Lol, love the L-B reference...0% chance of a 4th
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
That schedule wouldn't fit into the current AWD build plan. The 4th AWD would be ready in mid 2018 if it followed right after #3. The delays thanks to the BAE thing might push that to the right but.
But the Govt. doesn't want it. They will try and keep shipbuilding alive between AWD and S5K with the SEA 1180, JP2048 Phases 4C and 5 builds.
Ideally this is where NZ would order a Fridtjof Nansen class from ASC. However the chances of that are less than zero and of the order of ASC being tasked to build Nimitiz.
What about building 2 Fridtjof class ships, using them until the ANZACII are all online and then selling them onto NZ cheaply (perhaps initially only building 2 AWD to do so). NZ could then afford to purchase 3-4 ships (perhaps 1-2 Anzac II's). With another 2 AEGIS ships in the region resulting in a total of 5 for AN/NZ we would actually have a decent number to operate with. Fridtjof missile load out wouldnt be such an issue if ANZAC II has a full F-100 load out.
Seems like no enough thought was really put into this. The 4th awd is the only option that really makes sense. Trying to do a whole bunch of other local builds I fear will just cause headaches, building a variety of different types, possibly in a number of different yards is not the same as building the 4th of a single type.
Its not like there is no dollars available. 1-1.5 billion should easily be able to get us a 4th awd. All we are doing is prioritising sealift over capable air defence, of which we really don't have enough anyway to cover the sealift we have. Its going to make it harder for the local builds to succeed.
What about building 2 Fridtjof class ships, using them until the ANZACII are all online and then selling them onto NZ cheaply (perhaps initially only building 2 AWD to do so). NZ could then afford to purchase 3-4 ships (perhaps 1-2 Anzac II's). With another 2 AEGIS ships in the region resulting in a total of 5 for AN/NZ we would actually have a decent number to operate with. Fridtjof missile load out wouldnt be such an issue if ANZAC II has a full F-100 load out.
Seems like no enough thought was really put into this. The 4th awd is the only option that really makes sense. Trying to do a whole bunch of other local builds I fear will just cause headaches, building a variety of different types, possibly in a number of different yards is not the same as building the 4th of a single type.
Its not like there is no dollars available. 1-1.5 billion should easily be able to get us a 4th awd. All we are doing is prioritising sealift over capable air defence, of which we really don't have enough anyway to cover the sealift we have. Its going to make it harder for the local builds to succeed.
You know the sad bit is that the current ships are getting flogged due to operational requirements and haveing extra hulls may actually cost less in the long run as one can be un-manned and in reserve/maintenance. The UK are doing this (for cost at the moment) but it does take pressure off maintance cycles and allows extra time for upgrades.
Having e AWD and 8 ANZAC is great but not if they are all buggered due to lack of maintenance where you end up throwing a lot of money at the ships to patch up or having to replace them post haste. If we did this the press wouel still say 'idle ships .... oh dear' but it doe have merit.
Properly and progressively maintained ships will last a long time. Tobruk under a commercially applied (enforced Class requirements) should have lasted a lot longer and should not have got into the state she was in if time was set aside to keep her maintained. The RFA LSL were first commissioned in 1967 and some are still in operation.
I am day dreaming I know but, trust me, emergency maintenace cost a shed load more that that work that si programmed well before its due date and the know on effect of delaying nececsary work is................... more things break.
All the Sir Bev's are well and truly paid off (For many years). Toby has had a very good run to last as long as she has, when she was worked as hard as she was.
You don't need air defence in exercises (it can be notional which is how the Australian Army mostly trains given the amount of capabilities it "notionally" has...) and you don't need air defence for humanitarian missions.
I don't think we'll see the ships do more than this, which is why the arguments about 4th AWD, STOVL fighters from the LHD's, superior weapons/sensor fitouts on the LHD's themselves and offensive fire support to support amphibious manueuver etc are largely futile, IMHO.
The Government of the day doesn't want them for warfighting missions. As long as they are sufficiently well-armed to stand a good chance of preventing themselves being bombed by suicide bombers or taken over by pirates, that will suffice. Anything else is superfluous...
Of course when some future Government DOES want them for war-fighting duties, it will be all ADF's fault for failing to provide the "options" required...
Actaully Sir Tristram is still a training vessel of sorts and the Sir Bedivie pwas struck off to Brazil in 2008.
The Blacksone engines on Tobruk can be a pain but corrosion and plate failure is something than can be managed. Even information in the public domain notes the fact is this work was put off with he ship running around with cement boxes on thin plate. A commercial vessel with a reputable class and decent flag will not get away wiht and would be off for shell plate replacement and thcikness testing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pressure is off now that the US can live in our backyard.
4th awd and the 3rd LHD have always been long shots because they only enable existing capability, not bring new levels, so there is little political motivation behind it because it won't buy votes. Despite the fact the procurement cost is actually offset by advantages is deployment, training, sustainment, local building etc. So we will save money on procurement only to blow much more with emergency repairs, leasing vessels, pushing life times etc. I should probably just drop the dream, but
The LHD's (and the amphibious capability) are central to Australia's future foreign policy. PNG, Fiji, East Timor look like they might go into dark periods, China is threatening a dozen nations EEZ, refugees will be seeking asylum in Australia. Lots of issues, if anything less stable than the cold war.
I know that these things are futile, it just annoys me when I can see the beginning of a cluster feck that will most likely end up costing much more, in the aim of saving money.
I just had a vision of Somali pirates boarding the future HMAS Canberra as she transported 2 RAR to a live fire amphibious exercise in the Med somewhere. Maybe not an LHD but the mistake could be made with a comercial vessel taken up prior to the delivery of the LHDs.:lol3
Tee_Centre_10
Member
"The Press" are generally two-faced because stories with the theme "everything went well and according to plan" don't attract the statistics that get them paid (audience/advertisers). It is to their benefit to be seduced by a vested interest's agenda and not be too interested in motives.
They generally don't work for a specialist publication where the audience in more informed about the subject matter. I would imagine you would struggle to find anyone who would say media coverage of their professional area is "good" or "informative", it certainly isn't in mine. There was an interview with Ray Martin on the ABC a while back where he said journalism was where you learn a tiny bit on the surface about a whole lot.
That said, too often the object of attention does not do a very good job of defending their position, and it is my opinion that defence would be better served being a little more communicative about what happened, why it happened and why they do the things they do.
Often it seems that defence is secretive and non-communicative in the name of security but in the final wash-up, when everything come out, for little to no reason or because all of the information is already common knowledge in the public domain. It doesn't come across well to the general public. It doesn't look good when a journalist asks a straight question that everyone else is thinking and an Admiral, General or Air Chief Marshal obfuscates and side-steps the question. It is expected of politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen.
The way to sell extra hulls is operational redundancy. Just say it. Machines break down, machines need maintenance, machines need upgrading, and crews need training, crews need time off. Say we are not a taxi service, a fast food restaurant or a hair dressers, we are an emergency service and when when we get called into work it is because of civil disturbances, natural disasters, humanitarian crises, and threats to the safety of Australia and Australians, and it is often at short notice and when lives are at risk.
No doubt there are agendas at work when it comes to the Collins-class subs, but it is made worse by defence always being on the defensive about it and the public not really knowing what they are for or how they are used other than some nebulous ideas about torpedoing ships. It makes it so easy for the press to permanently attach the word "troubled" to the word "Collins".
Hull redundancy is great, but what of the costs in addition to the initial purchase? If the RAN had 10 ANZACs instead of 8, a class upgrade would cost an additional 25%, or 3 LHDs instead of 2 an upgrade would cost an additional 50%. But it may be worth it if you can keep the hulls in service longer, but that would exacerbate the stop-start cycle of Australian shipbuilding.
The pirates?2RAR or 15 Somali pirates.... I know who I've got my money on
From the RAFFm Thread
According to Sea Toby
Last time I looked this had not happend. I maintain additional hulls take the load off other ships and allow more time for such work and allow the work laod of the units to be spread to avoid buffering all ships of the same class but do not see this as resulting in a home based grab bag of spares.
According to Sea Toby
Where is the evidence for this conclusion. If we follw the logical extension of this the forth FFG should be in lay up with bits being flogged off it and not being deployed.
Last time I looked this had not happend. I maintain additional hulls take the load off other ships and allow more time for such work and allow the work laod of the units to be spread to avoid buffering all ships of the same class but do not see this as resulting in a home based grab bag of spares.
I would have said 2 CAV but while the LHDs are very big i don't think they would be big enough to do a battle run.
t68
Well-Known Member
Brought over from the RAAF thread so we don’t polluted it with off topic items
A 4th Hobart class AWD will give the RAN the means to manage that flexibility if a single AWD hull is tied up elsewhere and another was in long term maintenance with the 2 remaining hull either at the start of working up or having completed that cycle. WE only have to look at the shambles that become thru no fault of Navy of insufficient number of hulls in the LPA fleet worked hard without going thru the cycle in a timely manner.
We currently have 1 frigate on operational deployment at any one time and tasking for exercises here in Australia and overseas with foreign Navies. with the RAN getting fewer hulls(3 Hobart class for 6 Adelaide class) to replace exiting hulls, the raise, train, sustain cycle will start to have a negative impact on how Navy goes about its core business and that is to engage in a low to medium level conflict either close to Australia or the other side of the world working with our Allies and still have assets available to respond to events in the national interests.
A 4th Hobart class AWD will give the RAN the means to manage that flexibility if a single AWD hull is tied up elsewhere and another was in long term maintenance with the 2 remaining hull either at the start of working up or having completed that cycle. WE only have to look at the shambles that become thru no fault of Navy of insufficient number of hulls in the LPA fleet worked hard without going thru the cycle in a timely manner.
I attribute this response to inter corps rivalry.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
But how long would it take 2 RAR to get to the armoury for weapons and ammunition.....? :gun
Nah, the black hats spend so much time buttoned up in their sardine cans that they probably haven't noticed that the Infantry have gotten on and done the job for them.
I'm currently working with 2 RAR, so I wouldn't be upholding my end of the bargain if I wasn't ragging on them.
To be fair, I give them at least one chance in three against the pirates...
- Status