Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I do understand,that was the point I was making
It really depends how quickly we pay off the ANZAC and whether we pay off both survey vessels and the four launches within the decade. If ANZAC is keep in operation until the second future frigate is in he water then the major surface units will stabilise at 12. It also depends on the delivery cycle for the further subamarine.
In so far as the OPVs are concerned you appear to be assuming that all the ACPB and the two Navy CCPB will be gone. I suspect this is not be the case.
At the end of the day it will be the strategic situation that will determine what vessels are in service. I don’t see them radically extending the life of the ANZAC unless something radical happens
As an aside LHD ..... not LPH
Last edited:
But we need budget for that ........ including the crew. It is not in the current investment plan and is not contemplated. If we need more combat capable ships we would be better of build more large frigates of what ever design we have chosen that building a mid tier vessel. Crewing will be about the same anyway and you don’t have the set up costs for a new hull
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There would also be a time crunch. IIRC the typical timeframe to bring a new capability into service (unless it is done via FMS) for Oz defence projects is ~14 years from the initial idea to 1st unit entering service. This means that if a corvette or 'patrol frigate' capability was deemed appropriate, the first in class likely would not enter into RAN service until ~2032.
It would take time to decide upon such a vessels required specifications, likely 18 months to two years. Then RFP's or RFT's sent out to industry and the associated bids, likely resulting in a further two years or so before any contracts would be signed. Then detailed design work and acceptance by the RAN/gov't which would likely be another 18 months to perhaps as much as three years. All this before the ship builder would either start assembling a workforce and work site, or start juggling work slots and spaces at an existing site, which could be a problem between the OPV, Future Frigate, and Collins replacement sub programmes being at different stages of construction.
I would prefer the RAN retain a larger number of overall more capable ships, and I would be concerned if the RAN were to keep in service both OPVs and similarly sized corvettes. It would be better IMO to up-arm the OPV's, and have more proper frigates and destroyers, or just have more frigates and destroyers and leave the OPV's for constabulary work.
I don't see the US ever actively subverting our use of anything.
It much more likely that that the US can't or doesn't want to lead a mission in Australia's interest. Going back to Timor, they ended up sending a cruiser to manage all the air threat stuff. Cruisers are in short supply, particularly for an on going commitment. This way Australia could lead a mission without US command assets. They might throw in a regular destroyer, or maybe an amphib, but with Wedgetails and the AWD's, they don't have to send a carrier or/and a cruiser.
Then it would be reflected in the integrated investment plan for defense. The fact is that unless funding is provide for the additional platforms and their operational costs (including crewing, maintenance, weapons and stores on top of fuel) it simply is not going to happen.
Something would have to change for government to deviate from the current programme as outlined in the DWP.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
I'm still recovering from the realization that we have two giant LHDs plus all the other new RAN good gear ship & helowise. It is truly astonishing and you want more? Get all the assets working up to their speed first - then ask for more.
Add to this the assets that came our of the CARP process (Submarine rescue ships, aviation training ships, lighters and tugs) and the auxiliary Ocean Protector and you have a bunch of new capability to work withI'm still recovering from the realization that we have two giant LHDs plus all the other new RAN good gear ship & helowise. It is truly astonishing and you want more? Get all the assets working up to their speed first - then ask for more.
I think the RAN IS getting more, but it's idea of more might not mesh with what most people expect.
It's my armchair amateur opinion that the Aust govt, or RAN, believes Australia faces the following:
1) a continuation of criminal illegal immigration, piracy and drug/people smuggling activities.
2) Australia's geographical distance continues to give it a natural level of safety, but ....
3) China's military rise means our light frigates are too light.
4) The future of high end naval war will favour subs, due to the proliferation of medium to long range missiles.
Hence we are getting:
1) not 6 replacement subs, but 12, and they will be bigger in every way- size for longer range, more armament, more electronics.
2) heavy duty OPV's- more crew, longer range, more robust, carry more RIB's.
3) the frigates/destroyers, which most people associate with as the proper naval vessels, will stay the same in number, but will almost double in tonnage for beefier sensors, and more VLS from 8 to 32-48 VLS. This number actually reflects Australia's relative safety, as it is low compared to China/Korea/Japan have 90-128 VLS destroyers. And North Asia has those destroyers now today. We will not have our full compliement of 32-48 VLS frigates for 2 decades.
It's my armchair amateur opinion that the Aust govt, or RAN, believes Australia faces the following:
1) a continuation of criminal illegal immigration, piracy and drug/people smuggling activities.
2) Australia's geographical distance continues to give it a natural level of safety, but ....
3) China's military rise means our light frigates are too light.
4) The future of high end naval war will favour subs, due to the proliferation of medium to long range missiles.
Hence we are getting:
1) not 6 replacement subs, but 12, and they will be bigger in every way- size for longer range, more armament, more electronics.
2) heavy duty OPV's- more crew, longer range, more robust, carry more RIB's.
3) the frigates/destroyers, which most people associate with as the proper naval vessels, will stay the same in number, but will almost double in tonnage for beefier sensors, and more VLS from 8 to 32-48 VLS. This number actually reflects Australia's relative safety, as it is low compared to China/Korea/Japan have 90-128 VLS destroyers. And North Asia has those destroyers now today. We will not have our full compliement of 32-48 VLS frigates for 2 decades.
In a nice recognition of the US alliance and gratitude for the location of a crashed V22 Osprey and subsequent recovery of the three missing bodies, Lt Gen David Berger presented USN and USMC Meritorious Unit Commendations to several ADF aboard HMAS Canberra today.
The aircraft crashed off the coast near Rockhampton on 6th August last year at the tail end of Talisman Sabre joint exercise.
26 personnel were on the aircraft and 23 were recovered alive.
The units awarded the Commendation are; Director General Maritime Operations, Australian Clearance Diving Team 1, Australian Mine Warfare Team 16, Hydrographic Crew Blue (HMAS Melville and the Australian Mine Warfare and Clearance Diving Task Group.
Lt Gen Berbers speech attached below.
The aircraft crashed off the coast near Rockhampton on 6th August last year at the tail end of Talisman Sabre joint exercise.
26 personnel were on the aircraft and 23 were recovered alive.
The units awarded the Commendation are; Director General Maritime Operations, Australian Clearance Diving Team 1, Australian Mine Warfare Team 16, Hydrographic Crew Blue (HMAS Melville and the Australian Mine Warfare and Clearance Diving Task Group.
Lt Gen Berbers speech attached below.
I think its a bit different.
1) I think there will be serious attempts at infringing on other nations EEZ over the next 10-15 years from a variety of pressures. We are already seeing this.
2) I think we will see greater instability globally, on multiple fronts. Some nations will become fading stars, facing serious economic and demographic issues, while others will be rising powers. On this we will see the US supremacy further errode and place an increasingly impossible burden on limited resources.
3) I think we have poor timing on China's rise, but we are likely to be in better shape for Indonesia's and India's.
4) agree. In terms of anti-shipping capability, our sub fleet will be tasked with that.
We won't have a full compliment of heavy frigates for decades. But we should be able to make continuous deployments of an Aegis ship from 2020 on wards. The heavy frigates come on line after that.. Butterworth, Tindle, Guam and Okinawa provide points of air presence, so its not like we will have Anzacs facing off against much bigger ships by themselves.
We don't need billions of missiles, we just need presence and sensors.
Its more than just Australia's security now. We are a (multi) regional power, we need to ensure (multi) regional security. Arabian, Indian, lower SCS and Pacific and Antarctic.
I am surprised more people aren't aware of the magnitude of the ADF military build up. If the RAN gets what is already promised its like between a doubling and trebling of the RAN displacement in the next 10-20 years. That is on already budgeted gear in the pipe.
weegee
Active Member
Contracts have been signed for the OPV's today apparently.
Seems as though they are still working out the workshare for WA.
$4b patrol boat contract a boost for WA shipbuilders
Seems as though they are still working out the workshare for WA.
$4b patrol boat contract a boost for WA shipbuilders
Thanks for your reply! I hadn't realised I'd missed all that.
For me this is the big issue. The changing of the guard.
China is a rapidly rising power and I suspect that India will follow suit. Our traditional alliances with the US worked when they were the world's only true superpower but that might change by the 2030s. Australia cannot compete militarily with these rising superpowers which means that in order to counter the threat we may well have to forge new alliances. These alliances may well result in us dragged into other peoples conflicts.
Interesting times.
Joe Black
Active Member
Are we? Or perhaps it was just mutually beneficial to work together to achieve a common goal. I think China's chest thumping and bully's tactics are concerning to say the least.
Back to RAN topics. Interesting to see Navantia is pitching Juan Carlos I to India. I wonder if RAN would be please that there could be more than 4 ships of this LHD class sailing in the world. If that means that logistical support for the Canberra class could drop if that happened.
Most pundit think that the French Mistral would win the contract though.
What are your thoughts
US supremacy is ending, it has to. The kind of advantage they enjoyed over the entire planet in the 50's and 60's is gone, nations (allied and foe alike) have developed and will continue to do so. Arguably US has probably hit max military power at the end of the cold war. Even if things go really, really well for the US, they won't have the domination they used to. Even then, there were real limited to actual power.
China is the first real power since the soviets to challenge, but they won't be the last. I think if we can avoid war with China for the next 10 years (SCS and NK issues mostly, unlike some issues I believe these are resolvable with time) and China survives their demographic problems 10-20 years out, China will be one of the easier "new" powers to deal with.
I am not so sure about either Indonesia nor India. Just because they are democracies doesn't mean our relationships with these nations will be easy. These are likely to be much more complex actors than China. Indonesia is right on our doorstep and there are a range of issues we are likely going to have to address together.
While all this change may be difficult for Australia, I think Japan has much greater problems. They are going to have big issues building an alliance with anyone in the region. With declining US power and capability, rising Chinese capability they are feeling very exposed. As their population declines, they are likely to have to cut military spending year on year.
Allying ourselves with Japan might not be a good idea. In fact being an ally fo Japan would probably make us a good deal less secure.
If I were to look at alliances I would look closer to home. Indonesia and in fact most of SE Asia have more to fear from China than we do. We could use that as the basis for forming some sort of regional defence pact.
The only concern I have about that is that Indonesia may eventually develop into a bigger threat to Australia's security than China.
Australia's security during the later part of the 21st century will be fairly problematic with the US being a declining superpower and just about every nation in our region building up their own military.
- Status