RAN and require anti sea, anti air and anti surface reconissaince protection.

The UAV option is very good as a means of recon. and the 24 F35bs will be a huge asset to the LHD. They can and would be a good option for CAP. Its unlikely in my opinion that the large LHD will be used for illegal fishing and anti smuggling ops, as the RAN have already addressed this with a force structure through customs having a fleet of their own Turbos and UAVs for this role. Not to mention the anti smuggling and illegal operations of the RAN using their fast yet small Armidal Patrol Vessels and Helicopters. So thats fairly well covered.



The LHD is a mind blowing good idea, and the BPE design is a stand out multirole platform. It can be justified for its amphibious capabilities, but as a light carrier it is a huge force multiplier. Suddenly the number of frigates or patrol boats is less important when you can back the few boats/ships you have with one or two dozen fixed wing aircraft anywhere in the region. Launching UAV's off them you can get huge coverage over the entire region. Illegal fishing and people smuggling will be come near impossible. Australia could project power to where ever it was needed single handedly. Atleast for a short while.[/QUOTE]

[Tasman]

WE ?? As i personally wrote up the article for John Key its not everybody that shares the same ideas. As most of us come from a military background, building up a case for the defence of our defence forces in NZ to the leader of the opposition could give me and you (keep you posted) a good idea of what National intend to do when they come to government.

As for the current Labour party, they dont listen. Not any more. So its pointless discussing it. Thats why its aimed to the National party. So once i get some sort of reply we can ummm, lets say "move on".

Markus, I think ssmore was responding to the Kittyhawk part of StingrayOZ's post when he said "Now we can move on".

BTW, I thought you're letter was excellent and the ideas in it would be worth discussing in the NZ thread. Perhaps it might encourage other Kiwis to write to the minister.

Cheers

[Tasman]

I agree fully and iam with you 100% on this for the exception of one thing.

The LHDs are going to require more or less the current force of ANZACs and FFGs and attack Submarines and a AAW Destroyer as a means of a small but yet effective carrier battle group. Such like the UK, France, US. This is for protection of the LHD for forward operations if required. The LHD will be a principle Warship in RAN and require anti sea, anti air and anti surface reconissaince protection.

The UAV option is very good as a means of recon. and the 24 F35bs will be a huge asset to the LHD. They can and would be a good option for CAP. Its unlikely in my opinion that the large LHD will be used for illegal fishing and anti smuggling ops, as the RAN have already addressed this with a force structure through customs having a fleet of their own Turbos and UAVs for this role. Not to mention the anti smuggling and illegal operations of the RAN using their fast yet small Armidal Patrol Vessels and Helicopters. So thats fairly well covered.




I think you have covered this well.

I don't think that the purchase of F-35Bs is likely to be pursued by the ADF at this point in time as they won't want to do anything that would jeopardise the current major projects, namely the LHDs, the AWDs and the JSFs. The SH purchase by the RAAF has lessened the pressure to move quickly with the JSF and a decision on the VSTOL version can be delayed.

The RAN is unlikely to 'rock the boat' by doing anything that might suggest that the LHDs will be light carriers. To do so would play into the hands of the strong anti carrier lobbyist group in Australia who are already saying that the LHDs are unnecessarily large and should be replaced by smaller (and therefore less capable) vessels. I think the time to move on the F-35B will be after the LHDs are well into the construction stage.

The initial F-35B project calls for 'up to' 75 aircraft to equip 3 squadrons and I can't see the RAAF getting sidetracked by considering F-35Bs in the mix. A decision on a fourth squadron will be made at a latter date and that is when I hope the navy will apply pressure for the VSTOL version of the aircraft.

Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

Well the F-35B is still many years away. Theres certainly is no rush to secure them.

Infact not pursing them is a smarter move because it keeps our options open and our hand secret. If the RAN said they want to operate the LHD as carriers then we would have to get F-35's to make that possible. This then changes the whole tender process for the aircraft and the LHDs. Prices start to trend upward and many complications are made. Theres also less of a chance of the project being killed before fruition if its initally a simple amphibious aquisition.

The argument for operating F-35B's off a LHD makes more sense when you have two capable LHD sitting in port and your finishing off building your new expensive destroyers. Until then its not worth shouting about it. Capable F-35B's aren't going to be around until 2015 at the very earliest. It may even be a block II purchase to save money and work out the bugs. Until then the LHD will perform as origionally intended, carrying seabirds, NH-90's, chooks, Tigers etc. Hence why 7 landing spots.

By 2020 the greens could be in power and the economy could be in the toilet, so such aquisitions may not be feasable.

The RAN is going to take a massive jump in capability in the next few years. Jumping from a slightly larger version of NZ navy to something like a slightly smaller RN or (far smaller) USN.

[Markus40]

Yes i agree and you too have covered some important points laid out in the LHD and F35bs. Its hard to believe that the anti defence lobby group is that strong in Australia. I must have under estimated its political pulling power. I do think the Howard government is on track with its defence projects so far, and i would put the question to you whether the RAN would consider the prospect of putting money into 3 squadrons of F35bs when 2 smaller squadrons could do the job. IE 12 F35bs each LHD. Yes i agree that this isnt something that wouldnt happen overnight due to the political nature of the current defence spending thats now underway, and its incredible to see Australia putting in a truck load of money into all areas of its defence forces which is very good. However, due to the timing and cost restraints of the US F35s production lines and we have seen this with the C17 that it may put the hurry on with governments wanting to make purchases more in advance for such aircraft as the F35s. Maybe something to think about.

It would seem at this stage at least that Howard will get in for another term as Rudd isnt strong enough and experienced enough to lead Australia at this point. Would i be correct in that? So my feelings are that the defence forces are going to get their equipment upgrades and purchases as necessary along with national and global considerations in mind including the LHDs.


I think you have covered this well.

I don't think that the purchase of F-35Bs is likely to be pursued by the ADF at this point in time as they won't want to do anything that would jeopardise the current major projects, namely the LHDs, the AWDs and the JSFs. The SH purchase by the RAAF has lessened the pressure to move quickly with the JSF and a decision on the VSTOL version can be delayed.

The RAN is unlikely to 'rock the boat' by doing anything that might suggest that the LHDs will be light carriers. To do so would play into the hands of the strong anti carrier lobbyist group in Australia who are already saying that the LHDs are unnecessarily large and should be replaced by smaller (and therefore less capable) vessels. I think the time to move on the F-35B will be after the LHDs are well into the construction stage.

The initial F-35B project calls for 'up to' 75 aircraft to equip 3 squadrons and I can't see the RAAF getting sidetracked by considering F-35Bs in the mix. A decision on a fourth squadron will be made at a latter date and that is when I hope the navy will apply pressure for the VSTOL version of the aircraft.

Cheers

[Markus40]

Hello StingrayOZ. I do agree with you in many ways, that the Australian government would delay the F35bs purchase and work on a sole assault carrier force than an "aircraft carrier" force although in saying that the USN operates AV8Bs off its major assault carriers like the USS Wasp. Maybe this option might be better than the F35b at this stage as a introduction and step through till the F35bs do arrive.

On the other hand however, due to the timing and cost restraints of the US F35s production lines and we have seen this with the C17 that it may put the hurry on with governments wanting to make purchases more in advance for such aircraft as the F35s. Maybe something to think about.

Can i suggest that the RAN is far more than a slightly larger version of the RNZN. Its numbers far outweigh NZs ability and numbers in our Navy. However we have a good contributing factor to the RAN which i think makes even the Australian Navy far larger. Once the RAN is up to strength it will have the equivalent to the Spanish Navy, Italian Navy or Japanese Navy. I doubt it will come near the RN as there naval force structure is larger. Although of late the numbers of Naval assets and personell has dropped. Something the current government is trying to rectify.



Well the F-35B is still many years away. Theres certainly is no rush to secure them.

Infact not pursing them is a smarter move because it keeps our options open and our hand secret. If the RAN said they want to operate the LHD as carriers then we would have to get F-35's to make that possible. This then changes the whole tender process for the aircraft and the LHDs. Prices start to trend upward and many complications are made. Theres also less of a chance of the project being killed before fruition if its initally a simple amphibious aquisition.

The argument for operating F-35B's off a LHD makes more sense when you have two capable LHD sitting in port and your finishing off building your new expensive destroyers. Until then its not worth shouting about it. Capable F-35B's aren't going to be around until 2015 at the very earliest. It may even be a block II purchase to save money and work out the bugs. Until then the LHD will perform as origionally intended, carrying seabirds, NH-90's, chooks, Tigers etc. Hence why 7 landing spots.

By 2020 the greens could be in power and the economy could be in the toilet, so such aquisitions may not be feasable.

The RAN is going to take a massive jump in capability in the next few years. Jumping from a slightly larger version of NZ navy to something like a slightly smaller RN or (far smaller) USN.

[ssmoore]

Right I was refering to the kitty hawk. Altho I think we can agree it would be nice to have such a capable ship it would not be logistically and monetarily possible.

So what class of ship is under consideration? Something simular to the wasp class? Or something smaller?

[Markus40]

Hello ssmore. Thank you for your ideas and suggestions. Currently the government of Australia is or has put forth a proposal for two designs for Tennix of Australia to build 2 x LHDs either from the Spanish Navantia Class which is equiped for a F35b or the French LHD the Mistral Class which doesnt have the facilities immediatly for F35bs. I have included a link for your information. It would appear that the Australian government is leaning on the Navantia design from what i am learning.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/australia-issues-official-tender-for-a-20b-large-amphibious-ships-program/index.php





Right I was refering to the kitty hawk. Altho I think we can agree it would be nice to have such a capable ship it would not be logistically and monetarily possible.

So what class of ship is under consideration? Something simular to the wasp class? Or something smaller?

[Tasman]

Right I was refering to the kitty hawk. Altho I think we can agree it would be nice to have such a capable ship it would not be logistically and monetarily possible.

So what class of ship is under consideration? Something simular to the wasp class? Or something smaller?

Two ships are under consideration, both smaller than Wasp, but very capable.

They are the Spanish Navantia BPE and the French Mistral. See link below for details:

http://www.answers.com/topic/canberra-class-large-amphibious-ship



Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think Australia will ever use 24 F-35B's on one LHD. It is a theoretical surge maxium that maybe possible during war time. However I could see 18 F-35B's possibly on a single LHD as part of a larger international mission. Such as afghanistan where, France, US, Uk, Italy and Spain all participated with carrier support.

The more likely airwing is 6-12 F-35B's for each LHD. Then some support helicopters and some UAV. Even 6 F-35B's would easily defeat any current regional threat and would be a great asset. 6 would also make a reasonable number to train with under normal circumstances. This would still leave the RAAF with a number to play with, and a number under going maintence.

Currently Australia and New Zealand share simular surface fleet combat units, mainly the Anzacs frigates. This is a period of change for the RAN, as several vessles are being replaced etc. However once the new aquisitions are complete the forces will be barely comparible, with Australia having a very capable navy.

In a simular way the UK is having to replace a number of its vessels. However the UK seems to have various cost pressures on it. The CVF is looking shakey as are the number of new destroyers they intend to build. It is entirely concivable that the CVF is cancelled, and only 4 destroyers are produced. In this case I would argue Australia may have a navy approximately as capable as the royal navy.

If the Mistral is choosen for the RAN, then forget the F-35B's. They will not operate off them. They are not long enough, don't have the hanger space, nor the deck surface, Im not sure the lifts can operate them either. It is also not capable of a skyjump. They cannot hanger a chook, even loading 1,000 troops will be a struggle. But they would be far better than anything we have currently.

I just hope all the right decisions are made, Its entirely feasable than within 10 years the RAN would be easily in the top 5 navies of the world. And this does not have to come to the detriment of other services with the RAAF and the Army also taking up high spots in any world comparison.

And it can be done with out blowing the budget.

[Markus40]

Shall i say i hope you are right with your last statement. No argument with your comments so far except for one thing. Having an air defence element on the LHD which by the way im fully in favour off, would be for the protection of the LHD and fleet operations in any area of operation. If we are to take any ideas or look at any experience in this field we need to to look at the Falklands War and how the British used and maintained its air element on their Aircraft Carriers. From what i understand there were 12 operating on each one during the hostilities and this gave enough ground support and air support to the operation, and effective at it might i add.

In my opinion it is unlikely that Australia will match the numbers of and even the capability of the RN having a full range of Submarines, Larger air element on the up and coming aircraft carriers, and a nuclear detterent as well, and a wide range of frigates, destroyer and some cruisers. I would have to agree to disagree with that suggestion.



I don't think Australia will ever use 24 F-35B's on one LHD. It is a theoretical surge maxium that maybe possible during war time. However I could see 18 F-35B's possibly on a single LHD as part of a larger international mission. Such as afghanistan where, France, US, Uk, Italy and Spain all participated with carrier support.

The more likely airwing is 6-12 F-35B's for each LHD. Then some support helicopters and some UAV. Even 6 F-35B's would easily defeat any current regional threat and would be a great asset. 6 would also make a reasonable number to train with under normal circumstances. This would still leave the RAAF with a number to play with, and a number under going maintence.

Currently Australia and New Zealand share simular surface fleet combat units, mainly the Anzacs frigates. This is a period of change for the RAN, as several vessles are being replaced etc. However once the new aquisitions are complete the forces will be barely comparible, with Australia having a very capable navy.

In a simular way the UK is having to replace a number of its vessels. However the UK seems to have various cost pressures on it. The CVF is looking shakey as are the number of new destroyers they intend to build. It is entirely concivable that the CVF is cancelled, and only 4 destroyers are produced. In this case I would argue Australia may have a navy approximately as capable as the royal navy.

If the Mistral is choosen for the RAN, then forget the F-35B's. They will not operate off them. They are not long enough, don't have the hanger space, nor the deck surface, Im not sure the lifts can operate them either. It is also not capable of a skyjump. They cannot hanger a chook, even loading 1,000 troops will be a struggle. But they would be far better than anything we have currently.

I just hope all the right decisions are made, Its entirely feasable than within 10 years the RAN would be easily in the top 5 navies of the world. And this does not have to come to the detriment of other services with the RAAF and the Army also taking up high spots in any world comparison.

And it can be done with out blowing the budget.

[ssmoore]

After looking at the links I hope they choose the spanish desighn. Which one would you guys prefer?

[Markus40]

Hello ssmore. Thank you for your ideas and suggestions. Currently the government of Australia is or has put forth a proposal for two designs for Tennix of Australia to build 2 x LHDs either from the Spanish Navantia Class which is equiped for a F35b or the French LHD the Mistral Class which doesnt have the facilities immediatly for F35bs. I have included a link for your information. It would appear that the Australian government is leaning on the Navantia design from what i am learning.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...gram/index.php



After looking at the links I hope they choose the spanish desighn. Which one would you guys prefer?

[Markus40]

Current numbers of Warships in the RN.

I rest my case.

Aircraft Carriers Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Invincible 1977 22,000 1051
HMS Illustrious 1978 22,000 1051
HMS Ark Royal 1981 22,000 1051

Amphibious Assault Ships Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Ocean 1995 20,700 265
HMS Albion 2001 18,500 363
HMS Bulwark 2001 18,500 363

Type 42 Destroyers Batch 2 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Exeter 1979 4,820 253
HMS Southampton 1980 4,820 253
HMS Nottingham 1980 4,820 253
HMS Liverpool 1980 4,820 253

Type 42 Destroyers Batch 3 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Manchester 1980 5,200 301
HMS Gloucester 1982 5,200 301
HMS York 1982 5,200 301
HMS Edinburgh 1983 5,200 301

Type 23 Frigates Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Argyll 1989 4,900 181
HMS Lancaster 1990 4,900 181
HMS Iron Duke 1991 4,900 181
HMS Monmouth 1991 4,900 181
HMS Montrose 1992 4,900 181
HMS Westminster 1992 4,900 181
HMS Northumberland 1992 4,900 181
HMS Richmond 1993 4,900 181
HMS Somerset 1994 4,900 181
HMS Sutherland 1996 4,900 181
HMS Kent 1998 4,900 181
HMS Portland 1999 4,900 181
HMS St. Albans 2000 4,900 181

Type 22 Frigates Batch 3 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Cornwall 1985 5,300 250
HMS Cumberland 1986 5,300 250
HMS Campbeltown 1987 5,300 250
HMS Chatham 1988 5,300 250

Vanguard Class Submarines Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Vanguard 1995 15,980 135
HMS Victorious 1995 15,980 135
HMS Vigilant 1995 15,980 135
HMS Vengeance 1998 15,980 135

Swiftsure Class Submarines Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Superb 1974 4,900 116
HMS Sceptre 1976 4,900 116

Trafalgar Class Submarines Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew

HMS Trafalgar 1981 5,200 130
HMS Turbulent 1982 5,200 130
HMS Tireless 1984 5,200 130
HMS Torbay 1985 5,200 130
HMS Trenchant 1986 5,200 130
HMS Talent 1988 5,200 130
HMS Triumph 1991 5,200

[Todjaeger]

Hello ssmore. Thank you for your ideas and suggestions. Currently the government of Australia is or has put forth a proposal for two designs for Tennix of Australia to build 2 x LHDs either from the Spanish Navantia Class which is equiped for a F35b or the French LHD the Mistral Class which doesnt have the facilities immediatly for F35bs. I have included a link for your information. It would appear that the Australian government is leaning on the Navantia design from what i am learning.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...gram/index.php

Slight correction here. There are two competing entries for the Canberra LHD. One is from the Tenix/Navantia team, which has the larger SPS-based design. The other team is a Thales ADI/Armaris team which has entered a version of the smaller Mistral LHD. Personally, I hope the SPS-based design wins, being larger, somewhat more capable, and presumably with more flexibility to expand for the future.

-Cheers

[Tasman]

Slight correction here. There are two competing entries for the Canberra LHD. One is from the Tenix/Navantia team, which has the larger SPS-based design. The other team is a Thales ADI/Armaris team which has entered a version of the smaller Mistral LHD. Personally, I hope the SPS-based design wins, being larger, somewhat more capable, and presumably with more flexibility to expand for the future.

-Cheers

The Spanish design has a reasonable capability to operate VSTOL aircraft like the F-35B, but I understand that the French design, whilst 'Australianised' so far as troop capacity is concerned, is not being offered in a lengthened version that would support JSFs. Because of that I would prefer to see the Spanish design selected as it offers the greatest potential to be able to take on different roles, including VSTOL operations, in the future.

Cheers

[Markus40]

Yes, sorry. Forgot to add that in. It was just in the terminology. Yes, me too i am of the opinion that the best design for Australias future needs will be in the larger SPS design going for the Tenix build on the Navantia design. I think from what i know that the RAN want to look at a few modifications and specs so as to have the carrier operate according to its needs. :)



Slight correction here. There are two competing entries for the Canberra LHD. One is from the Tenix/Navantia team, which has the larger SPS-based design. The other team is a Thales ADI/Armaris team which has entered a version of the smaller Mistral LHD. Personally, I hope the SPS-based design wins, being larger, somewhat more capable, and presumably with more flexibility to expand for the future.

-Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

Current numbers of Warships in the RN.

I rest my case.

Aircraft Carriers Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Invincible 1977 22,000 1051
HMS Illustrious 1978 22,000 1051
HMS Ark Royal 1981 22,000 1051



The UK is currently in the process of retiring its carriers and its aircraft. It currently only has two carriers. The sea harrier has been retired. What do you call a carrier with no fixed wing aircraft? The invincible is already layed up. The ark royal is apparently going to be a commando carrier or LPH until its replaced in 2012.

I would hazard a guess and say the harrier would really struggle against modern russian planes flown by a reasonably competent country.

The type 42 destroyers and 22 Frigates are potentially just targets in any modern conflict. This is early 80's technology. Which is why these are already slated to be mothballed with little or no maintence. The only real reason they are there is to keep crews trained and operational. Australia sunk simular destroyers several years ago.

The six warships to be mothballed are the Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and two Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml

Now only 6 new destroyers are going to be built. "Two of eight advanced air defence Type 45 destroyers on the Navy's order books will not be bought, defence sources said."

If the CVF is cancelled, which is a real possibility, this would leave the RN very crippled. Its SSBN are also under threat. Even not cancelled, with only 6 real destroyers, there are limited escorts for all of these ships.

Sure even crippled it would be (slightly) superior to Australia's wet navy dreams. But they will be a comparison of near equals with simular capabilities in the same class. Barring of course active nuclear deterrant, which seems less relevant these days.

The RN has certainly declined since the heydays. Meanwhile Australia is looking at possibilities it has never had.

[Musashi_kenshin]

The type 42 destroyers and 22 Frigates are potentially just targets in any modern conflict. This is early 80's technology. Which is why these are already slated to be mothballed with little or no maintence. The only real reason they are there is to keep crews trained and operational. Australia sunk simular destroyers several years ago.

I'm not sure about the capabilities of the Type-42s, but the Type-22s are still useful assets. Seawolf is not nearly as bad as many people make out - it is very accurate and does what it needs to do - people I know from the Navy are great fans of it. As to the rest, the ships have had upgrades to extend their usefulness.

As to mothballing, those are still essentially unconfirmed rumours.

If the CVF is cancelled, which is a real possibility, this would leave the RN very crippled. Its SSBN are also under threat.

All reports suggest CVF is still on course, and the Treasury has finally agreed to fund it properly. Equally both main parties are still committed to replace Trident - the only question is whether a formal order should wait until after the 2010 disarmament talks.

The RN has certainly declined since the heydays. Meanwhile Australia is looking at possibilities it has never had.

I would say the RN is poised to obtain capabilities not seen for generations/never had.