I am generally not a fan of Captain’s Picks. Some have worked out well, some have not. But given our current circumstances we can’t delay.
Albo and Marles need to step up and make a decision, and quickly.
Captains picks shouldn't be about undermining a selection process that is able to be conducted. However, if there is no time/money for a selection due to failure or crisis, any option is better than nothing. The Superhornets, for example, were a sensible last resort option. It has been better to live with that than let capability outright die and have nothing. now decades later, not only was the superhornet the reasonable emergency choice, we are choosing to keep them instead of more F-35s.
The Anzacs are old ships, designed for a different world, and are tired. At some stage we will have to let them go or they will not be reliable enough to perform the mission, and we will have situations where like Tobroken, where it was languishing off Sydney heads likely to be smashed up against rocks. Not only is a lack of real capability, its a hazard to crew, and costs more to operate for fewer hours at sea than if we had just replaced it. We can decommission some, to have spares to raid to keep the others afloat, but they aren't the ideal 2040 weapon naval platform.
Not only that Henderson is running out of ships to build.
There is no time to stop building Arafuras, 6 are already in the metal, and the remaining 6 are already contracted and in the process, with items already acquired. Since the plan was to use something Arafura like for the MCM platform, using them as OCV and MCM platforms seems, highly appropriate.
They could decide on the 57mm right across the Arafura/Corvette fleet, doubt they would go 76mm across both fleets and 40mm may be seen as too light for Corvettes.
Just fit the 20/25/30mm typhoon and be done with it for the OPV's. Why go to the cost and time of acquiring a new small gun, that an existing gun can do just as well. Instead of wasting the time and money selecting something like a 57mm, just fit the 30mm typhoon to the OPVs and the 76mm to the "corvettes" as that is too a gun the RAN has logistics, training and operation with. Is there anything to be gained acquiring anything else?
6 "Corvettes" if we want to use that term could be built. While this a bit of reconfiguration of the Patrol/Mine hunting/Surveying part of the navy, it doesn't seem like anything people would be hugely angry about. The Arafura's are much more capable than the older Patrol craft, and generally as capable as the survey ships, and potentially more roomy and capable platforms than the Huons. In tonnage, we should end up way ahead.
Then throw in 6 "Armed OPV/Corvettes" well, we can crew and operate that without affecting the major fleet units, and you get 6 ships that may be useful across the region. So then we are well up on tonnage, and pretty equal on numbers, and way up on capability.
It's all very well having 150 cells, but how will you fill them? The cost of each load out will be eye watering and something that the RAN most likely won't be able to afford to sustain.
I don't think the load out is absurd as people think.
we had 6 FFG, each assumed with a full load of 40 SM-2. 6x40 gets us ~240. Then we bought possibly another 80x Sm-2IIIB in 2016 for Hobarts.
www.dsca.mil
Plus SM-6 and SM-2 Blk IIIC. The plan would be say ~16-24 for each hunter, so I imagine the first 3 batches are well in pipe. So another 70-200
www.dsca.mil
Plus 200+20 TLAM
www.dsca.mil
Plus ESSM blk II around $2b worth. Hard to say exactly how much, for upgrades, new missiles, training etc But could be ~1000. Well we probably have ~260 of the suckers in the anzacs, probably another 200 on Hobarts.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has confirmed the purchase of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2 capability for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).
www.australiandefence.com.au
So we probably have around 320 older SM-2, with another 200 SM-2/SM-6 coming in already budgeted for, working towards perhaps ~2000 ESSM.
While naval munitions are expensive, its the kind of expensive Australia likes in its defence acquisitions, each item is say a million, and can be ordered in batches off a hot production line.
Australia has potentially reasonable stocks of things like SDB (Perhaps nearly 4000). So this kind of thinking IMO isn't outrageous. Australia knows it is far away, and it isn't part of any NATO type munitions stockpiling or sharing type arrangement.
The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has notified Congress of an estimated $815m possible foreign military sale of GBU-53 / B Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) to Australia.
www.airforce-technology.com
The biggest issue Australia has right now in terms of munitions, is where to put them. The only ship that can carry and fire the Tomahawks is the Hobarts, and we have over 73 tomahawks for each Hobart. Realistically it is doubtful a Hobart would carry any more than about 6 TLAM without compromising its capability as AWD. Having 12 full reloads for all 3 ships of a first strike weapon is perhaps not ideal. Ideally we would have more cells at sea ready for strike.
I don't want to get caught up in VLS counts, but IMO 64-96 VLS would be fairly appropriate for the RAN given its current inventory, already announced purchases, and threats and desired capabilities. I don't think that would break AusGov or the RAN.
Next what about crew and crew size? Where are you going to get the crew from?
Crew would and always have been absolutely critical. Which is the strongest reason why we won't buy a burke and currently do not operate one. If BAE can put together a proposal for a ship with 64-96 VLS and ~200 crew, I would imagine the RAN and the Gov would be all over it.
Crews are mind numbingly expensive, recruitment, salaries, super, health, training, on costs, etc.
IMO the author or source probably mean as many as a 150 missiles not cells. Which a ship with 96 VLS would be able to carry. Say 48-64 ESSM, would give around a 150 missiles per ship based off a burke type design. And a Burke design should be the benchmark.
