RAN Dreamland Thread

[t68]

Battleships.

Because why not?

Why not indeed after all it's dreamland, DDG 1000 as part of an amphibious task force. DDG-1000s can operate in shallower, close-to-shore littoral waters compared to the DDG-51s, also the advanced gun system can hit targets targets up to 63 nautical miles away, compared to the Hobart's AWD MK45 mod 4 5in guns and 20nm range. The RCS is also smaller than a Hobart's increasing its effectiveness in the littorals an 80 cell VLS can also accommodate tac-toms for increased land attack, and has less crewing requirements than a Hobart class AWD. A lot of plus on paper.

 

[Volkodav]

In regards to Battle ships, Australia and WWII. Originally the proposal came around to build one in Australia to create job's and growth, In 1937 the idea popped up of one being built exclusively for Australia in Australia. Idea never gained traction as while we had dock's large enough over all the facilities were too out dated, and not set up to such a project.

We got the battle cruiser as that was part of the make up for the 'Fleet Units' proposed by the Admiralty in the UK, Consisting of 1 Battle cruiser, 3 light cruisers, 6 destroyers and 3 submarines. Had been put forth to Australia, Canada, New Zealand (partially) and possibly South Africa in future, Only Australia and New Zealand made any purchases with Australia buying a full Fleet Unit (minus 1 submarine) and NZ buying and donating a Battle Cruiser.

In the 1930's further suggestions had been made by the Admiralty as to what fleet we should have, With Australia funding and supplying a fleet made up of 1 - 2 Battle cruisers, 1 -2 Carriers, a dozen or so destroyer leaders and destroyers, and a number of other escorts and submarines (Off the top of my head, Ill track down exact numbers), Beyond an idea in 1937 nothing serious into Australia ever having a battle ship took place.

Something you may find interesting, the Fleet Unit was just the first phase of building a balanced RAN. A fair bit of reading if you guys are up for it and very definitely unaffordable following the expense and losses of the First World War and perhaps even more so the Spanish Flu epidemic that followed.

https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/defau...y Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson 1911_opt.pdf

Of particular interest is the planned fleet.

PART I.—THE COMPLETED FLEET.
1. The Completed Fleet to be composed as follows :—
8 Armoured Cruisers.
10 Protected Cruisers.
18 Destroyers.
12 Submarines.
3 Depot Ships for Flotillas.
1 Fleet Repair Ship.
__
52

2. This Fleet would when fully manned require a personnel of approximately 15,000 officers and men, divided as follows :—
Commissioned Officers —
Executive and Engineer ... ... ... ... ••• 461
Medical ... ... ... ... ••• 54
Accountant ... ... ... ... ... ... ••• 63
Subordinate Officers— Executive ... ... ... ... ••• ••• ••• 96 Accountant ... ... ... ... ... ••• ••• *1
Warrant Officers— Executive ... ... ... ••• ••• ••• ••• 201
Engineer ... ... ... ... ... ••• ••• 43
Accountant ... ... ... ... ... ••• ••• 6
Petty Officers and Men— Seamen ... ... ••• ••• ••• 5,865
Stokers ... ... ••• ••• •• ••• 5,290
Artisans ... ... ••• ••• ••• 591
Miscellaneous (including both Officers and Men) ... ... ... 1,151
Total Under Training and on passage .. 13,832
Grand Total ...14,844

Sorry for the formatting, it doesn't copy well from the scanned documents. The relevant tables are from page 10 onwards, all very interesting, the amount of detail and research is outstanding.

I wonder how far this plan would have proceeded had their not been a First World War. Unfortunately there would always have been a war but how about instead of lasting four years and being as wide ranging as it was it only lasted less than a year and was settled diplomatically once the initial stalemate was reached in early 1915. All what if but it is the only way this fleet could possibly have been afforded.

Note the large vessels being discussed were Armoured Cruisers which were smaller and more affordable than battlecruisers, let alone battle ships. A WWII equivalent would be the German Pocket Battleships / Panzerschiff (Deutschland Class) or perhaps battlecruisers (Schanhorst Class, French Dunkerque Class, Dutch Project 1047) or the US Large Cruisers (Alaska Class). Tactically speaking something like the larger late WWII US style heavy cruisers may have been more appropriate than battlecruisers, particularly as the supporting Protected Cruisers were barely larger than post WWII destroyers and would have been replaced by Arethusa or Dido class light cruisers, if not Tribal class destroyers.

 

[rockitten]

$188.8? RBA: Inflation Calculator Using the RBA inflation calculator (that I have found to be quite accurate often having used it quite a bit over the years), In 2007 it would have cost around $255.78 million, Not $188.8 million, Sorry to nit pick but wasn't exactly a small difference.

Also, Using Yearly Average Exchange Rates - Oz Forex Foreign Exchange the R9.65 billion acquisition cost for 2007 would have come in at just north of $1.635 billion AUD, Or just over $400 million a vessel in which case by the time we built HMAS Perth we were on par with Germany for productivity.

May be that the sites I'm using aren't as accurate as I've come to believe, Which particular site's/methods did you use to adjust the inflation and exchange rates?

you are right, I had used the exchange rate on 2015 (R$1=A$0.11) rather than 2007 (R$1=A$0.17)

For ship vs ship it will be A$255.78M (HMAS Perth) vs A$204M (R1.2B per ship)

 

[Volkodav]

I speculated a while ago that a two tier navy could be a way to go, with the upper tier consisting of AEGIS destroyers, Hyuga style DDHs and modified DDG-1000s and a lower tier with a mix of light frigates, corvettes and OCVs. My idea was they would form task groups of an AEGIS ship a DDH and a DDG-1000 and supported by lighter tier 2 vessels as required for deployments.

Thinking on it more I would drop either the AEGIS ship or the DDG-1000 and go for a 50/50 mix of DDGs and DDHs. This is because of the increasing capability and flexibility of UCAVs etc. With CEC the DDH would extend the horizon of the task group and provide ASW screen, while the DDG would provide the lions share of offensive power as well as the air defence umbrella. The smaller combatants would complement the destroyers and provide additional ASW, as well as MCM, anti-surface etc.

Looking outside the square an option to keep all parties happy could be to order two or three batch II Hobarts, improved but still AEGIS / SPY-1 ships and buy five or six modified Hyugas from Japan while building the subs locally. The idea would be to have five or six paired DDG/DDH groups that could be supported by light combatants.

The light combatants would share common systems and possibly a common hull. A 20-25 kt OCV with multi-mission deck for LCS type modules, basic PB/OPV level combat system and weapons filling patrol, hydrographic survey, MCM etc. A 30kt corvette with multi-mission deck, more capable combat system and weapons suitable for regional, perhaps even global deployment but with the same modular capabilities as the OCV. A 30kt+ light frigate with a fixed ANZAC ASMD level combat capability as well as a multi-mission deck and the ability to use LCS modules able to operate with and support the destroyers providing MCM, additional ASW, anti surface etc.

 

[Cadredave]

What you've said is what I've read but not what I've been told. The T93 is an upgrade of the T83 and upgrade kits are available and once installed the result is a new engine. I will happily stand corrected if I have been misinformed on this but I am confident of my sources.

For the life of me I cant find the Navy News article reference the diesels all I can find now does not elaborate if they are brand new or rebuilds, knowing your contacts Volk I will go with rebuilds be a lot more accurate.

CD

 

[rockitten]

I wonder how far this plan would have proceeded had their not been a First World War. Unfortunately there would always have been a war but how about instead of lasting four years and being as wide ranging as it was it only lasted less than a year and was settled diplomatically once the initial stalemate was reached in early 1915. All what if but it is the only way this fleet could possibly have been afforded.

First of all, thanks Stingray for such interesting read.

It will be interesting to imagine what this fleet unit was supposed to pit against:
By the time this paper was written (Aug 1911)
RN's china station and India station remain strong,
Japan had became the new power in the Pacific
USN was building up in Philippines and Pacific
Imperial German has strong Asiatic Fleet plus a cruiser from Austro-Hungarian Empire
Both France and Dutch had a reasonable sized colonial navies
Russian Empire's fleet in Vladivostok was recovering
The fleet of Imperial China was also rebuilding

So much had changed by the end of 1918

 

[vonnoobie]

Something you may find interesting, the Fleet Unit was just the first phase of building a balanced RAN. A fair bit of reading if you guys are up for it and very definitely unaffordable following the expense and losses of the First World War and perhaps even more so the Spanish Flu epidemic that followed.

https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/defau...y Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson 1911_opt.pdf

Of particular interest is the planned fleet.

PART I.—THE COMPLETED FLEET.
1. The Completed Fleet to be composed as follows :—
8 Armoured Cruisers.
10 Protected Cruisers.
18 Destroyers.
12 Submarines.
3 Depot Ships for Flotillas.
1 Fleet Repair Ship.
__
52

2. This Fleet would when fully manned require a personnel of approximately 15,000 officers and men, divided as follows :—
Commissioned Officers —
Executive and Engineer ... ... ... ... ••• 461
Medical ... ... ... ... ••• 54
Accountant ... ... ... ... ... ... ••• 63
Subordinate Officers— Executive ... ... ... ... ••• ••• ••• 96 Accountant ... ... ... ... ... ••• ••• *1
Warrant Officers— Executive ... ... ... ••• ••• ••• ••• 201
Engineer ... ... ... ... ... ••• ••• 43
Accountant ... ... ... ... ... ••• ••• 6
Petty Officers and Men— Seamen ... ... ••• ••• ••• 5,865
Stokers ... ... ••• ••• •• ••• 5,290
Artisans ... ... ••• ••• ••• 591
Miscellaneous (including both Officers and Men) ... ... ... 1,151
Total Under Training and on passage .. 13,832
Grand Total ...14,844

Sorry for the formatting, it doesn't copy well from the scanned documents. The relevant tables are from page 10 onwards, all very interesting, the amount of detail and research is outstanding.

I wonder how far this plan would have proceeded had their not been a First World War. Unfortunately there would always have been a war but how about instead of lasting four years and being as wide ranging as it was it only lasted less than a year and was settled diplomatically once the initial stalemate was reached in early 1915. All what if but it is the only way this fleet could possibly have been afforded.

Note the large vessels being discussed were Armoured Cruisers which were smaller and more affordable than battlecruisers, let alone battle ships. A WWII equivalent would be the German Pocket Battleships / Panzerschiff (Deutschland Class) or perhaps battlecruisers (Schanhorst Class, French Dunkerque Class, Dutch Project 1047) or the US Large Cruisers (Alaska Class). Tactically speaking something like the larger late WWII US style heavy cruisers may have been more appropriate than battlecruisers, particularly as the supporting Protected Cruisers were barely larger than post WWII destroyers and would have been replaced by Arethusa or Dido class light cruisers, if not Tribal class destroyers.

Can't say I was aware of that, Quite a massive fleet that honestly I don't imagine we could have afforded or even manned for that matter even at the best of times. Only way such a fleet could be sustained is if they did what the British proposed in the 1930's which would have been UK fund 75%, Australia 20% and New Zealand 5%.. Naturally Australia and NZ turned that down and look at how well that turned out for us...

 

[vonnoobie]

you are right, I had used the exchange rate on 2015 (R$1=A$0.11) rather than 2007 (R$1=A$0.17)

For ship vs ship it will be A$255.78M (HMAS Perth) vs A$204M (R1.2B per ship)

You really must be getting annoyed of me right know hehe but I just love to nit pick , The R1.2 billion per a ship is based on 1999 figures for 5 ships, Accounting for inflation and some cost over runs the 4 ships cost R9.65 billion in 2007, Or R2.4125 billion each, Thus $408 AUD million each (2007).

 

[vonnoobie]

Interesting idea Volk, What Im wondering.. Would it be that far out into dream land of Australia having a Coast Guard?

I imagine the OPV's and such would fall into it's command, Likely also the naval assets of Customs and even various fishery and police agencies roles, We do have quite a number that may benefit from having it under a single command rather then the current broken ad hoc system.

I imagine a system similar to the USN/USCG in which in a time of war USCG vessels and persons can be taken under USN command/use. Having the OPV's fitted for but not with STANFlex modules would allow them if needed to be used in either local defence or an external fleet escort role (likely civilian vessels etc).

In regards to actual naval vessels, Is there a major difference in say ASW operations by say the Burkes or DDG-1000's compared to say dedicated ASW ships? If the difference is major then I imagine having a some what mixed fleet of ASW/AWD vessels is appropriate, If it is minor then would it be more appropriate to move towards a single surface combatant force? (Ideally future evolution of the DDG-1000).

 

[Volkodav]

For the life of me I cant find the Navy News article reference the diesels all I can find now does not elaborate if they are brand new or rebuilds, knowing your contacts Volk I will go with rebuilds be a lot more accurate.

CD

It actually came up at work when we were talking about, shock horror, certifying propulsion diesels. I have never seen anything definitive saying whether NZ bought new build donks or kits to upgrade the existing ones but in response to someone mentioning the NZ upgrade and how difficult it must have been to replace the engines one of the blokes who came from ANZACs pointed out that the difference between the T83 and T93 was all top end and NZ upgraded theirs in situ. This was later confirmed by an ex-RNZN MEO I worked with on another project, I was going to ask MTU Detroit Diesel Australia but never got the chance.

I have seen a story that NZ bought two T93s but it didn't specify whether it was entire engines or kits including new top ends. To be honest I really don't know If the kits were installed in situ, the diesels were removed and refurbished, or new diesels were installed, I am just going off what I was told and didn't really think about it as it was just in conversation while we were working on something else. Either way the upgrade would not have been easy or cheap with major upgrades being required for cooling, transmission and, due to the high pressure atomised fuel system required by the T93, I imagine also fire suppression systems.

 

[Boatteacher]

Something you may find interesting, the Fleet Unit was just the first phase of building a balanced RAN. A fair bit of reading if you guys are up for it and very definitely unaffordable following the expense and losses of the First World War and perhaps even more so the Spanish Flu epidemic that followed.



Note the large vessels being discussed were Armoured Cruisers which were smaller and more affordable than battlecruisers, let alone battle ships. A WWII equivalent would be the German Pocket Battleships / Panzerschiff (Deutschland Class) or perhaps battlecruisers (Schanhorst Class, French Dunkerque Class, Dutch Project 1047) or the US Large Cruisers (Alaska Class). Tactically speaking something like the larger late WWII US style heavy cruisers may have been more appropriate than battlecruisers, particularly as the supporting Protected Cruisers were barely larger than post WWII destroyers and would have been replaced by Arethusa or Dido class light cruisers, if not Tribal class destroyers.

You have to wonder whether the retired Admiral wasn't a little bit out of date (or the report was a long time in the writing). By 1911 I understand the expressions "Armoured Cruiser" and "Protected Cruiser" were both out of date and obsolete (as both those types of ship proved to be in WW1 actions).

Technically I understand it at that time an Armoured Cruiser referred to a cruiser with both deck and side protection, but the last class to which the reference was historically applied was completed in 1908 (of the Minotaur Class and according to Jane's it cost 1.4m pds. Between the battles of Coronol and Jutland and an episode in the opening months of the war where three were sunk by a single submarine in about half an hour, the older Armoured cruisers suffered appalling losses and loss of life; not that Battlecruisers did much better).

After that the Invincible class battlecruisers (the forerunner of "HMAS Australia") replaced them (at a cost of about 1.7m pds each). Battlecruisers were originally (for a short while) referred to as "large armoured cruisers", so might have actually have been what he intended to refer to

By that same time I understand Protected Cruisers (those with only an armoured deck) had ceased to be built. Even third class cruisers (effectively the WW1 light scout cruisers) by then had some side armour.

 

[Volkodav]

First of all, thanks Stingray for such interesting read.

It will be interesting to imagine what this fleet unit was supposed to pit against:
By the time this paper was written (Aug 1911)
RN's china station and India station remain strong,
Japan had became the new power in the Pacific
USN was building up in Philippines and Pacific
Imperial German has strong Asiatic Fleet plus a cruiser from Austro-Hungarian Empire
Both France and Dutch had a reasonable sized colonial navies
Russian Empire's fleet in Vladivostok was recovering
The fleet of Imperial China was also rebuilding

So much had changed by the end of 1918

Australia had a xenophobic fear initially of Russia and then, after Tsushima, Japan. The "Russian threat" saw the construction of coastal forts and the formation of colonial naval forces while Japan and concerns that the RN would not be able to deploy in time to protect Australia from them was the ky factor in the formation of the RAN. Jellicoe's tour and report on the defences of the dominions in 1920 actually highlighted Japan as a continuing threat and predicted their conquests in the Asia Pacific just over two decades later.

 

[Boatteacher]

Australia had a xenophobic fear initially of Russia and then, after Tsushima, Japan. The "Russian threat" saw the construction of coastal forts and the formation of colonial naval forces while Japan and concerns that the RN would not be able to deploy in time to protect Australia from them was the ky factor in the formation of the RAN. Jellicoe's tour and report on the defences of the dominions in 1920 actually highlighted Japan as a continuing threat and predicted their conquests in the Asia Pacific just over two decades later.

By 1911 the British/ German naval race was well and truly running too. I'm not sure when they were posted, but by the outbreak of the war the Germans had two large armoured cruisers and four light cruisers on their Asian station and they were a considerable cause of concern (as well as the Japanese; although by then there was an alliance between Japan and GB - not that the Australians found much comfort in that).

The story is of course that the mere presence of HMAS Australia in the western pacific is what drove the German Asiatic fleet east to the battle of Coronol and then to it's destruction at Fauklands

 

[Volkodav]

You have to wonder whether the retired Admiral wasn't a little bit out of date (or the report was a long time in the writing). By 1911 I understand the expressions "Armoured Cruiser" and "Protected Cruiser" were both out of date and obsolete (as both those types of ship proved to be in WW1 actions).

Technically I understand it at that time an Armoured Cruiser referred to a cruiser with both deck and side protection, but the last class to which the reference was historically applied was completed in 1908 (of the Minotaur Class and according to Jane's it cost 1.4m pds. Between the battles of Coronol and Jutland and an episode in the opening months of the war where three were sunk by a single submarine in about half an hour, the older Armoured cruisers suffered appalling losses and loss of life; not that Battlecruisers did much better).

After that the Invincible class battlecruisers (the forerunner of "HMAS Australia") replaced them (at a cost of about 1.7m pds each). Battlecruisers were originally (for a short while) referred to as "large armoured cruisers", so might have actually have been what he intended to refer to

By that same time I understand Protected Cruisers (those with only an armoured deck) had ceased to be built. Even third class cruisers (effectively the WW1 light scout cruisers) by then had some side armour.

At the time in the RN there was a lot of debate about battlecruisers, champions and detractors butting heads with fast battleships also being developed. By the start of WWI the early Dreadnoughts were also seen as obsolete, so rapid had been the evolution of ship design.

On protected cruisers the 1910 Town class second rate cruisers were rated as protected cruisers, this included the Chatham subclass that included Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, as well as the Birmingham subclass of which Adelaide was a modified version. So the RAN actually had them in service along with the older Encounter, Psyche and Pioneer.

 

[vonnoobie]

Well aint this the turn of event's, Make a thread to talk about fantasy and end up talking about history more , Are we incapable of sticking to a thread's intent when relating to the RAN? lol.

 

[Volkodav]

You have to wonder whether the retired Admiral wasn't a little bit out of date (or the report was a long time in the writing). By 1911 I understand the expressions "Armoured Cruiser" and "Protected Cruiser" were both out of date and obsolete (as both those types of ship proved to be in WW1 actions).

Technically I understand it at that time an Armoured Cruiser referred to a cruiser with both deck and side protection, but the last class to which the reference was historically applied was completed in 1908 (of the Minotaur Class and according to Jane's it cost 1.4m pds. Between the battles of Coronol and Jutland and an episode in the opening months of the war where three were sunk by a single submarine in about half an hour, the older Armoured cruisers suffered appalling losses and loss of life; not that Battlecruisers did much better).

After that the Invincible class battlecruisers (the forerunner of "HMAS Australia") replaced them (at a cost of about 1.7m pds each). Battlecruisers were originally (for a short while) referred to as "large armoured cruisers", so might have actually have been what he intended to refer to

By that same time I understand Protected Cruisers (those with only an armoured deck) had ceased to be built. Even third class cruisers (effectively the WW1 light scout cruisers) by then had some side armour.

At the time in the RN there was a lot of debate about battlecruisers, champions and detractors butting heads with fast battleships also being developed. By the start of WWI the early Dreadnoughts were also seen as obsolete, so rapid had been the evolution of ship design.

On protected cruisers the 1910 Town class second rate cruisers were rated as protected cruisers, this included the Chatham subclass that included Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, as well as the Birmingham subclass of which Adelaide was a modified version. So the RAN actually had them in service along with the older Encounter, Psyche and Pioneer.

 

[rockitten]

You really must be getting annoyed of me right know hehe but I just love to nit pick , The R1.2 billion per a ship is based on 1999 figures for 5 ships, Accounting for inflation and some cost over runs the 4 ships cost R9.65 billion in 2007, Or R2.4125 billion each, Thus $408 AUD million each (2007).

Na, I am fine with that. I don't mind people challenge my ideas (just like I question others) as long as we keep the discussion a gentleman's way (eg, no personal attacks).

From what I have read from this 2 site, it seems to me the "R9.65 billion in 2007" is a project cost, or at least, the cost for the whole ship with all government provided parts (weapons, ammo ...etc).
Fact file: Valour-class small guided missile frigates | defenceWeb

Has SA Invested in Weak Ships? [The Star, 2007-02-24]

I don't have data to prove or disprove it, but don't you think a more complex ANZAC class costed half the price of a bare bone MEKO-200 SAN is a bit...... strange?

By the way, if you like costing, what you think about this?
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

 

[vonnoobie]

I don't have data to prove or disprove it, but don't you think a more complex ANZAC class costed half the price of a bare bone MEKO-200 SAN is a bit...... strange?

It's one of those situation's we lack having enough details on the various project's and what was fully purchased, Perhaps there's included weapons or future support, We simply don't know so I agree no way to say one way or the other.

That all aside I remember reading something that on average to be competitive a warship should cost around $200,000 USD a ton or less, Anything over and the benefits start to erode. Allowing for inflation of the HMAS Perth to 2014 and using the average long term exchange rate it still comes in at under $125,000 a ton ($158,000 or so a ton if you include the current upgrades), So in that sense one way or another it is competitive.

By the way, if you like costing, what you think about this?
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

Don't have access to it, But from reading what little tid bit I can $8 billion of $39 billion Frigate program and half or so of the $50 billion submarine program, I take it all with a grain of salt as to me it does sound like the reporter is basing it on number's released by the government with out any clarity as to what they will procure with said prices.

If I'm not mistaken we have moved more and more into costing the vessel not just for purchase but all say through life operations, support and maintenance? I also wonder if some genius in the government looked at the AWD Project, Seen $9 billion and figured that was the way to work out how much the Frigates would cost us considering last year it was 8 Frigates for $10 billion, Not even 12 months later it is 9 for $39 billion.. So I'll accept figures for the Submarines though 50/50 chance cost's will decrease if the government steps back and current management (at ASC) keep's on there current path of improvement, The Frigate number's I simply don't trust at all, Sound's too much like some one is making assumption's rather then basing it on fact, That they aren't taking into account that the price of an item more often drops when you build multiple of it continuously.

 

[ADMk2]

I don't have a 'wishlist' as such, but I think there is a definite weakness in the RAN's ability to contribute to our nation's precision 'strike' capability.

With Army and RAAF increasingly adopting the 'precision fires' model in recent years / decades, there seems an overall blasé attitude amongst the RAN and ADF as a whole, towards the weapons fit our most expensive defence assets seem to carry.

The closest the entire RAN fleet comes to a legitimate precision land strike capability is with the Harpoon Block II missile, which I'm happy to stand corrected however 'believe' this upgraded weapon has not even been integrated onto the Collins Class, which are our 'primary' naval strike capability...

Future capability intentions seem to be tenuous, with legitimate 'employment' issues (because of platform choices made) for the development of such capability.

Similar issues exist with the 76mm and 127mm naval gun capability we employ. Airforce wouldn't even CONCEIVE of employing a non-guided air delivered weapon on current operations and I suspect if Army were ever approved to deploy a long range fire support capability it would be EXACTLY the same, both would be crucified publicly (and legally unfortunately...) for any 'mistake' such a non-guided weapon might make, yet RAN doesn't even have the option available to it from a capability perspective, let alone a tactical 'choice' in the matter...

Strikes me as a bit incongruous in this day and age...

 

[rockitten]

I don't have a 'wishlist' as such, but I think there is a definite weakness in the RAN's ability to contribute to our nation's precision 'strike' capability.

With Army and RAAF increasingly adopting the 'precision fires' model in recent years / decades, there seems an overall blasé attitude amongst the RAN and ADF as a whole, towards the weapons fit our most expensive defence assets seem to carry.

The closest the entire RAN fleet comes to a legitimate precision land strike capability is with the Harpoon Block II missile, which I'm happy to stand corrected however 'believe' this upgraded weapon has not even been integrated onto the Collins Class, which are our 'primary' naval strike capability...

Future capability intentions seem to be tenuous, with legitimate 'employment' issues (because of platform choices made) for the development of such capability.

Well, hopefully our future submarine and frigate will have tomahawk missiles, and that probably solved the precision strike capability requirements. If needed, the LHD can also have may also have Tiger ARH on board with Hellfire missiles.

And of coz, GET THE F-35B for the LHD~~~!!!! (Hey, it is the RAN dreamland)