Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
The OZ Anzacs already have the quad ESSM so they can carry 32 missiles each with their existing setup (as well as 8 Harpoon in 2 quad mounts which is now fitted in at least 3 ships - Anzac, Warramunga and Arunta).
Click to expand...

Could someone point me to a website showing details/costs of the RAN ANZAC ESSM/Harpoon upgrade project etc (Project SEA1428 etc?)? I thought I saw it on the Dept of Defence website a year ago or so but if I look now (or on the RAN site), I can't seem to find anything. Tenix site has a brief blurb but no costs. I'm also interested because NZ LTDP has NZ$450-$500M earmarked for a "self-defence" upgrade planned to start in 2010. Typically lacking in detail, but presumed to mean ESSM & Nulka according to speculation etc. But at approx up to $250M per RNZN ANZAC, I find it hard to believe it would cost this much simply for ESSM & sensors, surely it would be the whole package similar to the RAN ANZAC upgrades and include Harpoon etc? (Otherwise the RAN would be spending billions, more than what the RAN ANZAC ships originally cost to upgrade to the current level of capability)!
 
if there was a situation that would warrant such a big taskforce, you would generally have to think that it would be of multinational interest. sure we would have quite a capable task force in any instance, but the need for it to be used in our region would be hard to believe especially if the US were to get a sniff of any problems, they would be assisting us in a flash.

australia is just so lucky geographically :)

out of interest... i have never heard of the Collins subs being capable of replinishment at sea?? would they have this capability... to increase their endurance and so forth?
 
http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/SEA1428/




recce.k1 said:
Could someone point me to a website showing details/costs of the RAN ANZAC ESSM/Harpoon upgrade project etc (Project SEA1428 etc?)? I thought I saw it on the Dept of Defence website a year ago or so but if I look now (or on the RAN site), I can't seem to find anything. Tenix site has a brief blurb but no costs. I'm also interested because NZ LTDP has NZ$450-$500M earmarked for a "self-defence" upgrade planned to start in 2010. Typically lacking in detail, but presumed to mean ESSM & Nulka according to speculation etc. But at approx up to $250M per RNZN ANZAC, I find it hard to believe it would cost this much simply for ESSM & sensors, surely it would be the whole package similar to the RAN ANZAC upgrades and include Harpoon etc? (Otherwise the RAN would be spending billions, more than what the RAN ANZAC ships originally cost to upgrade to the current level of capability)!
Click to expand...
 
recce.k1 said:
Could someone point me to a website showing details/costs of the RAN ANZAC ESSM/Harpoon upgrade project etc (Project SEA1428 etc?)? I thought I saw it on the Dept of Defence website a year ago or so but if I look now (or on the RAN site), I can't seem to find anything. Tenix site has a brief blurb but no costs. I'm also interested because NZ LTDP has NZ$450-$500M earmarked for a "self-defence" upgrade planned to start in 2010. Typically lacking in detail, but presumed to mean ESSM & Nulka according to speculation etc. But at approx up to $250M per RNZN ANZAC, I find it hard to believe it would cost this much simply for ESSM & sensors, surely it would be the whole package similar to the RAN ANZAC upgrades and include Harpoon etc? (Otherwise the RAN would be spending billions, more than what the RAN ANZAC ships originally cost to upgrade to the current level of capability)!
Click to expand...


The cost of ESSM acquisition was listed as $A272m in the 2004/05 Budget documents, DMO, Ch 7, P5 . This would be for 8 Anzacs and 4 FFGs.

http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/04-05/paes/index.htm

ASMD for the Anzacs was listed as $A491m in the 2005/06 Budget Section 2, DMO, P11. This does not include weapons.

http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/05-06/paes/index.htm

If you go to the budget documents and search through you may also be able to find the cost of Harpoon and Nulka.

Some missiles are expensive. The cost of upgrading from SM-1 to SM-2 in the 4 FFGs, for example, is shown as $575m in the 2005/06 budget. ESSM looks cheap in comparison.

Cheers
 
We can't rely on the US to bail us out of trouble all the time.

They could be fighting 3 or 4 wars or conflicts at the same time. We have to help ourselves. Timor showed we can't rely on the US for everything, but instead be greatful for any additional assistance that makes it here.

With our new capabilities (and a 4th AWD) we will be able to back ourselves for nearly any regional situation. Other nations can join us, but we are essentially the taskforce.

This is a good thing, because other nations are more likely to join if there is a strong nucleus. So not only are we more capable, but we are more likely to get other countries to follow us.

I can see closer defence links with Malaysia and Singapore because of this. The will look at forming closer ties with Australia directly and not rely, always on the USA.

Australia will become the regional defence hub. Everyone will want to plug into. We will be the ally people want on their side, helping ensure their security. From defence ties flow trade ties, well maybe...

This will allow the US to focus on upcomming threats like a resurfacing russia, a booming china and a whole lot of smaller states that are causing all sorts of grief. As big and mighty as the US is, they aren't the world police. They just aren't that big to control everything, yet.
 
What is the new Australian Navy 's Aegis destroyer called.

Is there any other Aegis destroyer that we can find in this world other than the

Arleigh Burke Class destroyer and this new Australian destroyer?
 
jamesteo320 said:
...Is there any other Aegis destroyer that we can find in this world other than the

Arleigh Burke Class destroyer and this new Australian destroyer?
Click to expand...

I believe they have all been mentioned in either this thread, or the AWD for the RAN thread, which is devoted specifically to the RAN destroyers.
 
Hi Stingray, yes i agree with this 100%. I too am of the understanding that due to recent high level US military and diplomatic visits to Australia that the US is very keen on having Australia putting in a higher profile in this region militarily. This in many ways coincides with the recent announcement in the not to distant past of opening up 2-3 bases in the Northern Territory and WA, or expanding the existing facilities to accomodate the US Military machine.

But , it is clear to most of the neighbours in the North and in the region that Australia means business in becoming a regional power, more so than ever before, and operating more independantly from the US, as well as perhaps using the US more as a support role than if any contingencies arose. Of course the opposite would happen if we have a situation between Taiwan and China. Its also interesting to hear noises from countries such as China and Indonesia that have voiced their concern over Australias Military build up. Cheers.



StingrayOZ said:
We can't rely on the US to bail us out of trouble all the time.

They could be fighting 3 or 4 wars or conflicts at the same time. We have to help ourselves. Timor showed we can't rely on the US for everything, but instead be greatful for any additional assistance that makes it here.

With our new capabilities (and a 4th AWD) we will be able to back ourselves for nearly any regional situation. Other nations can join us, but we are essentially the taskforce.

This is a good thing, because other nations are more likely to join if there is a strong nucleus. So not only are we more capable, but we are more likely to get other countries to follow us.

I can see closer defence links with Malaysia and Singapore because of this. The will look at forming closer ties with Australia directly and not rely, always on the USA.

Australia will become the regional defence hub. Everyone will want to plug into. We will be the ally people want on their side, helping ensure their security. From defence ties flow trade ties, well maybe...

This will allow the US to focus on upcomming threats like a resurfacing russia, a booming china and a whole lot of smaller states that are causing all sorts of grief. As big and mighty as the US is, they aren't the world police. They just aren't that big to control everything, yet.
Click to expand...
 
jamesteo320 said:
What is the new Australian Navy 's Aegis destroyer called.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't answer this part of your question. The new ships will be the Hobart class. They will be named Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney (the present Sydney will decommission before the third new ship is completed).

Cheers
 
Tasman said:
Sorry I didn't answer this part of your question. The new ships will be the Hobart class. They will be named Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney (the present Sydney will decommission before the third new ship is completed).

Cheers
Click to expand...

Any word on the LHD's names???? Would have to be Canberra & Melbourne (for history's sake) wouldnt they????? Id be mighty upset if the proud tradition of the Melbourne was forgotten.

As far as the crewing situation, the 5 adelaides we have in service now have simmilar crew loads to the DDG's, and were only building three Hobarts at the moment, so if anything 4 DDG's would still be a 20% decrease in crewing needs from the current FFG fleet. So unless the RAN see the manning situation getting dramaticaly worse i dont see why this issue would preclude a 4th Destroyer???? However some have said the situation would have to improve in order for a 4th hull to be layed down. i personaly dont see this as being the restricting issue.
 
knightrider4 said:
They will be named Canberra and Adelaide.
Click to expand...

Adelaide???? are you kidding me???? Then what will be named melbourne???? Maybe the 4th AWD if it ever eventuates. How could you have a vessell thats bigger than the Melbourne CVL, can operate an air wing and not call it Melbourne?????

Maybe they're trying to distance themselves from the notion of an aircraft carrier.......

Anyway, its an abomination IMO!!!!!!:lul
 
I think Canberra and Melbourne would be nice.

Maybe they will save the Melbourne for when Australia gets a dedicated carrier.. CVF? Hahaha..

Melbourne wasn't exactly a roaring success (But I quiet like it), and definately brings back notions of a aircraft carrier. So far the only reason this whole deal has gone ahead is because they aren't a carrier, they assist in peace time relief operations (asian tsunami) and regional security missions (Timor). Not cold war style securing regions with fleets of fixed wing aircraft. But the spanish LHD can do exactly that, don't underestimate its capabilities as a carrier.

Being a fully independant force doesn't make you pull further away from the US it makes you closer. Less disagreements, less US burdens, more freedom to act autonomously and make the decisions you think are regionally right.

Atleast the complaining has gone. Every news report is extremely positive about the purchase, all networks, papers etc. Some earlier negitive reports and stories have been washed away. I think everyone is pretty much either for it, or apathetic to it.
 
StingrayOZ said:
I think Canberra and Melbourne would be nice.

Maybe they will save the Melbourne for when Australia gets a dedicated carrier.. CVF? Hahaha..

Melbourne wasn't exactly a roaring success (But I quiet like it), and definately brings back notions of a aircraft carrier. So far the only reason this whole deal has gone ahead is because they aren't a carrier, they assist in peace time relief operations (asian tsunami) and regional security missions (Timor). Not cold war style securing regions with fleets of fixed wing aircraft. But the spanish LHD can do exactly that, don't underestimate its capabilities as a carrier.

Being a fully independant force doesn't make you pull further away from the US it makes you closer. Less disagreements, less US burdens, more freedom to act autonomously and make the decisions you think are regionally right.

Atleast the complaining has gone. Every news report is extremely positive about the purchase, all networks, papers etc. Some earlier negitive reports and stories have been washed away. I think everyone is pretty much either for it, or apathetic to it.
Click to expand...

Now we just need to slip a few F35b's under the radar and modify some NH90's with mini MESA's and and we will have fleet air defence + some of the most capable tactical strike and CAS platforms on the plannet going off with our task force. Not beyond the ADF's capabilities at all.

So the question still stands what will be called the Melbourne when the current one is decommed????? Perhaps the 4th AWD if it ever happens????

Your right it is good to see some positive feedback for this purchase, my only worry is that a Rudd lead Labour government will not spend the little extra bits to allow both the F100 and BPE purchases to reach their full potential, nameley a 4th AWD, Heli AEW to be used on both the LHD's and AWD's and F35b's........ I hop the realtively small investment (compared to the investment allready spent) will not be overlooked in order to placate the left.
 
Theres a submission by the Navy League Of Australia on the net(not at home so no link sorry) regarding the Case for a 4th AWD, namely HMAS MElbourne(IV) and a interesting little end point where they state that if it exceeds Current requirments to the point of classing it a cruiser it could be called HMAS Australia...HA! now theres some pie in the sky thinking.
Let me make my position clear on the Future ADF purchases, We will never see such a spending spree like this government has made, and if it were to stop, it may be a while for it to happen again(excluding War or terror Attack)
And i recall the Army and some in the Navy wanted to call the LHDs Gallopoli and Kokoda
 
Jezza said:
yeah but its allright for perth to be a crapy anzac frigate then?
Click to expand...

There doesn't seem to be any pattern so far as the naming of the Anzacs is concerned. The first four carried former WW2 and Korean War era destroyer names (Anzac, Warramunga, Arunta and Stuart). I thought these were appropriate. The next carried a former frigate/destroyer escort name (Parramatta). Then it all went a bit funny. Toowoomba and Ballarat were WW2 corvettes whilst the two former Perths were a cruiser and a DDG respectively. So there seems little logic or consistency in the naming of the last four.

I would have liked the LHDs to have been named Australia and Canberra after the WW2 8" cruisers. Alternatively I think Gallipoli and Kokoda would have been appropriate. No disrespect for the city of Adelaide but it seems a strange selection for an LHD.

I expect that a fourth unit of the Hobart class would be named Melbourne.

Cheers
 
ok... well i want peoples opinions.

this is a hypothetical OK!!

if you were prime minister of aus... and a conflict arose say, concerning the indonesians making an aggressive move at australia...

the year is 2018 - what would you with your navy?

and what would be your task force youd take up there...

this is only a hypothetical... NOT a who will win... there mite not be any conflict at all...

i just want to see what everyones thoughts are like in terms of them choosing there own task group if they could.

ENJOY:)
 
Well I do like the names Canberra and Australia, they hark back to extremely powerful ships (Esp Australia which harks back to WWI cruisers).

I don't see any of the F-100 even evolved ones being classed as cruisers. Maybe the miniburkes. Maybe if we build a deathstar with 10,000+t displacement and 64+ cells, we could call it Australia. Personally I don't think we should reserect the Australia name unless we had a godawefully fearsome ship. Something along the lines of the Korean deathstar but bigger and meaner.

I have always stated a task force should include
1x LHD
With (not sure about this)
-16 x F-35B's (for fast/first airstrikes)
-4 NH90's suitable for various duties inc AEW
-1 x Tiger (useful?)
-Some troops and vechicals (minimal)
2x AWD's
2x Collins subs
1x Frigate

Then I would request a US ship (a destroyer and a SSN) and a UK ship (a destroyer or frigate) and a NZ ANZAC. Singapore could provide what ever they had, if they were in agreeance with us. I would pull japan into it as well, who could spare a older destroyer.

This first taskforce would be to provide the first strikes. Disable shipping, coms, heavy vechicals and fortified positions. It and the collins would also have essentially SAS troops to secure airports, ports, key locations. While this one was waiting the other would be being prepped for a landing with troops and equipment. Large troop landing with vechicals. Its task group would be simular. Would most likely want Atleast 3 F-35B's to ensure air control.

I am assuming it would make aggressive moves at say East Timor or East PNG, where Australia could land and take control and setup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top