SiVisPacemParaBellum
New Member
Do you have a source for 2.5-2.7 Bn USD?
Every source I could find refers to 2bn EUR costs which equals 2.1-2.2 Bn USD.
Apart from that: I can't see the higher flexibility of AH140.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Every source I could find refers to 2bn EUR costs which equals 2.1-2.2 Bn USD.
Apart from that: I can't see the higher flexibility of AH140.
Why not?
By 2050 we will have a population approaching the UK, we will likely be far wealthier and have significantly more exposed SLoCs then they do.
Time for us to start acting like grown ups with an appropriate but not over capitalised fleet to match. We’re big boys now.
They can keep the CVs and SSBNs but otherwise I reckon the RN is a not a bad yardstick for us.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Is Australia's population growth really such that it will approach 2.5x current pop within a little more than 26 years? By my estimates, that would need a ~5.7% annual population increase, or ~1.5 mil. people p.a. Data suggests that Australia's average annual percentage population growth, at least for the last few years, is more like 1% or about 267k people p.a.
By my estimates, the population of Australia (using current apparent growth rates) should be ~34 mil. people around 2050, well short of the UK's current ~67 mil.
There is also a question of just how large a population Australia can support. Australia is a large country with plenty of space, but much of it is sparsely inhabited with most significant populated areas concentrated in small areas. Access to and the availability of water being one of the issues.
As much as one might wish otherwise, the size of the population of Australia has an impact upon the ADF, not only because of the resources which might be allocated for budgeting, but also for the number of potential personnel in service. As it currently stands, the RAN has about half the regular personnel of the RN, despite Australia having less than half the population to draw from.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Immigration is a way to increase population growth but as you say Australia has resource limitations. Canada has the resources but limitations on available housing, healthcare, and social services are overwhelming our capacity. Australia would likely have the same problems.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The ADF numbers have hovered around the 60,000 Regulars, 20,000 reserves mark (give or take 2-3000) since the late 1970s when our population was 15-16 million (now 26 million) with equipment numbers roughly equivalent (within 20% in most cases). We have failed to grow the ADF over the last 4 decades despite having a much larger pool of people to draw from, and not just 10 million more people but the fact all jobs in the ADF are now open to members of both sexes and those that are openly LBGTQ+.
Australia does have huge water reserves both natural and Man made, it is just managing it and getting it to where it is needed is the issue. 3 months without rain and the UK is in deep doodoo, 3 months without rain, is quite often the norm in Australia.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Housing and Healthcare are close to crisis point in Australia, there are a lot of people with good paying jobs living in Tents. Getting in to see a GP if you are not already on the books is impossible in many areas.
It's a fair question and does play to the type and numbers mix of vessels across the fleet.Just thinking that the MCM and Survey vessels will soon need to be replaced. I know when the idea of an Offshore Combatant Vessel was put forward the idea was that they would not only replace the patrol fleet, but also the MCM and Survey vessels as well. This seems to have carried over with talk of the MCM and Survey vessels being replaced with Arafuras, but this idea seems to ignore is that both the MCM and Survey roles were considered combat roles. It was envisioned that MCMs and Survey vessels would operate along side other naval assets such as our amphibious fleet and perhaps even precede the main fleet into areas of operations.
Semaphore: Australian Offshore Combatant Vessels | Royal Australian Navy
Royal Australian Navywww.navy.gov.au
To me this would seem to suggest that the Arafura is simply not suited as a replacement of these vessels. On the otherhand they very much sound like the sort of roles that could be handled by a corvette/light frigate sized vessel.
I haven't heard anything about these projects since the Morrison government promised to build these ships if re-elected. As far as I know this project is currently in linbo.
So the question is, do the MCM / Survey vessels sail into harms way under the protective umbrella of the fleets Frigates / Destroyers?
If so, what sort self defence should they employ at a minimum.
Is the sort of self defence suite, as found on the LHD's and Supply Class adequate for these MCM /Surrvey vessels.
Or is the expectation that they are employed in a passive environment and the requirements of MCM / Survey would be satisfied with modular units employed on the Hunter Class?
Cheers S
I'd like us to grow up as well and can see the need.
Big Island, big seas, history of naval influence.
I get it ,but not sure government do hence my guarded expectations.
Cheers S
PS.......like the UK, I still see a place for within the ADF for deploying aviation at sea.
Going forward probably unmanned not manned.
I have seen more conservative estimates of Australia’s population by the middle of the century. Around the 35 million mark which is still almost 40% bigger than it is to today. This will be almost exclusively through immigration and that population will be getting older but it does mean a bigger economy and a bigger population base to draw manpower from.
What means is that a lot of issues such as how we will man and pay for some of our more expensive military projects will fix themselves.
While demographics is our friend not the same can be said for China. Its population will shrink and get a lot older during the same period.
One theory is that this makes China a greater military threat in the short term as it would be keen to resolve issues such as Taiwan while they are still capable of doing so.
What this means for Australia is that we could probably rapidly boost our defence spending knowing that we could pay for it further down the track as the economy and population continues to grow. China hasn’t got that luxury since its own economy may shrink in real terms.
This is what Australia and its allies need to concern themselves with in the short term. If we can discourage China from any military adventurism over the next ten to twenty years they might simply go away as a military threat and instead have concentrate on domestic issues.
Flexson
Active Member
Except a protective umbrella doesn't cover another vessels NBCD, which WAS going to be a key difference between the Arafura's and their ≈93m MCM/Survey derivatives.
Last edited:
Ok ......fair enough.
So is the default, MCM and Survey in a area of threat are satisfied by modules employed on larger frigates?
or
Some other more robust option?
Thoughts S
While we are not allowed to use SSM's, we might have to upgun or uparmour. The Chinese militia fishing boats have armour and ramming other ships, apparently
Chinese fishers detained after ramming boat - Taipei Times
Bringing Taiwan to the World and the World to Taiwan
www.taipeitimes.com
The amphibious variant is interesting. A modern day APD.
Considering the ADFs pivot to littoral operations and distributed strike using mobile land based assets intended to deploy to remote islands and sites through the region, these could get a very good long term fit.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Same situation here.
Yeah and an Army with 70 odd tanks, 130 ifvs and 5 infantry battalions....
Lolcake
Active Member
Bringing in another 800k migrants in the next 12 months will no doubt solve this problem. /s
Last edited:
70 odd tanks, 130 ifvs and 5 infantry battalions....are just a stop gap.
Actually going forward no need for an Army as we'll have three Nuclear subs by 2040!
In fact we won't need a surface fleet.
Actually I'm starting to question the utility of an Air Force as well.
Agree old faithful
It's about balance.
Just missiles to give them a bloody nose, then when they run out in a week or so, just capitulate, let them have the resources if they promise to not kill us all.
"I for one, welcome our new Alien overlords!"
It occured to me that if the leaked destroyer program eventuates, it will the only time in its history, that the RAN has procured a world class, high end combatant.
Even the battle cruiser HMAS Australia was a cheaper version of the preceding Invincible Class, laid down after the succeeding and vastly superior Lion Class had begun construction.
Every class of ship operated by the RAN, with the exception of the County Class Cruisers, has been a smaller cheaper design than was needed or available at the time.
Even the Tribal, Battle and Daring class destroyers, while large and capable for destroyers, were ordered instead of the cruisers the RAN needed.
The superb Adams Class DDGs, were instead of the DLG our requirements actually indicated was needed. The FFG-07s were instead of the superior DDL design, which in turn, had been designed as a supplement for destroyers but ended up being recast as their replacement.
Even the battle cruiser HMAS Australia was a cheaper version of the preceding Invincible Class, laid down after the succeeding and vastly superior Lion Class had begun construction.
Every class of ship operated by the RAN, with the exception of the County Class Cruisers, has been a smaller cheaper design than was needed or available at the time.
Even the Tribal, Battle and Daring class destroyers, while large and capable for destroyers, were ordered instead of the cruisers the RAN needed.
The superb Adams Class DDGs, were instead of the DLG our requirements actually indicated was needed. The FFG-07s were instead of the superior DDL design, which in turn, had been designed as a supplement for destroyers but ended up being recast as their replacement.
AH140 is over 50% bigger, which allows it to carry far more. Look at the planned fitout of the Polish Miecznik, & remember that the base model of AH140 is an AAW ship with a SMART-L LRR, APAR, & able to carry 32 SM2 IIA & 24 ESSM simultaneously.