I take it that the " no plans for increasing the AOR fleet" is based on HMAS Choules replacement with one or two multipurpose Supply /Amphibious ships.
Is that correct?
Cheers S
Is that correct?
Cheers S
Reported in ATM that plans for the joint supply ships have been shelved. One of the projects cancelled or rescoped!
National Defence Strategy and IIP discussed - Australian Defence Magazine
Tas
Interesting, support vessels for Navy scrapped, Army to transition into a littoral (Marine) force focused on the SE Asia threat and plan to get heavy and medium landing craft.
And the support for that Littoral force is coming from where now ? More smoke and mirrors, more plans, no action.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Some extra info from reading the full documents.
The Grand Plan to buy a large number of General Purpose Frigates has exactly zero approved funding over the next ten years.
The Grand Plan to buy a large number of General Purpose Frigates has exactly zero approved funding over the next ten years.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Defence is spending $6.4 Billion for the purchase of 129 Redbacks.
Please note for those who will try to claim this is the full life cost of this capability.
Delivery of the Redbacks will be between 2027 and 2029.
That $6.4 Billion is only expenditure out to 2033/34 NOT the whole of life cost.
Makes the Boxers seem an absolute bargain in comparison!
Please note for those who will try to claim this is the full life cost of this capability.
Delivery of the Redbacks will be between 2027 and 2029.
That $6.4 Billion is only expenditure out to 2033/34 NOT the whole of life cost.
Makes the Boxers seem an absolute bargain in comparison!
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Not sure what the 15 Amphibious Capable Support Vessels refers to:
MARKMILES77
Active Member
No mention of any SAM capability above the NASAMs.
The planned Medium to Long range capability presumably scrapped?
The planned Medium to Long range capability presumably scrapped?
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Reasonably big investment in Hypersonic Weapons compared to conventional air launched weapons.
Also no mention of another F-35 Squadron.
Also no mention of another F-35 Squadron.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Amphibious capable support vehicles may be referring to the LARC-V replacement project sub-phase.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Probably means they intend to spend less than the amount required for Cabinet approval in the 2024-25 FY. Any projects under the set amount* don't require Cabinet approval, just subject to set conditions and being audited.
*It was $20m in 2020, don't know what it currently is.
$49 million each but this obviously includes spare and support infrastructure …still a lot. Any possible future buys should be a lot lower.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Be careful with language here.
It is not the full life cost, because the vehicles will be in-service beyond 2033. Simultaneously, it is whole of life cost as that money includes sustainment and production facilities (in addition to the actual cars and onboard equipment). Because it is not in service, nor has it met IOC, all costs are in the IIP. Hawkei (on the other hand), is in service, hence it is so 'cheap' at only $63 m.
Complicating this is the fact much of the money sits in the outer years of the decade, meaning the inflation figure is higher (ie, $100 m in 25/26 is closer to $130 m in 33/34)
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
It appears the JSS has been dropped and there are no plans for increasing the AOR fleet. I would ask the question, would it be better to have Eight GP Frigates and two more AORs, than 11 GPF and no increase in AORs?
Aussie optimist
Member
I suspect that additional AOR’s will be ordered in the 2030’s. At the moment our fleet is contracting, so they aren’t needed now. Once the new ships begin to come online and the fleet actually starts to grow, I would imagine they would be ordered quickly.
Given the funding constraints at the minute, I actually think it’s not a bad move.
Not sure I agree with the additional f35’s being dropped though. However we also don’t know just how capable the ghost bat will be either.
A bit puzzled with no additional support vessels.
On the one hand we are getting a very large number of medium and large landing craft, so I'm comfortable amphibious lift is covered.
Supply at sea for the fleet however seems particularly light on for the intended fleet and intent to be a capable Littoral force.
An additional AOR is not a great expense.
The fleet needs legs, perseverance and 24/7 availability.
Two Supply Class and two LHD's realistically look a bit limiting going forward.
Aviation at sea needs BIG flexible ships.
Army will need aviation to support their expeditionary maritime endeavours.
Landing craft medium and heavy are needed but should be a compliment, not a substitute to the larger vessels.
Big ships still have a place going forward.
Hmmmmmmmm
Cheers S
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
When I look at the RCN’s JSS program, adding 2-3 extra CSCs might have been a better option and just get a couple more converted container ships for AOR. Too late now.
The full list of what has been cut:
Army
3/4 of the planned IFV’s.
50% of the planned self-propelled guns,
100% of the planned 120mm mortars and armoured amphibious vehicles
And have ignored any kind of discernible enhancement of our reserve combat capability.
RAN:
The Joint Support ships.
6x Arafura Class OPV’s.
The Hydrographic and mine sweeper fleet.
RAAF:
The fourth JSF squadron.
The additional 2x air to air refuellers.
The medium ranged air defence capability.
4x new Hercules.
Any kind of armed UAS system at all.
3x MQ-4C Triton’s.
All cut without replacement. The line it’s transitioning from being a balanced force, couldn’t be more accurate…
Army
3/4 of the planned IFV’s.
50% of the planned self-propelled guns,
100% of the planned 120mm mortars and armoured amphibious vehicles
And have ignored any kind of discernible enhancement of our reserve combat capability.
RAN:
The Joint Support ships.
6x Arafura Class OPV’s.
The Hydrographic and mine sweeper fleet.
RAAF:
The fourth JSF squadron.
The additional 2x air to air refuellers.
The medium ranged air defence capability.
4x new Hercules.
Any kind of armed UAS system at all.
3x MQ-4C Triton’s.
All cut without replacement. The line it’s transitioning from being a balanced force, couldn’t be more accurate…
To be fair, the situation with the F-35 is unclear, TR3 is here, but Blk4 isn't. There are issues. We have 72 F-35, and 36 super hornets. This is reasonable fighter capability. We should probably look at enablers, weapons and autonomous capabilities, as well as upgrades.
The fourth squadron of F-35 was never confirmed AFAIK. There was not order being cancelled. It was always in the future, and in balance of UAV or other similar capabilities. Arguably upgrading the 36 SH to Block 3 capability is a good here and now option, and upgrading the existing F-35 Fleet to Blk IV, is more important than acquiring only a squadron of F-35 blk 4. Really the forth squadron of F-35 was AWOL when we ordered Growlers. AIM 260 should be a priority.
Blk3 for the SH may include cft, which would, somewhat, mitigate lack of additional refuellers. Sort of. Not really. Singapore? Commercial?
Same I guess for the JSS/AOR- Allies? Commercial? Its been done before. Heres and idea, refit the RAS capabilities onto the LHD's, at least they could support their own little task force, for regional deployments. Doesn't cost any extra man power, or require new ships. Not ideal, but if a AOR was broken, or some thing needed, it would be at least band aid capability bridge other options.
The Arafura's have their own issues. Arguably what is really lost is the opportunity cost of going with something that can be built fast and immediate that is closely based off the Arafuras. Even if its not exactly what we want. Its another burnt failed to follow through order. Looks bad, is bad. Tearing up the contracts will probably cost as much as not building 4 MMPV, which honestly in this market, would probably be of interest to smaller friendlies and would round out the contracts and investments and buy time to adapt and you would have something that can go bang.
Hydrographic and mine sweeper is a obliterated. Shame, as mine laying is really coming into its own IMO. As this moves into UUV space pretty quickly. I wonder if they will dispose of the Huons entirely?
Army, the news is pretty grim. Perhaps more than the lost of units, is the destruction this causes to SMEs and suppliers who gain, tried to bet on the government actually coming through on promises, and are now going to be thrown to the wall on order numbers. Relationships strained, and its not clear that what is built is enough to offer real capability anyway.
Probably the darkest part of all this, is IMO, it seems as if we are still floating in terms of strategies and direction. Kill programs, kill future programs, kill existing capabilities, break promises, lurch into new uncharted announcements and high risk, long term, projects with out even clear candidates selected, with builders who don't operate in Australia. It doesn't seem to explain why obvious program that could provide real capability quickly aren't explored, or where we are really going with this.
The fourth squadron of F-35 was never confirmed AFAIK. There was not order being cancelled. It was always in the future, and in balance of UAV or other similar capabilities. Arguably upgrading the 36 SH to Block 3 capability is a good here and now option, and upgrading the existing F-35 Fleet to Blk IV, is more important than acquiring only a squadron of F-35 blk 4. Really the forth squadron of F-35 was AWOL when we ordered Growlers. AIM 260 should be a priority.
Blk3 for the SH may include cft, which would, somewhat, mitigate lack of additional refuellers. Sort of. Not really. Singapore? Commercial?
Same I guess for the JSS/AOR- Allies? Commercial? Its been done before. Heres and idea, refit the RAS capabilities onto the LHD's, at least they could support their own little task force, for regional deployments. Doesn't cost any extra man power, or require new ships. Not ideal, but if a AOR was broken, or some thing needed, it would be at least band aid capability bridge other options.
The Arafura's have their own issues. Arguably what is really lost is the opportunity cost of going with something that can be built fast and immediate that is closely based off the Arafuras. Even if its not exactly what we want. Its another burnt failed to follow through order. Looks bad, is bad. Tearing up the contracts will probably cost as much as not building 4 MMPV, which honestly in this market, would probably be of interest to smaller friendlies and would round out the contracts and investments and buy time to adapt and you would have something that can go bang.
Hydrographic and mine sweeper is a obliterated. Shame, as mine laying is really coming into its own IMO. As this moves into UUV space pretty quickly. I wonder if they will dispose of the Huons entirely?
Army, the news is pretty grim. Perhaps more than the lost of units, is the destruction this causes to SMEs and suppliers who gain, tried to bet on the government actually coming through on promises, and are now going to be thrown to the wall on order numbers. Relationships strained, and its not clear that what is built is enough to offer real capability anyway.
Probably the darkest part of all this, is IMO, it seems as if we are still floating in terms of strategies and direction. Kill programs, kill future programs, kill existing capabilities, break promises, lurch into new uncharted announcements and high risk, long term, projects with out even clear candidates selected, with builders who don't operate in Australia. It doesn't seem to explain why obvious program that could provide real capability quickly aren't explored, or where we are really going with this.
The worst outcome I see from today's announcement, is the real lack of spending right now.
Everything is in 10 years from now. The 53 to 63 Billion in the next 10 years, about 5 to 6 billion in the next 4 years! Again, this govt is just using delay tactics, committing to nothing in reality.
See what happens next election, I can't see this govt going two terms, I really think Albo has made some big misjudments, tax promise broken, power prices up, referendum, cost of living, immigration, most people I know don't like what's going on. Only Peter Duttons unpopularity can save the ALP.
Everything is in 10 years from now. The 53 to 63 Billion in the next 10 years, about 5 to 6 billion in the next 4 years! Again, this govt is just using delay tactics, committing to nothing in reality.
See what happens next election, I can't see this govt going two terms, I really think Albo has made some big misjudments, tax promise broken, power prices up, referendum, cost of living, immigration, most people I know don't like what's going on. Only Peter Duttons unpopularity can save the ALP.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
All of which sounds wonderful and proactive to the general public. (Shades of Neville Chamberlain proclaiming "Peace in our times")
But what happens when the threats, scenarios and environment that the "Focused Force" has been structured and trained to address don't come around (Don't forget that any potential enemy will have their own ideas and thoughts on how and where the next conflict will be fought. Also remember that in WW2 the defence of Singapore was 'focused' on the maritime approaches.)
What do the politicians actually mean by "Forceful Projection"?
What are the triggers for "Forceful Projection"?
Does "Forceful Projection" come in a range of sizes that will be used in different situations?
How long can the "Forceful Projection" be sustained?
Last edited: