Extra hulls? Isn't there a rumour that the Hunters will be cut from 9 to 6?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Pretty much. Unfort between the release of the public portions of the DSR, plus statements and leaks from officials, and then rumours about the as yet to be released follow-on naval review, the actual plan for the RAN is as clear as mud. So far, it seems that the original plan of nine Hunter-class frigates is still proceeding, as is the Arafura-class OPV build. However, all of this is still subject to change.
Even more unfort (IMO anyway...) is that actual announcements by gov't in terms of changes to existing programmes, plus new procurement, has not filled me with any confidence. In short, I refer to it as a DDoA strategy.
It's ALP all over as far as defence goes.
Promise the world, and deliver an atlas.
Promise the world, and deliver an atlas.
What promises haven't they kept exactly? And how have they been any worse than the previous succession of Governments who were happy to reap the peace dividend, especially those in the past decade when the rising Chinese threat was crystal clear?
As far as I can see the only worthwhile increase in the RAN's warfighting capability delivered in that time period was the Hunter class. The current state of affairs was entirely foreseeable and avoidable, but the LNP didn't fix it did they?
I don't want to get into a partisan argument - the Gillard Government in particular was atrocious on Defence - but I think it is far too early to judge the current Government. The situation the RAN is in is as a result of long term lack of investment, and will need long term investment to fix, and so personally I think that even before you overlay the macroeconomic challenges they've inherited a deliberate approach is the right one.
We need to hasten slowly, and make sure this doesn't happen ever again.
Well they have certainly cut the army to the bone. Nothing about that 4th F-35 squadron either. HMAS ANZAC about to be retired without replacement, so we will soon be down to 10 MFUs.
Unfortunately today’s left wing politicians care little for defence. Social programs and “progressive” causes are their bread and butter. Case in point Albanese’s obsession with the “Voice”. The current mob are more Gough Whitlam Labor than Bob Hawke, Bill Hayden or Kim Beasley Labor.
Marles talks up the strategic challenges but so far the spending falls well short of the rhetoric. I expect the Hunter class to be cut to 6 hulls and they will kick the can down the road on any GP frigate. You don’t have to spend on a program if you push it to the never never and do endless reviews instead.
Albo’s entire strategy is to spend as little on defence as he can get away with. Why spend more when you can just bludge on the USA?
Last edited:
Army is not a strategic priority, to be frank. The threat is China, and if we're fighting an armour heavy land war with them we've lost. Funding is not unlimited, and prioritisations need to be made.
This was never promised, contracted or committed to in any fashion. Of the three services the RAAF is already the best capitalised and modernised.
The RAN is where the investment needs to be. They have already committed to following through with the SSNs. I have said this before but if the outcomes of the Surface Force Review don't involve significant additional investment then the Government should be rightly criticised. But what else would you have them do in the meantime?
The "urgent reviews" to deliver capability ASAP , or words to that effect.
You might as well include Rudd's time as well as Hawke and Keatings. None of those governments did anything good for the ADF.
Turnbulls time was ordinary as well, but at least the Libs/Nats show some interest in maintaining and replacing major assets.
You might as well include Rudd's time as well as Hawke and Keatings. None of those governments did anything good for the ADF.
Turnbulls time was ordinary as well, but at least the Libs/Nats show some interest in maintaining and replacing major assets.
Are you suggesting that the ADF should only be looking at a strategic conflict that is about defending mainland Australia from an invasion?!!!
Are you serious?
Have look what is happening in the middle east Morgo. It's pretty obvious that Russia is being a little bit mischievous here. Opening another front to distract and stretch the US a bit more.
If China was being aggressive toward Taiwan, a few spot fires in our region wouldn't be a bad plan for them, and SSNs etc won't be of much use. Sending poorly trained and equipped soldiers to deal with coups etc could be a problem however. That's just one scenario. A balanced force is required, and is a realistic possibility, if the will is there.
Are you serious?
Have look what is happening in the middle east Morgo. It's pretty obvious that Russia is being a little bit mischievous here. Opening another front to distract and stretch the US a bit more.
If China was being aggressive toward Taiwan, a few spot fires in our region wouldn't be a bad plan for them, and SSNs etc won't be of much use. Sending poorly trained and equipped soldiers to deal with coups etc could be a problem however. That's just one scenario. A balanced force is required, and is a realistic possibility, if the will is there.
Last edited:
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Rather than waiting until around April - May 2024,to release some/none of the recommendations from the delaying Surface Force Review, make some decisions now. Such as continuation of the OPV build and the commitment to the full Hunter class build. If the recommendation is for a reduction of the ASW frigates to 6 hulls, fine but use the hull for a class of 6 AAW frigates to follow immediately on from the final ASW hull. An AAW version would not need the full range of ASW systems which may provide some weight and space for additional AAW systems.
Fair enough. That’d be great.
But how do you know they haven’t decided this or something similar (or even superior) and just haven’t announced it yet?
As I said it’s too early to draw conclusions. We need to wait until their response is announced.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
If that has been decided, or any decision for that matter, why not announce it. It removes doubt, gives certainty to inductry and might just help stem the loss of valuable trained personnel. It is not like there is a carved in stone schedule for announcements be they good, bad or indifferent. While detailed plans based on the recommendations take time to be developed, there is no reason why the recommendations that are being accepted (and developed) should not be announced.
I am absolutely not saying that. And if I was king for a day I personally think that we should’ve gone ahead with the full planned IFV and SPG buys (which we may do, and these “cuts” are just an accounting trick).
But if I also inherited a massive deficit and an economy running way above full employment and needed to watch every dollar I spent, and reached the conclusion that we could either afford the full hardening of Army or recapitalisation of the RAN, I’d go for recapitalisation of the RAN any day. Now again I don’t think I would’ve reached that conclusion and I would've instead cut other spending / raised taxes to do both, but one in my view is the more pressing priority.
Probably some combination of (a) they haven’t decided on their full response yet to all recommendations and want to announce it all at once, and (b) they’re looking to time the announcement for when they will get maximum political mileage. I was actually half expecting that after the Voice went down in flames that they might announce something to try deflect attention / reset the narrative but nothing yet…
Fair enough. I’d put Abbott and Morrison in the same bin too though. And Hawke and Keating did deliver the ANZACs and Collins after all.
I think it’s a bit unfair to tar Rudd though. He was crystal clear on the threat and what needed to be done but got hamstrung by the GFC and a backstabbing ginger.
Basically we’ve had a cavalcade of incompetence for the past 12 years at least. 12 years we couldn’t afford to lose. A few glimmers and a few good decisions (investment into SA shipbuilding and the Hunters will be great when they finally arrive - too late) but otherwise a general clown show from both sides.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Waiting until there is the perfect 100% solution means that no decision will be made and nothing will be done. The best that can be hoped for is the 70% solution which can be started quickly (OPS Planning 101). As more information becomes available or the conditions start to change then the plan can be adapted and adjusted and may become an 80% solution.
I agree. For all I know though they’ve made decisions and are running an accelerated procurement process to execute them. That’s certainly what they should be doing. Time will tell whether that is actually what’s happening.
Alot of good questions without answers today.
The outcomes of the Naval Review could go many ways.
An enlightened government taking bold steps to secure our maritime future or another generation or clowns contributing little to match today's rhetoric of concern.
Disappointing Army purchases I can understand in the short term, providing additions are quietly planned for the future!
Uncertainty for supply and current morale are valid concerns.
Not sure of the answer.
Just hope platform numbers are not capped as is.
RAAF I did not expect much and certainly no extra f35 SQN.
That's not to say some modest increase in platform numbers across the fleet.
3 To 4 F35s
An additional
MRTT
P-8
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Possibly, but I would normally expect there to be some signs of a procurement programme getting started, if not any real indications of what is to be procured. So far, I have not seen something anything other than some of the questionable procurements.
As a thought exercise, how would this sound as a new/additional procurement process? Have the RAN order additional MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawks to operate from land bases near RAN bases to monitor the approaches as well as help sanitize areas.
Why does Army need any IFVs (or tanks or spgs) unless RAN can escort amphibs to where those vehicles deploy (sure allies might have escorts and sea lift but in relative terms they have lots more of their own heavy vehicles to escort and lift from further away)?
Army doesn’t actually have any IFVs (or deployable APCs) now. It is finally acquiring 129 IFVs but it will take years to have deployable numbers. So, as the RAN has too few escorts, RAN needs to be fixed for Army to be relevant with mass in a major conflict (sure SF, and maybe up to a light battlegroup can deploy, but not a brigade).
Despite some terrible procurement decisions the current RAN is actually pretty good. Set the vaunted (in capability acquisition terms) 2023 RAAF against the maligned RAN in a Falklands style wargame (continent-based air defending, let’s say Christmas Island, against amphib). I don’t want to pursue that scenario other than to suggest the current RAN (without any air cover) would not be a trivial adversary for the current RAAF and the sort of things that could happen in that scenario point to the need for some actual (high priority) ADF acquisitions.
The RAN is however too small and can’t crew the ships it has (as posters have noted). It probably needs even more ships (hence surface fleet review) than it can crew because existing ships have declining availability and there might be sufficient notice of a major war to recruit former trained personnel.
If Army does not need (or is unable due to lack of escorts or IFVs etc) to deploy combined arms in strength in a major war then some of the RAN problems are less critical but it would be busy doing the things it would need to do in a major conflict (hunt subs, escort other people’s ships etc). Hunter FFG with about 32 VLS sounds about right as the acquisition for that.
If Army needs to deploy in our region, in the next few years for an operation short of a major war (peace keeping / peace building / counter insurgency, with no adversary subs or overwhelming antiship missile capability) it also has some impressive capabilities in place or on order. Previous government ordered CRVs, battlefield and attack helicopters. Current government has kept those (and tanks so far as we can tell) and accelerated amphibs. Yes IFV numbers were cut but that is really about post 2030 and can be addressed again. I Agree that the new Army orbat has problems (see Australian army thread).
I rate the major war before 2030 less than a 1 in a 100 (still definite risk, cataclysmic consequences, Australia is not prepared, and the risk needs to be minimised by deterrence) and the regional mission at brigade level about a 90 in 100 chance (Australia is not prepared but on track with some fixes, and the risk can’t be minimised much by deterrence). If your subjective probabilities differ you will have different views.
Army doesn’t actually have any IFVs (or deployable APCs) now. It is finally acquiring 129 IFVs but it will take years to have deployable numbers. So, as the RAN has too few escorts, RAN needs to be fixed for Army to be relevant with mass in a major conflict (sure SF, and maybe up to a light battlegroup can deploy, but not a brigade).
Despite some terrible procurement decisions the current RAN is actually pretty good. Set the vaunted (in capability acquisition terms) 2023 RAAF against the maligned RAN in a Falklands style wargame (continent-based air defending, let’s say Christmas Island, against amphib). I don’t want to pursue that scenario other than to suggest the current RAN (without any air cover) would not be a trivial adversary for the current RAAF and the sort of things that could happen in that scenario point to the need for some actual (high priority) ADF acquisitions.
The RAN is however too small and can’t crew the ships it has (as posters have noted). It probably needs even more ships (hence surface fleet review) than it can crew because existing ships have declining availability and there might be sufficient notice of a major war to recruit former trained personnel.
If Army does not need (or is unable due to lack of escorts or IFVs etc) to deploy combined arms in strength in a major war then some of the RAN problems are less critical but it would be busy doing the things it would need to do in a major conflict (hunt subs, escort other people’s ships etc). Hunter FFG with about 32 VLS sounds about right as the acquisition for that.
If Army needs to deploy in our region, in the next few years for an operation short of a major war (peace keeping / peace building / counter insurgency, with no adversary subs or overwhelming antiship missile capability) it also has some impressive capabilities in place or on order. Previous government ordered CRVs, battlefield and attack helicopters. Current government has kept those (and tanks so far as we can tell) and accelerated amphibs. Yes IFV numbers were cut but that is really about post 2030 and can be addressed again. I Agree that the new Army orbat has problems (see Australian army thread).
I rate the major war before 2030 less than a 1 in a 100 (still definite risk, cataclysmic consequences, Australia is not prepared, and the risk needs to be minimised by deterrence) and the regional mission at brigade level about a 90 in 100 chance (Australia is not prepared but on track with some fixes, and the risk can’t be minimised much by deterrence). If your subjective probabilities differ you will have different views.