Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ASSAIL

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The billion I was refering to is the new icebreaker ship, which has a $1.9 billion budget for penguins and seals.
A new era of Australian Antarctic scientific endeavour and leadership

In that context, finding some money to help implement a wider pacific strategy to help the 10 million in our immediate region and our orbit probably isn't a bad thing. As I mentioned, some of the money is likely to come from refocusing funds from Asia, Africa, the middle east and south America. I would also suggest formulating a plan involving NZ and Japan and perhaps the US is quite likely.

I see the submarine deal issue isn't lying low in the press. Guardian has a story.
French submarine boss summoned to Canberra for crisis talks

Personally I think this isn't out of the ordinary really. Its a big project, you want to get the deal right, and negotiating with the french was always going to be tricky, plus we are only now seeing exactly what type of commercial arrangement that is likely to be implemented.

Combined with a story about possibly suppressing all media reports on the future subs and ship building.
Coalition's redaction of arms deal report sparks fears shipbuilding criticism will be suppressed
Any news item that quotes Rex Patrick simply makes me roll my eyes.
He and The Guardian are a good fit on submarine matters.
 

oldsig127

Well-Known Member
Any news item that quotes Rex Patrick simply makes me roll my eyes.
He and The Guardian are a good fit on submarine matters.
I think you can assume that any defence article in the Guardian is agenda driven, and not an agenda favourable to Defence or the current Government. In this cae, their agendas align.

oldsig
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
PNG population for example is doubling every 18 years. A million new babies every 4 years, or a new city the size of Adelaide, just of babies every 4 years. ...
To double every 18 years the population would need to be growing at 3.9% per year. I'm not sure if it's ever grown that fast, but it certainly hasn't in the last 20 years. The current estimated growth rate is 2.0%, & falling. The population grew by 55% between 2000 & 2017. At the current growth rate it would take about 35 years to double.

At the current birth rate yes, almost a million babies are born every four years (fewer than in Australia) - & 240,000 people die. The birth rate is dropping faster than the death rate. Note that Australia's population is currently growing at about 1.5%, i.e. 400,000 per year, or over twice as many people as PNG's population is increasing by.
 

Flexson

Member
You do realise that we are going to cop some Ribbing from the Kiwis about how our 2 Ships look like 1950s leftovers while theirs look like a 21st Century Naval Vessel.
I was thinking along a similar line.
I was backing the Aegir 18a myself but suspected Navantia would get it considering we have a working relationship with them due to the LHD's.

Was confident the pennant number was going to be 195. Safe bet Stalwart will be 215.

It's interesting the ships built overseas have stuck with traditional names and pennant numbers while the Lead ships of the Australian continuous ship building strategy have gone with Original/revolutionary names (Arafura and Hunter) just another way to emphasize what the government/navy is trying to achieve. Waiting patiently for sub naming, suspect its a few years off.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
To double every 18 years the population would need to be growing at 3.9% per year. I'm not sure if it's ever grown that fast, but it certainly hasn't in the last 20 years. The current estimated growth rate is 2.0%, & falling. The population grew by 55% between 2000 & 2017. At the current growth rate it would take about 35 years to double.

At the current birth rate yes, almost a million babies are born every four years (fewer than in Australia) - & 240,000 people die. The birth rate is dropping faster than the death rate. Note that Australia's population is currently growing at about 1.5%, i.e. 400,000 per year, or over twice as many people as PNG's population is increasing by.
On the subject of population growth this is something that I never hear mentioned when people talk about long-term defence projects such as the future submarine program.

Australia does have a high population growth rate compared to most western nations and by the time the last of the new submarines enter service Australia's population will be around 40 million. That would be around a 60% increase in population over the next 30 years. Of course that is only part of the story since Australia's economy is growing in real terms at a rate of 3.2% a year. That is the highest growth of just about any other developed nation. Over 30 years that would translate into an economy that will grow from $1.3 trillion to well over $3 trillion ... and once again this is in real terms.

Long-term projects may seem very ambitious but in reality, they pretty much just reflect the natural growth in capability that you would expect over a thirty year period.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I was thinking along a similar line.
I was backing the Aegir 18a myself but suspected Navantia would get it considering we have a working relationship with them due to the LHD's.

Was confident the pennant number was going to be 195. Safe bet Stalwart will be 215.

It's interesting the ships built overseas have stuck with traditional names and pennant numbers while the Lead ships of the Australian continuous ship building strategy have gone with Original/revolutionary names (Arafura and Hunter) just another way to emphasize what the government/navy is trying to achieve. Waiting patiently for sub naming, suspect its a few years off.
I think the Cantabria class was the right choice. The Aegir class is based on a commercial tanker whereas the Cantabria is a purpose designed replenishment ship. The Aegir class might be cheaper but I find that you generally get what you pay for.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
On the subject of population growth this is something that I never hear mentioned when people talk about long-term defence projects such as the future submarine program.

Australia does have a high population growth rate compared to most western nations and by the time the last of the new submarines enter service Australia's population will be around 40 million. That would be around a 60% increase in population over the next 30 years. Of course that is only part of the story since Australia's economy is growing in real terms at a rate of 3.2% a year. That is the highest growth of just about any other developed nation. Over 30 years that would translate into an economy that will grow from $1.3 trillion to well over $3 trillion ... and once again this is in real terms.

Long-term projects may seem very ambitious but in reality, they pretty much just reflect the natural growth in capability that you would expect over a thirty year period.
And yet the ADF today is in numbers of Personnel and equipment roughly the same size today as it was in 1980 when our population was around 16m. Goes to show how much more the Military costs today.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
And yet the ADF today is in numbers of Personnel and equipment roughly the same size today as it was in 1980 when our population was around 16m. Goes to show how much more the Military costs today.
That might also reflect that we were coming off a period of fairly high defence expenditure. Proportionally we were spending a lot more on defence back then. Through the 1980s we were spending an average of around 2.3% of GDP on defence. In the 60s and 70s that number was even higher ... I believe that it was around 5% of GDP. Aircraft carriers and F-111s are expensive toys.

The ADF you see now is actually a product of a period of historically low defence spending.
 

Flexson

Member
I think the Cantabria class was the right choice. The Aegir class is based on a commercial tanker whereas the Cantabria is a purpose designed replenishment ship. The Aegir class might be cheaper but I find that you generally get what you pay for.
I'll reserve judgement on if we get what we pay for till after I have done some time on one. The build quality on the LHD's leaves a lot to be desired.
 

aussienscale

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You do realise that we are going to cop some Ribbing from the Kiwis about how our 2 Ships look like 1950s leftovers while theirs look like a 21st Century Naval Vessel.
Probably, but we have a lot that they are envious of :)

Not the best looking ship, but as always its about the capability they will bring and the requirements. Good to see her in the water, here is a quick grab from Navantia


I am sure more will be posted over the next couple of days by those who were there, still believe we should order number 3, but it comes down to priorities, I think the Pacific "show the" love boat has taken that spot by the sounds of it.

Cheers
 

Stampede

Active Member
Probably, but we have a lot that they are envious of :)

Not the best looking ship, but as always its about the capability they will bring and the requirements. Good to see her in the water, here is a quick grab from Navantia


I am sure more will be posted over the next couple of days by those who were there, still believe we should order number 3, but it comes down to priorities, I think the Pacific "show the" love boat has taken that spot by the sounds of it.

Cheers
Nice to see the ship in the water.
The ship appears to have retained a helicopter hangar for two aircraft and not just the one which is pleasing.
Out of curiosity does the funnel appear higher and of a different shape to Spain's AOL Cantabria?

As to number three, well a Navy of three's across the fleet would be nice; but I accept that order wasn't placed, so we will have to embrace the two new supply ships and trust they give both the availability and service that the fleet requires.

Regards S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
That might also reflect that we were coming off a period of fairly high defence expenditure. Proportionally we were spending a lot more on defence back then. Through the 1980s we were spending an average of around 2.3% of GDP on defence. In the 60s and 70s that number was even higher ... I believe that it was around 5% of GDP. Aircraft carriers and F-111s are expensive toys.

The ADF you see now is actually a product of a period of historically low defence spending.
You forgot about National Service and deploying 7000 personnel to Vietnam, fighting Wars are the most expensive of all
 

oldsig127

Well-Known Member
And yet the ADF today is in numbers of Personnel and equipment roughly the same size today as it was in 1980 when our population was around 16m. Goes to show how much more the Military costs today.
Not really. Tell me any industry today that needs as many people to produce the same amount of product as 20 years ago, let alone almost 40. Modern equipment simply needs fewer human bodies - and reducing the number of those risked to provide a set level of deterrence (and reduce the quantity of body bags) is in the best interest of the taxpayer and the poor soft asset risking his or her backside

oldsig
 

SteveR

Active Member
Nice to see the ship in the water..
Out of curiosity does the funnel appear higher and of a different shape to Spain's AOL Cantabria?

Regards S
Just checked Janes FS and agree the rear funnel is larger than Cantabria - and I seem to see a smaller forward funnel than fitted to Cantabria. Possibly the exhaust from mostly out of one rear funnel. RAN had a year's test drive of Cantabria so would have noticed any forward funnel exhaust problems.

She is specified to cruise at 20Kt a typical Naval fast cruise rather than the commercial grade 16Kt of the new NZ AOR which may not be able to keep up with a Naval Task Group.

Calabria was based on the Armada's Patino a joint Dutch/Spanish design from the 1990s.
 
Last edited:

Wombat000

Active Member
Its been a long time since Pennant numbers have been painted on the transom, I wonder if this is changing?
Pennant number on transom white with drop shadow, last time I'm aware of they were simply black RN font, back when we carried RN based numbering.
Also,
Pennant numbers on bow have a larger 'A', and placed further aft on the bow. (Choules was originally delivered in a similar fashion too).
And a Red waterline.

Seems to be some changes.
Surely if it's being built from scratch it would be supplied as ordered. So,
Wonder if this is indicative of a change in future presentation of the fleet??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top