John Newman
The Bunker Group
Here we go again.
Bloody fantasy fleets....
Bloody fantasy fleets....
If someone said in 1938 that Australia would in, 15 years time, have :Here we go again.
Bloody fantasy fleets....
Just like they would if told the RCN was the third largest navy at the end WW2.If someone said in 1938 that Australia would in, 15 years time, have :
They would have been accused of fantasising.
- two carriers,
- three cruisers (in reserve),
- ten modern destroyers,
- twelve frigates, and
- over forty corvettes.
Except this is not 1938.If someone said in 1938 that Australia would in, 15 years time, have :
They would have been accused of fantasising.
- two carriers,
- three cruisers (in reserve),
- ten modern destroyers,
- twelve frigates, and
- over forty corvettes.
Yes.If someone said in 1938 that Australia would in, 15 years time, have :
They would have been accused of fantasising.
- two carriers,
- three cruisers (in reserve),
- ten modern destroyers,
- twelve frigates, and
- over forty corvettes.
I would not be so sure we are not at just as an important inflection point. Sooner than later it is going to dawn on people that the post Cold War era just finished and all bets are off with what comes nextExcept this is not 1938.
Unfortunately the dawn will be later for some and not at all for others.I would not be so sure we are not at just as an important inflection point. Sooner than later it is going to dawn on people that the post Cold War era just finished and all bets are off with what comes next
Part of the answer is what do you want the RAN to look like in 2030?Not totally against this.
Use the Arafuras to train the additional crews we need to increase numbers of majors down the track. Also use them for hydro and MCM, before cascading them to border force, maybe keeping a couple as the core of a training squadron.
I'm in two minds about additional Hobart's, they were acknowledged as having limited growth potential back when they were being built. I am more and more a fan of the Type 31 or a derivative of it.
I was initially a fan of an evolved K130 or a related MEKO corvette/light frigate design, due to commonalities with the Arafuras and ANZACs suggesting they could be quickly and easily built instead of later Arafuras while including systems developed for the ANZACs.
With the changing strategic situation a GP frigate makes more sense, especially as steel is cheap and air is free. Such a ship could be kicked of quite quickly, incorporating the enhanced systems intended for the ANZACs. It likely wouldn't enter service any sooner than originally planned for the Hunters, but could definately be delivered more quickly, supplementing and replacing the ANZACs earlier.
Introducing a GP frigate before the Hunters gives us the chance to further develop the Hunters to meet changing circumstances. For instance a hull stretch could be introduced to solve the weight / stability issues, while providing extra volume for required enhancements i.e. additional VLS, extra generation and or propulsive power. Maybe investigate installing payload modules for hypersonic missiles.
To me we need to be more versatile, but still realistic. Nothing will get into service faster than the already under construction Arafuras and the upgraded ANZACs. However we could increase numbers faster and provide breathing space by building Type 31s at Osborne while the Arafuras are built, and ANZACs life extended at Henderson. Then when the Hunters are ready to start the Type 31s can move to Henderson.
A win win, RAN gets extra hulls, trains more people. Civmec gets fully up to speed on OPVs and switches to frigates, ASC/BAE gets to grow and upskill their workforce on Type 31s before switching to Hunters (which hopefully are enhanced). Maybe OPVs for borderforce and MCM / Hydo versions could be built in Queensland.
The world is a more complex and dangerous place and we need to look not just at replacing capability, but increasing it.
Realistically, we do not. Short of a major, international war breaking out, which would justify both a massive increase in defence funding, a wartime /command economy, and widespread conscription, there is not a great deal more that could be done and take effect this decade.Part of the answer is what do you want the RAN to look like in 2030?
For myself it's an issue of time.
I don't disagree with many of the proposals suggested, but they generally provide increased capability beyond 2030.
Keeping the conversation to maritime assets, how do we increase capability across the fleet in the 2020's ?
Regards S
I definately hope not. If a war starts in the next decade we are stuffed.Except this is not 1938.
This. <10 years we are basically stuck with what we have today. Not just ships, but basically everything. We will be lucky to see the fruits of existing programs already well underway. Not only that, all our existing old gear will be another 10 years older. Anything that was difficult to support in peacetime will be completely inoperative with war time logistics, priorities and tempos.I definately hope not. If a war starts in the next decade we are stuffed
I suppose the question is what is the best we could have in service by 2030.Part of the answer is what do you want the RAN to look like in 2030?
For myself it's an issue of time.
I don't disagree with many of the proposals suggested, but they generally provide increased capability beyond 2030.
Keeping the conversation to maritime assets, how do we increase capability across the fleet in the 2020's ?
Regards S
Surely the best we can do at this stage is to take the existing naval shipbuilding plan, accelerate it as much as possible (ie eliminate all the drumbeat slowdowns) and accept that this results in a bigger overall fleet (which we need anyway)?Getting a new ship specified, designed, selected, built and in-service by 2030 would be a huge ask.
The UK started the Type31 program back in 2017 which grew out of the earlier GPFF 2015. The RN expects the initial service date for the first ship in 2027. The Type 31 as a 57mm gun, 2 x 40mm, 24 CAMM, and UK systems and sensors.
Even bypassing any selection process (which would basically be impossible), the ship currently built uses systems and weapons the RAN does not operate or support. Changing that would take time (like the Hunters). You would also have to acquire those, or replace those. Where would the ships be built? Which yard? How busy is that yard? If there is no yard in Australia and you want them built in the UK you would be waiting for the UK orders to be completed before starting.
There is no magic genie here. Its not just fantasy fleets, its magical wishing fantasy fleets. Theoretical designs that fall out of the air, designed by genies, built by genies, in magical genie shipyards, crewed by said genies, with deadlines even genies would struggle with. We use all our genie wishes, all to get us some light frigate power approximate to an existing Anzac(type 31e) or less than a Hunter(going back to the IH OMT parent and modifying), either way something we actually have a large number of.
Of course if you up gun it, put on all the VLS, you have now built a less capable Hobart class, without Aegis, without SPY, without those things the RAN probably wants and needs. Similar size, of a ship we already own and operate and has a clear mission for.
I understand how we got here, the A140 design is a nice design. As is the parent Iver Huitfeldt design. But that doesn't mean its do-able in the timeframe or gains the RAN or the ADF what it needs.
Even worse, the OMT IH design has been reviewed by the Gov/DMO/RAN as part of Sea5000. Its been looked at, and rejected. We are covering ground previously covered by existing programs and rejected. It wasn't shortlisted.
This. <10 years we are basically stuck with what we have today. Not just ships, but basically everything. We will be lucky to see the fruits of existing programs already well underway. Not only that, all our existing old gear will be another 10 years older. Anything that was difficult to support in peacetime will be completely inoperative with war time logistics, priorities and tempos.
Often people assume the initial conflict is what we are preparing for. There is will also be a period after the conflict. Say war breaks out over Taiwan, taiwan is bombed to dresden levels, its out of the picture either way, but it all happens very quickly, there is no invasion just a lot of fighting. The US, SK, JP and China all suffer significant loses very quickly. Say the US wins, but now has a navy/AF that is 50% smaller. JP, SK, China are even worse off, with very high levels of casualties.
What does that mean for global security over the next ~20 years after the conflict?
The US would then frantically be focused on getting it back together. If you don't make it yourself you are going to be at the back of a very long line. Building anything, even here could be quite problematic. Forget combat systems and missiles. Everything will be problematic, laptops, radios, phones, etc. Meanwhile threats and fears will significant increase globally, for everyone.
The ANZACs were selected to serve as patrol frigates in support of a force of eight or nine guided missile destroyers, and/or frigates, and a force of a dozen or so missile and helicopter corvettes.The Australian government seems to have a habit of under estimating the future requirements of new weapons systems, particularly naval vessels. We selected Anzac frigates only to find that they would need to be heavily modified to meet the threat of a rising China. You could argue that we should have got ABs instead of Hobarts. The Arafuras also now seem somewhat inadequate for the challenges they are likely to face in the 2030s.
There will always be a requirement for simple patrol vessels but perhaps these sorts of vessels should not be operated by the navy. Maybe it is time to start thinking of the navy as purely a warfighting service and hand the Arafuras over to Border force.