Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

I think this is a good thing. The Howard folks went a bit overboard and bought everything for every role, as opposed to developing a strategy for spending.

Those seasprites are a good example, someone needed to grow a pair long ago and cancel that contract. The fighter purchase is very similar, I never understood why Australia wanted the F-35A instead of the F-35B if they are buying LHDs, and it never made sense to me that given the option for the F-22A, Australia wouldn't go for it given its range advantages over alternatives.

None of the aircraft decisions in particular struck me as a strategic approach to defense purchasing.

I don't think the F-35B adds very much to the LHD's, given what their roles are, but the Seasprite comment I agree with.

It should have been "ditched" a long time ago. One comment I will make is that the aircraft was actually chosen under the Keating Labor Government in 1996...

 

[StingrayOZ]

The F-35B decision I think is highly dependant on what else Australia gets. Its not a here and now decision, but can be easily made later as long as people don't actively spend money to avoid it.

Generally what increases F-35B chances are things that are generally alround good. Additional 4th AWD, additional LHD, HSC, etc. A third LHD could straddle a few roles, and make some minor compromises in something (say troop or heavy vechical lift) to do something far better (operating aircraft fixed and rotary).

Given that Australia is interested in operating SM-3, TLAM possibly SM-6.. As well as the regular antishipping SM-2, Harpoon etc. I would say a 4th would be very valuable in allowing all of these options.

Seasprite.. Just because its somebodies elses baby doesn't mean you can't put a bullet in it. The decision should have been easier!

 

[Tasman]

There are some (hopefully with not too much influence) who would not only not order a 4th AWD and a 3rd LHD but would cancel the ones already on order! :shudder

PM to slash Howard's defence spend


Frank Walker
February 24, 2008


THE Federal Government will launch a major cost cutting assault on multi-billion dollar defence projects established by the Howard government, with the controversial $6.6billion Super Hornet jet fighters first in its sights.

Other defence white elephants in the Government's target include the Abrams tank, three massively expensive air warfare destroyers, two huge amphibious carrier ships, dud Seasprite helicopters, unnecessary flying drones and $16billion worth of undeveloped F-35 joint strike fighters.

Work will begin this week on the 2008 defence white paper, the biggest review of Australia's defence priorities since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. It will reassess the Howard government's policy of spending $50billion to build a defence force that fits seamlessly into the US military machine.

Also just getting under way is a month-long inquiry into whether Australia needs 24 F/A-18 Super Hornets to plug a gap between the retirement of the F-111s and the arrival of the F-35s in 2014. It could cost $400million to cancel the order.

Professor Hugh White, head of Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, said many of these "white elephants were designed for major battles that Australia was unlikely to be involved in".

"The Abrams tank was designed to battle Soviet tanks pouring across Europe," Professor White said. "We are paying $2billion for two big amphibious transport ships which carry helicopters, 1000 troops, the Abrams tanks and were designed to invade with massive force. Where would we use them? We would do much better with four smaller vessels."

Paul Dibb, a former defence department chief, warned recently that defence chiefs had got what they wanted far too easily and big savings could be made in the projects.

"The only time a nation's defence budget should be untouchable is when there is a clearly and imminent military threat to the country. Evidently that is not the case now," Mr Dibb said.

The first multibillion-dollar white elephant to get the axe could be an $8.1billion navy plan to build three air warfare destroyers. They are designed to protect fleets, and Australia doesn't have one.

A similarly complex project to upgrade four Adelaide class guided missile frigates was labelled a "nightmare" by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. After four years and $1.4billion, the ships still can't be cleared fit for active service and have not been allowed to be deployed to risky zones such as the Middle East.

The two amphibious transport ships costing $1billion each could also be heading for the chop. The Rudd Government believes neighbouring nations would feel threatened as the ships could hold an invasion force.

[email protected]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-to-slash-howards-defence-spend/2008/02/23/1203467452248.html

What absolute rubbish to suggest that Australia doesn't need the AWDs because it doesn't have a fleet for them to defend and that the LHDs should be cancelled because they are TOO BIG and will scare Australia's neighbours.

According to White, Dibb and Co the government apparently needs to ensure that it doesn't buy any equipment that might actually deter aggression.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well I think the LHD and the AWD are safe..

We need the LHD for Timor, which recent events have highlighted the requirement. It would be stupid to not learn from history.

While Australia is not direct and in immediate threat, East Timor is in an extremely volitile state and it is Australia's duty to protect her. Besides these ships have *HUGE* advantages for humanitarian and aid purposes. Evacuations, aid, hospital, etc.. And these big ships do it far better. That argument can be pulled out at anytime and show images of people leaving lebanon in Mistral or simular.

And I don't see how any 4 vessels would serve us any better or be any cheaper.

As for axing the AWD thats massively stupid. You would think that people would learn from mistakes made by others. Whats the replacement? Further Upgrade the FFGs?

 

[Tasman]

Well I think the LHD and the AWD are safe..

We need the LHD for Timor, which recent events have highlighted the requirement. It would be stupid to not learn from history.

While Australia is not direct and in immediate threat, East Timor is in an extremely volitile state and it is Australia's duty to protect her. Besides these ships have *HUGE* advantages for humanitarian and aid purposes. Evacuations, aid, hospital, etc.. And these big ships do it far better. That argument can be pulled out at anytime and show images of people leaving lebanon in Mistral or simular.

And I don't see how any 4 vessels would serve us any better or be any cheaper.

As for axing the AWD thats massively stupid. You would think that people would learn from mistakes made by others. Whats the replacement? Further Upgrade the FFGs?

Nope, the FFGUP was criticised as well!

I agree with everything you say StingrayOZ. The worry to me is that journalists in the mainstream media continue to give so much coverage to people like Professor Hugh White who seem to believe that anything big, complex, aggressive or well armed (etc, etc, etc) is bad for the ADF. No where in the article were any suggestions made as to what might replace the projects he thinks should be axed, nor did it deal with the huge political fallout that would follow the scrapping of all the jobs associated with the AWD and LHD projects.

I was also amazed by Paul Dibb's comment, criticising government for giving defence chiefs what they want. Who does he think is best placed to decide what is the best equipment for the ADF?

Tas

 

[harryriedl]

There are some (hopefully with not too much influence) who would not only not order a 4th AWD and a 3rd LHD but would cancel the ones already on order! :shudder


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-to-slash-howards-defence-spend/2008/02/23/1203467452248.html

What absolute rubbish to suggest that Australia doesn't need the AWDs because it doesn't have a fleet for them to defend and that the LHDs should be cancelled because they are TOO BIG and will scare Australia's neighbours.

According to White, Dibb and Co the government apparently needs to ensure that it doesn't buy any equipment that might actually deter aggression.

Tas

well it seems that it isn't just the UK which has these kind of stories. It always seems to be the navy at the focus of these stories because the programs are biggest. You kind of need to wait and see the government line

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

There are some (hopefully with not too much influence) who would not only not order a 4th AWD and a 3rd LHD but would cancel the ones already on order! :shudder


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-to-slash-howards-defence-spend/2008/02/23/1203467452248.html

What absolute rubbish to suggest that Australia doesn't need the AWDs because it doesn't have a fleet for them to defend and that the LHDs should be cancelled because they are TOO BIG and will scare Australia's neighbours.

According to White, Dibb and Co the government apparently needs to ensure that it doesn't buy any equipment that might actually deter aggression.

Tas

Tas that was both disturbing and scary, I just hope Kevin '07 is more rational than this wanker and is listening to people who are not tared with the same brush (wankers).

 

[Tasman]

Tas that was both disturbing and scary, I just hope Kevin '07 is more rational than this wanker and is listening to people who are not tared with the same brush (wankers).

I'm sure Kevin '07 is rational enough to listen to his ADF senior staff rather than a bunch of University academics. If the government was to overturn these projects I believe it would be appropriate for every senior officer in the ADF to resign in protest.

It is contrary to Rudd's own pre and post election comments re the naval construction program and IMO it just won't happen.

Tas

 

[Sea Toby]

Much of the media are pacifists. When they can quote sources that a LPD costs a third of a LHD, nevermind their effectiveness. Its the same with destroyers vs frigates vs patrol ships. For the price of one frigate, New Zealand decided to buy six patrol ships and one multi-purpose ship. Nevermind the fact that while the personnel required to operate the ships are similar, there is a need for more technical personnel to operate more ships.

The media does the simple math and come to the conclusion two cheaper LPDs replace one expensive LHD. They don't realize the difference of carrying more helicopters greatly increases the effectiveness of one LHD vs two LPDs. If they did they wouldn't complain. In my opinion 16-24 helicopters are better than 6-8 helicopters. Plus there is the other equipment and vehicles to consider, not just ships.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Much of the media are pacifists. When they can quote sources that a LPD costs a third of a LHD, nevermind their effectiveness. Its the same with destroyers vs frigates vs patrol ships. For the price of one frigate, New Zealand decided to buy six patrol ships and one multi-purpose ship. Nevermind the fact that while the personnel required to operate the ships are similar, there is a need for more technical personnel to operate more ships.

The media does the simple math and come to the conclusion two cheaper LPDs replace one expensive LHD. They don't realize the difference of carrying more helicopters greatly increases the effectiveness of one LHD vs two LPDs. If they did they wouldn't complain. In my opinion 16-24 helicopters are better than 6-8 helicopters. Plus there is the other equipment and vehicles to consider, not just ships.

That goose Hugh White is obviously quite unconcerned about RAN's manning levels for a start too.

Perhaps RAN can "magically" find the personnel to man 4 vessels of slightly smaller size than these "giant" ships?

When so-called experts call for the replacement of a capability based on size alone, with no discussion of the reasons FOR it's size, then why we even bother to talk about it is beyond me.

When they have an agenda like these two fools, (White and his mate - Dibb). their comments become even less relevent...

 

[AegisFC]

Quick question, has any more info come out on what the mods the Australian Navy wants done on the F-100's?

 

[McTaff]

THE Federal Government will launch a major cost cutting assault on multi-billion dollar defence projects established by the Howard government, with the controversial $6.6billion Super Hornet jet fighters first in its sights.

Other defence white elephants in the Government's target include the Abrams tank, three massively expensive air warfare destroyers, two huge amphibious carrier ships, dud Seasprite helicopters, unnecessary flying drones and $16billion worth of undeveloped F-35 joint strike fighters.

Work will begin this week on the 2008 defence white paper, the biggest review of Australia's defence priorities since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. It will reassess the Howard government's policy of spending $50billion to build a defence force that fits seamlessly into the US military machine.

This is a laughable disaster of writing, embracing hippie existentialism and socialist idealism. He seems to bask in a hatred of the US war machine, et seems to think that we don't need a military - could this be because the US would save us in any event of protracted engagements with any aggressor against us? This was obviously written by someone who either wants to capitalise on the current Rudd-o-mania or somehow has a deep-seated resentment toward the military. Either way he and his sources are not the 'voice of reason' they think they are.

I'll leave the Abrams to those in the Army but;

The SeaSprite helicopter has long been an issue that Navy has wanted terminated. Prior to that, the SeaSprite was chosen by civilians even though the Navy did not want it in the first place, being the "wrong airframe for a job that didn't exist anyway"

The Super Hornet aircraft are actually a fantastic investment to ensure that if the F-35A is not delivered as promised, that we have an aircraft capable enough to remain in service against anything that could be acquired in the future by potential aggressors. Also, once the F-35's are acquired, the Super Hornets would be a good complement to the F-35's instead of us actually being required at the time to buy enough F-35's to cover our requirements. It has been covered in great detail here.

The F-35 is not "undeveloped". They exist, fly and are very tangible. Idiot. He can't worm his way out by saying "underdeveloped", or "behind in development", he says it is "undeveloped". Back it up.

The Air Warfare Destroyers are to replace a ship that simply will not be able to perform the same task in the future. Ships are expensive. The option is not having a Navy.

The LHD's are a requirement also for the same thing. Simply stating we can use smaller ships, as previously discussed, is like saying a family can afford three small cars instead of a family people mover.

The most despicable attack is on unmanned vehicles. Like this halfwit would understand the cost of a handful of human lives instead of a few million bucks worth of development going into a single one hundred thousand dollar machine that can do the job by itself? Or perhaps this same machine saving those lives?

Sometimes clowns like this with a notebook and half a hatful of luke-warm ideas based on incomplete facts can be the voice of reason to the masses, regardless of the basis. If people quit eating up this garbage, the sooner the general populace can actually make informed decisions.

----

triggerhappy: There is a seperate thread entitled "ADF Recruitment (crisis)"
Any Mod: Can we have his post moved there please

 

[icelord]

I've learnt to be sceptical with reports from the herald, i nearly fell of the chair lauging when i read what they wanted to cancel,all the good gear. AWD, LHD ,Abrahms, SH. Where do they want us to be, a few APCs and F88s for the army, and Armidales for the navy protected by imaginary F22s...wait, they don't like the APCs either, better hope we have a battalion of marksman!

 

[Sea Toby]

I have told this story before, and its my argument against no spending the pacifists suggest after every new government. Step back to the past some 120 years ago. Yes, in the time frame of the 1880s, late nineteenth century. At that time the US Navy had not built a new ship since the end of the Civil War some twenty years earlier. The US allowed its navy to rot. Manifest Destiny was America's policy, and its funds were spent on the army to win the West.

In the newspapers of that time there was a German threat to Samoa, of all places on the face of the earth. Germany was expanding anywhere it could, and at this time Samoa was ready for the taking. Their king had died, and the son favorable to the Americans was arrested by the Germans and exiled to East Africa. Before you could blink your eye lids, the Americans had sent their entire Pacific fleet of three old wooden steamships to Samoa, the Germans sent three new ironclads. The British arrived with the biggest armored ship around in the Pacific. To make a long story short, after a large typhoon hit the islands twice, the three American and three German ships were sunk after playing a game of chicken. The British ship rode the storm out at sea and returned. Who do you think held the upper hand? The wise British eventually split the islands into a three way condominium knowing full well that the Germans and Americans were desiring a coaling station at Samoa. At that time steamships needed coaling stations, expecially in the central Pacific. America started building its steel navy after the Samoan debacle, which ten years later won the Spanish American war.

Morale of story, if the Americans could not build new ships during the twenty years after the Civil War, what makes you think they can do so now? And since nations and navies tend to avoid block obsolescence, its best to build ships every year. We don't need another debacle to learn this lesson again.

 

[Sea Toby]

I also like to point out our present difficulties in Afghanistan and Iraq are more to deal with political realities rather than the military being inadequate. As Israel has discovered, any non Islamic Arab government will have difficulties ruling in the Muslim world.

As far as the military is concerned, they won the battles and wars quickly, rolling over the Iraqis forces. However, the politicians have been very slow picking up the pieces. The military's main role is to win wars, and defending against outside intervention, not nation building. Unfortunately, nations have to use the military for such roles, nation building can't be done without the military's personnel.

The local politicans have to learn there will come a time when the nation building will end, when the coalition will wish to leave or bug out. Our citizens want to build our own nations, not yours.

 

[McTaff]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23323052-2,00.html

THE Federal Government is cancelling the troubled $1 billion Seasprite helicopter project, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has announced.

The Labor Government began a review of the Seasprite helicopter project late last year and, after careful consideration, had little option but to cancel the project, Mr Fitzgibbon said.

"Today’s announcement demonstrates our determination to make tough decisions whenever required for the security of the nation and the safety and capability of our defence force,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

The Government would instead improve the current Seahawk fleet and investigate replacing the ageing aircraft later.

"We are determined to ensure that the defence force receives the capability it needs, and Australian taxpayers receive value for their money,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

The Government would have discussions with the contractor over legal and financial issues and announce the details when they were agreed.

Finally. At least now we know we can't count on those airframes and make an effort to do something about it.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23323052-2,00.html



Finally. At least now we know we can't count on those airframes and make an effort to do something about it.

Thank god! RIP seasprite. Any news on a replacement?

 

[Tasman]

Thank god! RIP seasprite. Any news on a replacement?

According to the report in The Australian, this will be considered along with the Seahawk replacement during the preparation of the Defence White Paper so no immediate replacement announcement seems likely. The 'gap' in the RAN's helo capability will continue for some time yet.

Samantha Maiden, Online Political Editor | March 05, 2008
DEFENCE Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has cancelled the Seasprite helicopter project to "clean up the mess" left by the Howard Government.

The move has bipartisan support with the Opposition saying it had concern about the project when previously in government.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin took the unusual step today of revealing then defence minister Brendan Nelson was “particularly concerned’’ about the project and recommended to the National Security Committee of Cabinet last year that it be axed.

He said the opposition accepted the government’s decision to axe the project but said key questions remained. He said the ill-fated project had been the initiative of the Keating Government, a project the Howard government had inherited.

More than $1 billion has already been spent to equip the navy's Anzac frigates with 11 Super Sea Sprite helicopters, but ongoing problems mean not a single helicopter is in operational service.

But in a statement today, Mr Fitzgibbon said after careful consideration of all the issues involved, the Government had decided that it intended to cancel the project.

“Discussions will be commenced immediately with the contractor in relation to the legal and financial arrangements to facilitate this,’’ he said.

“The Government will announce the details of arrangements with the contractor once mutual agreement on these matters has been reached, subject to any confidentiality issues."

He said the Rudd Government had compiled a "hit list'' of troubled defence projects that would be either scrapped or given more taxpayer funds to fix.

According to government documents, up to $23 billion worth of projects are rated at medium to high risk of failure.

Mr Fitzgibbon said today the Seasprite decision was not one taken easily, but the Government was left with little option.

“Today’s announcement demonstrates our determination to make tough decisions whenever required for the security of the nation and the safety and capability of our Defence Force,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

“The decision taken by the Rudd Labor Government is one that should have been taken by the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, when he had the opportunity last year, but his Government decided to put its own political interests ahead of the national interest.

"Consequently, the responsibility of cleaning up the mess they created falls to us,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

“To ensure the Navy maintains an effective naval aviation capability, the Government has decided on two measures.

"First, our interim approach will focus on improving the operational availability of the current Seahawk fleet. Second, the Government will investigate the planned replacement of the Seahawk during its White Paper deliberations.
“The new Government will continue to work through the long list of Defence capability nightmares it has inherited from the former government.

"We are determined to ensure that the Defence Force receives the capability it needs, and Australian taxpayers receive value for their money,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

Senator Minchin said the project had been initiated by the Keating Government in 1994 with tenders let in 1995.

“The Howard Government inherited this project in 1996,’’ he said.

“On Department of Defence advice, and under Labor’s pre-existing contracting processes, contracts with Kaman were signed in 1997. Over time the Government became increasingly concerned about the prime contractor’s ability to deliver the contracted capability.

“Brendan Nelson in particular was concerned about this project. He initiated detailed Defence reviews in 2006 and recommended to the National Security Committee of Cabinet in 2007 that the project be cancelled. However NSC was concerned about the potential cost to taxpayers, with more detailed legal advice sought from the Department of Defence on the Government’s liability.”

“Given the near $1 billion that had been invested in the project, NSC reluctantly decided to continue with the project with strict performance milestones."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23322969-601,00.html

Tas

 

[Aussie Digger]

Quick question, has any more info come out on what the mods the Australian Navy wants done on the F-100's?

A bigger helo hanger, a horizon search radar, more fuel, the addition of 25mm Typhoon guns and 12.7mm "Mini-Typhoon" guns is all that I am aware of so far...

 

[McTaff]

On the demise of the SeaSprite program and the next step, as previously mentioned it will come down to a reliance on the Seahawk to provide capability.

As an aside, we were wondering out loud what would happen to the SH-2 airframes we already have? Our parts stock would almost certainly go to the Kiwis if they asked for them, but the airframes themselves would likely go back to Kaman. Then where? Egypt? Poland?

After the SeaSprite has the stake through the heart, holy wafers stuffed in the mouth, beheaded, certain holy rituals performed and the ashes scattered over running water, the push is going to be on for a single airframe Fleet Air Arm.

The Navy is aware that the MRH-90 not being a marinised version will not be suitable, and the shelf life for the -90 was originally slated only into next decade.

The general population of aviators are sad to see the Sea Kings go - if they were still being manufactured we'd already have a fleet of new ones. The "over-engineer it" manufacturing and R&D put into those made them fabulous workhorses.

The Seahawk seems the obvious choice to go for a single airframe, with little drawback aside from the obvious cargo limitation. However, if the Army continue to use the -90, those will be available in a pinch if the LHD's have some embarked.

The likely contenders are too numerous to mention at this point but it would be hard to pass up a set of new MH-60R Seahawks or similar, passing on our current ones to other roles, such as transport and utility. The joyous part is that even if you took all the funky toys off the airframes, you'd only need to get out the gaffer tape, blu-tack and some araldite to bring them back up to something resembling previous spec.

The White Paper will probably give more direction, and the two Plans will outline the nitty-gritty. It all remains to be seen.