We were talking about this same thing at work today, we agreed that it would be a DDG with only one vessel really ready to deploy.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Yep. You're a bit socially clumsy, & you're in danger of being measured by that. Being able to do tricks like having broken every short-term memory test you've ever been given (they're designed so that people shouldn't get 100% - especially not consistently
) - & other things which translated directly into work-related skills in the jobs I had, could often be ignored. That crap manager's boss (the bloke who'd recruited me) admitted that he'd underestimated me in my interview, when he told me a few months later that he'd got approval for a fat raise to bring my pay closer to what he thought I was worth after seeing me work. Good bloke. When a problem arose which I could only fix by violating instructions the idiot had given before going on holiday, he cut short my explanation & said "do what you think is needed. I'll handle X". 11 years there, mostly not working for the dickhead.But we're off topic.
Very common in IT, in my opinion, but mostly undiagnosed. Not long before my last permanent(ish) job ended, the in-house magazine had an article about a techie with a diagnosis of Asperger's (deprecated nowadays: he'd probably be described as something like 'high functioning autistic'), giving his PoV & that of his wife (a senior person in HR - I expect it was her idea), & talking about how colleagues could accommodate his difficulties.
As my wife the expert says, the supposed increase in prevalence these days is just greater recognition, & even more so in women, who've traditionally been under-diagnosed much more than men. She can talk in great detail about that.
Yet another hurdle passed as the US Senate and House of Representatives approve legislation to sell Australia 3 to 5 Virginia class submarines to Australia. Next step is the president’s signature.
Richard Marles said he was confident the AUKUS deal wouldn’t be jeopardised by any changes in US administration despite concerns that a future US president will have to confirm that the transfer of the submarines will not undermine America’s military capabilities or foreign policy.
Marles might have been saying the quiet bit out loud when he said that.
How long can we sustain that deployment?
While we have that one ship deployed to the Red sea, will we still be able to do regional patrol and engagement activities like IPE2023.
Both are important. Failure to to deploy to Red sea when specifically asked would be a huge issue, even if it is for valid technical reasons.
With only 3 destroyers, when do we do the upgrades?
Its going to ramp up the pressure. From the American point of view, tier 2 doesn't really exist. Not for Australia.
Its not a secret. The Americans are pressuring Australia. Australia is pressuring America.
Neither of us can completely trust our politicians. I am quite happy on the Americans calling on ours to keep promises, and on our politicians calling on them to keep theirs.
We are literally in the struggle for global order and peace. Interesting times.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The US President has to sign off on the transfer 270 days before the transfer occurs, so about 2031 for the first Sub.
I am not particularly concerned. This deal is just about as beneficial to the Americans as it is to us. Basically it means up to 8 SSNs operated by their allies in this region. That is 8 submarines that they don't have to pay for. Throw in all the supporting infrastructure Australia is also paying for, including a sizable investment in the US submarine building industry, and it looks a pretty good deal for the US.
Worst case scenario it looks like Australia will be able to buy new submarines directly from the builders from around Block 7.
If only a DDG will do, and there is only one ready, then the request should be declined given regional commitments and focus. Indeed it should have been been made clear there was no capacity before a request emerged to avoid the embarrassment. If there is capacity in P8 and E7, and they are useful in that environment, send them.
Its not about money. Not really.
Like them asking for support in the Red sea. One Australian destroyer isn't going to dramatically change the battlespace due to its firepower.
But it is a sign of global commitment. That strong countries, are willing to make long term and tangible commitments. That it is beyond partisan politics. Your not just fighting the whim of the US, but global consensus.
But Australian can't send them if we don't have them. And the call for high end capabilities is increasing, not decreasing.
Rejecting a US request at this time for this purpose would be tricky. The US didn't ask because it would be easy.
Maybe Japan can deploy a destroyer to Australia to help with regional commitments and focus?
Don't we already have a p8 over there? And an E7 in Germany?
i am sure another AEGIS vessel would be useful for any coalition but what if there is a (perhaps deliberately timed) regional contingency (e.g., escalation of grey zone activities, civil unrest in Pacific) where the appropriate response is to send an Australian DDG (or at least have it available)? Does Australia then withdraw its only deployable DDG from the Red Sea? How bad does that look? If Australia’s strategic stance requires it to be able to exercise limited sea control in its region then that (in effect) means a DDG must be deployable in the region.
I appreciate that RAAF also has a limited deployable capacity but successive governments have underinvested In RAN and Army and have misused their capabilities for decades.
Such a request
Hopefully such a request (perhaps deliberately) will send a message to Aus Gov of both sides to stop dicking around and produce some action on navel procurement.
knightrider4
Active Member
Well this where poor decision making and defence procurement policy bite. We would struggle to send a single warship to the Red Sea. Highlights just how toothless the tiger is.
The British will be sending HMS Diamond, the French are contributing ships as well, but so far nothing from Australia. Just goes to show how rapidly things are changing. I suspect 10 years ago there would already be an ANZAC frigate on route. Now days with not only the prevalence of anti-ship missiles, but also drones, it would seem that you need far more capable warships to carry out even fairly routine peacekeeping operations. All this of course has got to bring into question the value of Australia's proposed Tier 2 warship. If we are talking about a ship that may not be any more capable than the ANZAC then exactly what value would it be to Australia?
I am coming to the opinion that if we need vessels for constabulary operations then we have the Arafuras. Stick a decent gun on them and call it a day. For just about anything else any new ship much less capable than the Hobart class is probably not worth considering.
I'm a bit of the all or nothing school.
Combat vessel and robust constabulary vessel.
So for the Red Sea is an ANZAC an option?
If not, then that is a very sad state of affairs and does beg the question of the tier two option.
I would like to think an ANZAC could actually defend itself whilst sailing as apart of a taskgroup against an ASM.
Especially against a non state adversary.
Thoughts
Regards S
protoplasm
Active Member
This where my ignorance can come out, and I apologise if I'm asking something stupid. My question is what's currently missing from an AMCAP Anzac in terms of air defence capability that is needed for the notional Tier 2 warship?
My list is:
- Effectors with longer range than ESSM, this could be SM-2
- an effective CIWS to deal with anything that gets inside the ESSM envelope
By all reports CEAFAR-L is able to detect, discriminate, target and track potential aerial threats at a considerably longer range than the effectors can reach, hence it isn't really a sensor issue, rather an effectors issue.
What am I missing?
An ANZAC has 8 cells and 32 ESSM and that's it, she's out. Hobart has 48 cells, so say 40 SM-2 and 32 ESSM, maybe 32 and 64 even 24 and 96, then there's Phalanx. Even the FFGs after upgrade had upto 40 SM-2, 32 ESSM and Phalanx.
The old Perth Class had SM-1 and two Phalanx. Ironically their CMS was probably more suitable to upgrade for SM-2 than the FFGs as it could have lifted straight from the USN NTU program.
I am not for one second saying we should have upgraded and retained the Perth's, I'm just pointing out how short sighted successive governments were assuming ANZACs could fill in for FFGs and DDGs.
Also to note the two RNZN FFH has a CWIS fitted.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that the Anzac sensors are suitable for the task in the Red Sea/Arabian Sea areas but the limited load of 32 ESSM 2’s would be the main issue as to its suitability for deployment.
Question for those more knowledgeable than me, as the ESSM 2 is a relatively thin & light missile, can the Anzac’s VLS tubes be reloaded whilst at sea? If so, they may be suitable for the mission, especially if it is in company with more capable allied vessels.
Question for those more knowledgeable than me, as the ESSM 2 is a relatively thin & light missile, can the Anzac’s VLS tubes be reloaded whilst at sea? If so, they may be suitable for the mission, especially if it is in company with more capable allied vessels.
Good question.
my superficial understanding is there’s no crane/derrick arrangement in place & no storage magazine to draw from.
I am confused generally with the question of reloading as to why one cannot anchor the base of a reload canister in place and then lift and lower the new round into the tube?
i guess it must be because of, reasons?
my superficial understanding is there’s no crane/derrick arrangement in place & no storage magazine to draw from.
I am confused generally with the question of reloading as to why one cannot anchor the base of a reload canister in place and then lift and lower the new round into the tube?
i guess it must be because of, reasons?
@Going Boeing @Wombat000 this article discusses the issue of re-arming VLS equipped ships. Doing it at sea is (as anyone who's stood on the deck of a underway warship during a RAS will tell you) problematic at best due to weather and sea states for a start, which then locks you to pier side evolutions.