Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

A long ranged escort of Australian shipping lanes during war time but not in the war zone. That is a pretty important role considering Australia's involvement in previous conflicts. A non-upgraded ANZAC could perform this mission perfectly.

Thats no longer a relevant mission. We aren't in the 1940s anymore. It would also be pointless as any kind of threat that could reach out to such a convoy (like an SSN) would easily overcome the Tier II 'Patrol Frigate' and sink it along with the merchants.

Another mission would be anti-piracy. The ANZAC's long range and relative high speed of the frigate design allows it to catch pirates. You don't need a high end weapon system for this role.

Sure but the threat is more complex. If you send a frigate to the MEAO to fight Somalis it may also have to fight Iranians. In which case the current ANZAC is a sitting duck. Small Navies like the RAN do not have the kind of luxuries of scale to have some frigates configured for low level threats and some for medium/high level threats.

A lightly armed frigate is highly valuable. Or in our case a highly armed frigate who's capabilities are now considered slightly light. An OPV is often considerably slower than a frigate.

As a training asset yes and a force presence but in a real battlefield its just 150 sailors waiting to be dropped into the water. There are serious concerns in the RAN about sending ANZACs into the Gulf where they can't even tell if they are being attacked by the latest Iranian missile technology.

And if you want a fast OPV its not a hard job to do! Much easier than giving a frigate speed as you have less weight and volume to push through the water.

High end, state of the art technology often has very low levels of automation due to many issues such as lack of computing power, lack of mature software and the goal of pure performance.

I have no idea what you are talking about? AEGIS has very high levels of automation, so to do the combat systems on USN SSNs.

There are plenty of modern "low end" combat systems that have extremely high levels of automation designed for the new corvettes and armed patrol boats. These systems by todays standards may be considered "low end" performance wise but they would offer performance improvements over older high end systems.

I think you are confusing where these kind of ships get their automation crew savings from. its not the combat system but the vehicle system and the at-sea sustain capability. Its easy to pull crew from a ship that will only spend two weeks at sea within 100km of the home port. They have no capability to repair themselves. Its a different proposition for a long range self-sustaining fleet like the RAN.

I do not see why our Frigates cannot have corvette sized manned levels considering they will perform a similar mission to a corvette once we get the AWD's.

Wrong and wrong. The AWD is pretty much the crew size of a minimum self-sustaining surface combatant. Even LCS with the crew for the capability modules is close to the 150-180 level of the AWD.

The ANZACs and the next frigate will not be performing corvette roles once the AWD is in the fleet. Not unless we build 8-12 AWDs which I doubt will happen.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A long ranged escort of Australian shipping lanes during war time but not in the war zone. That is a pretty important role considering Australia's involvement in previous conflicts.

OPV/"light frigates" and corrvettes are only going to free up Frigates not replace them, even in an idealised role. At the moment Australia doesn't use frigates in this way very often. Customs can and does do light duty work, but sometimes the RAN pitches in when its nearby.

With piracy increasing and more commonly linked to either governments or revolutionary movements it would be made to send a OPV/corvette into hostile enviroments outside of Australia's EEC.

Any new system is going to offer benifits that were not possible in older systems. But buying low performance missiles, counter measures, radar is false economy. You get more life out of higher quality systems and you get more protection. You would be better off buying fewer, but higher quality systems.

Something like AEGIS is very advanced (in some ways). Both in technologies, equipment, intergration, features etc. It can offer fleet/TF wide control responses to threats, which include but are not limited to eliminating hostile sats, ships (cruiser size and larger), multiple missile threats (including advanced russian models), manned fighter attacks and even long ranged missiles. While it does lack a few minor niceities, in the way its used there is no technological weakness, its just a different type of system.

As manning is such a huge issue with Australia it would be wise to accept a lower performance standard providing manning can be significantly reduced. Providing performance is still higher than the previous old system of course.

180 crew is in real terms for a population of over 20 million, not a lot. The problem isn't that we have massive ships that require too many people (after all Australia did crew aircraft carriers and cruisers before with crews in excess of 600 with a much smaller population). They aren't even that expensive to buy, its not the purchase cost that prohibts Australia operating more assets.

Its that they can't attract crews to work on the ships. With random moves, FBW basically being unmanable while the resource boom is on, random equipment, unattractive at sea conditions, unattractive land conditions, family unfriendly, non-sufficent pay, Training that needs a rethink, slow rate of progression, poor/inflexable/outdated HR management.. Even if they lowered the standard that would not improve things, while it would get a few more bums in seats, it wouldn't get enough and it would drive out more people in the long run. (Who would want to be on a ship of fools?)

I do not see why our Frigates cannot have corvette sized manned levels considering they will perform a similar mission to a corvette once we get the AWD's.

No way, threats have changed. Look at the USN they went all destroyer because when it comes down to it, there is no place for light armed ships in any threat enviroment.

The way to solve issues with the RAN is not to put people on tinnies with SLR's.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I do not see why our Frigates cannot have corvette sized manned levels considering they will perform a similar mission to a corvette once we get the AWD's.

Break down the crew. Lets talk raw estimates, im no sailor, Im sure people can correct me.

180 on ship. You want them 24hr avalible don't you? Even commerical ships have to be crewed 24/7. So break it into 3 shifts minium. ~8hr a shift with some overlap etc. So you effective crew at any 1 time is usually 60 personel. How many you want on a bridge? Navigator, radar, coms, capt, weapons etc. I think even on a small ship (or small sub) theres 6-12. Engine room? Atleast 6 on a shift, man handling anything quickly will require min that. You would want a helo? Of course, Well pilots, aircrew, engineers, atleast 6-12 right there. Kitchen, gunners, sonar, im sure theres plenty we haven't even concidered etc. What are we up to, 40-50?

You want less? Drop your aircrew and you ship basically loses one of its most powerful assets. Drop the 5" gun? Use bad language instead? Halve the number of engines? Halve your top speed and/or your displacement, wheres your redundancy?

Commerical ships can be crewed by ~30 people, but mind you these ships aren't even capable of fending off small pirate attacks or nearly any form of damage control. In fact is the bare minium you need to sail a vessel even with masses of automation, from one safe port to another in good weather (they even struggle with that sometimes).

Collins has 45, you could proberly drop a ships stewards but not much else. But we can't even crew those!!

Corvettes can be crewed with ~65 but thats without a helicopter (and essentially useless for a blue water navy) and an endurance of about 7 days!! Thats a very short escort!

 

[Aussie Digger]

A long ranged escort of Australian shipping lanes during war time but not in the war zone. That is a pretty important role considering Australia's involvement in previous conflicts. A non-upgraded ANZAC could perform this mission perfectly.

Until someone threatened the convoy and then the convoy AND the ANZAC frigate would be sunk. The ANZAC is NOT currently equipped to face a credible anti-ship missile threat. Hence the upgrade.

If you want a ship merely to float alongside this convoy fair enough. Use the ANZAC's as they currently are. If you want a ship that stands a chance of protecting these merchant ships, the ANZAC as a minimum requires the planned anti-ship missile upgrade.

Would you HONESTLY sail an Australian ship in wartime that was inadequate for the task at hand and a danger to her own crew and the ships she is supposedly escorting?

What would be the point? It would be better to let the merchant ships fend for themselves.

Another mission would be anti-piracy. The ANZAC's long range and relative high speed of the frigate design allows it to catch pirates. You don't need a high end weapon system for this role.

No, but Australia has a small navy as it is. We cannot afford to have ships that are incapable of the majority of roles we require them for.

ANZAC's are NOT getting a "high end" weapon system. They are getting a radar, sensor and combat system upgrade.

A lightly armed frigate is highly valuable. Or in our case a highly armed frigate who's capabilities are now considered slightly light. An OPV is often considerably slower than a frigate.

IF you don't want to ever get into a war, I agree. If you want to use your Navy for potential war fighting duties, a lightly armed frigate is a dead set liability.

High end, state of the art technology often has very low levels of automation due to many issues such as lack of computing power, lack of mature software and the goal of pure performance.

Rubbish, but others have addressed this more succinctly.

As manning is such a huge issue with Australia it would be wise to accept a lower performance standard providing manning can be significantly reduced. Providing performance is still higher than the previous old system of course.

Even if the performance of the system is slightly lower the reduction in manning would allow for more ships to be manned resulting in more capability.

Again, rubbish.

I do not see why our Frigates cannot have corvette sized manned levels considering they will perform a similar mission to a corvette once we get the AWD's.

We are getting 3 AWD's.

They cannot do everthing we need our surface fleet to do.

 

[alexsa]

Commerical ships can be crewed by ~30 people, but mind you these ships aren't even capable of fending off small pirate attacks or nearly any form of damage control.

About 17 is average with some wiht less. 30 is a pretty big crew. However they are not equiped for 'battle damage' and rely to a large degree on fixed fire fighting systems and built in damage stability (i.e. thye won't lose stabiliyt or sink with a number of spaces flooded)

In fact is the bare minium you need to sail a vessel even with masses of automation, from one safe port to another in good weather (they even struggle with that sometimes).

No it is not the bare minimum..... 30 is a large crew and some of the large liner box boats sail with 12. These vessels operate continously in all weather conditions in all parts of the world (sorry the comment about good weather is just nonsense). They carry out their own maintenance wiht major maintenance only carried out in dock. This is nominally every 2.5 years (5 years for vessel of less than 10 years old).

The fact is the ship operate differently and you cannot draw comparisions. A merchant ship will sail with one OOW and a look out (at night only) on watch. the E/R is unmanned during outside nominal working hours and is monitored by sensors and alarms repeated on the bridge and one engineer "on the bells" (alarm panels in thier cabins and recreation spaces).

 

[rjmaz1]

About 17 is average with some wiht less. 30 is a pretty big crew. However they are not equiped for 'battle damage' and rely to a large degree on fixed fire fighting systems and built in damage stability (i.e. thye won't lose stabiliyt or sink with a number of spaces flooded)

Spot on, some people think you need massive crews to get the job done. Fixed fire fighting systems and buillt in damage stability are ways of reducing manning. This automates the ship which is exactly what im talking about when it comes to reducing frigate manning levels to that of a corvette.

Reducing crew can no doubt increase risk in some area's however technology can often offset this risk.

No it is not the bare minimum..... 30 is a large crew and some of the large liner box boats sail with 12. These vessels operate continously in all weather conditions in all parts of the world (sorry the comment about good weather is just nonsense). They carry out their own maintenance wiht major maintenance only carried out in dock. This is nominally every 2.5 years (5 years for vessel of less than 10 years old).

Exactly! A small crew can work well. Of course a military ship has more sensors to operate and would no doubt have a higher workload with potential battle damage which you pointed out before. Requiring 10 times the crew for a frigate is a bit ridiculous with todays computer technology.

The fact is the ship operate differently and you cannot draw comparisions. A merchant ship will sail with one OOW and a look out (at night only) on watch. the E/R is unmanned during outside nominal working hours and is monitored by sensors and alarms repeated on the bridge and one engineer "on the bells" (alarm panels in thier cabins and recreation spaces).

Alarms repeated on the bridge and alarm panels in cabins and recreation spaces are also ways of reducing manning on a military ship. This is the automation.

The idea that someone mentioned of having 3 lots of crews for 24 hour operating is ridiculous. The crews not working wont be sitting on around when they are under attack.

A frigate filled with 1990's technology designed in the 1980's would no doubt require over 100 people. Filled with 21st century technology the manning could easily be halved without any reduction in capacility.

This is where the RAN should be pumpig money as we have a massive crew shortage which is significantly reducing its capability.

 

[alexsa]

Spot on, some people think you need massive crews to get the job done. .

Hang on, what part of ..............

The fact is the ships operate differently and you cannot draw comparisions

suggests I support your view the fact is you cannot compare them in simplistic terms. What I was opposing was misinformed generalisations in respect of merchant vessels that they were somehow an incapable flotsom of the ocean.

The fact even from the power management side a warships is a vastly different prospect compared to a merchant vessel. The closest analogy in respect of redundancy of power supplied would be gas carriers, type 1 chemical carriers and Australian certified livestock carriers and they still pale by comparision. But again surviviabilty is built into design and this and cost implications and they are still not designed to go in harms way. To ensure availabilty of this service requries a crew level in an order of magnitude higher than wouel be required on a merchant vessel.

Warships are requried to maintain a watch on issues that would not be required on a merchant vessel. In 'combat' situations the need collate and diseminate tactical and strategic information as well as operate sensors places a burden on the crew the must be catered that requires a crew that is in an order of magnitude higher than would be required on a merchant vessel.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Thanks Alexsa.

Talking about smaller crews, are the rumors true that the LHD could possible be crewed by a much smaller crew (<30) if used as a basic sealift ship?

Is it possible to crew other ships in this manner outside of war time? Could be useful to reduce seatime to help retention while giving junior crew a chance to stepup and have a go.

These vessels operate continously in all weather conditions in all parts of the world (sorry the comment about good weather is just nonsense).

Would many of the commerical shipping accidents happen if they had larger crews? While the automation does cut down on manning, watching the lights isn't the same as someone actually watching whats going on. Given that most commerical sealift vessels stick to safe well travelled sealanes. How many bulk cargo vessels travel through reefs? What about travelling through ice? In these more demanding conditions don't they take extra crew.

 

[alexsa]

Thanks Alexsa.

Talking about smaller crews, are the rumors true that the LHD could possible be crewed by a much smaller crew (<30) if used as a basic sealift ship?.

I cannot see why not, however, if you want to run tactical comms, additional sensors and aircraft then some increase will be requred

Is it possible to crew other ships in this manner outside of war time? Could be useful to reduce seatime to help retention while giving junior crew a chance to stepup and have a go.

See above, it depends on the role.

Would many of the commerical shipping accidents happen if they had larger crews? While the automation does cut down on manning, watching the lights isn't the same as someone actually watching whats going on. Given that most commerical sealift vessels stick to safe well travelled sealanes. How many bulk cargo vessels travel through reefs? What about travelling through ice? In these more demanding conditions don't they take extra crew.

This is a quality issue as opposed to a pure quantity issues. Many accidents occur due to incompetent crews rather than how many there are. The other issue is rest for crew in high intensity trades (short sea or palces like the inland sea of Japan, RO-PAX ferries). It here where crews can be quite small (under 10 in soem small coasters) that the reductsion may have gone too far reulsting in fatigue issues.

Having the joy of being both ex-military and merchant navy I can compare. I have operated with a crew of 17 in all weather conditiosns and in restricted waters (with out a pilot in some places ..... there arn't any) without problems. In saying this the Master must take inot account the condition of his crew (ability and fatigue) in planning operations. with 17 we genrally found we had now issues. For project cargo work on GC ships where we did much of the securing and stevedoring the crews were larger with 30 being the upper end of the scale (mind you we had 40 with cadets and that was quite pleasant) .

 

[sandman]

Talking about smaller crews, are the rumors true that the LHD could possible be crewed by a much smaller crew (<30) if used as a basic sealift ship?

But they are not basic sealift ships, and we should all hope they are never treated as such.

Is it possible to crew other ships in this manner outside of war time? Could be useful to reduce seatime to help retention while giving junior crew a chance to stepup and have a go.

No. You train hard, fight easy.

You need worked up crews, not a gaggle of specialisations thrown together when a jobs needs doing, you wont get results and you'll be lucky if you dont run into dangerous occurances.

What you propose would effectively decimate corporate knowledge and professionalism.

Individual ship performance in stuff like DC, flying ops, action stations, amphib ops, boat work, etc and In Company skills in manouevring, tactical signalling, serialised exercises, screen coordination, etc would all go by the wayside.

Warfare is a highly perishable skill. (hence concentration period after every Chistmas RAP)

The introduction of the LHDs and AWDs should mean in increased focus on the navys reason for being (to fight and win at sea), NOT a reason to pay it lip service.


And with a decrease in crew comes a signifacnt increase in workload. Somebody who holds 6 ancillary duties whilst 1 in 2 watchkeeping and gets lashed with every single odd job because there is nobody else to do it will not hang around for his next sea posting after he does his promised shore time.

 

[alexsa]

And with a decrease in crew comes a signifacnt increase in workload. Somebody who holds 6 ancillary duties whilst 1 in 2 watchkeeping and gets lashed with every single odd job because there is nobody else to do it will not hang around for his next sea posting after he does his promised shore time.

I am not getting into the combat readiness aspect of this but will again suggest that to decry all merchant crewing in this manner demonstrates a lack of knowledge of this sector.

Some ships are undercrewed for the work laod (so are some warships) but this only happens where the adminstration has failed to adequatley assess the requirements as minimum safe manning is set by the flag state ...................... not the ship owner.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But they are not basic sealift ships, and we should all hope they are never treated as such.

Of course. Except to simple move it from one port to another port for repairs etc. I was wondering if the Automation levels on the LHD are at the levels simular to a commerical ship, that when performing the same task (basic sealift) that they would require the same/simular crew numbers. It could be an important argument on the 3rd sealift ship. Could we get a stripped out BPE instead of a converted commerical ship? If the inital cost is simular and the operating costs, I would rather have a ship that could be converted to fill some amazing important role later than just a commerical ship with no future prospects over and above basic sealift.

The introduction of the LHDs and AWDs should mean in increased focus on the navys reason for being (to fight and win at sea), NOT a reason to pay it lip service.

I understand and agree with this. But just throwing around a few possibilities. What is worse, a ship not seeing any sea time or a ship seeing the seas with a smaller training crew? Ideally neither but if given the option.

Alexse, your input regarding numbers is interesting. I do find it interesting to hear crewing issues from both Naval and Merchant sides with strategic sealift becomming a more important issue for Australia. Are you really better off building a bigger slower Frigate instead of a small fast frigate and a large sealift ship?

 

[alexsa]

Alexse, your input regarding numbers is interesting. I do find it interesting to hear crewing issues from both Naval and Merchant sides with strategic sealift becomming a more important issue for Australia. Are you really better off building a bigger slower Frigate instead of a small fast frigate and a large sealift ship?

Personally on the basis of usable space for cost I would go for the large sealift ship sith some air capability and build decent long range escorts. Don't forget a RO_RO vessel si going to have a sustainable speed of advance as good (if not better in some designs) as the LHD and have very long range compared to most warships.

 

[splat]

Why would you need the increase the displacement of the AWD by that much?

If you want additional missiles then just use the AWD to direct missiles launched from frigates. The AWD has room to mount CIWS, ESSM, and various SM series, harpoon and possibly tomahawk in numbers sufficent for our region. If Australia builds 4 AWD hulls, thats a pretty strong vessel with enough numbers that they could be used in pairs to protect a small taskforce. (LHD's, Frigates, a few sealift, replentishment, various international participants).

Even if we made the AWD larger, to fit say additional VLS, I doubt we could afford to pack them out. I don't see us needing more than 48 cells x 2. But if situations do arise, then we have options in terms of frigates and allies.

Australia's frigates I think should be based off the F-100 hull (@ ~5,300t). Its big, with out being too big. The only thing I don't like is its helo hanger. Both could be a little larger on the AWD but as a frigate more room might be freed up.

IF we ever need too, its possible the frigate ships could be system upgraded to essentially AWD levels if needed. Should give us real options for upgrades over the life of the ships.

but an arleigh burke weapons fit out is double the vlt's of a hobart,so more weapons to be used in a battle from a ran that has few ships.also as far as not being able to afford the extra cost of an uparmed awd,true within the current defence outlays,but as a nation easily afforded.nothing makes me sickier in the stomach than poloticians who use the term we cant afford as opposed to we wont afford.as a nation we need to grow up.but anyway why didnt we just order arleigh burkes,even with a reduced weapons fit if that was needed to keep the sailor complement down.also all ran frigates and destroyers should have the maximum size to allow future uparming when needed.if i had my way we would have a force consisting of an all arleigh burke sized ships to be uparmed when needed.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well if we really needed a bigger AWD we would have got a AB or large varient thereof.

In our region and part of a taskforce anywhere in the world the F-100 design is fine. Yes, it can't hold the total number of missiles as a AB, but other than that is a fairly decent ship, we could have done worse. If we were in a case like South Korea, then yes, a full sized or larger Burke would be called for.

The F-100 carries the same number approx missiles in comparison to the new UK destroyers, or french first line ships or other comparible ships.

The main argument is what would we rather, 3 mini burkes or 4 F-100's?

 

[splat]

Well if we really needed a bigger AWD we would have got a AB or large varient thereof.

In our region and part of a taskforce anywhere in the world the F-100 design is fine. Yes, it can't hold the total number of missiles as a AB, but other than that is a fairly decent ship, we could have done worse. If we were in a case like South Korea, then yes, a full sized or larger Burke would be called for.

The F-100 carries the same number approx missiles in comparison to the new UK destroyers, or french first line ships or other comparible ships.

The main argument is what would we rather, 3 mini burkes or 4 F-100's?

true but in the event that a ran destroyer was in an engagement with a navy who had ships with more firepower and supporting assets than is currently available in our immediate region,id want the maximum amount of vlt's.as as far as european ships are concerned there just like us,they penny pinch.if the choice between 3 mini burkes or 4 f100's id make it not 3 but 4 mini burkes.mini burkes only at build but upgradable to full burkes when needed.

there a thread called past history-australias bid for the the atomic bomb. not many people have got on board and put forward any comments.be good to see what people have got to say about the subject.

 

[harryriedl]

but an arleigh burke weapons fit out is double the vlt's of a hobart,so more weapons to be used in a battle from a ran that has few ships.also as far as not being able to afford the extra cost of an uparmed awd,true within the current defence outlays,but as a nation easily afforded.nothing makes me sickier in the stomach than poloticians who use the term we cant afford as opposed to we wont afford.as a nation we need to grow up.but anyway why didnt we just order arleigh burkes,even with a reduced weapons fit if that was needed to keep the sailor complement down.also all ran frigates and destroyers should have the maximum size to allow future uparming when needed.if i had my way we would have a force consisting of an all arleigh burke sized ships to be uparmed when needed.

VLS cells aren't the be all and end of destroyers important. Yes but Radar and other equipment is as important as VLS. The F100 AEGIS system is higher up on the superstructure which gives it higher horizon than an AB. the F100 is as good a choice as small AB.

 

[gf0012-aust]

but as a nation easily afforded.nothing makes me sickier in the stomach than poloticians who use the term we cant afford as opposed to we wont afford.as a nation we need to grow up.

Good grief, this is just absolute rubbish. I am incredibly curious to know what your experience is in weapons and systems procurement, or whether you've ever been on any form of systems evaluation team to make such stupid comments.

In an evaluation we're not allowed to make cost the critical determinant for a systems assessment/procurement.

The issue is always capability - and against selection criteria determined by the user community.

Politicians don't get near the platform assessment, evaluation - period.

If you're going to slag off at the people who make the assessment on capability for their fellow australians (and the assessment process includes people who use the damn things) - then I sure as hell hope you have a damn good employment history to sit on the internet and slag off at people who do this for a living and are often ex warfighters/users.

I suggest you calm down in your unbridled enthusiasm because you're sure as hell are starting to pi$$ off the professionals who do drive bys in here and who actually have functional experience.

 

[alexsa]

true but in the event that a ran destroyer was in an engagement with a navy who had ships with more firepower and supporting assets than is currently available in our immediate region,id want the maximum amount of vlt's.as as far as european ships are concerned there just like us,they penny pinch.if the choice between 3 mini burkes or 4 f100's id make it not 3 but 4 mini burkes.mini burkes only at build but upgradable to full burkes when needed..

Upgrade ................ How? If we are talking the evolved AB you could not upgrade it to a Burke. the point you miss is that the ANZAC currently has on 8 VLS, the total missile capability of the FFG7 (modified is basicaly the saem as the AWD. If you construct the ANZAC replacemetn on the F100 and keep the number of cells the over all number of cells wiht AWD and ANZAC replacement is much higher (12 x 48) than any thing we have now.

Just becasue the ANZAC replacement does not have AEGIS does not mean it cannot carry SM-2 for cued firing by the AWD and the addition SM-6 (if adopted) would give it a credible area defence capabiltiy in its own right.

The aquisition of the F100 IP rights opens up some very useful opportunities for the deveopment of the RAN.

there a thread called past history-australias bid for the the atomic bomb. not many people have got on board and put forward any comments.be good to see what people have got to say about the subject.

What are you suggesting? It seems to be a suggestion we get the bomb.

 

[battlensign]

Upgrade ................ How? If we are talking the evolved AB you could not upgrade it to a Burke. the point you miss is that the ANZAC currently has on 8 VLS, the total missile capability of the FFG7 (modified is basicaly the saem as the AWD. If you construct the ANZAC replacement on the F100 and keep the number of cells the over all number of cells wiht AWD and ANZAC replacement is much higher (12 x 48) than any thing we have now.

That we have limited capabilities now, and that future ORBATs are likely to increase capabilties does not prove that they are sufficient to meet future potential threats. It is non sequitor.

Strictly speaking, we do not know what the future ANZAC replacement will look like and although current indications are positive (indigenous developments in tech and political support) your assumptions are condition precedent, in that the numbers of cells and hulls of the ANZAC replacement and weapons fit need to be determined before anyone can say that the SEA 4000 project is sufficient in its current format.

Additionally, it is not the ability of the RAN AWD to perform the AAW for the fleet that is in question. It is the requisite limitations on the warships' abilities to be viable multi-role platforms, whose duties whilst potentially on station for 6 months could vary significantly, as a consequence of limited numbers of VLSs.

Just becasue the ANZAC replacement does not have AEGIS does not mean it cannot carry SM-2 for cued firing by the AWD and the addition SM-6 (if adopted) would give it a credible area defence capabiltiy in its own right.

The aquisition of the F100 IP rights opens up some very useful opportunities for the deveopment of the RAN.

Two Points:

1) Where has anyone ever said that the ANZAC replacement was going to be armed with either Strike Length Mk 41s, OR SM2? What's the bet that the ASPI, SDSC and KF keep presure of cost reductions in these departments because the RAN simply "doesn't need them because of the RAN's AWDs"?

2) We would want to hope that we had IP rights as the warship design will be over 30 years old by the time the ANZAC replacements begin to hit the water.

Good grief, this is just absolute rubbish. I am incredibly curious to know what your experience is in weapons and systems procurement, or whether you've ever been on any form of systems evaluation team to make such stupid comments.

In an evaluation we're not allowed to make cost the critical determinant for a systems assessment/procurement.

The issue is always capability - and against selection criteria determined by the user community.

Politicians don't get near the platform assessment, evaluation - period.

If you're going to slag off at the people who make the assessment on capability for their fellow australians (and the assessment process includes people who use the damn things) - then I sure as hell hope you have a damn good employment history to sit on the internet and slag off at people who do this for a living and are often ex warfighters/users.

I suggest you calm down in your unbridled enthusiasm because you're sure as hell are starting to pi$$ off the professionals who do drive bys in here and who actually have functional experience.

Three Points:

1) Tell that to the RAN ***s Team!
2) What happens when the project is simply never initiated/implemented?
4) Is it really that extreme to suggest that the governments such as the UK who could find 4.5% of GDP for defence in the late 80's and now whinge about cost pressures whilst spending 2.3%, and the Australian Government who spend 22.69 Billion out of a total Commonwealth revenue of 319.5 Billion (08/09) might be lying when they say that they can't find any more money for defence?

Table 10: Federal Budget of the Commonwealth of Australia Expenses by Function 2008–09 (AUS$ Millions)

(http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview/Economic_Issues.htm)

17 261 General public services
17 896 Defence
18 764 Education (Not including State & Territory Funding)
46 032 Health (Not including State & Territory Funding)
102 439 Social Security and Welfare
58 202 Other purposes (GST Payment to States etc)

N.B. Total Cth Revenue Aus$319.5 Billion (08/09)