Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

Hi Markus.

I think we ought to restrain our excitement a bit about the 4th AWD until it is officially announced. I hope the report by Ian McPhedran that the government will announce the 4th ship prior to the election is correct (and it did seem to me to be a reasonably credible article) but until then I am not counting it as a done deal.

Re the Super Hornets, the contract has been signed and I will be staggered if a new government cancels the deal with all of the financial penalties, loss of credibility, loss of capability and other repercussions that this would entail. I am no fan of the ALP but apart from criticism of the decision making process involved in the SH purchase I can find no suggestion that cancellation of the contract is even being considered.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

For those who still doubt, the ALP has announced it's support of the Super Hornet acquisition for RAAF publicly in May this year.

The Shadow Defence Minister's speech in May 2007 made it fairly clear that ALP support the acquisition in particular the room it will give a Labor Government to take it's time and review the entire RAAF plan.

The quote in particular is this:

According to Fitzgibbon, it is now the ALP’s view that the Government’s “Super Hornet” acquisition provides essential “breathing space” in terms of the follow-on acquisition of New Air Combat Capability (NACC).

Having run a little with the F-22 ‘Raptor’ hounds in lambasting the government’s fondness for Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Fitzgibbon has since found common ground with the hares, telling the ADBR/AHSRC seminar the BACC acquisition would give a future labor Government – in light of a new Defence White Paper – more detail in which to review the Air 6000, Phase 2A/2B NACC strategy, which is currently slanted towards acquiring F-35A ‘Lightning II’ fighters quite early in their production run, and involving more costly airframes emerging from low rate initial production.

And is available here:

http://www.joelfitzgibbon.com/SiteF...stralian Defence Business Review article .pdf

 

[Aussie Digger]

There is a lot of bad defence decisions being made. Seasprite, M113 etc. So Rudd should go after this area, but clearly state he is looking for improvements and improving management not reducing capability.

Funny. As I recall it was the Labor Party itself which decided to acquire the Seasprite giving the authority for the project to proceed, based on the dubious basis that has ended up causing so many problems.

Liberals aren't without blame, continuing the project over other possible options (ie: more Seahawks) but Labor should not escape without blame for that aircraft.

The M113 upgrade program likewise began under Labor so again they should not escape all blame, but the Liberals have to wear the lionshare of the blame for this cluster of a project...

 

[Jezza]

Im sure the USN would buy them off AUS when we are finished
with them especially if they havent done any carrier take offs
or landings.
I'd say we would get a good price$$$$$$$$$$

 

[StingrayOZ]

The superbug deal may be mysteriously sealed.

I would imagine it would not be impossible for Australia to negoicate out of it. After all, so far all we are doing is marking existing USN stuff for ourselves, USN was happy to give it up, or not as the case may be. Maybe we could trade our F-18 orders for F-35B which the USN doesn't really want.

It always seemed more of a hedge buy. Incase the F-35 is delayed, or expensive or whatever, we already have, on order the capable F-18 Superhornet.

Tomahawks and F-35B's may sound like in a land far far away stories. But in 10 years they could be real possibilities. Look at current recent deals:

-2 LHD capable of operating 20+ fixed wing aircraft and 27,000t
-4 AWD with 2 helos each
-C17's? These were a pipe dream in the 90's.

Given the AWD and the collins (and successor) will be able to operate tomahawk, you can't rule them off the table. With four AWD's that does allow a more flexable load mix. Spain and the Netherlands have both made Tomahawk purchases recently, they see it as a essential part of their force and capability. Both have very simular forces to Australia.

The government has made it clear it wants to sell ASC, to anyone bar the french. The 4th AWD secures its future, so buyers may wish to purchase ASC. The end result is the 4th AWD may cost nothing, as ASC is sold off and the money used to pay for the 4th AWD.

 

[contedicavour]

The superbug deal may be mysteriously sealed.

I would imagine it would not be impossible for Australia to negoicate out of it. After all, so far all we are doing is marking existing USN stuff for ourselves, USN was happy to give it up, or not as the case may be. Maybe we could trade our F-18 orders for F-35B which the USN doesn't really want.

It always seemed more of a hedge buy. Incase the F-35 is delayed, or expensive or whatever, we already have, on order the capable F-18 Superhornet.

Tomahawks and F-35B's may sound like in a land far far away stories. But in 10 years they could be real possibilities. Look at current recent deals:

-2 LHD capable of operating 20+ fixed wing aircraft and 27,000t
-4 AWD with 2 helos each
-C17's? These were a pipe dream in the 90's.

Given the AWD and the collins (and successor) will be able to operate tomahawk, you can't rule them off the table. With four AWD's that does allow a more flexable load mix. Spain and the Netherlands have both made Tomahawk purchases recently, they see it as a essential part of their force and capability. Both have very simular forces to Australia.

The government has made it clear it wants to sell ASC, to anyone bar the french. The 4th AWD secures its future, so buyers may wish to purchase ASC. The end result is the 4th AWD may cost nothing, as ASC is sold off and the money used to pay for the 4th AWD.

You mention that the USN doesn't really want the F-35B. May be so, but the USMC relies on it as replacement for both F18 and AV8B ... (and so do we in Italy, Spain and the UK )

When does Australia need to replace its F-111 and F-18s ? Will an international tender be launched or the F-35 (A or B) is automatically selected given Australia's participation in the programme ?

cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

But Australia's orders would only be que jumping, which the USN seems to have no problem with. Australia operating its own F-35B's would be a dream come true for the USMC, as Australia could support fixed wing operations with its own LHD, allowing the USMC to focus on amphib assults. USN would also be happy with it delaying and reducing the number of F-35B it has to deal with.

The tender process for the F-18 has already begun and finished. F-35 is going to be chosen they just havent signed on a price and how many. No other option was seriously in the running.

There is no replacement for the F-111. No one builds that type of aircraft anymore. Shame.

However there is a lot of work being done by the government to ensure that the capability we had with the F-111 is still maintained.

Two large LHD's capable of launching F-35B's. Tomahawk missiles being rumored, superbugs purchased justified to cover the "gap" in losing the F-111. The purchase of long range weaponry.

The US is very keen to keep Australia as capable as possible.

The use by dates for the current F-18 and F-111 are grey. I think the F-111 will be mothballed in 2015, and the F-18 around 2020. But there will be reduced hours, training, avalibility etc I think these are the offical dates given.

I think Australia wants to continue its F-111 but as a much smaller force. It apparently has several complete spares just sitting there (G models) in Australia. I don't think you can't completely rule that aircraft off the table until after 2025. Australia has had a special deal to access US boneyard F-111's. The F-111 maintence budget has had some massive spikes recently, perhaps additional maintence is being conducted for life extension?

 

[Tasman]

I think Australia wants to continue its F-111 but as a much smaller force. It apparently has several complete spares just sitting there (G models) in Australia. I don't think you can't completely rule that aircraft off the table until after 2025. Australia has had a special deal to access US boneyard F-111's. The F-111 maintence budget has had some massive spikes recently, perhaps additional maintence is being conducted for life extension?

The RAAF will withdraw its F111Cs and RF111Cs in 2010 when the FA-18Fs enter service. The F-111G force is already being run down.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Hi Tasman, You probabaly wont prior to an election. I agree totally that the 4th Destroyer is not a done deal until its down on paper. I dont know if the Labour party in Australia is somewhat like to the NZ labour party and if they are not rather tarthed with the same brush. I guess when i hear anything related to a Labour name by government sends chills down my spine in relation to NZs labour government and what they have done in the past in relation to our air combat force. So forgive me for being a bit jittery.

Im glad you have the confidence in the Labour government of Australia to suggest there wouldnt be any repercussions due to any "fiddling" of the current strategy which i am fully supportive of. I still think Rudds speeches and his Defence spokesmans statements thus far based on the Labour partys website is somewhat a watered down version of the current governments policies in relation to defence, and is a very "Defend Australia" mentality than the rhetoric that Rudd seems to call on global issues. All i can say is i really hope you are right. Cheers.

Hi Markus.

I think we ought to restrain our excitement a bit about the 4th AWD until it is officially announced. I hope the report by Ian McPhedran that the government will announce the 4th ship prior to the election is correct (and it did seem to me to be a reasonably credible article) but until then I am not counting it as a done deal.

Re the Super Hornets, the contract has been signed and I will be staggered if a new government cancels the deal with all of the financial penalties, loss of credibility, loss of capability and other repercussions that this would entail. I am no fan of the ALP but apart from criticism of the decision making process involved in the SH purchase I can find no suggestion that cancellation of the contract is even being considered.

Cheers

 

[icelord]

According to a story by the man who put the exclusive about the 4th AWD ....Ian mcphedran, Rudds defence policy is very close to the Governments in several ways. He won't reduce spending(he would'nt have the balls to) and his withdrawl policy for Iraq is half hearted, as is all his policys. Hes playing smart(for a pollie) in that he doesn't commit to any decisions or policys at all, and the ones he has are half hearted and no substance, that way if he does get in he doesn't have to commit to anything but the unions.
I also really wouldn't envision the member for Hunter(fitzy) promising to cut anything from the RAAF when a lot of staff and workers from Williamtown live in his electorate, and singo is just as close so don't expect the Army to be shot down.

Labor's four key points are: No cuts to defence spending. The US alliance is paramount. A stable world order. Flexible force structure.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22231474-5001031,00.html

The 4th will most likely be HMAS Melbourne(IV) as this is what the Navy League called it in there submission for the AWD.
I'm wondering how the 2nd hanger,if there is one, worked into the pre-planning of the AWD work conducted before selection. Most of the ships details were meant to be worked out before June and how the decision was affected by the Australianisation of the F-100 are yet to be seen. The F-100 was selected as a less risky ship, but if we start adding on more size,weight and expansion that risk factor rises.
As for the F-35B, looked sweet in Die Hard, wonder if they really would come down to 30M off the ground to attack a truck....

 

[barra]

From my point of view a Rudd Labour Government will be bad for the ADF, if not in the short term as the previous Govt's. aquisitions and doctrine roll on. In the longer term I believe they will let defence spending stagnate and then look to make cuts to fund Labours pet areas like Welfare, Social Security and pander to the unions. As you have probably guessed I don't vote Labour, I haven't for a long time and probably never will again.

Former ALP Leader Simon Crean made a fatal mistake in not supporting Australian Forces being sent to the Middle East in 2003, in not wishing them well even if he did not agree with the decision to go to war. I know the CO of 75SQN sent a message saying not to come to the farewell if that was his attitude. Anyway on balance Rudd is looking like a better PM then that idiot Latham would have been.

The Super Hornets are a done deal, cancelling the contract would do immense harm to Australias reputation and status as a reliable partner and ally. The RAAF is very happy to be acquiring them. The F-111's and classic Hornets, to a lesser extent, are getting on in years and have become less reliable and maintenance intensive. I believe the F-18/F's will turn out to be a great purchase and will serve well beyond the 10 year initial contract for support.

As for F-35B's, I am sure the Admirals would love some for their LHDs but as far as I know there are no current proposals to do so. I am also sure the RAAF would not like to see their proposed order of 100 cut to cater for Navy. So I would love to be a fly on the wall if that arguement ever comes about.

Hooroo

 

[Tasman]

The Super Hornets are a done deal, cancelling the contract would do immense harm to Australias reputation and status as a reliable partner and ally. The RAAF is very happy to be acquiring them. The F-111's and classic Hornets, to a lesser extent, are getting on in years and have become less reliable and maintenance intensive. I believe the F-18/F's will turn out to be a great purchase and will serve well beyond the 10 year initial contract for support.

As for F-35B's, I am sure the Admirals would love some for their LHDs but as far as I know there are no current proposals to do so. I am also sure the RAAF would not like to see their proposed order of 100 cut to cater for Navy. So I would love to be a fly on the wall if that arguement ever comes about.

I agree with what you have said and I would also love to be a 'fly on the wall'.

What I am now worried about is not so much the possibility of political changes affecting the RAN (and the rest of the ADF) but the fallout from the economic crash that has taken place during the last few days. This could potentially have serious implications for the funding of future defence projects including the F-35 and the 4th AWD. Let's hope it doesn't provide an excuse for the government (both the present one and the next) to 'review' the current procurement plan.

Tas

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I agree with what you have said and I would also love to be a 'fly on the wall'.

What I am now worried about is not so much the possibility of political changes affecting the RAN (and the rest of the ADF) but the fallout from the economic crash that has taken place during the last few days. This could potentially have serious implications for the funding of future defence projects including the F-35 and the 4th AWD. Let's hope it doesn't provide an excuse for the government (both the present one and the next) to 'review' the current procurement plan.

Tas

I dont think its as dire as an economic "crash" tassie. Its just a correction in an over extended market. Australia's economic fundimentals are still strong. The crisis in speculative credit is a much smaller problem here in comparison to the US. I think in a couple of months things will be cruising along again. large stock market corrections tend to induce panic and i doubt this turbulance will threaten the ADF's purchases, they just might not mention them for a few months.

 

[Tasman]

I dont think its as dire as an economic "crash" tassie. Its just a correction in an over extended market. Australia's economic fundimentals are still strong. The crisis in speculative credit is a much smaller problem here in comparison to the US. I think in a couple of months things will be cruising along again. large stock market corrections tend to induce panic and i doubt this turbulance will threaten the ADF's purchases, they just might not mention them for a few months.

As a retiree, living off investments, I hope you are right! :shudder

The RAN (and ADF as a whole) has done well in the last twelve months or so and it would be a pity to see any projects shelved or cut back because of an economic downturn. I agree that Australia's economic fundimentals are still strong. I guess my concern is that there will always be people looking for excuses to cut back on military expenditure. I think the important thing now is for the ADF to ensure that contracts are signed on as many projects as possible before the federal election is called. The FA-18F contract is in place. Now I would like to see the LHD and AWD contracts signed, hopefully with 4 ships included so far as the Hobart class is concerned.

Tas

 

[icelord]

Even with an economic downturn or hiccup as it is, the ADF would still see good funding compared with the dark 90s. Theres still wars to fight and peace to make

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[icelord]

well lets be fair here, the kiwis are getting a capable navy now, the Protector ships are a big upgrade for a small well protected nation like NZ.
Its about time for both the RAN and RNZN to get a decent force to protect and project force, and with the Anzac combo in the pacific many nations in the islands are seeing a very secure future.

 

[Markus40]

With all due respect to your first comment i think very strongly that the RNZN is far from capable, although better than where it was 5 years ago. The major component to the RNZN as an addition to its capability is in the sea lift area, having just brought online the HMNZS Canterbury. But as far as the navys two OPVs in its current state has very limited use for the RNZN as a Naval vessel as a whole as most of its capability if i can call it that will be in the Customs and Fisheries support role. It does have a Seasprite along with the weapons its able to use IE The Mavs, and torpedos but there is a drastic lack of survellience radar and a proper weapons suite.

The Navy has a drastic need for a third ANZAC or surface combatant to maintain the level of current operations without putting stress on current crew levels on the two ANZACs. Even the HMNZS Canterbury is lacking proper self defence weapons suite and would require at least the two ANZACs as an escort if being deployed. I believe that the improvements that this government have contributed to our Navy is significant but doesnt go the full distance. Its still very limited and there still is "holes" in our overall capability and it would be good one day to see this being addressed.

well lets be fair here, the kiwis are getting a capable navy now, the Protector ships are a big upgrade for a small well protected nation like NZ.
Its about time for both the RAN and RNZN to get a decent force to protect and project force, and with the Anzac combo in the pacific many nations in the islands are seeing a very secure future.

 

[Markus40]

Yes i agree with you there Tassie, however i wouldnt get too concerned with the hiccup in the share market or world markets as a whole in relation to Australias stated commitment to its military purchases. It would appear from what the experts say that this is a brief momentary "bump" in the road and will be fixed over time. I still have concerns over Rudds true intentions on the current governments defence policies, and its this i have more concerns about than the current money market.

As a retiree, living off investments, I hope you are right! :shudder

The RAN (and ADF as a whole) has done well in the last twelve months or so and it would be a pity to see any projects shelved or cut back because of an economic downturn. I agree that Australia's economic fundimentals are still strong. I guess my concern is that there will always be people looking for excuses to cut back on military expenditure. I think the important thing now is for the ADF to ensure that contracts are signed on as many projects as possible before the federal election is called. The FA-18F contract is in place. Now I would like to see the LHD and AWD contracts signed, hopefully with 4 ships included so far as the Hobart class is concerned.

Tas

 

[Tasman]

Yes i agree with you there Tassie, however i wouldnt get too concerned with the hiccup in the share market or world markets as a whole in relation to Australias stated commitment to its military purchases. It would appear from what the experts say that this is a brief momentary "bump" in the road and will be fixed over time. I still have concerns over Rudds true intentions on the current governments defence policies, and its this i have more concerns about than the current money market.

We will have to reserve judgement on the ALP's handling of defence until after the election, if, as the polls suggest, they actually gain government. Whether they turn out to be good guys or bad guys so far as the ADF is concerned I would like to see the navy pull out all stops to get these contracts signed before the election is called. The usual convention is that no major contracts will be signed between the calling of an election and polling day so it needs to happen soon!

Tas