Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
On the question of need for more ships, I agree with Volkodav and JBRobbo. I don't really understand why anyone would think the current RAN fleet size is sufficient to defend Australia. The Anzacs are effectively worn out from overuse in trying to meet our peacetime patrol obligations. How would 11 ships cope with the demands of an actual war?
I think the attention given to the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea is unfortunate at times. Even if the RAN is not involved in any conflict there, the demands to patrol Australia's MEP and key shipping routes to and from here are enormous. Consider what Australia would need to do to safeguard convoys of import and export ships to just our five major trading partners (excluding China). That is routes to India, Korea, Japan and USA, plus Singapore for oil. If you estimate the number of warships to escort convoys for that, and apply the "rule of three" then the final number must be 20+.
Overall I am pleasantly surprised by the new "Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet plan, more so than the AUKUS delivery path, which I think is too costly, slow and high risk. The Surface Fleet Plan has some logic to it in considering each of need, immediacy, delivery capability and cost. Even the bits you don't like, it is obvious why they have been added.
I especially liked the commitment to a large class (7 to 11) of GP frigates, of identified existing (current) designs. The habit of some wanting to get a new cutting edge design has to stop. It costs too much and involves technical risks Defence has proven ill equipped to manage. That sort of thinking in the past is why we have wound up with a small, old navy.
Assuming all of the Hunters, GP frigates and LOSVs will all have 32+ VLS cells, this fleet will in aggregate be much more capable, much sooner. With no criticism intended of anyone involved in building it, the Hunter design phase has been far too slow, and the intended build phase looks like more of the same.
I think the attention given to the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea is unfortunate at times. Even if the RAN is not involved in any conflict there, the demands to patrol Australia's MEP and key shipping routes to and from here are enormous. Consider what Australia would need to do to safeguard convoys of import and export ships to just our five major trading partners (excluding China). That is routes to India, Korea, Japan and USA, plus Singapore for oil. If you estimate the number of warships to escort convoys for that, and apply the "rule of three" then the final number must be 20+.
Overall I am pleasantly surprised by the new "Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet plan, more so than the AUKUS delivery path, which I think is too costly, slow and high risk. The Surface Fleet Plan has some logic to it in considering each of need, immediacy, delivery capability and cost. Even the bits you don't like, it is obvious why they have been added.
I especially liked the commitment to a large class (7 to 11) of GP frigates, of identified existing (current) designs. The habit of some wanting to get a new cutting edge design has to stop. It costs too much and involves technical risks Defence has proven ill equipped to manage. That sort of thinking in the past is why we have wound up with a small, old navy.
Assuming all of the Hunters, GP frigates and LOSVs will all have 32+ VLS cells, this fleet will in aggregate be much more capable, much sooner. With no criticism intended of anyone involved in building it, the Hunter design phase has been far too slow, and the intended build phase looks like more of the same.