Australia's Defence Future.

[DEFENCEMASTER05]

The future plan for the Defence of Australia, some may remember an artical by Ian McPhedran The Daily Telegraph March 25 2008 01:08 PM. Now the title was, " Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4 bn wish list." When I saw these headlines this grabbed my attention so I bought the paper and read it. The wish list contained the purchase of a third Canberra class assault ship, a forth air warfare destroyer, plus cruise missiles ( tomahawk ). The navy's wish list is very constructive and affordable for Australia's defence structure.

My belief is that Australia should always have one aircraft carrier, that can be used for deploying strike aircraft to a battle field. Australia once had two aircraft carriers at one point, and then in 1982 decomissioned HMAS Melbourne and the purchase of a British Invincible Class Aircraft carrier. Now this deal fell through after the Falklands War. But ever since their has been no move to restore an aircraft carrier to the Australian Navy. A third Canberra Class assault carrier fitted out as an aircraft carrier would benefit Australia's defence by ten fold. Australia is ordering the new F 35 joint strike fighter, the B variant would be able to be used on the aircraft carrier. Not acquiring a third Canberra Class ship would be a wasted opportunity for the Australian Navy. Australia could buy 120 F 35 joint strike fighters, 90 of the C variant ( which has a longer range than the A variant ) and 30 of the B variant model.

Regarding the forth air warfare destroyer, a forth Hobart Class Destroyer would add some depth to the Australian Navy, and my personal belief was that when the decision was made by the then Howard Government back in mid 2007 to chose the Spainish version over the US version, was that the Howard Government was making plans to purchase a forth Hobart Class Destroyer, this was rumored within the Australian media. Now the Hobart Class Destroyer is to replace the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate.which had six units in service at one point. The Australian Government is currently planning to replace these six Adelaide Class Frigates with only three Hobart Class Destroyers. How can you replace six ships with three ships, this is a cheap cop out by the now Rudd Government. A forth Hobart Class Destroyer should be ordered now, and it is not too late to order a forth air warfare destroyer. Plus a fifth air warfare destroyer would be better, but four would be acceptable.

Tomahawk cruise missiles to arm the Hobart Class Destroyers is a must, and maybe the Australian Government requiring a licence to build a Tomahawk variant in Australia would help the Australian Defence Industry. If Australia can afford to buy twelve new submarines when the Government has only barely four submarine crews for the six Collins Class Submarines. The Australian Government can afford this wish list.

[Bonza]

The future plan for the Defence of Australia, some may remember an artical by Ian McPhedran The Daily Telegraph March 25 2008 01:08 PM. Now the title was, " Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4 bn wish list." When I saw these headlines this grabbed my attention so I bought the paper and read it. The wish list contained the purchase of a third Canberra class assault ship, a forth air warfare destroyer, plus cruise missiles ( tomahawk ). The navy's wish list is very constructive and affordable for Australia's defence structure.

My belief is that Australia should always have one aircraft carrier, that can be used for deploying strike aircraft to a battle field. Australia once had two aircraft carriers at one point, and then in 1982 decomissioned HMAS Melbourne and the purchase of a British Invincible Class Aircraft carrier. Now this deal fell through after the Falklands War. But ever since their has been no move to restore an aircraft carrier to the Australian Navy. A third Canberra Class assault carrier fitted out as an aircraft carrier would benefit Australia's defence by ten fold. Australia is ordering the new F 35 joint strike fighter, the B variant would be able to be used on the aircraft carrier. Not acquiring a third Canberra Class ship would be a wasted opportunity for the Australian Navy. Australia could buy 120 F 35 joint strike fighters, 90 of the C variant ( which has a longer range than the A variant ) and 30 of the B variant model.

Regarding the forth air warfare destroyer, a forth Hobart Class Destroyer would add some depth to the Australian Navy, and my personal belief was that when the decision was made by the then Howard Government back in mid 2007 to chose the Spainish version over the US version, was that the Howard Government was making plans to purchase a forth Hobart Class Destroyer, this was rumored within the Australian media. Now the Hobart Class Destroyer is to replace the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate.which had six units in service at one point. The Australian Government is currently planning to replace these six Adelaide Class Frigates with only three Hobart Class Destroyers. How can you replace six ships with three ships, this is a cheap cop out by the now Rudd Government. A forth Hobart Class Destroyer should be ordered now, and it is not too late to order a forth air warfare destroyer. Plus a fifth air warfare destroyer would be better, but four would be acceptable.

Tomahawk cruise missiles to arm the Hobart Class Destroyers is a must, and maybe the Australian Government requiring a licence to build a Tomahawk variant in Australia would help the Australian Defence Industry. If Australia can afford to buy twelve new submarines when the Government has only barely four submarine crews for the six Collins Class Submarines. The Australian Government can afford this wish list.

The carriers for Australia discussion has gone back and forth quite a few times in the RAN thread, so I'd recommend reading it. Personally I think there's no chance of it happening, but if you are interested in all the arguments for and against, the RAN thread has many relevant posts, and there are other, older threads throughout the Navy forum specifically about the Canberra class. Might have to do some sifting to find them but I found them worthwhile.

[StevoJH]

Why do we need a carrier? What operation would we be carrying out, that would require us to move outside of air coverage from mainland Australia or an Australian Territory (aka. Christmas Island for example) where the single battalion of round the clock troop lift we will have, would be sufficient?

I agree that a 4th AWD would be nice as it would allow the LHD to be escorted by two AWD's with the second pair to sail with a relief force aboard the second LHD, however I doubt KevinThreeSeven* would throw up the Money.

I don't agree with putting TLAM on the AWD's as reduces their ability to carry out their prime function (Air Defense) by reducing the number of SM2/SM6 and ESSM that the ships can carry. I would however support the presence of TLAM on the ANZAC replacement.

I would additionally support the procurement of additional ASW Helicopters (either NFH-90 or SH-60R) above the 24 already being tendered for in order for the RAN to have the ability to deploy a squadron or half squadron at sea aboard the LHD's during the majority of their time in service when they will not have troops embarked.

As for the third sea lift ship i'm actually not sure. We probably don't really have enough Tigers and MRH's on order to justify a third through deck Amphib and its associated costs, however the majority of our army is made up of light forces which helicopter Assaults and large through deck Amphibs best complement. I like the Idea of the Army having a fast decently hitting expeditionary force based around highly mobile light infantry, with the heavier stuff (M1A1 & M113) left at home just in case "all hell breaks loose".

I like infantry, you can land them by helicopter and then send their armoured vehicles ashore later on. With heavier units like Armoured Regiments, they are useless without their vehicles.
*His Plane is a 737, not a 747.

[gf0012-aust]

we're not getting extra assets. the govt has stated quite clearly via the minister (who told us all point blank) that there is no extra money.

we're not buying extra gear as there is NO money to do so. Treasury, Finance and both Snr and Jnr defence ministers have said so.

[StevoJH]

we're not getting extra assets. the govt has stated quite clearly via the minister (who told us all point blank) that there is no extra money.

we're not buying extra gear as there is NO money to do so. Treasury, Finance and both Snr and Jnr defence ministers have said so.

Has there been any discussion on what the Sea Lift ship will be or even if its been taken off the table?

And the LCH and AOR replacements are the next ones coming up as well from memory.

[gf0012-aust]

Has there been any discussion on what the Sea Lift ship will be or even if its been taken off the table?

And the LCH and AOR replacements are the next ones coming up as well from memory.

The briefing was classified so I cannot give out any material. But what I can say (and this mtg was last week on 13/11/09) was that the Minister and the 3 Stars quite clearly and repeatedly said to all of us that there is no money and not to go to them for extra gear.

projects will NOT be allowed to go out of scope. If they are not factored in now and have not been passed by the security council, then they will not get up.

quite bluntly, the journo knows squat and is making it up

[StevoJH]

The briefing was classified so I cannot give out any material. But what I can say (and this mtg was last week on 13/11/09) was that the Minister and the 3 Stars quite clearly and repeatedly said to all of us that there is no money and not to go to them for extra gear.

projects will NOT be allowed to go out of scope. If they are not factored in now and have not been passed by the security council, then they will not get up.

quite bluntly, the journo knows squat and is making it up

Thanks for the clarification.

I wasnt actually referring to that article, it seemed a little bit crazy even at the time. If only because I doubt the brass would make a request they knew would not go through, and even if they did, they wouldn't be telling some random journalist that they are making up fantasy fleets.

[gf0012-aust]

.... they wouldn't be telling some random journalist that they are making up fantasy fleets.

thats not the kind of thing that gets leaked anyway.

besides after McPhedran misrepresented some commentary made by the chiefs earlier this year, I'd be guessing that he'd be low on the pecking order to get anything

[Sea Toby]

Has there been any discussion on what the Sea Lift ship will be or even if its been taken off the table?

And the LCH and AOR replacements are the next ones coming up as well from memory.

The third sea lift ship is being delayed as it is not needed until the last LPA is decommissioned late in the next decade. Specualtion says a Bay class, but there hasn't been any official word. The last I read was for a delivery during 2018. So it probably won't be bought until 2014 or so.

Frankly, I prefer a delay, stretching out programs to avoid block obsolescence thirty years later.

Australia doesn't need a carrier, but during East Timor Australia could have used more sealift. The carrier Australia missed most was the Sydney, not the Melbourne.

[StevoJH]

Australia doesn't need a carrier, but during East Timor Australia could have used more sealift. The carrier Australia missed most was the Sydney, not the Melbourne.

I've neither said nor advocated otherwise. The A4's on Melbourne were equiped with old rear aspect Sidewinders. The most important assets she carried were the Wessex and later Sea King ASW Helicopters. The S-2 were useful, however how far from the ship do you really need to sweep?

You could operate Wessex and Sea King just as Easily off Sydney as you could Melbourne. However come 1980 there werent any affordable LPH options available either (Invincible class would be cheaper then Tarawa or Iwu Jima).

[DEFENCEMASTER05]

The future plan for the Defence of Australia, some may remember an artical by Ian McPhedran The Daily Telegraph March 25 2008 01:08 PM. Now the title was, " Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4 bn wish list." When I saw these headlines this grabbed my attention so I bought the paper and read it. The wish list contained the purchase of a third Canberra class assault ship, a forth air warfare destroyer, plus cruise missiles ( tomahawk ). The navy's wish list is very constructive and affordable for Australia's defence structure.

My belief is that Australia should always have one aircraft carrier, that can be used for deploying strike aircraft to a battle field. Australia once had two aircraft carriers at one point, and then in 1982 decomissioned HMAS Melbourne and the purchase of a British Invincible Class Aircraft carrier. Now this deal fell through after the Falklands War. But ever since their has been no move to restore an aircraft carrier to the Australian Navy. A third Canberra Class assault carrier fitted out as an aircraft carrier would benefit Australia's defence by ten fold. Australia is ordering the new F 35 joint strike fighter, the B variant would be able to be used on the aircraft carrier. Not acquiring a third Canberra Class ship would be a wasted opportunity for the Australian Navy. Australia could buy 120 F 35 joint strike fighters, 90 of the C variant ( which has a longer range than the A variant ) and 30 of the B variant model.

Regarding the forth air warfare destroyer, a forth Hobart Class Destroyer would add some depth to the Australian Navy, and my personal belief was that when the decision was made by the then Howard Government back in mid 2007 to chose the Spainish version over the US version, was that the Howard Government was making plans to purchase a forth Hobart Class Destroyer, this was rumored within the Australian media. Now the Hobart Class Destroyer is to replace the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate.which had six units in service at one point. The Australian Government is currently planning to replace these six Adelaide Class Frigates with only three Hobart Class Destroyers. How can you replace six ships with three ships, this is a cheap cop out by the now Rudd Government. A forth Hobart Class Destroyer should be ordered now, and it is not too late to order a forth air warfare destroyer. Plus a fifth air warfare destroyer would be better, but four would be acceptable.

Tomahawk cruise missiles to arm the Hobart Class Destroyers is a must, and maybe the Australian Government requiring a licence to build a Tomahawk variant in Australia would help the Australian Defence Industry. If Australia can afford to buy twelve new submarines when the Government has only barely four submarine crews for the six Collins Class Submarines. The Australian Government can afford this wish list.


The arguement to say that Australia or the Australian Government having no money to improveve Australia's defence capabilities and capacities is simply rubbish, just when the Labor Government has wasted so 300 plus Billion and landing this country in massive debt. The Labor Government managaes to find money for what they want but not want the Australian Defence Department needs and wants. Now Australia does need an aircraft carrier and a third Canberra Class Assault carrier would be ideal for this purpose. Australia's aircraft carrier would have been ideal for deployments to the Persian Gulf, any strike fighters that Australia did deploy would delete any need or reliance on foreign air bases. Australia also must be prepared and equipped for any future security threats around the world, especially the Pacific Region and the Indian Ocean Region. The Middle East will always be a concern for International security all around the world. Considering the Australian Military Personnel Numbers the Air force and the Navy equipped with military equipment of this scale would be able to provide a greater punch in aiding our allies and friends during any military issues that could possibly arise. Australia could also chose one of the two Canberra Class Assault carriers and adapted it to serve and function as an aircraft carrier and an assault carrier. Also remember the Canberra Class Assault carrier is also a multi purpose ship as well. The problem with some Defence analysts is that they are only looking at any possible military threat that only may come from South East Asia. This is a real concern, when China and North Korea pose a strong possible threats to Australia, plus as well a any military concerns that will most likely arise from the Middle Eastern Region. Australia is not safe, and the United States will not always be their for Australia. It's time for Australia to stand on it's own two feet. If Australian's really value and care for this nation, they would see the value and the need to strongly invest in the security of this nation. The Government only has themselves to blame if they have no money, and the people that voted for the current Government have only themselves to blame as well. A major war is not far away, and Australia must be prepared and not hide our faces in the sand.

[t68]

The arguement to say that Australia or the Australian Government having no money to improveve Australia's defence capabilities and capacities is simply rubbish, just when the Labor Government has wasted so 300 plus Billion and landing this country in massive debt. The Labor Government managaes to find money for what they want but not want the Australian Defence Department needs and wants. Now Australia does need an aircraft carrier and a third Canberra Class Assault carrier would be ideal for this purpose. Australia's aircraft carrier would have been ideal for deployments to the Persian Gulf, any strike fighters that Australia did deploy would delete any need or reliance on foreign air bases. Australia also must be prepared and equipped for any future security threats around the world, especially the Pacific Region and the Indian Ocean Region. The Middle East will always be a concern for International security all around the world. Considering the Australian Military Personnel Numbers the Air force and the Navy equipped with military equipment of this scale would be able to provide a greater punch in aiding our allies and friends during any military issues that could possibly arise. Australia could also chose one of the two Canberra Class Assault carriers and adapted it to serve and function as an aircraft carrier and an assault carrier. Also remember the Canberra Class Assault carrier is also a multi purpose ship as well. The problem with some Defence analysts is that they are only looking at any possible military threat that only may come from South East Asia. This is a real concern, when China and North Korea pose a strong possible threats to Australia, plus as well a any military concerns that will most likely arise from the Middle Eastern Region. Australia is not safe, and the United States will not always be their for Australia. It's time for Australia to stand on it's own two feet. If Australian's really value and care for this nation, they would see the value and the need to strongly invest in the security of this nation. The Government only has themselves to blame if they have no money, and the people that voted for the current Government have only themselves to blame as well. A major war is not far away, and Australia must be prepared and not hide our faces in the sand.

I agree with the with what you are saying, it seems the current governments is of the view defence of Australia in home water’s only with the exception of the planned expansion of the sub fleet.
A majority of Australia’s military deployment‘s are away from the pacific rim. We need a far more balanced ADF with capability to enhance our role with expectations of our allied partner’s and to share the load.
No one has a crystal ball to see into the future and the ADF should position itself with the view of having to carry out operation’s range from disaster relief to high intensity warfare with no friendly airbase’s for with the Air force to operate from.

[Bonza]

The arguement to say that Australia or the Australian Government having no money to improveve Australia's defence capabilities and capacities is simply rubbish, just when the Labor Government has wasted so 300 plus Billion and landing this country in massive debt. The Labor Government managaes to find money for what they want but not want the Australian Defence Department needs and wants. Now Australia does need an aircraft carrier and a third Canberra Class Assault carrier would be ideal for this purpose. Australia's aircraft carrier would have been ideal for deployments to the Persian Gulf, any strike fighters that Australia did deploy would delete any need or reliance on foreign air bases. Australia also must be prepared and equipped for any future security threats around the world, especially the Pacific Region and the Indian Ocean Region. The Middle East will always be a concern for International security all around the world. Considering the Australian Military Personnel Numbers the Air force and the Navy equipped with military equipment of this scale would be able to provide a greater punch in aiding our allies and friends during any military issues that could possibly arise. Australia could also chose one of the two Canberra Class Assault carriers and adapted it to serve and function as an aircraft carrier and an assault carrier. Also remember the Canberra Class Assault carrier is also a multi purpose ship as well. The problem with some Defence analysts is that they are only looking at any possible military threat that only may come from South East Asia. This is a real concern, when China and North Korea pose a strong possible threats to Australia, plus as well a any military concerns that will most likely arise from the Middle Eastern Region. Australia is not safe, and the United States will not always be their for Australia. It's time for Australia to stand on it's own two feet. If Australian's really value and care for this nation, they would see the value and the need to strongly invest in the security of this nation. The Government only has themselves to blame if they have no money, and the people that voted for the current Government have only themselves to blame as well. A major war is not far away, and Australia must be prepared and not hide our faces in the sand.

Again, I'd urge you to have a look through the RAN thread in the Navy forums - there's several reasons why the Canberra would be ill-suited for fixed wing carrier operations (and yes, I know the Spanish have employed them with fixed wing aircraft in the past). The arguments have gone around many times so it's probably better to read them over at the other thread, where your above points have been addressed.

It would certainly not eliminate the need for foreign airbasing in the event of expeditionary warfare (your Gulf deployment example), as a Canberra could realistically support (when considering not only deck/hangar space but fuel and munitions storage) probably half a dozen fast jets. A bit light on for meaningful air support, particularly if you wish for Australia to "stand on its own two feet", as you put it.

In any event have a look through the thread I mentioned as you'll find many arguments both for and against the idea, and quite a few little gems of information from certain posters in the know.

[StingrayOZ]

The 4th AWD does make the most sense as an additional, and it was, kind of mentioned as a possibility (optional 4th). However its looking less likely now, but perhaps things will improve before they stop building the AWD's (and with the ANZAC II using the same hull the 4th AWD might be a late build with latest tech as a model for the AWD refit~2030). We will have to see what happens on that front.

The 4th AWD will allow the RAN to actually be its own Navy and not rely on US ships to give complete aircover (1 ship just can't do it effectively and 3 can't sustain 2 always etc.). 4 would give the RAN a proper fleet of 12 surface combatants. If there is no 4th AWD then the LHD should carry ESSM.

If Australia gets whats been offically announced it will be doing very well for the ADF. They should fight scope creep as it will untie all these good decisions/purchases.

[battlensign]

The number of errors evident in the originating posts is disconcerting and inconsistent with informed discussion. In particular the technical and strategic aspects of RAN Carrier operations and the Canberra Class LHDs are cause for concern - and I would back the call for a thorough reading of the RAN thread - but I will refrain from correcting those mistakes here for fear of duplicating the RAN thread (just as other informed members most certainly are).

In relation to the 4th AWD, as of this week, there is reason to believe that the RAN has not given up hope entirely on that score......so we'll see.

Brett.

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting..

If we get a 4th AWD then the F-100 design decision is totally vindicated, and we would have the very best we could get. 3 mini burkes verse 4 F-100, I think everyone would choose 4 F-100 as there is more capability with 4 good ships than 3 superships (not that I ever thought the miniburkes were really that super).

4 ships also makes Tomahawk more useful as you have more cells avalible.

[battlensign]

Interesting..

If we get a 4th AWD then the F-100 design decision is totally vindicated, and we would have the very best we could get. 3 mini burkes verse 4 F-100, I think everyone would choose 4 F-100 as there is more capability with 4 good ships than 3 superships (not that I ever thought the miniburkes were really that super).

4 ships also makes Tomahawk more useful as you have more cells avalible.

Yes and no. More ships is certainly good, but then you run the risk of needing 2 ships to do the job of one (although with CEC the effect of two would be greater than the sum of the parts). Additionally the less cells you have the less flexibility in loadout. There are so many weapons now - ESSMs, SMs 2/ 3 /6 and Tomahawk LACMs. The alternative is to have really small numbers of each type of missile which then of course reduces effectiveness in all of the roles. It becomes really interesting if I am right and the size of the F100 is being increased to start of life displacement of 7000 tonnes rather than merely being the result of some mathematical unit conversion illusion. What impact would this have on space and weight options if true? Possibly very little beyond increased bunkerage etc or possibly more space for weapons.

In any case.....Mods, perhaps if this thread is going to discuss purely RAN issues it ought to be considered if it were more appropriate to merge it with the RAN thread?

Brett.

[Aussie Digger]

Yes and no. More ships is certainly good, but then you run the risk of needing 2 ships to do the job of one (although with CEC the effect of two would be greater than the sum of the parts). Additionally the less cells you have the less flexibility in loadout. There are so many weapons now - ESSMs, SMs 2/ 3 /6 and Tomahawk LACMs. The alternative is to have really small numbers of each type of missile which then of course reduces effectiveness in all of the roles. It becomes really interesting if I am right and the size of the F100 is being increased to start of life displacement of 7000 tonnes rather than merely being the result of some mathematical unit conversion illusion. What impact would this have on space and weight options if true? Possibly very little beyond increased bunkerage etc or possibly more space for weapons.

In any case.....Mods, perhaps if this thread is going to discuss purely RAN issues it ought to be considered if it were more appropriate to merge it with the RAN thread?

Brett.

RAN has no program to acquire SM-3. The VL missile options for the AWD at the start of their service will be ESSM, SM-2 and Tomahawk.

SM-6 will gradually replace SM-2, in time, leaving AWD's to manage an ESSM, SM-6 and Tactom (or equivalent) land attack missile capability, amongst their VL systems.

Abe, has postulated that space and weight may be available to include specific additional VLS over time to accomodate ESSM only, so the long term weapons loadout for the strike length VLS system could well only include SM-6 and Tactom (for arguments sake as the LACM).

32x SM-6 and 16x LACM would provide useful capability in both roles. Australia is not seeking to emulate USN strike capability, but 16x Tactom's would provide a useful strike capability, especially in later years if the Future Frigate and submarine were also equipped with such a capability. A taskforce of 3x RAN surface vessels (what was deployed to Timor for instance) and a submarine (24x weapons for arguments sake) could see up to 72x LACM's, 96x SM-6 and over 150x ESSM available to the taskforce.

A not inconsiderable capability, especially if contributed to a coalition effort...

[battlensign]

RAN has no program to acquire SM-3. The VL missile options for the AWD at the start of their service will be ESSM, SM-2 and Tomahawk.

Given our involvement in US Missile Defence more generally and the likelyhood of specific consideration of it by the the NSC of Cabinet during the AWD program determinations, I wouldn't be so sure about that in the future. Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence for deployed forces may become more necessary as more countries (read Iran/DPRK) maintain arsenals of SR, IR and even LRBMs.

SM-6 will gradually replace SM-2, in time, leaving AWD's to manage an ESSM, SM-6 and Tactom (or equivalent) land attack missile capability, amongst their VL systems.

Agreed. Very likely. Of course, this is dependent on there being no more weapons developed over the life the AWDs that might be deemed necessary.

Abe, has postulated that space and weight may be available to include specific additional VLS over time to accomodate ESSM only, so the long term weapons loadout for the strike length VLS system could well only include SM-6 and Tactom (for arguments sake as the LACM).

I am hoping that this is one of the happy potential consequences of increasing the displacement of the Hobart Class derivative of the F-100 in Australian service. Certainly would be a very useful advantage. Ultimately I suspect that Australia's vessels are more likely to be in harm's way where air threats are a concern than the Armada, if only for alliance management policies. The more protection in terms of defensive missiles the better.

32x SM-6 and 16x LACM would provide useful capability in both roles. Australia is not seeking to emulate USN strike capability, but 16x Tactom's would provide a useful strike capability, especially in later years if the Future Frigate and submarine were also equipped with such a capability. A taskforce of 3x RAN surface vessels (what was deployed to Timor for instance) and a submarine (24x weapons for arguments sake) could see up to 72x LACM's, 96x SM-6 and over 150x ESSM available to the taskforce.

A not inconsiderable capability, especially if contributed to a coalition effort...

Unless you are factoring the ANZAC replacement as a 7000 tonnes F100 derivative with 48 cells and an AUSPAR capability then I would doubt those numbers. We will not be having three AWDs in one location. It is also unlikely that the government would allow the construction of effectively 11 AD destroyers that had only the AUSPAR/AEGIS systems as differentiation. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that you would get more than 8-12 LACMS in the subs (unless they are massive and include VLSs). The Astute loadout of 38 weapons and 22 for Collins should indicate the basic range within which the likely total number of weapons carried might fall. It is also important to remember that as a convential submarine solution (likely at this stage) configured for broad area sea-denial it is unlikely that there would be only a small number of torpedoes carried. And what of harpoon?

However, despite disagreeing with your figures here I think your general point still stands and that it would still be a very significant contribution to allied operations.

Brett.

[StingrayOZ]

Well the ANZAC replacements are most likely going to be 7,000t F-100 hulled acording to the WP.

How many cells are actually put on them and how many are filled are a different matter. In high threat enviroments they might have all those cells filled.

With 4 AWD you can get 2 deployed at once, add a reasonably well armed frigate (anzac/anzacII) and you are still looking at simular numbers. Or deploy 1 AWD and 3 frigates and you are still looking at simular numbers. Enough to go into high threat enviroments by themselves without allies.

Given our involvement in US Missile Defence more generally and the likelyhood of specific consideration of it by the the NSC of Cabinet during the AWD program determinations, I wouldn't be so sure about that in the future. Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence for deployed forces may become more necessary as more countries (read Iran/DPRK) maintain arsenals of SR, IR and even LRBMs.

It has been mentioned that PAC-3 (navalise patriot) might be aquired for terminal interception (and also covering things that sm-2/6 don't). We may obtain SM-3 at a latter date. That purchase doesn't have to exclude SM-3 at a latter date.

[Aussie Digger]

Given our involvement in US Missile Defence more generally and the likelyhood of specific consideration of it by the the NSC of Cabinet during the AWD program determinations, I wouldn't be so sure about that in the future. Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence for deployed forces may become more necessary as more countries (read Iran/DPRK) maintain arsenals of SR, IR and even LRBMs.

It may. But that doesn't change the fact that ADF has no plans to incorporate SM-3 into the AWD's.

BMD doesn't only encompass naval platforms...

I agree that it could change however. It IS the case though, that VLS cells on the AWD's will not be filled with SM-3 at their entry to service.

Unless you are factoring the ANZAC replacement as a 7000 tonnes F100 derivative with 48 cells and an AUSPAR capability then I would doubt those numbers. We will not be having three AWDs in one location. It is also unlikely that the government would allow the construction of effectively 11 AD destroyers that had only the AUSPAR/AEGIS systems as differentiation. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that you would get more than 8-12 LACMS in the subs (unless they are massive and include VLSs). The Astute loadout of 38 weapons and 22 for Collins should indicate the basic range within which the likely total number of weapons carried might fall. It is also important to remember that as a convential submarine solution (likely at this stage) configured for broad area sea-denial it is unlikely that there would be only a small number of torpedoes carried. And what of harpoon?

However, despite disagreeing with your figures here I think your general point still stands and that it would still be a very significant contribution to allied operations.

Brett.

The only guidance on the Future Frigate that has been released is that the future frigate is to be larger than the ANZAC, along with all other ADF platforms is to be fitted with not for and have a focus on ASW roles AND be fitted with LACM capability.

It is has been speculated that the FF will be up to 7000t, in which case it may very well be the same basic hull, as the F-100 series.

If the frigate IS built that large, I cannot see why it would be constructed with less VLS numbers than the AWD. Less battle-management capability, yes, but less firepower? Not necessarily.

In any-case it is a bit too far out to speculate, same with the submarine, but if it doesn't maintain a minimum of 38x weapons I'd be very surprised (and disappointed)...

[StingrayOZ]

The white paper stated 7,000t. From that we assume it will be the same 7,000t as the AWD.

I think it will have the same number of VLS. Modifying the design and screwing around isn't worth it IMHO. If you don't have the missiles just leave it empty as future capability. Or rotate missiles in and out as you need them.

The only reason to really screw with it is to add additional helo capability. But with 20 OCV offering that, the 2 LHD offering that, UAV's filling that role as well it hardly seems worth it. Plus your stuffing around the top weight at the back of the ship and removing below deck weight at the front, doesn't seem to really offer the space we want.

I think that was the most exciting part of the WP. If we have 3-4 AWD and 8 frigates with same missile loadout (missile ship concept) with Auspar, then as long as we can intergrate them into the network then it would be like having 12 destroyers. AusPar will be fine for use as a frigate doing lower level stuff, but in a high threat enviroment when teamed with AEGIS would extend the AWD's reach and capabilities. With Auspar/AEGIS complementing each other.

Thats why the extra AWD is so important with 3 it would be pretty hard to sustain operations over longer periods of time or in higher threat enviroments. You also couldn't do/have major diffculty doing things like having two fleets each with atleast 1 AWD, which would be nice with the whole FBE/FBW. Throw in 8-12 subs (4-6 at each of FBE/FBW or simular) and the image is complete.

Like I said, the RAN as a complete navy and the ADF as a complete force. Capable of independant deployment into high threat enviroments performing the full range of missions. The only thing we won't be able to do is fixed wing carriers, but the Tigers are better for CAS, the ships are certainly capable of land attack, and the RAAF is fully stocked with longer range aircraft and refuellers.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think that was the most exciting part of the WP. If we have 3-4 AWD and 8 frigates with same missile loadout (missile ship concept) with Auspar, then as long as we can intergrate them into the network then it would be like having 12 destroyers. AusPar will be fine for use as a frigate doing lower level stuff, but in a high threat enviroment when teamed with AEGIS would extend the AWD's reach and capabilities. With Auspar/AEGIS complementing each other.


Considering the possible issues that can pop up after making small changes to an established design (e.g. weight issues with the ANZAC) I doubt they will mess with the design too much. The main difference will be in the combat system IMO.

A ship with that load-out is a de-facto AWD, quite a capability (fingers crossed).

[battlensign]

It may. But that doesn't change the fact that ADF has no plans to incorporate SM-3 into the AWD's.

BMD doesn't only encompass naval platforms...

Yeah, but I can't imagine it in any other form for Aust. We would already have the perfect platform and with SM3 or PAC3 you never know....

I agree that it could change however. It IS the case though, that VLS cells on the AWD's will not be filled with SM-3 at their entry to service.

Agreed.

The only guidance on the Future Frigate that has been released is that the future frigate is to be larger than the ANZAC, along with all other ADF platforms is to be fitted with not for and have a focus on ASW roles AND be fitted with LACM capability.

It is has been speculated that the FF will be up to 7000t, in which case it may very well be the same basic hull, as the F-100 series.

It certainly has Australian Industry advantage, but I am still concerned by the age of the design by that stage.....though if that's what we have to do to get a 7000t frigate with Auspar and 48 cells...... :)

If the frigate IS built that large, I cannot see why it would be constructed with less VLS numbers than the AWD. Less battle-management capability, yes, but less firepower? Not necessarily.

Pethaps to enhance the political distinction between the two, but I hope you are right. The felxibility offered by the extra Frigate cells that may go unused most of the time can be used to compensate the AWDs smaller numbers of cells in contingencies.

In any-case it is a bit too far out to speculate, same with the submarine, but if it doesn't maintain a minimum of 38x weapons I'd be very surprised (and disappointed)...

The major contributors to debate in this arena appear to be arguing for a 4000-ish ton design. I have no idea how many weapons that would allow carriage of, but I suspect not more than 30 tbh. Time will tell.

Brett

P.S I would reiterate my earlier call for there to be consideration by the MODs towards merging this thread with the RAN thread.

[battlensign]

Considering the possible issues that can pop up after making small changes to an established design (e.g. weight issues with the ANZAC) I doubt they will mess with the design too much. The main difference will be in the combat system IMO.

A ship with that load-out is a de-facto AWD, quite a capability (fingers crossed) .

Shhh.....let's hope nobody notices.......it may very well be the reason the RAN hasn't been publicly complaining about the F100 decision. Perhaps they were merely thinking strategically and were hoping for 12 Destroyers while we were all hoping for 3 Baby Burkes.

Brett.

[exported_kiwi]

Folks, surely, if the RAN goes ahead and buys 7000t warships to replace ANZAC, they'd become, because of displacement alone, DDGs. Aren't Frigates supposed to be around the 2500 - 4000t range and Destroyers, over this displacement? It'd be kinda handy to have 11 - 12 Destroyers wouldn't it, even if, on paper, 8 of them would only be FFGs.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Folks, surely, if the RAN goes ahead and buys 7000t warships to replace ANZAC, they'd become, because of displacement alone, DDGs. Aren't Frigates supposed to be around the 2500 - 4000t range and Destroyers, over this displacement? It'd be kinda handy to have 11 - 12 Destroyers wouldn't it, even if, on paper, 8 of them would only be FFGs.

I think in reality its just semantics. The navy will be able to get away with having 7000t "frigates" because we already have the rights to that design. It would be "cheaper" just to build 12 F100 derivatives.

Still the question remains, what are the Kiwi's going to do for an ANZAC replacement?

[StingrayOZ]

Spain calls them frigates anyway.

While the design will be somewhat older, its still pretty good. Atleast they are large enough to fit with modern systems and equipment off US vessels. I still reckon for us they are better than the Burkes (which are an older design). Auspar is actually a really good option because it makes up for one of the weaknesses of the F-100 design with so few illuminators. However we might put somesort of miniAuspar on the AWD anyway like what we are currently trialling, the AEGIS setup certainly coveres the weaknesses of Auspar. A mixed Aussie fleet will have a very interesting radar setup.

7,000t is the total design max, they will most likely be more like 6,000t at launch, which is only a few tho bigger than the FFG's or anything else we would be looking at, why reinvent everything to save ~ 100 t of steel per ship?.

NZ should buy into the design too. Even if they only get two and not even fully load the VLS by only using the current ANZAC missile load. Buy more once you have them. That would significantly lower the costs. The 5" would be carried across and so could the R2D2's. Your talking about a mass produced hull and Auspar as a cost. That would result in 14 destroyers for our region. If you are going to get only 2 ships, why not make them fully capable ones? With the number Australia will be building it will be a good deal and honestly the Anzacs were a pretty good program for NZ.

With so many high quality ships the OCV's could be pretty much defenceless with just a 25mm a few 12.7mm (perhaps some low cost stuff,GPS 80mm+ motars, javalin fitted when needed) and a helicopter/uav (hellfires? perhaps only a few armed shared among all). To perform EEZ stuff and provide additional support to the bigger ships.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

NZ should buy into the design too. Even if they only get two and not even fully load the VLS by only using the current ANZAC missile load. Buy more once you have them. That would significantly lower the costs. The 5" would be carried across and so could the R2D2's. Your talking about a mass produced hull and Auspar as a cost. That would result in 14 destroyers for our region. If you are going to get only 2 ships, why not make them fully capable ones? With the number Australia will be building it will be a good deal and honestly the Anzacs were a pretty good program for NZ.


Personally I think this vessel is overkill for the RNZN, you could argue the ANZAC is too much. This will probably be a watered down AEGIS class destroyer, complete with AUSPAR. Way too much capability for the threat environment the NZDF is going to face.

[battlensign]

Personally I think this vessel is overkill for the RNZN, you could argue the ANZAC is too much. This will probably be a watered down AEGIS class destroyer, complete with AUSPAR. Way too much capability for the threat environment the NZDF is going to face.

It may be overkill for them, but remember they tend to chose what threat environments they enter based on what equipment they have, so 'dog biting its tail'? In the past the RNZN operated Cruisers and joined Task Groups of Australian, US and RN ships. If they had the ships then I wouldn't see that changing anytime soon. Though they really need at least three ships to do it properly and if more expensive ships=less ships then NZ would really need to carefully consider what it wanted to do.

Brett..

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It may be overkill for them, but remember they tend to chose what threat environments they enter based on what equipment they have, so 'dog biting its tail'? In the past the RNZN operated Cruisers and joined Task Groups of Australian, US and RN ships. If they had the ships then I wouldn't see that changing anytime soon. Though they really need at least three ships to do it properly and if more expensive ships=less ships then NZ would really need to carefully consider what it wanted to do.

Brett..

I think equipment purchase is driven by geopolitical goals rather than some theoretical contingency i.e. you will only realise you don’t have enough capability when your military is unable to provide you with viable options when they are needed. If that happens you invest in more capability (happening with the Japanese now), if not then you see no change. NZ maintained a credible coalition participation force when maintaining a great power alliance was considered a geopolitical imperative. With the end of the cold war apparently it is no longer.

I agree military capability increases your options, however you have to consider the likelihood of those options being necessary. Having the RAN build 3x 30,000 ton STOVL carriers would provide Canberra with plenty of additional contingencies in a range of possible scenarios. However what are the chances that they will provide adequate utility for the investment? Pretty darn low I would think.

The same stands for NZ acquiring what is in effect a watered down AEGIS class AWD. Considering 4 ~ 6 large OPV or small frigate type vessels would likely provide more utility in the non war fighting roles than 2 AWD light's I don’t think the investment is worth it. Could these vessels allow NZ to participate on a global scale? Sure, but the question remains do they really want to?

[StingrayOZ]

2 x ANZAC II's would keep NZ internationally relevant in terms of intergrating into a larger taskforce. These ships would also allow blue water operations and protect thier own ships during lower level operations. They wouldn't cost a huge amount concider the missiles, CIWS, gun are complete carry overs. Other smaller less capable frigates aren't going to be a whole lot cheaper to purchase or offer much over what they already have. Which is most likely why Australia going this route.

Not replacing the ANZAC's with something atleast comparible means that NZ is a completely internationally useless force, only able to offer commerical quality ships not suitable for any conflict and you would be better off leasing commerical vessels and fishing boats. NZ would then have a navy of simular quality to Fiji, Samoa or PNG.

The ANZAC's are already 3,600t and look at the weight issues there. NZ has also been burnt with OTS commerical designs not up to the task. The watered down AWD will have simular complement to an ANZAC (perhaps lower), simular cost to anything comparible (look at what europe is buying), be compatable with US and Australian warships and have additional capability.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

2 x ANZAC II's would keep NZ internationally relevant in terms of intergrating into a larger taskforce. These ships would also allow blue water operations and protect thier own ships during lower level operations. They wouldn't cost a huge amount concider the missiles, CIWS, gun are complete carry overs. Other smaller less capable frigates aren't going to be a whole lot cheaper to purchase or offer much over what they already have. Which is most likely why Australia going this route.

Not replacing the ANZAC's with something atleast comparible means that NZ is a completely internationally useless force, only able to offer commerical quality ships not suitable for any conflict and you would be better off leasing commerical vessels and fishing boats. NZ would then have a navy of simular quality to Fiji, Samoa or PNG.

The ANZAC's are already 3,600t and look at the weight issues there. NZ has also been burnt with OTS commerical designs not up to the task. The watered down AWD will have simular complement to an ANZAC (perhaps lower), simular cost to anything comparible (look at what europe is buying), be compatable with US and Australian warships and have additional capability.

But the question still remains do they really want to be credible on an extra-regional scale? What purpose does it serve apart from improve internet forum morale? Clearly NZ's interest’s lay in maintaining stability in the south pacific and protecting it’s EEZ, and unless the strategic situation in East Asia drastically deteriorates I don’t think that will change. Thus why have a 48x cell, AUSPAR equipped AWD derivative when you can have 2 or 3 smaller OCV vessels for the same price?

P.S. I don’t think and ANZAC II would be comparable in cost to the ANZAC I in contemporary terms, the sensor suite alone is that much more sophisticated the cost MUST be significantly greater. That’s fine for us; we want a ship that's really capable in a war-fighting environment so the extra cost is worth it. The Kiwi's on the other hand, will they get a return on investment?

[StingrayOZ]

Well with China setting up naval bases in the pacific I wonder if NZ will maintain its current military policy.

2,3 or 4 OPV's are certainly options. I do think they should concider them. Again Australia's OCV may be something interesting for that. That is a different issue however.

The navy is the only branch that is able to go afar and participate in international missions because the ANZAC is still a pretty good ship. Take that away and all the training with international forces, experience, blue water naval skills, a proper navy etc is gone. While an OPV is good for catching commerical fishing in your waters, Im not sure how suitable it is for anti piracy missions or other grey area operations etc. While few nations could get fighter aircraft over NZ airspace, nearly everyone could push ships into its waters. This would be the first time that NZ had no war capable ships and be reduced to a (fairly flismy) coast guard.

While many countries cheap out on military expenses, not many have completely dissolved their military. Internet status or not, thats a pretty big leap for a country with 4 million people and a fairly healthy economy.

[MrConservative]

Well with China setting up naval bases in the pacific I wonder if NZ will maintain its current military policy.

2,3 or 4 OPV's are certainly options. I do think they should concider them. Again Australia's OCV may be something interesting for that. That is a different issue however.

The navy is the only branch that is able to go afar and participate in international missions because the ANZAC is still a pretty good ship. Take that away and all the training with international forces, experience, blue water naval skills, a proper navy etc is gone. While an OPV is good for catching commerical fishing in your waters, Im not sure how suitable it is for anti piracy missions or other grey area operations etc. While few nations could get fighter aircraft over NZ airspace, nearly everyone could push ships into its waters. This would be the first time that NZ had no war capable ships and be reduced to a (fairly flismy) coast guard.

While many countries cheap out on military expenses, not many have completely dissolved their military. Internet status or not, thats a pretty big leap for a country with 4 million people and a fairly healthy economy.

Taking this thread back to its original premise - Australia's Defence Future and away from the NZ tangent I would be interested in peoples views regarding the mix of future OCV's and Anzac II's. Is 20 - 8 about right? What is the rationale behind that mix?

[recce.k1]

You can be sure if China setup naval bases in the southern Pacific then NZ would respond (the question of course would be to what extent though). I say that because reading previous NZ Govt defence policies, they will expand only when their is a direct and perceived threat, hence things are kept minimum in the meantime (the major glaring problem here though is the chopping of the ACF rather than maintaining at least a training element eg MB339's - but as we know that was a personal political not a practical defence decision).

Currently/recently the NZ Govts can claim there are no threats since the demise of the USSR and its Pacific Fleet etc. China putting a naval base somewhere closer would mean that the NZ Govt couldn't ignore it, but realistically where would that happen and when?

Maybe we can throw in a wild card, like Fiji, although that is a long, long way to project power for China. Then again relations between Fiji and Australia/NZ are just getting worse (that's why previously I've advocated meaningful dialogue, I'm sure the Commodore doesn't really want to go begging to China, but the more A&NZ run their economy into the ground well who else can he turn to? So IMO it's either dialogue .... or A&NZ would just have to invade Fiji and topple the Commodore - those are the two choices. This current embarrassing tit-fot-tat standoff that has dragged on for 3 years now is totally ridiculous and is a testiment to former NZ PM's bullying attitude to others that are weaker, be that Fiji, the NZDF or people of NZ that were against her etc).

As for NZ downgrading its Frigates in favour of OPV's, Norm, Mr C and I have reported on the current Govt announcing that funding for the ANZAC replacements are being planned for. Alas no kiwi here on DT will know any details until publically released, perhaps next year, but maybe the Aussie def-pros such as GF and AD might be able to find out with their contacts, assuming they are allowed to say anything (probably not).

So should NZ go with the F100 derivative FF? Maybe that depends on cost. But one can be sure behind the scenes Australian and NZ Govt and Defence officials are talking. Australia will play hardball of course to ensure NZ signs up. For NZ, unlike buying off the shelf perhaps cheaper from the EU, or maybe Singapore (as there's nothing suitable in the US, unless we go LCS etc) and thus handing over buckets of money, at least buying into the Australian programme probably would have some handsome offsets i.e. at least NZ companies can bid for aspects of the project. At a A-NZ political level, this would be win-win for both countries.

Is the FF too big for NZ? I'm not a naval architect, but my uninformed opinion would be it would be perfect. NZ (like Australia) has seen that the ANZAC's (despite being larger than the previous Leanders and Rothsays) don't have sufficient weight-growth etc.

It seems reasonable to me for NZ to go for a bigger hull, after all not all weapons and sensors would have to be fitted eg same old fitted for and not with, and you chaps have already suggested talking over the main gun and R2 unit (and fit a second unit, fore). Fit it out with Harpoon and ESSM (jeez I'd love for NZ to also have Standard for medium range threats but who knows). Could NZ get away with AUSPAR or have it fitted for but not with? I dunno I'm not an expert. But it seems sensible to me if the funding were there, or allowances were made for a later date. After all the RNZN frigates aren't purely there for the defence of NZ, they also of course range as far as Japan/China and westwards into the Indian Ocean, and work in with of course the RAN (and on the quiet the US) so the NZ Govt knows that RNZN Frigates must be equipped better than their EEZ patrol OPV equivalents.

For NZ (and maybe Aust) if the FF had the room to accomodate, say another 20-30 or so extra personnel (eg SF, by helo insertion, or marine boarding parties etc - the NZ OPV can accomodate 34 extra non-naval personnel) and for NZ a couple of customs/legal types, then again the FF could be sold to the NZ public as having other (longer range) anti-piracy/border/terrorism protection roles, which is very important in this post 9/11 world.

[StingrayOZ]

Taking this thread back to its original premise - Australia's Defence Future and away from the NZ tangent I would be interested in peoples views regarding the mix of future OCV's and Anzac II's. Is 20 - 8 about right? What is the rationale behind that mix?

It should be a total of 20-8-3 (hopefully 4).

The OCV's I would have guess numbers from the patrol and mine hunters being replaced by them over time. ~ 14 patrol boats I think we had 6 mine and survey vessles = 20 ships.

The number seems about right. While on occasion they may operate with a ANZAC II thats not the normal mission profile, they are to fill in the gaps in Australia's border security. The can detain large numbers of people, operate far out to sea, operate a helo for anti piracy and early detection. Mine and survey ships are pretty self explanitory but at least the Huons have been pressed into service as patrol boats too.

Given our patrol boats aren't that old they may be gifted to pacific island nations in an agreement as to prevent the chinese tempting any one allowing them a base or needs a boat to enforce eez's, rescues or sold onto a buyer (possibly regionally like Malaysia, Indonesia etc).

The more important ratio is 8:4 in terms of ANZACII:AWD. As good as a ANZACII might be we still need 4 AWD's. Its very hard to operate a navy with two main coasts with only 3 ships. You won't even be able to train (fleet/taskforce intergration etc) effectively with 3 ships. Unless all your ships are in one port. 4 we become a networked force, 3 means we are an isolate target.

I know the white paper says "7,000t" but look at the figures for the F-100. They are closer to 5,800 at the moment, with a lighter/no missile load out, lighter radar, smaller lighter superstructure etc that might put them closer to 5,000t flat. Given the ANZAC's are 3,600t and the weight issues there, 5,000t doesn't seem excessive.

[battlensign]

Taking this thread back to its original premise - Australia's Defence Future and away from the NZ tangent I would be interested in peoples views regarding the mix of future OCV's and Anzac II's. Is 20 - 8 about right? What is the rationale behind that mix?

The rationale is simply the direct repacement (1 for 1) of the ANZAC class frigates with a new warship and then the consolidation of the RANs Patrol (14), Oceanographic (2), Survey (4) and MCM vessels (6) with a single class of multi-role vesses. A replacement of 26 vessels with 20, athough I believe the whitepaper says 'around 20' at para 9.20. The replacement of the ANZACs one for one is probably the best deal around in terms of the fact that there is the crewing issue preventing more from being acquired and that we cannot allow less due to the magnitude of our controlled waters and international engagement. The OCV is likely to be on the larger side due to the requirement for a flexible mission deck capable of handling modular mission packages and possibly a small transport role in the Archipelagic region. Personally I do not believe that 20 replacement vessels will be sufficient as Navy currently employs more than the 14 Armidale vessels for patrol tasks. Therefore a force of 20 leaves only at best 6 vessels for other tasks with mission packages and more likely only 3-4.

Brett.

[StingrayOZ]

Personally I do not believe that 20 replacement vessels will be sufficient as Navy currently employs more than the 14 Armidale vessels for patrol tasks. Therefore a force of 20 leaves only at best 6 vessels for other tasks with mission packages and more likely only 3-4.

We may keep the younger armidales to assist in that purpose. We might have some permanently based out at Christmas Isl, Cocos etc.

While 20 sounds impressive it is less hulls than we already have. And the whole purpose of this type is to have many hulls.

[ThePuss]

It seems reasonable to me for NZ to go for a bigger hull, after all not all weapons and sensors would have to be fitted eg same old fitted for and not with, and you chaps have already suggested talking over the main gun and R2 unit (and fit a second unit, fore). Fit it out with Harpoon and ESSM (jeez I'd love for NZ to also have Standard for medium range threats but who knows). Could NZ get away with AUSPAR or have it fitted for but not with? I dunno I'm not an expert. But it seems sensible to me if the funding were there, or allowances were made for a later date. After all the RNZN frigates aren't purely there for the defence of NZ, they also of course range as far as Japan/China and westwards into the Indian Ocean, and work in with of course the RAN (and on the quiet the US) so the NZ Govt knows that RNZN Frigates must be equipped better than their EEZ patrol OPV equivalents.



NSSM, The missile that ANZAC, ARUNTA, TE KAHA and TE MANA commissioned with and what TK and TM still have is very much a point defence weapon. ESSM (which really is not a evolution of NSSM but a all mostly entirely new weapon) IS a medium range naval SAM.

I have heard from my contacts in the RNZN that it is a given that they will have to upgrade to ESSM soon, due to NSSM becoming unsupportable in the near term.

ESSM is twenty times the missile NSSM is, so TK and TM will soon be vastly more capable in a war fighting environment.

I hope that the ANZAC ASMD upgrade is a success and the RNZN decides to jump onto the tail end of the project. As it is the Kiwi ANZAC's are currently undergoing a major platform (Engineering) upgrade so they are not going anywhere soon.

[ThePuss]

We may keep the younger armidales to assist in that purpose. We might have some permanently based out at Christmas Isl, Cocos etc.

While 20 sounds impressive it is less hulls than we already have. And the whole purpose of this type is to have many hulls.

I don't know about the Cocos, but it is not possible to build a wharf at CI. It has one small pier for very, very small boats to pull up at (Not much bigger than RHIB size). It is at Flying Fish Cove which is on top of a shallow reef and besides a few other smaller inlets the entire island is surrounded my 30 odd meters sheer cliffs. In fact the commercial ships (small container traders going in and small phosphate bulk carriers going out) actually pull up alongside a cliff and pass four lines, two to the cliff and two to buoys to keep them stationed whilst unloading and loading. When on station massive cranes pivot out to the ships which are thirty to forty meters away from the ship. It is the same thing when we fuel there except it's around the corner from the town. So the ACPB's can not be home ported there, but there is not the need for it as they have the range to patrol off there anyway (thank god, I’m SO glad I don't have to do it anymore! :)

[StevoJH]

We may keep the younger armidales to assist in that purpose. We might have some permanently based out at Christmas Isl, Cocos etc.

While 20 sounds impressive it is less hulls than we already have. And the whole purpose of this type is to have many hulls.

Younger Armidales? Werent they all commissioned within a year or two of each other?

[recce.k1]

NSSM, The missile that ANZAC, ARUNTA, TE KAHA and TE MANA commissioned with and what TK and TM still have is very much a point defence weapon. ESSM (which really is not a evolution of NSSM but a all mostly entirely new weapon) IS a medium range naval SAM.

I have heard from my contacts in the RNZN that it is a given that they will have to upgrade to ESSM soon, due to NSSM becoming unsupportable in the near term.

ESSM is twenty times the missile NSSM is, so TK and TM will soon be vastly more capable in a war fighting environment.

I hope that the ANZAC ASMD upgrade is a success and the RNZN decides to jump onto the tail end of the project. As it is the Kiwi ANZAC's are currently undergoing a major platform (Engineering) upgrade so they are not going anywhere soon.

Cheers there, ThePuss! Yup that ASMD upgrade (http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1448/sea1448.cfm)looks beaut! (and publically, assuming political will/funding being there, it appears here that's what the RNZN are possibly aiming for) ...

TK is supposed to come out of its engineering refit next month and TM is going in for its engineering refit next year, I read a few days ago....but also that there will be further engineering related upgrades again i.e. in the next scheduled maintenance periods, so maybe timing wise these upgrades you mention may happen then, rather than sooner, possibly, as the funding is yet to be approved etc?

[StingrayOZ]

Younger Armidales? Werent they all commissioned within a year or two of each other?

The last one was commissioned in feb 2008. The earlier ones I belive had a problem with onboard personel storage and ventilation that I believe was fixed on latter ones. Im not sure on that.

Cocos might be a better option, but I don't have any intel/facts of where its really needed.

[Marc 1]

The arguement to say that Australia or the Australian Government having no money to improveve Australia's defence capabilities and capacities is simply rubbish, just when the Labor Government has wasted so 300 plus Billion and landing this country in massive debt. .

Do you have a job? Have many of your family and friends lost their jobs?

One thing you can be sure of, even if John Howard was back in power he would have spent many billions of dollars on a stimulus package as well. Debatable whether it would have been as much or spent in the areas where Labor directed the money, but we would have had a large deficit regardless.

Not doing so could have seen a much deeper recession, higher unemployment (more unemployed means more benefits being paid, and less taxation revenue being taken plus a more protracted recovery). You call, personally the money could have been better spent (more infrastructure spend spread out over a longer period), but overall I'm happy it was spent.

I say this as somebody who has nearly always voted conservative, never labor, and as someone with a university education in economics.

I'll add to the recommendations to go look at the existing debates on the need for a carrier.

[rossfrb_1]

NSSM, The missile that ANZAC, ARUNTA, TE KAHA and TE MANA commissioned with and what TK and TM still have is very much a point defence weapon. ESSM (which really is not a evolution of NSSM but a all mostly entirely new weapon) IS a medium range naval SAM.

I have heard from my contacts in the RNZN that it is a given that they will have to upgrade to ESSM soon, due to NSSM becoming unsupportable in the near term.

ESSM is twenty times the missile NSSM is, so TK and TM will soon be vastly more capable in a war fighting environment.

I hope that the ANZAC ASMD upgrade is a success and the RNZN decides to jump onto the tail end of the project. As it is the Kiwi ANZAC's are currently undergoing a major platform (Engineering) upgrade so they are not going anywhere soon.

Re ASMD - I wish RAN would acquire the Rolling Airframe Missile system - even if only in SeaRAM config.
Block 2 should be available soon - would be perfect IMHO for the LHDs
& even ANZACs. In SeaRAM config I would imagine it could be swapped around the way RAN does with its Phalanx units
Raytheon's Rolling Airframe Missile Completes Key Flight Tests (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/raytheons-rolling-airframe-missile-completes-key-flight-tests-71604327.html)

rb

[icelord]

Re ASMD - I wish RAN would acquire the Rolling Airframe Missile system - even if only in SeaRAM config.
Block 2 should be available soon - would be perfect IMHO for the LHDs
& even ANZACs. In SeaRAM config I would imagine it could be swapped around the way RAN does with its Phalanx units
Raytheon's Rolling Airframe Missile Completes Key Flight Tests (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/raytheons-rolling-airframe-missile-completes-key-flight-tests-71604327.html)

rb

Highly unlikely on Anzacs, on there future replacement it may be possible. theres just too much crap on them now to add a 12.7 mount let alone a SeaRAM. Theres been minor talk of defence packages for LHD, possibly waiting till next year but a SeaRAM would do nicely, as would CIWS Block 2, Typhoons and sniper rifle for gunner of the watch, cause in case of Man Overboard Board, i just dont see them using a steyr from that height to hit a shark.:rolleyes:

[StingrayOZ]

Searam mounts would be a good idea for the OCV even if they are never needed. If they ever need them its a bolt on job.

LHD is pretty well covered in mini typhoons. They need a missile system (ESSM and/or Searam). However Phalanx might be desireable against other threats.

ANZACs are at a evolutionary dead end. You can't make em any better (they are pretty good now). Best to start thinking about new hulls and saving your money.

I think the RAN should use a combined pool of SeaRAM and Phalanx for ships they both have advantages and are relatively ship/flexable. We proberly have enough Phalanx but a few Searam units would be a good idea.

[von_noobie]

Not much of a military expert, But, Before we even plan about getting another Canberra class, or even a 4th AWD, WOuldnt it be far morel ogical for Mr Kevin Dudd to supply the funds needed to actually put defensive weapons and radar systems on the Canberra's, Not garunteed that there will always be a AWD backing them up, all there doing is giving Terrorists a nice prime easy to hit target, Even if a light plan packed with explosives doesnt smash throught the deck, Which it wouldnt, Could still set off fires that can easily spread, There just risking over 55,000 tons in ships and thousands of lives and billions upon billions.... Idiots.

Curious as to the purchase of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's, Used by the USN, WOuld these not be suitable for use aboard the Canberras? Simple matter of fitting the needed gear for landing/taking off of carriers, As mock ups are only being placed upon them. And giving training to the pilots, Which im sure the USN would be happy to aid in.

Personnaly, I believe we need 3 Canberras, thoe would have been more happy if the Government went and tried to by 3 Tarawa class amphibious assault ships of the USN, Would have been cheaper, And had more capabilities.

And in my personnal opinion, Considering Australias need for complete sea control, 3-4 AWD is just not going to do it, Would be far more happy with 6 AWD, Thoe if had my way would have them 100% designed and Built in Australia.

[Bonza]

Not much of a military expert, But, Before we even plan about getting another Canberra class, or even a 4th AWD, WOuldnt it be far morel ogical for Mr Kevin Dudd to supply the funds needed to actually put defensive weapons and radar systems on the Canberra's, Not garunteed that there will always be a AWD backing them up, all there doing is giving Terrorists a nice prime easy to hit target, Even if a light plan packed with explosives doesnt smash throught the deck, Which it wouldnt, Could still set off fires that can easily spread, There just risking over 55,000 tons in ships and thousands of lives and billions upon billions.... Idiots.

Curious as to the purchase of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's, Used by the USN, WOuld these not be suitable for use aboard the Canberras? Simple matter of fitting the needed gear for landing/taking off of carriers, As mock ups are only being placed upon them. And giving training to the pilots, Which im sure the USN would be happy to aid in.

Personnaly, I believe we need 3 Canberras, thoe would have been more happy if the Government went and tried to by 3 Tarawa class amphibious assault ships of the USN, Would have been cheaper, And had more capabilities.

And in my personnal opinion, Considering Australias need for complete sea control, 3-4 AWD is just not going to do it, Would be far more happy with 6 AWD, Thoe if had my way would have them 100% designed and Built in Australia.

Read the RAN thread in the Navy section if you want to know why the Canberras aren't suitable for use as fixed-wing carriers. I realise it's a long thread but the issue has been done to death so best to read about it there, I think.

Canberras aren't going to be deployed in a high-threat environment without support assets, including air defence. And why do you advocate more destroyers in your final paragraph, but advocate arming the Canberras in place of getting a fourth destroyer in your first paragraph?

Also I'm confused as to how a blue water naval vessel is a "nice easy to hit target for terrorists". I'm aware of the Cole bombing but it's not as though these vessels sit in port if they're in a hostile location. They'd be as far out from the coast as was practical, and if a light plane comes near them I'm pretty certain the 25mm Typhoons will suffice for a slow moving target... the resources a non-state entity would have to expend in sinking a ship as large as an LHD would be monumental.

I don't mean to sound as though I'm ripping on your post or anything, but I reckon reading the RAN thread would be a good idea as a lot of your concerns have been covered there, by people far more knowledgeable than myself. :)

[von_noobie]

Bonza, Cheers for your points, Thoe as far as my understanding is, The 25mm Typhoons are used for defence against asymmetric threats, Such as small boats. So there got defence against boats packed with explosives, Still dont see any defence against aircraft.

And realistically, A light plane can still make a reasonable distance, And the Canberra class assault ship would have to operate with in reasonable range of the coast, Due to there LCM's.

I just find it highly irrispnsible of those in the power to fix the lack of defences on the Canberra's, These days plenty of misle boats that can hit targets 50-70km away, Mass firing of missiles, And the defensive weapons of a single AWD will have an impossible time of defending just its self, Let alone a Canberra.

And just to calrrify your second point, I advocate getting more destroyers, As in my personnal beliefe, The RAN needs them, But only after such times as the Canberras are fitted with proper defensive weapons and radar. Once thats done then go for getting more AWD's.

Now onto reading the RAN thread =) Cheers

[Todjaeger]

Bonza, Cheers for your points, Thoe as far as my understanding is, The 25mm Typhoons are used for defence against asymmetric threats, Such as small boats. So there got defence against boats packed with explosives, Still dont see any defence against aircraft.

And realistically, A light plane can still make a reasonable distance, And the Canberra class assault ship would have to operate with in reasonable range of the coast, Due to there LCM's.

I just find it highly irrispnsible of those in the power to fix the lack of defences on the Canberra's, These days plenty of misle boats that can hit targets 50-70km away, Mass firing of missiles, And the defensive weapons of a single AWD will have an impossible time of defending just its self, Let alone a Canberra.

And just to calrrify your second point, I advocate getting more destroyers, As in my personnal beliefe, The RAN needs them, But only after such times as the Canberras are fitted with proper defensive weapons and radar. Once thats done then go for getting more AWD's.

Now onto reading the RAN thread =) Cheers

I agree with Bonza that the RAN thread should really be read through, but just a few points I wished to either touch upon, or reinforce. The Canberra-class LHDs are currently planned to be fitted with 25mm Bushmasters in Typhoon mountings. In addition, some of the 20 mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWSs can be mounted, drawing upon the pool that the RAN maintains of these weapons. More importantly (from an air defence perspective) is that as Bonza said, the LHDs are/would not be operating in threat environments without escorts. It the responsibility (and role) of the escort to provide force protection for the LHD and that includes not only aerial threats, but against surface and sub-surface threats as well. While it would be nice, and there could be certain benefits to including a more capable air defence capability aboard the LHDs, in the grand scheme of things, there are other pieces of kit needed more urgently.

As for the RAN making a mistake in not choosing something like the Tarawa-class LHA or the Wasp-class LHD, IMO neither of those designs would be viable for the RAN. The RAN has a strength of ~14,000 personnel IIRC, spread throughout the shore establishments, diplomatic posts, etc as well as providing the officers and crew for ~54 vessesl of various types and classes. In USN service, a the Tarawa and Wasp classes have crew complements of ~964 and 1,108 respectively. In short, two such vessels in RAN service would require ~13-16% of all RAN personnel, while the Canberra-class has a more modest crew requirement, of ~200, plus support elements for any embarked helicopters IIRC.

-Cheers

[gf0012-aust]

As for the RAN making a mistake in not choosing something like the Tarawa-class LHA or the Wasp-class LHD,


they were assessed and rejected

[Bonza]

Bonza, Cheers for your points, Thoe as far as my understanding is, The 25mm Typhoons are used for defence against asymmetric threats, Such as small boats. So there got defence against boats packed with explosives, Still dont see any defence against aircraft.

And realistically, A light plane can still make a reasonable distance, And the Canberra class assault ship would have to operate with in reasonable range of the coast, Due to there LCM's.

I just find it highly irrispnsible of those in the power to fix the lack of defences on the Canberra's, These days plenty of misle boats that can hit targets 50-70km away, Mass firing of missiles, And the defensive weapons of a single AWD will have an impossible time of defending just its self, Let alone a Canberra.

And just to calrrify your second point, I advocate getting more destroyers, As in my personnal beliefe, The RAN needs them, But only after such times as the Canberras are fitted with proper defensive weapons and radar. Once thats done then go for getting more AWD's.

Now onto reading the RAN thread =) Cheers

No worries mate, it's a good thread and if you check back through the Navy thread archives there's quite a few bits and pieces about the Canberras from the last few years. Very instructive to read what some of the professionals have to say!

As far as the Typhoons go, I think they'd do fine against a light plane. Granted it'd be pretty close-in defence - but I imagine a naval task force (and it's important to remember the LHDs aren't going to operate in a vacuum, and as such capability should be measured against an integrated force, not necessarily individual units) would have assigned a response to a light plane long before it got within ramming distance.

Anti-ship missiles are prolific, as you say, but in what constitutes a high threat environment (and I imagine the presence of AShMs would qualify) there would be quite a bit of "preparation" of the battlespace done before the LHD entered. What are the likely threat environments where an Australian LHD is going to face a massed firing of anti-ship missiles? And in that environment, is it likely an LHD is going to be committed without sufficient support to respond to such threats?

Remember to look at the whole picture, not just the ship itself and not just the capability of an escort by itself. Look at the threat environment, look at the likely response as an integrated force and then consider the capability as a whole. And consider it from the perspective of the ADF as a whole, not just the RAN (as in a high threat environment the other branches will absolutely be involved).

For example, how likely is it to face a massed firing of anti-ship missiles from the 50-70km range bracket when you have RAAF air support (Wedgetail, Super Hornet, etc), submarines on ISR, possibly inserted special forces providing additional observation of the enemy (which the SAS have done in the past and do very well), and so on.

Now I know the scenario above has a lot of "ifs" in it, and that the support granted by such a force would be situational and bound by limitations of platform range, circumstance and so on. But the question is, is the RAN going to commit an LHD to an environment where they can't provide the above support (or similar, it's just an example), or are they going to approach the situation with alternative strategies that will ensure the LHD is placed at minimum risk?

The threat environment must be considered, as you say, but what also must be considered is how the LHD is intended to be used and supported within that environment.

As I said the above is just an example so I welcome corrections on behalf of other posters, but I think in the context of an integrated force, a light plane isn't going to get close to an LHD. Nor do I think an LHD would be deployed within range of hostile anti-ship missiles without sufficient support to defeat those missiles. No one is going to be more aware of the Canberra's individual defence deficiencies more than the RAN. As such I believe they are confident in the overall capability afforded by their force mix to use the ships in the roles for which they're intended.

[Aussie Digger]

Bonza, Cheers for your points, Thoe as far as my understanding is, The 25mm Typhoons are used for defence against asymmetric threats, Such as small boats. So there got defence against boats packed with explosives, Still dont see any defence against aircraft.

And realistically, A light plane can still make a reasonable distance, And the Canberra class assault ship would have to operate with in reasonable range of the coast, Due to there LCM's.

I just find it highly irrispnsible of those in the power to fix the lack of defences on the Canberra's, These days plenty of misle boats that can hit targets 50-70km away, Mass firing of missiles, And the defensive weapons of a single AWD will have an impossible time of defending just its self, Let alone a Canberra.

And just to calrrify your second point, I advocate getting more destroyers, As in my personnal beliefe, The RAN needs them, But only after such times as the Canberras are fitted with proper defensive weapons and radar. Once thats done then go for getting more AWD's.

Now onto reading the RAN thread =) Cheers

If the Canberras were ever to be operationally deployed to a region where an anti-ship missile threat was present, the defences of the ship would be upgraded, just as HMAS Kanimbla was when it deployed to the Gulf in 2003.

Their defensive weapon systems include small arms, heavy machine guns, Typhoon 25mm cannons and for an operational deployment would include Phalanx CIWS and short-ranged SAM systems, just as HMAS Kanimbla did.

On top of which are EW systems and EW self protection systems that will help defend the ships from threats.

In addition of course is the force package that either of the Canberras would be integrated into, because they are not sent into harms way by themselves.

The Canberras could do with a more permanent missile based self defence system IMHO (a RIM-116 RAM launcher per ship would hardly break the budget - Korea ordered 3x systems for USD$25m back in 2004...) but at this time RAN doesn't see arming the LHD's as a priority.

Korean KDX-3 Destroyers to Get Rolling Airframe Missiles (http://www.deagel.com/news/Korean-KDX-3-Destroyers-to-Get-Rolling-Airframe-Missiles_n000000300.aspx)

Any planned deployment into a high threat theatre would change that, of course, but still...

[von_noobie]

Thanks for all the info so far guys, Due to crew compiment i do now relise the Canberra's are the only viable option, However i still disagree with leaving the placement of main defensive weapons until the last minute, We are ment to be a small but well trained and capable force, Only an idiot would leave out defensive weapons on a ship of that size, Been shown time and time again throught out history, Especialy in the last 100 years, If you wait for when you need it, People die, Better to do whats needed before you need it. It saves lives.

We are only a samll force, Sprad out over a vast area, We should be armed and fitted with the best in Offensive and Defensive weapons now, Not wait for the shooting to start.

But thtas just my opinion.

[t68]

Thanks for all the info so far guys, Due to crew compiment i do now relise the Canberra's are the only viable option, However i still disagree with leaving the placement of main defensive weapons until the last minute, We are ment to be a small but well trained and capable force, Only an idiot would leave out defensive weapons on a ship of that size, Been shown time and time again throught out history, Especialy in the last 100 years, If you wait for when you need it, People die, Better to do whats needed before you need it. It saves lives.

We are only a samll force, Sprad out over a vast area, We should be armed and fitted with the best in Offensive and Defensive weapons now, Not wait for the shooting to start.

But thtas just my opinion.



Yes the fitted for but not with policy i think is a bit of a joke, But the RAN only has a small budget to start with so it is practical to have the ships with a pool of weapons systems and fitted when needed if the RAN has long lead times.

But is there enough in the pool to equip all the main combat surface ships if thing’s really turned to custard and fit them out in short notice. The likely hood of the RAN to put all the ships to sea in support of a major war is remote but it still has to be looked at, ships as part of a coalition and still need to piquet the homeland, will need all the defensive and offence equipment we can muster.

I don’t think the US will have that many to spare if we need them in a hurry.

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for all the info so far guys, Due to crew compiment i do now relise the Canberra's are the only viable option, However i still disagree with leaving the placement of main defensive weapons until the last minute, We are ment to be a small but well trained and capable force, Only an idiot would leave out defensive weapons on a ship of that size, Been shown time and time again throught out history, Especialy in the last 100 years, If you wait for when you need it, People die, Better to do whats needed before you need it. It saves lives.

We are only a samll force, Sprad out over a vast area, We should be armed and fitted with the best in Offensive and Defensive weapons now, Not wait for the shooting to start.

But thtas just my opinion.

The ships will have a minimum self-defence capacity at all times, comprising the 25mm Typhoons, small arms and whatever armament capacity any helos they carry have.

This may include Phalanx on a more regular basis, as it appears Kanimbla and Manoora routinely carry these weapons now, perhaps because of the increased threat environment since USS Cole and 9/11 and therefore the Canberra's will be better armed than any of our current Amphibs.

What they don't need is advanced air defence/anti-cruise missile defences unless they are going on operations into such an environment. No such threat is present in Australian waters and therefore, from Defence and Governments POV, such capabilities can be pushed back, until such time as they may be necessary.

It's all well and good to say that our boats should have the best of everything, but no-one I know wants to have to look after these things, when they are completely unnecessary. By carrying them ALL the time, there is a training burden, a logistic burden and the financial burden of purchasing these systems up front.

As I've shown, a RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile system for these 2 ships, would likely only cost about $25-$30m. That's pretty small change compared to the $2b price tag of these ships, but it's $25-$30m that won't be going somewhere else...

It's all a juggling act, but ADF won't be putting such valuable assets into an operational environment without equipping them adequately for the task at hand. If that requires a rapid upgrade of defences, well it's happened before and will happen again...

[t68]

I just had thought on how we could manage defence recruiting and keeping those who choose to stay in the ADF.

It’s a bit radical in terms of treasury dollars in there coffers, if we can not afford to give them a pay rise in general terms across the services how much of an impact would it have on the economy if there tax burden was reduced which from memory is a sliding scale from 15% thru to 45% of net pay, now if we were to reduce the amount of tax to say 5% this in effect gives them a pay rice of between 10-40% and make a general admission if given a length of service of 20t years your tax will be 0% for the remaining time of service. The other 5% in tax generated goes back into the ADF to boost funding level equipment levels and services to the member’s of the ADF.

It in effect gives the Member’s a pay rise within the direct budget allocation for defence with an additional funding from the small tax base that is still applicable to member’s who have not severed there 20,getting this past treasury will be the sticking point in my opinion .

Although i do like the old scheme of a pension after 20 years service the above only pay a reduced amount will still an ADF member with no ongoing commitment on leaving except for medical grounds .

Would you be tempted to join the ADF and stay the long haul if you tax burden was significantly reduced?

Do you think this is feasible or not?

[LancasterBomber]

Do you think this is feasible or not?

Its a bit drastic and very expensive.

In general I love where you are coming from because you are right to be proactive regarding the personnel drain we are about to suffer again (this will be much worse than last time IMO).

Right now there is a company in Brazil bending over backwards to move the iron ore contract price back to the spot market.

If they manage to achieve this (dragging the Chinese and Japanese steel yards kicking and screaming) then we are in serious trouble again in WA and FBW.

Look what we may have to do is just accept the mining boom and when it comes to diesel mechanics we just have to offer 'pay parity' during boom times to keep them in the ADF (and any other position that falls into this high risk category).

If someone has a letter of offer of employment for $200,000 for a 12 month contract with a mining company then ADF has the right to match that offer for that period of time.

We ride the boom in terms of company tax receipts (from the Federal Govt perspective) and it may just be that we have to suck it up and be more flexible with our pay scales during the mining boom times (i.e cant have our cake and eat it too).

Especially for the working class type positions that are critical to asset platforms like our subs.

I couldn't give two shits if im only earning $75k as a AWA while my mate down the dusty end of the boat is on $200k this year cos he is in high demand this year. Good luck to him. I'd just make him buy all the booze! :D

I would rather keep my group together - that is in the strategic national interest - the benefits of which are intangible.

Rather than lock in an unsustainable tax break for ADF I think we need to be more fluid in being able to match legitimate commercial contract offers if we so deem that individual to be fundamental to the sustainable operation of one of our platforms. Once the contract is up personnel revert back to traditional pay scales.

It's just going to have to be a case by case basis.

[t68]

Yes i can see the argument but its a big jump when you pay market rate for people in need to go from an all right pay for 12 month’s or whatever time frame but i would be pissed going back to the prior pay for doing the same job.

Yes the budget would take a hit but the full time ADF member’s amount to 55000 personnel but with tax breaks all the ADF member’s benefit from the humble wheel nut to chief of the ADF,not everyone is going to stay the 20 but it’s a big incentive, the latest money incentive for submariner’s and pilots did not seem to good some were still getting out.

Well i suppose it back to the drawing board i just answered my own question..... “DOH”

[StevoJH]

Lancaster, except pretty soon you'll be paying half the ship $200,000/year because when one person turns down an offer they'll make one to the next person on their list. ;)

[LancasterBomber]

......and here it begins......

Crean warns China to let market determine the outcome of iron ore price negotiations | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/crean-warns-china-to-let-market-determine-the-outcome-of-iron-ore-price-negotiations/story-e6frg8zx-1225841103911)

Apology it is slightly off topic but does relate to my previous post regarding the relationship between our Navy personnel and a pending mining boom on the back of spot price contracting.

This will heat up.

If they want the resources then they can pay top dollar.

Getting back to you Stevo re matching contracts you are spot on everyone would end up with their hand out for sure lol ;) :D so I dont really have a solution to the issue its very complex.