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.I was talking with a friend the other day and he made an interesting point that the size of the Australian navy will shrink quite substantially over the next 10 years.
If current plans go ahead the fleet could look like this in 10 years.
Destroyer/Frigates - 11
Submarines - 6
OPV - 8?
Huon - 4?
AOR - 2
LPH - 2
LPD - 1
survey - 1
That is around 36 ships which is well down from the 47 commissioned ships currently in service. Mostly it will be the non-combatants that will go ... but still, that is a substantial drop in numbers. The real crunch may come if there are any delays in the Collins replacement program. Even with life extensions, the Collins class will be decommissioning during the 2030s so it would be crucial that news subs be available by then. If not the size of the combatant fleet may drop below today's level at a time when tensions may be at an all time high in this region.
The main reason of course is the national shipbuilding plan which will deliver ships at a slower rate. If everything goes according to plan the fleet will eventually build up to around in current ship numbers sometime in the late 40s.
Perhaps the answer might be to extend the life of the Anzacs out to around 35 years. That would actually see the size of the frigate fleet increase to around 14 to 15 ships by the 2030s. At least that would give us a substantial amount of combatants until the sub fleet could be built up.
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 hullAn alternative would be to build a number of small frigates, (about Anzac size) call them Corvettes if you like. The 3000 ton Japanese small frigate, or Meko 200N are two that come to mind.
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.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
I don't see the US ever actively subverting our use of anything.With CEC coming to the RAN, will we be able to use it independently from the USN if need be? Maybe use it at time solely by a RAN taskforce or would the USN need to be in the loop. I ask this because I would assume that if the US didn't approve of the mission use by the RAN, could they block its use?
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.As far as needing budget for extra ships, the US wants us to increase our defence spending, we are already aiming to increase it. With a few extra ships it would be well spent, preferably DDGs.
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 its a bit different.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.
Thanks for your reply! I hadn't realised I'd missed all that.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.
.
For me this is the big issue. The changing of the guard.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.
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.Interesting that we are aligning ourselves militarily with Japan. I wonder how far that will go?
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.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.
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.Interesting that we are aligning ourselves militarily with Japan. I wonder how far that will go?