Sorry I can’t help myself. Simultaneously your teachers were right, and Australia can now sustain more than that:Before this totally derailed thread gets back on topic…..In the early 1960s I was taught that Australia’s population had an absolute limit of 30million, it was impossible to feed ourselves beyond that!
Now, back to the RAN.
To play the devil’s advocate and admittedly being somewhat optimistic you could take the view that a lot of what is happening with the Navy review is done behind closed doors. When you think about some of the really big decisions made over the last few years they have been conducted in complete secrecy.Sorry I can’t help myself. Simultaneously your teachers were right, and Australia can now sustain more than that:
Green Revolution - Wikipedia
Bringing it back on the RAN and the surface force review - I was watching the coverage of Albo in Shanghai, and the thought did occur to me that this would be a substantially more complicated meeting (and it may not have happened at all) if we had announced a massive naval buildup a couple of weeks before. I imagine this is playing into at least some of the thinking behind delaying the public release of the findings until next year ie create a bit of clear air either side of this visit.
Certainly timing and communication is a thing in diplomacy.Bringing it back on the RAN and the surface force review - I was watching the coverage of Albo in Shanghai, and the thought did occur to me that this would be a substantially more complicated meeting (and it may not have happened at all) if we had announced a massive naval buildup a couple of weeks before. I imagine this is playing into at least some of the thinking behind delaying the public release of the findings until next year ie create a bit of clear air either side of this visit.
It may also mean that decisions on surface fleet have been taken and they are lining up other announcements. If all the surface warships were to be built in Osborne, for example, they would need to have an announcement ready on amphibs (or something) for Henderson. If they need new consortia to build that could be going on too.To play the devil’s advocate and admittedly being somewhat optimistic you could take the view that a lot of what is happening with the Navy review is done behind closed doors. When you think about some of the really big decisions made over the last few years they have been conducted in complete secrecy.
The Attack class submarine was cancelled over night and AUKUS happened without any fanfare. The decision to buy Virginias and build AUKUS subs in Australia was kept under wraps. New Blackhawks to replace the NH90s came out of the blue. Elements of the DSR such as buying new long range missiles was acted on well before the public release of the paper. In other words just because public announcements haven’t been made it doesn’t mean that nothing is happening in the background.
It's actually sensible thinking. Don't antagonise China while you're visiting.Sorry I can’t help myself. Simultaneously your teachers were right, and Australia can now sustain more than that:
Green Revolution - Wikipedia
Bringing it back on the RAN and the surface force review - I was watching the coverage of Albo in Shanghai, and the thought did occur to me that this would be a substantially more complicated meeting (and it may not have happened at all) if we had announced a massive naval buildup a couple of weeks before. I imagine this is playing into at least some of the thinking behind delaying the public release of the findings until next year ie create a bit of clear air either side of this visit.
Yes you touch on one subject that is nuts to me…why in the hell do we grow cotton in the driest continent on the planet?. The Murray Darling Basin is cyclically under a lot of stress and the cotton line down the darling takes an incredible amount of water Out of the system.I see a few comments on population growth, water and economic constraints. Since that is my day job (infrastructure planning) I’d like to comment as follows.
Birth rate and natural population growth rate has declined in all developed countries, especially as the proportion of women in higher education grows. In Australia there have been several times in the past three decades when the birth rate was below replacement level. Overall since 2000, about 75% of our population growth was due to immigration, which has been the primary driver of population growth since the 1950s. There is no sign of this slowing down because, despite the high house prices, Australia still has relatively high personal incomes, and surplus jobs, which is the main attractor of migrants.
Only around 1/3 of Australia’s land area is arable in terms of soil quality and water quantity. The rest is not viable for agriculture, and even some irrigated land would not be deemed good quality farmland in other countries, but survives because of historic (and dubious) allocations of irrigated water.
Despite this, Australia still produces far more food than it needs. About 70% of Australia’s food crops are exported. Hence Australia’s food supply is not a constraint to growth to more than double current population. This still assumes current areas of bush and national park would remain undisturbed.
Same with water supply. Whilst water here is scarce, there is still more than enough water for a much larger population. The main issue is the equity of water distribution and how much users pay for it. The main large scale uses of water are for agricuture and mining, not household consumption. For example, as one water scientist I knew pointed out while Adelaide was building a desalination plant, six large cotton farms near Deniliquin in NSW had a larger water allocation than metropolitan Adelaide (pop 1.3 million).
Put simply, rich countries don’t run out of water. Worst case, they can build desalination plants. Even with these, the cost of water at household level rarely exceeds 10% of the cost of living. Food, housing and transport are the dominant costs.
I would observe that housing price and land supply is a very big issue right now, however in my opinion that that is almost entirely a product of Australia’s byzantine approach to town planning and property taxation laws. It is not due to lack of land. Countries without such laws don’t have the same problem with housing costs, even if they have larger populations and higher density. For example, you can literally buy a central Berlin or Paris apartment, cheaper than a house in Sydney. Prior to the advent of negative gearing tax deductions in the 1980s, and removal of most capital gains tax on investment property in 2000, Australia did not have a major problem with house costs.
Despite all the frustrations our governments might cause, most Australian cities are consistently ranked as among the most desirable places to live in the developed world. More than 80% of our population live in capital cities; of the remainder more than half live in regional cities.
On current trend Australia’s population will reach 35 to 40 million by 2050, and could exceed 50 million in the 2060s (2100 latest).
It's not just about the RAN though, its as much about the Indo-Pacific as a whole. There will be a heavy concentration on the NZ requirements with their recent announcement of a major re-capitalisation of virtually the entire fleet (except Aotearoa) over the next 15 years. Damen, Fincantieri and Navantia all have the range of designs to be able to build the entire fleet.I had a quick look at the list of exhibitors at the Indo-Pacific Maritime Expo and there are a number of shipbuilders which might tell us something about the direction of the surface fleet review:
Austal
Babcock
BAE
Civmec
Damen
Fincantieri
Gibbs & Cox
HII
Luerssen
Navantia
Northrup Grumman
Most are pretty self explanatory (although Gibbs & Cox would’ve been a surprise before their LinkedIn post last week) but a few interesting ones:
- are Damen there spruiking landing craft or small combatants? Maybe their SIGMA frigates?
- no Mitsubishi or Mitsui - looks like the Mogami lovers are likely to be disappointed.
- are Fincantieri going to push Constellation, or do the have something smaller?
My overarching observation is that almost all of these shipbuilders produce very capable 4000 - 7000t frigates. This indicates to me that they may have a clearer view on what “Tier 2” means that the general public does, and it is something with “Anzac +” levels of capability.
But perhaps I’m being overly optimistic. We’ll see what they put on display.
It was on display at Pacific 2015. No body in Australia seemed particularly interested in a crew efficient 4000-5000t ASW frigate.- no Mitsubishi or Mitsui - looks like the Mogami lovers are likely to be disappointed.
No. No Naval Group. In any way for form. I doubt they will ever turn up.No Naval Group?
Makes a lot more sense than building 3 more Hobarts. BAE are saying they could build them from ship 4.Now didn't someone mention this potential configuration a couple of weeks back?
Good to see and fingers crossed.
I think some handsome bloke said it last year?Now didn't someone mention this potential configuration a couple of weeks back?
Good to see and fingers crossed.
Great minds @Volkodav !My earlier thoughts on this matter:
In short - it looks like there is heaps of room for VLS if you sacrifice the mission bay.
So I think this is a great idea.
More Hunters with more cells more quickly please.
Interestingly no BMT considering they're competing for the JSS and landing craft contracts.I had a quick look at the list of exhibitors at the Indo-Pacific Maritime Expo and there are a number of shipbuilders which might tell us something about the direction of the surface fleet review:
Austal
Babcock
BAE
Civmec
Damen
Fincantieri
Gibbs & Cox
HII
Luerssen
Navantia
Northrup Grumman
‘Tasman’ class sounds like a strategic name choice to resonate both sides of the ditch.The Navantia exhibit at Indo-Pacific 2023 has an interesting design called "Tasman-class corvette". This is based on the Avante 2200 design for Saudi Arabia.
The design is displacing 3,600t and 109.6m-long and 15.35m-wide. It has an anti-air (16 VLS), anti-submarine (MH60, 3 x TT) and anti-surface (12 NSM) capability. Could it be contender for new @Australian_Navy Tier 2 warship?
Either way, the definition of "Corvette" is getting stretched. These are Anzac sized ships.
From
What's the model hiding between the Tasman and Hobart classes? The one with what looks like a 76mm and 16VLS cells forward and more VLS cells amidship? An extra amped up Avante or an AWD derivative of the F-110?The Navantia exhibit at Indo-Pacific 2023 has an interesting design called "Tasman-class corvette". This is based on the Avante 2200 design for Saudi Arabia.
The design is displacing 3,600t and 109.6m-long and 15.35m-wide. It has an anti-air (16 VLS), anti-submarine (MH60, 3 x TT) and anti-surface (12 NSM) capability. Could it be contender for new @Australian_Navy Tier 2 warship?
Either way, the definition of "Corvette" is getting stretched. These are Anzac sized ships.
From