Doubt away but it would appear that it is about to be Government policy. The nature of the information in the Oz leak is such that it would appear to be valid. You can have your doubts or think the Rudd Government will never deliver on it but big deal. People out there still think the Earth is flat.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I can't speak for anyone else but I think it makes perfect sense. If you are planning on building a class of 7,000 tonne AEGIS ships why would you delay them and divert money to build a 4th 6,000 tonne AEGIS ships?
Well, bare in mind that AWD, F100 or the Nansen s' hanger can only carry 1 anti-submarine helicopters as they are a more air defence orientated ship......
If the 7000 tonne ship will be ANZAC replacements, they have to be a better "jack of all trade" as they have to take the ABM role, anti-air, anti-sub, anti-surface and even land attack to compensate those capability that AWD lacks, such as single hanger and few VLS cell to preform all roles at the same time.
Just think about how many MK-41 cells AWD have, and how many spare cells can spare for SM-3 and Tactical tomahawk, or even VLS-version of ASROC...... you will wish the ANZAC replacement be a "missile wagon" like Burke Flight IIA rather than a "minimum capability" Nansen hulls......
Hang on a second. Are *we* making the decisions here? Nope... Kevin Rudd is, he's the PM. And if his White Paper says there will be eight 7,000 tonne AEGIS ships for BMD (and the leaks says it will) then that's what is going to happen until he changes his mind or losses an election.
Now there are many good reasons for deciding this way. There are also reasons against. But unless you have some inside track on what is going on in the higher halls of power then your doubts or feelings or whatever mean nothing.
If you wish to offer conjecture or what you would 'prefer' to happen then please indicate that is the context of your post. You don't need to be a 'defence professional' to differentiate between what is Defence Force and Government policy and the wishes of individuals. Its just a damn shame that many posters here can't make that differentiation.
A new 7000 tone Agies warship with BMD capabilities sounds more like a fully equiped destroyer than a replacement for the ANZAC's. This would be excellent for the navy and truely give us a presence on the high sea's. The idea of replacing the Armidale class boats with LCS type ships is not a cheap replacement, i'm finding it hard to believe an Aus Govt would look to procure this amount of ships and can only see this as modern day Arms build-up to counter other pacific and asian nation states naval expansion programs.
Well this seems to be unbelievable news.
I just find it so opposing from what rumors and suggestions were from highly knowledgable people in the ADF and in government about labour killing/scaling down all defence projects. This would appear to be a huge upgrade over already positive upgrades.
12 submarines we have heard before and until we know what those 12 subs are (ie manned or what) then thats still a very much a wild card.
But 8 BMD ships of 7,000t and AEGIS is a huge capability lift and change in policy. The AWD should have sufficent capacity for BMD if used in pairs or part of a fleet (particular with at least 4 AEGIS ships). It does not say Burke class it still may be a up scaled F-100. (burkes are more 8,000t + and F-100 is more like 6,000). We don't know...
If it is a scaled up F-100 then really its not that much more to fit with AEGIS than an other simular but less capable system (dropping 1 AWD might have funded it). The previous government did talk about BMD with out actually seeking it. I hope this means all ships are fitted for BMD capability from the get go. We don't need a baby/mini burke all in one ship if we have 11 AEGIS vessels each with ~48 cells. I don't know if Australia needs more than ~480 cells at anyone time. Athough if the subs are armed with VLS capability then there are even more additional cells for Tomahawk, surface cued BMD etc.
Sounds like our patrol boats would be more corvette/frigate sized, with helo capability. Entirely useful, given the job they have and the blue water they are now operating in. I would suggest the ability to fit at least 100 persons additional (for 2-5 days) on short notice would also be useful.
For the rest of it, its pretty much as expected, 6 more hercs (would have perfered 2x C-17's), C27J to replace bous (the number of is important hopefully it will replace bous and some C130), Chinooks to 10 sounds completely reasonable. Up to 100 F-35 and larger army.
Actually sounds like a pretty reasonable paper if you strip away the sensationalism.
I just find it so opposing from what rumors and suggestions were from highly knowledgable people in the ADF and in government about labour killing/scaling down all defence projects. This would appear to be a huge upgrade over already positive upgrades.
12 submarines we have heard before and until we know what those 12 subs are (ie manned or what) then thats still a very much a wild card.
But 8 BMD ships of 7,000t and AEGIS is a huge capability lift and change in policy. The AWD should have sufficent capacity for BMD if used in pairs or part of a fleet (particular with at least 4 AEGIS ships). It does not say Burke class it still may be a up scaled F-100. (burkes are more 8,000t + and F-100 is more like 6,000). We don't know...
If it is a scaled up F-100 then really its not that much more to fit with AEGIS than an other simular but less capable system (dropping 1 AWD might have funded it). The previous government did talk about BMD with out actually seeking it. I hope this means all ships are fitted for BMD capability from the get go. We don't need a baby/mini burke all in one ship if we have 11 AEGIS vessels each with ~48 cells. I don't know if Australia needs more than ~480 cells at anyone time. Athough if the subs are armed with VLS capability then there are even more additional cells for Tomahawk, surface cued BMD etc.
Sounds like our patrol boats would be more corvette/frigate sized, with helo capability. Entirely useful, given the job they have and the blue water they are now operating in. I would suggest the ability to fit at least 100 persons additional (for 2-5 days) on short notice would also be useful.
For the rest of it, its pretty much as expected, 6 more hercs (would have perfered 2x C-17's), C27J to replace bous (the number of is important hopefully it will replace bous and some C130), Chinooks to 10 sounds completely reasonable. Up to 100 F-35 and larger army.
Actually sounds like a pretty reasonable paper if you strip away the sensationalism.
This is my fear.
Good to hear,hope this is what happens.
Although we are in a "recession" and could be for the foreseeable future this is a huge spending spree/wish list. I don't see how this can be afforded with the current 3% of GDP spending. It will be great for jobs if we can continue to construct ships in the country which would generate long term job security for decades to come!
While some people say it is law the "white paper" i am extremely pessimistic about these ambitious plans and won't be entirely satisfied until it is fully approved through the senate.
While some people say it is law the "white paper" i am extremely pessimistic about these ambitious plans and won't be entirely satisfied until it is fully approved through the senate.
Whilst a large Destoyer force is definatly the way to go I'll wait until cheques are written and there are hulls in the water. I'll like to see the time-frame that is attached with these new ships.
Though really, with the capabilities required smaller than the F100 is really not justifiable as a true war-fighter (not saying the ANZACs aren't useful).
---------------------------
Given the nature of these "leaks" I see the Govt is squeezing every political point out of this.
Though really, with the capabilities required smaller than the F100 is really not justifiable as a true war-fighter (not saying the ANZACs aren't useful).
---------------------------
Given the nature of these "leaks" I see the Govt is squeezing every political point out of this.
While we can't count our chickens yet I take it as a very good sign that the government is announcing very positive future planning.
I personally think there will be 11 ships based off the F-100 hull. 3 will be of the AWD, 8 will be on a further (slightly) evolved F-100. Total maxium load will be simular (~48 strike length cells).
Would have been better if they were going to announce AN/SPY-3 in the new ships...
I personally think there will be 11 ships based off the F-100 hull. 3 will be of the AWD, 8 will be on a further (slightly) evolved F-100. Total maxium load will be simular (~48 strike length cells).
Would have been better if they were going to announce AN/SPY-3 in the new ships...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Defence capability plan won't be released until after the WP is released, with some reports putting the DCP to be released around June.
I wouldn't count too many chickens either, but I rather think that if this capability plan resembles anything like that which has been reported in the tabloids (what I consider the major newspapers in Australia) then I would expect that Australia would rather be looking at AUSPAR for it's new fleet...
Are AUSPAR and AEGIS compatable? I think AUSPAR has a great deal of potential but will it work with the systems we want to perform the mission we want?
That means can AUSPAR run a BMD? Sounds like expensive tests to confirm that.
That said 3 AWD with SPY-1D(II) and 8 destroyers with high powered upgraded AEGIS AUSPAR all capable of BMD and lesser missions would be fantastic. Loaded with SM-3, SM-6, Tactom, left over SM-2, harpoon, ESSM, typhoons, Phalanx etc would make a very fearsome ship.
The question I continually ask myself against which threat this is all for. Given that both sides seem to be very keen on making significant gains to the ADF. Is there something we are being kept in the dark about?
That means can AUSPAR run a BMD? Sounds like expensive tests to confirm that.
That said 3 AWD with SPY-1D(II) and 8 destroyers with high powered upgraded AEGIS AUSPAR all capable of BMD and lesser missions would be fantastic. Loaded with SM-3, SM-6, Tactom, left over SM-2, harpoon, ESSM, typhoons, Phalanx etc would make a very fearsome ship.
The question I continually ask myself against which threat this is all for. Given that both sides seem to be very keen on making significant gains to the ADF. Is there something we are being kept in the dark about?
Come on australia.What australia should be doing is welcome China as a responsible regional power and build trust through military exercises and joint task operations.This build up approach is hostile not to mention darn expensive.When australia can reach out to US then why not to China.
While australia is a nation without startegic nuclear weapons we dont have the option of courting china through a totally independant foreign policy.
We dont want to be in the position of being caught between two opposing super powers and what that could entail for us.
As far as im concerned if we have to pick between the two,then ill go with what i know,the current status quo...even if aus had nukes...its what we know and are comfortable with...thank you.
battlensign
New Member
I wouldn't get too concerned just yet.
If we accept that American Primacy (Pax Americana) over the last few years since the end of the Cold War and, to a lesser extent, since the end of the Second World War (with only USSR as near-peer) is responsible for the remarkable great-power stability over that period, then the economic development of the Asia Pacific (with some 4 out of the World's 7 Billion people) and the rise of its giants will see the potential for instability through the decline in American hard and soft power relative to other powers. After all is was during the 60's, with the power of the USSR relative to the US at its height, that conflict was likely, if at all.
With this context/background it isn't surprising that there is a move to increase Australia's strategic weight. If American power is on such a decline, relatively, in its own weight- then the medium term solution is for its allies to 'step-up' and add their weight to contribute significant military compability, in order to retain collectively, influence that once was possessed by the US individually.
Alternatively, even relative power decline by the US means that the potential for strategic over-reach is significant and therefore it is incumbent upon Australia to ensure its ability to give even a 'great-power' a bloody nose (if not actually, 'ripping an arm off') by itself. The perceptions of risk and cost of an attack are the fundamental elements targeted by defending forces in deterrence strategies. The intent would be to make an attack on Australian as unattractive a proposition as possible.
Brett.
Last edited:
I am a little concerned that what has really happened is spending (4th AWD and other projects) has been deferred with bright promises for the future. IMHO the situation should be viewed with caution.
12 SSG's is a massive increase but ignores the fact we are a maritme nation with limited ability to protect trade. I would prefer to see 8 SSG and an increase in patrol and escort forces.
- Status