Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Trying to match the Chinese navy in size is not practical or even possible. We could never hope to match their spending or access to cheap manpower. Any engagement of China militarily would only be done in conjunction with other powers.

Possibly the best Australia could hope for would to create an exclusion zone around our territory. This is something Australia may already be angling towards. New manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft, space-based surveillance systems, upgrading of JORN, continued expansion of our EW capability and shore batteries of anti-ship missiles were all foreshadowed or confirmed in the 2016 white paper. Since then the government has also been funding other technology such as working with Boeing on developing the "loyal wingman" drone.

Most of this capability seems to be based around airpower but I suspect that will change over the next decade. The USN is moving rapidly towards developing unmanned systems. It was even willing to sacrifice one of its carriers to fund these programs. Australia is in a similar position as the USN in that it cannot afford to build and man enough ships to counter the growth of the Chinese navy.

In my opinion this guy has the right idea.

Drone subs may alter the rules

We should just buy ourselves a few Orcas and perhaps become more actively involved in the USN Sea Hunter program. This would be a far more cost-effective solution to expanding our navy than increasing our numbers of manned vessels.

BigBird said:

The last thing I would want to do would be raise your fellow professionals displeasure, heaven forbid.

As an accountant, I find your comment "Really? By defence professionals at the pointy end of the stick? You are asking to change the defence budget of your country to over 38% of all governmental spending. Within 2-5 years into such a plan, such spending will reduce your country’s credit rating and fail to deliver the capability you wished for." incredulous.

Consequently, I'll withdraw from your your site and leave you to the sophisticated discussions you so enjoy.

Thanks for your indulgence, good luck in defending us in a timely manner.

Click to expand...

Up to you on whether you stay or go. However, there are some issues with the ideas and shopping list you presented to the forum. As a side note, repeatedly referring members to an off forum site for more info on your ideas is the sort of thing which can arouse some of the Moderator's ire, since it starts to look like someone is trying to drive traffic to a social media account, and honestly Twitter is not really a good place to provide the sort of information and context to really cover complex topics like geopolitics and defence matters adequately.

Something which you kept banging on about was how urgent the situation seems to be in your opinion and you also presented time frames for certain acquisitions to be made. The impression I have gotten, and I strongly suspect a number other members have as well, is that you really do not understand or appreciate how complex it is to create an effective force structure, or how long defence programmes actually take. If one looks at the Equipping Defence page, one can see the current state of various Australian defence procurement programmes. If one were to then actually click on the link for a specific project, one can then pull up information on the project including a basic timeline of when things have happened, or are expected to take place. If one looks through a number of the significant projects, one can see a trend that there is usually a gap of 2+ years between the time a project starts and a selection is made and contract signed. There are a number of reasons for this, all of which would still hold true even if a gov't were to suddenly start throwing enormous amounts of coin to "solve" the problem.

Similarly, there would be a delay in the start of production once the contract or contracts were signed, since manufacturers would need to establish their own supply chains. The only possible exception might be if Australia were to order an existing piece of kit, being currently built on a hot production line, and Australia was "allowed" to jump the line in terms of delivery times. Basically, Australia would need a situation like happened with the Super Hornet purchase were the RAAF was permitted to take SHornet delivery slots that had been intended for the USN.

In addition to funding and resources, It takes time for forces to be be built up, or even just have their force balance and focus changed. To insist that things have to happen faster than they can be made to happen, just does not sit well with people who know better. That would be like someone insisting that a four year accounting degree has to be taught in a year... Not going to happen.

@OPSSG regarding your last reply a 3 - 4% defence budget equaling 38% of all government spending would imply that the CoA is only spending 7.9 - 10.6% of the GDP annually.

5506.0 - Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2017-18

Using the 2017/18 year in regards to the defence budget Defence spending equaled less then 8% of all federal receipts attained and 7.33% of all federal government expenditures.

That being said do not take this as me advocating that we can afford to increase the defence budget. I personally believe we should but as a realist there are also other non defence area's of the budget that could make valid arguments for increased expenditure to benefit the nation so while I advocate an increase I don't advocate one that is at the expense of other just as vital functions of the government. Any increase should be tied in with an improvement with the taxation revenue for a budget beyond 2%.

Looking at what other nations manage to rake in off taxes as a percentage of the GDP most other comparable nations are achieving a tax to GDP ratio 10 to 50+ percentage points larger then what we do (OT but just goes to show how broken the tax system is though by extension broken system is actually a detriment to the defence force funding certainty in future). If we did fix the system and managed to achieve an OECD average (Which coincidentally both NZ and Canada are close to) it could see us taking in a further 10 - 15% on what we have been doing. Yep finances can be annoying but that are just as important to defence as any one else and no offence @OPSSG but that 38% claim just wouldnt leave me alone lol.

vonnoobie said:

@OPSSG regarding your last reply a 3 - 4% defence budget equaling 38% of all government spending would imply that the CoA is only spending 7.9 - 10.6% of the GDP annually.

5506.0 - Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2017-18

Using the 2017/18 year in regards to the defence budget Defence spending equaled less then 8% of all federal receipts attained and 7.33% of all federal government expenditures.

That being said do not take this as me advocating that we can afford to increase the defence budget. I personally believe we should but as a realist there are also other non defence area's of the budget that could make valid arguments for increased expenditure to benefit the nation so while I advocate an increase I don't advocate one that is at the expense of other just as vital functions of the government. Any increase should be tied in with an improvement with the taxation revenue for a budget beyond 2%.

Looking at what other nations manage to rake in off taxes as a percentage of the GDP most other comparable nations are achieving a tax to GDP ratio 10 to 50+ percentage points larger then what we do (OT but just goes to show how broken the tax system is though by extension broken system is actually a detriment to the defence force funding certainty in future). If we did fix the system and managed to achieve an OECD average (Which coincidentally both NZ and Canada are close to) it could see us taking in a further 10 - 15% on what we have been doing. Yep finances can be annoying but that are just as important to defence as any one else and no offence @OPSSG but that 38% claim just wouldnt leave me alone lol.

Click to expand...

Edit: Thanks for the correction on 38% and providing an alternate view. Learning from other members and hearing your point of view is important to me.

Might be better not to talk about a percentage without further clarification. Your thoughts are appreciated and I have expressed the point differently in my reformation of the same point below:

• I question the wisdom of advocating for a level of spending on defence (beyond 2% of GDP, which is in current plans). Perhaps it would be more correct to say that high levels of spending above xx% of total governmental spend in a defence budget (as a notional amount proposed by Big Bird) would take away from other social programs in Australia, unless the revenue base grows.

OPSSG said:

Thanks for the correction on 38 and providing an alternate view.

Might be better not to talk about a percentage without further clarification. Your thoughts are appreciated and I have expressed the point differently in my reformation of the same point below:

• I question the wisdom of advocating for a level of spending on defence (beyond 2% of GDP, which is in current plans). Perhaps it would be more correct to say that high levels of spending above xx% of total governmental spend in a defence budget (as a notional amount proposed by Big Bird) would take away from other social programs in Australia.

Click to expand...

I agree which is why I stressed out that any further increase should only be gained via an improvement in the tax to GDP ratio, Specifically a long term improvement. I dont see defence spending going much further beyond 8% of government spending so to even achieve a 2.5% budget would require a tax to GDP ratio of 31.25% at the federal level so unless savings and efficiencies are found in other programs it is a long stretch. Maybe going forward we could stretch it out to 2.1 - 2.2% but not any more without any radical changes on the fiscal side of governing. Could get 2.5% with out a 30%+ tax ratio but would require a 28% tax ratio with 9% of that spent on defence. Easy enough to say, A lot harder to do.

Just one of those subjects there are no easy answers I guess, Or government has just over complicated the issue increasing the cost of other programs for less results. Hell we routinely get less tax then other nations and people complain our taxes are too high compared to them o.0

vonnoobie said:

I agree which is why I stressed out that any further increase should only be gained via an improvement in the tax to GDP ratio, Specifically a long term improvement. I dont see defence spending going much further beyond 8% of government spending so to even achieve a 2.5% budget would require a tax to GDP ratio of 31.25% at the federal level so unless savings and efficiencies are found in other programs it is a long stretch. Maybe going forward we could stretch it out to 2.1 - 2.2% but not any more without any radical changes on the fiscal side of governing. Could get 2.5% with out a 30%+ tax ratio but would require a 28% tax ratio with 9% of that spent on defence. Easy enough to say, A lot harder to do.

Just one of those subjects there are no easy answers I guess, Or government has just over complicated the issue increasing the cost of other programs for less results. Hell we routinely get less tax then other nations and people complain our taxes are too high compared to them o.0

Click to expand...

Fist off I apologise for once again brining politics into these threads. It was a bit pig headed as the mod / team may well know and I do regret it.

So, any accountant worth his credentials would explain that the rate at which GDP rises is a bit more important for paying for stuff than tax and spends on operational expenditures. Y'know this side of the fiscal equation is quite abstract because there isn't any real kind of quantifiable measures, so we are not really buying X amount of cars. It's more like the Reserve Bank governor uses his independent powers to lower interests rates, and then raise borrowing, and then maybe a bit latter on X amount of cars is exchange. So you know this stuff is more sophisticary than an economic science.

So yeah. Can a ADF budget of 8% or more be justified and well I think so. The last time the ADF defence budget was stable at around 10% was after the post war period from 1945-1955. And if you average it out GDP growth was a tiny bit more, made more palatable by the fact defence spending went down during that time.

But the ADF faces a different set of circumstances today. The ADF is going from the lows of think it was about 1.7% (could have been lower) to 2, 4 or 8% on let's say 10 years just to take account for clearing out all the contracts yet to be fulfilled already on the books. So to justify that increased spending then GDP would have to be growing around 1% or 2% more than what it is now to justify a doubling or tripling of defence spending. And you could even add in any other type of social programme that would compete with increased defence spending.

Ocean1Curse said:

So yeah. Can a ADF budget of 8% or more be justified and well I think so. The last time the ADF defence budget was stable at around 10% was after the post war period from 1945-1955. And if you average it out GDP growth was a tiny bit more, made more palatable by the fact defence spending went down during that time.

But the ADF faces a different set of circumstances today. The ADF is going from the lows of think it was about 1.7% (could have been lower) to 2, 4 or 8% on let's say 10 years just to take account for clearing out all the contracts yet to be fulfilled already on the books. So to justify that increased spending then GDP would have to be growing around 1% or 2% more than what it now to justify a doubling or tripling of defencing. And you could even add in any other type of social programme that would compete with increased defence spending.

Click to expand...

I'm just going to link my post on the Army thread: Australian Army Discussions and Updates

I may just be linking it permanently every time people start discussing raising the budget without any requirements of ADF HQ...

buffy9 said:

Welcome to the forums. I'll respond to some of the naval points you noted, considering this is a naval thread. I'm by no means an expert however.

2. The F-35B idea has been debated to death. Whilst it would be a nice to have, the cost of modifying the LHDs or procuring new systems would not be cheap - in addition to the procurement of the additional JSF. We are also unlikely to be employing them in any low-intensity contingency in the South Pacific, considering no powers there have an air force of challenging any ATG or SAG. For CAS, the ARH are more than capable of fulfilling most roles.

3. Australia already struggles now to fill it's manpower requirements. It would be more beneficial to raise a fourth combat brigade or to round out the current three brigades. It may be beneficial to give Pacific Islanders increase access to ADF service however.

5. Starting another production line of submarines would only take away from the current shipbuilding projects (FFG, SSK and OPV), already a major undertaking. Additionally, by the time several years of construction are undertaken, the new more advanced Attack-class will already set to be soon in service.

6. 10 new surface vessels is a bit of an ask. Smaller vessels up to OPV size may be possible, though it would come at a cost. I agree increasing the minor warfighting vessel fleet could be a viable economic/military program.

7. Someone else will have to cover this one, but mothballing a small fleet and placing it at high readiness seems like it may be possible, if costly. Don't know too much about the process, unfortunately.

8. Any new oilers would almost certainly be built overseas as extensions of the Supply-class order. While it may make sense, I have little knowledge of the at sea replenishment needs of the RAN.

Your concept of focusing on the Five Powers is an interesting one and I can see merit in the idea, though any substantial improvements of the degree of which you describe may require the increased participation of both Indonesia and the United Kingdom. With the UK currently having their own problems with defence apending amidst a wide range of commitments; and a lack of trust between Indonesia and Australia/Singapore, it could be a difficult path to carve.

Increasing our commitment to the Five Powers however (replacing "Rifle Company Butterworth" with "Combat Team Butterworth" or some form of training establishment like that of Okra, Highroad and Augury is dedinately possible. Air and naval exercises with Singapore and Malaysia could also be a focus, although it would need to be done in a manner as not to posture towards Indonesia or China.

Click to expand...

Good day folks

Just one issue with the F-35. My understanding is that the Australian LHD is basically identical to the JC-1 below the bridge superstructure. As such it has the same capability to operate the F-35B as the JC-1 (while noting the need for systems upgrades). The fact is that it cannot sustain operations in the same manner as a dedicated vessel and operating a large number of aircraft detracts from the prime role of amphibious operations. At this stage the Australian operational structure does not include the F-35B .... and as you note this has been done to death.

It is notable that the F-35B could provide a force multiplier even in small numbers but unless the concept of operations changes this is a non-starter (noting that with our LHD’s, the Japanese ‘destroyers’ and the JC-1 there will be changes required to all of these vessels to operate the F-35.)

alexsa said:

Good day folks

Just one issue with the F-35. My understanding is that the Australian LHD is basically identical to the JC-1 below the bridge superstructure. As such it has the same capability to operate the F-35B as the JC-1 (while noting the need for systems upgrades). The fact is that it cannot sustain operations in the same manner as a dedicated vessel and operating a large number of aircraft detracts from the prime role of amphibious operations. At this stage the Australian operational structure does not include the F-35B .... and as you note this has been done to death.

It is notable that the F-35B could provide a force multiplier even in small numbers but unless the concept of operations changes this is a non-starter (noting that with our LHD’s, the Japanese ‘destroyers’ and the JC-1 there will be changes required to all of these vessels to operate the F-35.)

Click to expand...

Yes, spot on.

The LHDs are also actually quite tight in terms of space for aviation. No surprise considering their sophisticated multi role nature.

A smaller, less sophisticated, purpose designed vessel could actually have far greater aviation capacity and capability than even a modified LHD.

The LHD's are likely to get flogged. It seems they are the centre of every operation we do. They are key enablers for wider engagement activities. If we were to acquire another platform for improve aviation, then it would be highly likely it would need to be somewhat flexible as well. Also the only way we could get another ship is if it replaced an existing ship, or at the very least enabled other functions provided by other ships. Maybe we don't have enough money for separate AOR, sealift and Aviation platforms, but maybe something that can do all three? As flawed as that is.

I am skeptical of expanding the FDPA into a wider SEATO type arrangement. Asia Pacific doesn't work like Europe. Anything is at best a loose association. However, I do think Australia has a critical role to play in gluing partners together.

I actually think a sustained commitment to 2% is all we really need in peace time. A lot of what we are spending money on is rebuilding capability, people and systems that were hollowed out in the 1980's and 1990's and delayed in the 2000's. Once we have our base capability, and problems are in full swing, unit prices will drop, pipelines for man power will accumulate talent, bases and facilities are already built, there is plenty of money for a lot of capability, and as our economy grows so will our capability. Throwing more money at the problem doesn't always improve the situation (Saudis?).

We already have ambitious plans, our submarine fleet is going to double in number and quadruple in displacement, our surface fleet is going to double in tonnage. Our patrol force will more than quadruple in tonnage. Our amphibious capabilities have been built up eye wateringly fast. Our Army and Airforce have also undergone similar shattering transformations. No other western nation can match our capability change since WW2. We have backed this up with complex diplomacy and engagement, and a wide variety of civilian programs.

Also we shouldn't have to oppose China by ourselves. Between Australia and China is a dozen other nations including the 4th most populous (Indonesia) and the 3rd biggest economy (Japan). Oh and the US. China and Australia should in theory, have no issues at all. What we need is keystone capability, the ability to tie in capabilities of our neighbors and lead our neighbors if the circumstances require it.

The real question is what is keystone capability and what capability will we have to carry to lead. It isn't just high end capabilities either, its full spectrum stuff. If all we needed was high end, we could disband the ADF and make a massive stockpile of nukes and delivery systems. But that would be silly.

StingrayOZ said:

The LHD's are likely to get flogged. It seems they are the centre of every operation we do. They are key enablers for wider engagement activities. If we were to acquire another platform for improve aviation, then it would be highly likely it would need to be somewhat flexible as well. Also the only way we could get another ship is if it replaced an existing ship, or at the very least enabled other functions provided by other ships. Maybe we don't have enough money for separate AOR, sealift and Aviation platforms, but maybe something that can do all three? As flawed as that is.

I am skeptical of expanding the FDPA into a wider SEATO type arrangement. Asia Pacific doesn't work like Europe. Anything is at best a loose association. However, I do think Australia has a critical role to play in gluing partners together.

I actually think a sustained commitment to 2% is all we really need in peace time. A lot of what we are spending money on is rebuilding capability, people and systems that were hollowed out in the 1980's and 1990's and delayed in the 2000's. Once we have our base capability, and problems are in full swing, unit prices will drop, pipelines for man power will accumulate talent, bases and facilities are already built, there is plenty of money for a lot of capability, and as our economy grows so will our capability. Throwing more money at the problem doesn't always improve the situation (Saudis?).

We already have ambitious plans, our submarine fleet is going to double in number and quadruple in displacement, our surface fleet is going to double in tonnage. Our patrol force will more than quadruple in tonnage. Our amphibious capabilities have been built up eye wateringly fast. Our Army and Airforce have also undergone similar shattering transformations. No other western nation can match our capability change since WW2. We have backed this up with complex diplomacy and engagement, and a wide variety of civilian programs.

Also we shouldn't have to oppose China by ourselves. Between Australia and China is a dozen other nations including the 4th most populous (Indonesia) and the 3rd biggest economy (Japan). Oh and the US. China and Australia should in theory, have no issues at all. What we need is keystone capability, the ability to tie in capabilities of our neighbors and lead our neighbors if the circumstances require it.

The real question is what is keystone capability and what capability will we have to carry to lead. It isn't just high end capabilities either, its full spectrum stuff. If all we needed was high end, we could disband the ADF and make a massive stockpile of nukes and delivery systems. But that would be silly.

Click to expand...

I think that you need to bed in what you have now and what's coming on line in the next few years. My own view would be to get the first Hunter class ship steel cut and launched and have the design finalised for the first Attack class sub and well on the way to cutting the first lot of steel. Then look at the next phase of the sealift and aviation capability. The Choules replacement would be the ideal opportunity for this, if not sooner. To improve aviation at sea, then I think that a ship that has that role as its primary role and amphib capability as a secondary role would be a better investment rather than something that tries to be a jack of all trades but is barely useful at any.

As a suggestion for amphib logistical support at sea, I think a converted VLC tanker or container vessel would be the ticket and it doesn't have to be a CC of anything the USN has. Used ones can be acquired relatively cheaply and it's a matter of deciding what you want to do with them. My own view would be a large flight deck with hangars with workshops where helo & UAV repairs & maintenance can be done. Workshops where vehicles, plant,various equipment and small boats can be repaired and maintained, hospital, R&R facilities, dry stores etc. A sheltered dock or similar for landing craft. It is something that can be anchored offshore for long periods of time if necessary and frees up the AORs for fleet work.

StingrayOZ said:

The LHD's are likely to get flogged. It seems they are the centre of every operation we do. They are key enablers for wider engagement activities. If we were to acquire another platform for improve aviation, then it would be highly likely it would need to be somewhat flexible as well. Also the only way we could get another ship is if it replaced an existing ship, or at the very least enabled other functions provided by other ships. Maybe we don't have enough money for separate AOR, sealift and Aviation platforms, but maybe something that can do all three? As flawed as that is.

I am skeptical of expanding the FDPA into a wider SEATO type arrangement. Asia Pacific doesn't work like Europe. Anything is at best a loose association. However, I do think Australia has a critical role to play in gluing partners together.

I actually think a sustained commitment to 2% is all we really need in peace time. A lot of what we are spending money on is rebuilding capability, people and systems that were hollowed out in the 1980's and 1990's and delayed in the 2000's. Once we have our base capability, and problems are in full swing, unit prices will drop, pipelines for man power will accumulate talent, bases and facilities are already built, there is plenty of money for a lot of capability, and as our economy grows so will our capability. Throwing more money at the problem doesn't always improve the situation (Saudis?).

We already have ambitious plans, our submarine fleet is going to double in number and quadruple in displacement, our surface fleet is going to double in tonnage. Our patrol force will more than quadruple in tonnage. Our amphibious capabilities have been built up eye wateringly fast. Our Army and Airforce have also undergone similar shattering transformations. No other western nation can match our capability change since WW2. We have backed this up with complex diplomacy and engagement, and a wide variety of civilian programs.

Also we shouldn't have to oppose China by ourselves. Between Australia and China is a dozen other nations including the 4th most populous (Indonesia) and the 3rd biggest economy (Japan). Oh and the US. China and Australia should in theory, have no issues at all. What we need is keystone capability, the ability to tie in capabilities of our neighbors and lead our neighbors if the circumstances require it.

The real question is what is keystone capability and what capability will we have to carry to lead. It isn't just high end capabilities either, its full spectrum stuff. If all we needed was high end, we could disband the ADF and make a massive stockpile of nukes and delivery systems. But that would be silly.

Click to expand...

StingrayOZ, your correct in that there is a lot of positive activity regarding both the direction and the re equipping of the ADF
All three services are moving forward very well. The RAAF probably leads in its quest to be a true 5th gen force. It has had a long term plan to get the balance and mix right in its structure and the aircraft that will equip them. Its still evolving, but even today it is truly a world class service for its size.
Navy is on the way and already has an impressive mix of ships, with many more greatly improved vessels on the way.
Its challenge will be in the transition to the new OPV's, subs and hunter class.
Will the build timetables stay true to plan, and will we have the personal to crew these new assets?
Some uncertainty we hope that does not eventuate
Also do we have the correct mix and numbers in the supply / Amphibious group.
I'd suggest no.
As to Army there has being a spending spree on equipment, and much more to come, with Land 400,SPG's, air defence and MBT refurbishment.
Certainly much more to do with training and continuing to restructure the land component to become proficient in these new assets.
Plan Beersheba / Keogh has being a plus for direction and future proofing the new inventory as it comes on board. No doubt it will still evole.
Realistically Army is a decade behind where it should be right now, and this is a concern as we hit the 2020's with still a lot of old gear as our front line assets.

So yes StingrayOZ a lot of good stuff compared to many.
Something you mentioned about the LHD's is most significant, and maybe overlooked......... The LHD's are getting flogged.
This is both good and bad.
Good in that I believe they are the best asset in the ADF and its fantastic they are giving us such good service.
Bad we only have two of them.
A third LHD and supply ship is the missing component in the RAN for the next decade. It will provide the balance and availability that will be called upon.
If not fulfilled, we may be found wanting in the tasks asked of us in the next decade.
Replace HMAS Choules and fund the above.
This may seem like an extravagance, but these ships complete with the equipment and personnel they embark; and the task force that supports them, are very much our defence and diplomatic future.
They are a keystone capability for Australia and a unique defence capability both within the region and further a field.
This is a decision that needs to be made today to have these two new ships in service within the next five years.
Forget the other alternative's, we need a Navy of three's

Do we still have Navantia's phone number?

Regards S

I would order a third AOR from Navantia sooner rather than later. A third LHD might be able to wait a decade. I would see that as a replacement for the Choules. I would probably want a more capable ship than the existing LHDs. Something with improved aviation capability. Even if we never fly F-35s off it I can foresee us wanting to operate UAVs off it.

BigBird said:

3 - Build a brigade of Gurka equivalents, i.e. Pacific Islanders from PNG and across the Pacific to help bulk up the ADF, based mainly out of Australia + the Pacific Islands.

Click to expand...

I support a greater inclusion of Pacific Islanders into to ADF as a whole. I would prefer a more intergrated approach rather unique formations.
There would be great financal and educational benefits for some of the smaller nations.


Terms of employment would need to be addressed. Fixed term contracts and then return home or do they stay and become citizens.
Does their family come with them or remain at their home nation.

An issue to be raised with their respective governments.

Navy commissions first drone squadron
These could be baBy steps but perhaps something with more capability can be developed for the present LHD,S

ngatimozart said:

As a suggestion for amphib logistical support at sea, I think a converted VLC tanker or container vessel would be the ticket and it doesn't have to be a CC of anything the USN has. Used ones can be acquired relatively cheaply and it's a matter of deciding what you want to do with them. My own view would be a large flight deck with hangars with workshops where helo & UAV repairs & maintenance can be done. Workshops where vehicles, plant,various equipment and small boats can be repaired and maintained, hospital, R&R facilities, dry stores etc. A sheltered dock or similar for landing craft. It is something that can be anchored offshore for long periods of time if necessary and frees up the AORs for fleet work.

Click to expand...

There is a lot to be said for a ship that combines elements of an Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD), Inter-island multi-purpose cargo vessel, a Special Warfare Support vessel and a HADR Support vessel (proposed Soteria class).

Exactly what the mix ratio would be I’m not qualified to suggest, but roughly something like 25% HADR ship with portable desalination units, gensets, and medical facility’s all in ISO containers plus construction and pre-positioned civil reconstruction equipment. 20% Expeditionary Transfer Dock with accommodation & services, large flight deck & hangar/workshop and steel beach/dock. 40% Inter-island multi-purpose cargo vessel (Food/Dry Stores, Fuel/Oil & Refrigeration) and lastly 15% Special Warfare Support vessel (MV Ocean Trader). All designed to interface at sea with LST, mexfloat and the LCM-1E.

In my opinion It would be vital that is vessel be permanently based in Townsville along with 4 x Damen Landing Ship Transport 120, all under joint command like the LHD would take a lot of pressure off the LHD’s. It would allow training to be done on a daily basis and if you fitted them with the same control and combat systems as the LHDs would allow you to develop, build and train crew and interoperability without flogging the LHD’s to death.

This vessel would NOT be designed for real "war" situations, it is primarily an HADR Support vessel with extended capabilities.

~ ~ As I have said before, just my uninformed 2 cents

We lost a couple of ships this weekend. The HMAS Success was officially decommissioned yesterday after 33 years of service. The HMAS Newcastle will be decommissioned today.

@hauritz DO NOT WRITE "THE" before HMAS, HMNZS, HMCS, or HMS because it is absolutely bad manners, forbidden, verboten. It causes sailors and ex sailors to get very cranky. Use the correct terminology and you've been on here long enough to understand that. Ngatimozart.

P.S. Spoz, myself and a few other old salts on here do know how to make a cat of nine tails, because all it comprises of is basic knots and splices.

I’ve said this before, but please don’t put “the” before HMAS - it annoys people in the Navy. Expand it and you will see why.

There are now two DDGs in commission with one to come, and it was always planned that the last of the FFGs would pay off as the DDGs reached operational capability.

Supply is about to start trials in Spain and is due in Aust early next year; Sirius will suffice until she is ready.

hauritz said:

I would order a third AOR from Navantia sooner rather than later. A third LHD might be able to wait a decade. I would see that as a replacement for the Choules. I would probably want a more capable ship than the existing LHDs. Something with improved aviation capability. Even if we never fly F-35s off it I can foresee us wanting to operate UAVs off it.

Click to expand...

It might be logical too but how are you going to fund it? That's the problem at the moment; what other capability or capabilities do you get rid of to fund it? Then there is finding the crew for it. The RAN is not exactly awash with personnel loafing around waiting for another berth / ship to come along. The current LHDs are quite good for current RAN aviation capabilities and they would be capable of taking any UAVs that the ADF may operate off ships. However, a third LHD wouldn't go amiss and one could always deploy with an aviation focus; i.e., more rotary wing capability and UAV capability carried than the norm for the LHDs, by using one or more of the vehicle decks as hangars.

A third logistic/AOR has been identified in the whitepaper for delivery if the late 2020s so I guess the funds will be available. The question in my mind isn't so much whether or not the funds will be allocated but rather when they will be released. It seems that the frigate and submarine programs will be proceeding at a slower pace than originally envisaged so there may well be funds available to bring other projects forward.