Australia's Defence Future.

[DEFENCEMASTER05]

The future plan for the Defence of Australia, some may remember an artical by Ian McPhedran The Daily Telegraph March 25 2008 01:08 PM. Now the title was, " Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4 bn wish list." When I saw these headlines this grabbed my attention so I bought the paper and read it. The wish list contained the purchase of a third Canberra class assault ship, a forth air warfare destroyer, plus cruise missiles ( tomahawk ). The navy's wish list is very constructive and affordable for Australia's defence structure.

My belief is that Australia should always have one aircraft carrier, that can be used for deploying strike aircraft to a battle field. Australia once had two aircraft carriers at one point, and then in 1982 decomissioned HMAS Melbourne and the purchase of a British Invincible Class Aircraft carrier. Now this deal fell through after the Falklands War. But ever since their has been no move to restore an aircraft carrier to the Australian Navy. A third Canberra Class assault carrier fitted out as an aircraft carrier would benefit Australia's defence by ten fold. Australia is ordering the new F 35 joint strike fighter, the B variant would be able to be used on the aircraft carrier. Not acquiring a third Canberra Class ship would be a wasted opportunity for the Australian Navy. Australia could buy 120 F 35 joint strike fighters, 90 of the C variant ( which has a longer range than the A variant ) and 30 of the B variant model.

Regarding the forth air warfare destroyer, a forth Hobart Class Destroyer would add some depth to the Australian Navy, and my personal belief was that when the decision was made by the then Howard Government back in mid 2007 to chose the Spainish version over the US version, was that the Howard Government was making plans to purchase a forth Hobart Class Destroyer, this was rumored within the Australian media. Now the Hobart Class Destroyer is to replace the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate.which had six units in service at one point. The Australian Government is currently planning to replace these six Adelaide Class Frigates with only three Hobart Class Destroyers. How can you replace six ships with three ships, this is a cheap cop out by the now Rudd Government. A forth Hobart Class Destroyer should be ordered now, and it is not too late to order a forth air warfare destroyer. Plus a fifth air warfare destroyer would be better, but four would be acceptable.

Tomahawk cruise missiles to arm the Hobart Class Destroyers is a must, and maybe the Australian Government requiring a licence to build a Tomahawk variant in Australia would help the Australian Defence Industry. If Australia can afford to buy twelve new submarines when the Government has only barely four submarine crews for the six Collins Class Submarines. The Australian Government can afford this wish list.

 

[Bonza]

The future plan for the Defence of Australia, some may remember an artical by Ian McPhedran The Daily Telegraph March 25 2008 01:08 PM. Now the title was, " Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4 bn wish list." When I saw these headlines this grabbed my attention so I bought the paper and read it. The wish list contained the purchase of a third Canberra class assault ship, a forth air warfare destroyer, plus cruise missiles ( tomahawk ). The navy's wish list is very constructive and affordable for Australia's defence structure.

My belief is that Australia should always have one aircraft carrier, that can be used for deploying strike aircraft to a battle field. Australia once had two aircraft carriers at one point, and then in 1982 decomissioned HMAS Melbourne and the purchase of a British Invincible Class Aircraft carrier. Now this deal fell through after the Falklands War. But ever since their has been no move to restore an aircraft carrier to the Australian Navy. A third Canberra Class assault carrier fitted out as an aircraft carrier would benefit Australia's defence by ten fold. Australia is ordering the new F 35 joint strike fighter, the B variant would be able to be used on the aircraft carrier. Not acquiring a third Canberra Class ship would be a wasted opportunity for the Australian Navy. Australia could buy 120 F 35 joint strike fighters, 90 of the C variant ( which has a longer range than the A variant ) and 30 of the B variant model.

Regarding the forth air warfare destroyer, a forth Hobart Class Destroyer would add some depth to the Australian Navy, and my personal belief was that when the decision was made by the then Howard Government back in mid 2007 to chose the Spainish version over the US version, was that the Howard Government was making plans to purchase a forth Hobart Class Destroyer, this was rumored within the Australian media. Now the Hobart Class Destroyer is to replace the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate.which had six units in service at one point. The Australian Government is currently planning to replace these six Adelaide Class Frigates with only three Hobart Class Destroyers. How can you replace six ships with three ships, this is a cheap cop out by the now Rudd Government. A forth Hobart Class Destroyer should be ordered now, and it is not too late to order a forth air warfare destroyer. Plus a fifth air warfare destroyer would be better, but four would be acceptable.

Tomahawk cruise missiles to arm the Hobart Class Destroyers is a must, and maybe the Australian Government requiring a licence to build a Tomahawk variant in Australia would help the Australian Defence Industry. If Australia can afford to buy twelve new submarines when the Government has only barely four submarine crews for the six Collins Class Submarines. The Australian Government can afford this wish list.

The carriers for Australia discussion has gone back and forth quite a few times in the RAN thread, so I'd recommend reading it. Personally I think there's no chance of it happening, but if you are interested in all the arguments for and against, the RAN thread has many relevant posts, and there are other, older threads throughout the Navy forum specifically about the Canberra class. Might have to do some sifting to find them but I found them worthwhile.

 

[StevoJH]

Why do we need a carrier? What operation would we be carrying out, that would require us to move outside of air coverage from mainland Australia or an Australian Territory (aka. Christmas Island for example) where the single battalion of round the clock troop lift we will have, would be sufficient?

I agree that a 4th AWD would be nice as it would allow the LHD to be escorted by two AWD's with the second pair to sail with a relief force aboard the second LHD, however I doubt KevinThreeSeven* would throw up the Money.

I don't agree with putting TLAM on the AWD's as reduces their ability to carry out their prime function (Air Defense) by reducing the number of SM2/SM6 and ESSM that the ships can carry. I would however support the presence of TLAM on the ANZAC replacement.

I would additionally support the procurement of additional ASW Helicopters (either NFH-90 or SH-60R) above the 24 already being tendered for in order for the RAN to have the ability to deploy a squadron or half squadron at sea aboard the LHD's during the majority of their time in service when they will not have troops embarked.

As for the third sea lift ship i'm actually not sure. We probably don't really have enough Tigers and MRH's on order to justify a third through deck Amphib and its associated costs, however the majority of our army is made up of light forces which helicopter Assaults and large through deck Amphibs best complement. I like the Idea of the Army having a fast decently hitting expeditionary force based around highly mobile light infantry, with the heavier stuff (M1A1 & M113) left at home just in case "all hell breaks loose".

I like infantry, you can land them by helicopter and then send their armoured vehicles ashore later on. With heavier units like Armoured Regiments, they are useless without their vehicles.
*His Plane is a 737, not a 747.

 

[gf0012-aust]

we're not getting extra assets. the govt has stated quite clearly via the minister (who told us all point blank) that there is no extra money.

we're not buying extra gear as there is NO money to do so. Treasury, Finance and both Snr and Jnr defence ministers have said so.

 

[StevoJH]

we're not getting extra assets. the govt has stated quite clearly via the minister (who told us all point blank) that there is no extra money.

we're not buying extra gear as there is NO money to do so. Treasury, Finance and both Snr and Jnr defence ministers have said so.

Has there been any discussion on what the Sea Lift ship will be or even if its been taken off the table?

And the LCH and AOR replacements are the next ones coming up as well from memory.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Has there been any discussion on what the Sea Lift ship will be or even if its been taken off the table?

And the LCH and AOR replacements are the next ones coming up as well from memory.

The briefing was classified so I cannot give out any material. But what I can say (and this mtg was last week on 13/11/09) was that the Minister and the 3 Stars quite clearly and repeatedly said to all of us that there is no money and not to go to them for extra gear.

projects will NOT be allowed to go out of scope. If they are not factored in now and have not been passed by the security council, then they will not get up.

quite bluntly, the journo knows squat and is making it up

 

[StevoJH]

The briefing was classified so I cannot give out any material. But what I can say (and this mtg was last week on 13/11/09) was that the Minister and the 3 Stars quite clearly and repeatedly said to all of us that there is no money and not to go to them for extra gear.

projects will NOT be allowed to go out of scope. If they are not factored in now and have not been passed by the security council, then they will not get up.

quite bluntly, the journo knows squat and is making it up

Thanks for the clarification.

I wasnt actually referring to that article, it seemed a little bit crazy even at the time. If only because I doubt the brass would make a request they knew would not go through, and even if they did, they wouldn't be telling some random journalist that they are making up fantasy fleets.

 

[gf0012-aust]

.... they wouldn't be telling some random journalist that they are making up fantasy fleets.

thats not the kind of thing that gets leaked anyway.

besides after McPhedran misrepresented some commentary made by the chiefs earlier this year, I'd be guessing that he'd be low on the pecking order to get anything

 

[Sea Toby]

Has there been any discussion on what the Sea Lift ship will be or even if its been taken off the table?

And the LCH and AOR replacements are the next ones coming up as well from memory.

The third sea lift ship is being delayed as it is not needed until the last LPA is decommissioned late in the next decade. Specualtion says a Bay class, but there hasn't been any official word. The last I read was for a delivery during 2018. So it probably won't be bought until 2014 or so.

Frankly, I prefer a delay, stretching out programs to avoid block obsolescence thirty years later.

Australia doesn't need a carrier, but during East Timor Australia could have used more sealift. The carrier Australia missed most was the Sydney, not the Melbourne.

 

[StevoJH]

Australia doesn't need a carrier, but during East Timor Australia could have used more sealift. The carrier Australia missed most was the Sydney, not the Melbourne.

I've neither said nor advocated otherwise. The A4's on Melbourne were equiped with old rear aspect Sidewinders. The most important assets she carried were the Wessex and later Sea King ASW Helicopters. The S-2 were useful, however how far from the ship do you really need to sweep?

You could operate Wessex and Sea King just as Easily off Sydney as you could Melbourne. However come 1980 there werent any affordable LPH options available either (Invincible class would be cheaper then Tarawa or Iwu Jima).

 

[DEFENCEMASTER05]

The future plan for the Defence of Australia, some may remember an artical by Ian McPhedran The Daily Telegraph March 25 2008 01:08 PM. Now the title was, " Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4 bn wish list." When I saw these headlines this grabbed my attention so I bought the paper and read it. The wish list contained the purchase of a third Canberra class assault ship, a forth air warfare destroyer, plus cruise missiles ( tomahawk ). The navy's wish list is very constructive and affordable for Australia's defence structure.

My belief is that Australia should always have one aircraft carrier, that can be used for deploying strike aircraft to a battle field. Australia once had two aircraft carriers at one point, and then in 1982 decomissioned HMAS Melbourne and the purchase of a British Invincible Class Aircraft carrier. Now this deal fell through after the Falklands War. But ever since their has been no move to restore an aircraft carrier to the Australian Navy. A third Canberra Class assault carrier fitted out as an aircraft carrier would benefit Australia's defence by ten fold. Australia is ordering the new F 35 joint strike fighter, the B variant would be able to be used on the aircraft carrier. Not acquiring a third Canberra Class ship would be a wasted opportunity for the Australian Navy. Australia could buy 120 F 35 joint strike fighters, 90 of the C variant ( which has a longer range than the A variant ) and 30 of the B variant model.

Regarding the forth air warfare destroyer, a forth Hobart Class Destroyer would add some depth to the Australian Navy, and my personal belief was that when the decision was made by the then Howard Government back in mid 2007 to chose the Spainish version over the US version, was that the Howard Government was making plans to purchase a forth Hobart Class Destroyer, this was rumored within the Australian media. Now the Hobart Class Destroyer is to replace the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate.which had six units in service at one point. The Australian Government is currently planning to replace these six Adelaide Class Frigates with only three Hobart Class Destroyers. How can you replace six ships with three ships, this is a cheap cop out by the now Rudd Government. A forth Hobart Class Destroyer should be ordered now, and it is not too late to order a forth air warfare destroyer. Plus a fifth air warfare destroyer would be better, but four would be acceptable.

Tomahawk cruise missiles to arm the Hobart Class Destroyers is a must, and maybe the Australian Government requiring a licence to build a Tomahawk variant in Australia would help the Australian Defence Industry. If Australia can afford to buy twelve new submarines when the Government has only barely four submarine crews for the six Collins Class Submarines. The Australian Government can afford this wish list.

The arguement to say that Australia or the Australian Government having no money to improveve Australia's defence capabilities and capacities is simply rubbish, just when the Labor Government has wasted so 300 plus Billion and landing this country in massive debt. The Labor Government managaes to find money for what they want but not want the Australian Defence Department needs and wants. Now Australia does need an aircraft carrier and a third Canberra Class Assault carrier would be ideal for this purpose. Australia's aircraft carrier would have been ideal for deployments to the Persian Gulf, any strike fighters that Australia did deploy would delete any need or reliance on foreign air bases. Australia also must be prepared and equipped for any future security threats around the world, especially the Pacific Region and the Indian Ocean Region. The Middle East will always be a concern for International security all around the world. Considering the Australian Military Personnel Numbers the Air force and the Navy equipped with military equipment of this scale would be able to provide a greater punch in aiding our allies and friends during any military issues that could possibly arise. Australia could also chose one of the two Canberra Class Assault carriers and adapted it to serve and function as an aircraft carrier and an assault carrier. Also remember the Canberra Class Assault carrier is also a multi purpose ship as well. The problem with some Defence analysts is that they are only looking at any possible military threat that only may come from South East Asia. This is a real concern, when China and North Korea pose a strong possible threats to Australia, plus as well a any military concerns that will most likely arise from the Middle Eastern Region. Australia is not safe, and the United States will not always be their for Australia. It's time for Australia to stand on it's own two feet. If Australian's really value and care for this nation, they would see the value and the need to strongly invest in the security of this nation. The Government only has themselves to blame if they have no money, and the people that voted for the current Government have only themselves to blame as well. A major war is not far away, and Australia must be prepared and not hide our faces in the sand.

 

[t68]

The arguement to say that Australia or the Australian Government having no money to improveve Australia's defence capabilities and capacities is simply rubbish, just when the Labor Government has wasted so 300 plus Billion and landing this country in massive debt. The Labor Government managaes to find money for what they want but not want the Australian Defence Department needs and wants. Now Australia does need an aircraft carrier and a third Canberra Class Assault carrier would be ideal for this purpose. Australia's aircraft carrier would have been ideal for deployments to the Persian Gulf, any strike fighters that Australia did deploy would delete any need or reliance on foreign air bases. Australia also must be prepared and equipped for any future security threats around the world, especially the Pacific Region and the Indian Ocean Region. The Middle East will always be a concern for International security all around the world. Considering the Australian Military Personnel Numbers the Air force and the Navy equipped with military equipment of this scale would be able to provide a greater punch in aiding our allies and friends during any military issues that could possibly arise. Australia could also chose one of the two Canberra Class Assault carriers and adapted it to serve and function as an aircraft carrier and an assault carrier. Also remember the Canberra Class Assault carrier is also a multi purpose ship as well. The problem with some Defence analysts is that they are only looking at any possible military threat that only may come from South East Asia. This is a real concern, when China and North Korea pose a strong possible threats to Australia, plus as well a any military concerns that will most likely arise from the Middle Eastern Region. Australia is not safe, and the United States will not always be their for Australia. It's time for Australia to stand on it's own two feet. If Australian's really value and care for this nation, they would see the value and the need to strongly invest in the security of this nation. The Government only has themselves to blame if they have no money, and the people that voted for the current Government have only themselves to blame as well. A major war is not far away, and Australia must be prepared and not hide our faces in the sand.

I agree with the with what you are saying, it seems the current governments is of the view defence of Australia in home water’s only with the exception of the planned expansion of the sub fleet.
A majority of Australia’s military deployment‘s are away from the pacific rim. We need a far more balanced ADF with capability to enhance our role with expectations of our allied partner’s and to share the load.
No one has a crystal ball to see into the future and the ADF should position itself with the view of having to carry out operation’s range from disaster relief to high intensity warfare with no friendly airbase’s for with the Air force to operate from.

 

[Bonza]

The arguement to say that Australia or the Australian Government having no money to improveve Australia's defence capabilities and capacities is simply rubbish, just when the Labor Government has wasted so 300 plus Billion and landing this country in massive debt. The Labor Government managaes to find money for what they want but not want the Australian Defence Department needs and wants. Now Australia does need an aircraft carrier and a third Canberra Class Assault carrier would be ideal for this purpose. Australia's aircraft carrier would have been ideal for deployments to the Persian Gulf, any strike fighters that Australia did deploy would delete any need or reliance on foreign air bases. Australia also must be prepared and equipped for any future security threats around the world, especially the Pacific Region and the Indian Ocean Region. The Middle East will always be a concern for International security all around the world. Considering the Australian Military Personnel Numbers the Air force and the Navy equipped with military equipment of this scale would be able to provide a greater punch in aiding our allies and friends during any military issues that could possibly arise. Australia could also chose one of the two Canberra Class Assault carriers and adapted it to serve and function as an aircraft carrier and an assault carrier. Also remember the Canberra Class Assault carrier is also a multi purpose ship as well. The problem with some Defence analysts is that they are only looking at any possible military threat that only may come from South East Asia. This is a real concern, when China and North Korea pose a strong possible threats to Australia, plus as well a any military concerns that will most likely arise from the Middle Eastern Region. Australia is not safe, and the United States will not always be their for Australia. It's time for Australia to stand on it's own two feet. If Australian's really value and care for this nation, they would see the value and the need to strongly invest in the security of this nation. The Government only has themselves to blame if they have no money, and the people that voted for the current Government have only themselves to blame as well. A major war is not far away, and Australia must be prepared and not hide our faces in the sand.

Again, I'd urge you to have a look through the RAN thread in the Navy forums - there's several reasons why the Canberra would be ill-suited for fixed wing carrier operations (and yes, I know the Spanish have employed them with fixed wing aircraft in the past). The arguments have gone around many times so it's probably better to read them over at the other thread, where your above points have been addressed.

It would certainly not eliminate the need for foreign airbasing in the event of expeditionary warfare (your Gulf deployment example), as a Canberra could realistically support (when considering not only deck/hangar space but fuel and munitions storage) probably half a dozen fast jets. A bit light on for meaningful air support, particularly if you wish for Australia to "stand on its own two feet", as you put it.

In any event have a look through the thread I mentioned as you'll find many arguments both for and against the idea, and quite a few little gems of information from certain posters in the know.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The 4th AWD does make the most sense as an additional, and it was, kind of mentioned as a possibility (optional 4th). However its looking less likely now, but perhaps things will improve before they stop building the AWD's (and with the ANZAC II using the same hull the 4th AWD might be a late build with latest tech as a model for the AWD refit~2030). We will have to see what happens on that front.

The 4th AWD will allow the RAN to actually be its own Navy and not rely on US ships to give complete aircover (1 ship just can't do it effectively and 3 can't sustain 2 always etc.). 4 would give the RAN a proper fleet of 12 surface combatants. If there is no 4th AWD then the LHD should carry ESSM.

If Australia gets whats been offically announced it will be doing very well for the ADF. They should fight scope creep as it will untie all these good decisions/purchases.

 

[battlensign]

The number of errors evident in the originating posts is disconcerting and inconsistent with informed discussion. In particular the technical and strategic aspects of RAN Carrier operations and the Canberra Class LHDs are cause for concern - and I would back the call for a thorough reading of the RAN thread - but I will refrain from correcting those mistakes here for fear of duplicating the RAN thread (just as other informed members most certainly are).

In relation to the 4th AWD, as of this week, there is reason to believe that the RAN has not given up hope entirely on that score......so we'll see.

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting..

If we get a 4th AWD then the F-100 design decision is totally vindicated, and we would have the very best we could get. 3 mini burkes verse 4 F-100, I think everyone would choose 4 F-100 as there is more capability with 4 good ships than 3 superships (not that I ever thought the miniburkes were really that super).

4 ships also makes Tomahawk more useful as you have more cells avalible.

 

[battlensign]

Interesting..

If we get a 4th AWD then the F-100 design decision is totally vindicated, and we would have the very best we could get. 3 mini burkes verse 4 F-100, I think everyone would choose 4 F-100 as there is more capability with 4 good ships than 3 superships (not that I ever thought the miniburkes were really that super).

4 ships also makes Tomahawk more useful as you have more cells avalible.

Yes and no. More ships is certainly good, but then you run the risk of needing 2 ships to do the job of one (although with CEC the effect of two would be greater than the sum of the parts). Additionally the less cells you have the less flexibility in loadout. There are so many weapons now - ESSMs, SMs 2/ 3 /6 and Tomahawk LACMs. The alternative is to have really small numbers of each type of missile which then of course reduces effectiveness in all of the roles. It becomes really interesting if I am right and the size of the F100 is being increased to start of life displacement of 7000 tonnes rather than merely being the result of some mathematical unit conversion illusion. What impact would this have on space and weight options if true? Possibly very little beyond increased bunkerage etc or possibly more space for weapons.

In any case.....Mods, perhaps if this thread is going to discuss purely RAN issues it ought to be considered if it were more appropriate to merge it with the RAN thread?

Brett.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes and no. More ships is certainly good, but then you run the risk of needing 2 ships to do the job of one (although with CEC the effect of two would be greater than the sum of the parts). Additionally the less cells you have the less flexibility in loadout. There are so many weapons now - ESSMs, SMs 2/ 3 /6 and Tomahawk LACMs. The alternative is to have really small numbers of each type of missile which then of course reduces effectiveness in all of the roles. It becomes really interesting if I am right and the size of the F100 is being increased to start of life displacement of 7000 tonnes rather than merely being the result of some mathematical unit conversion illusion. What impact would this have on space and weight options if true? Possibly very little beyond increased bunkerage etc or possibly more space for weapons.

In any case.....Mods, perhaps if this thread is going to discuss purely RAN issues it ought to be considered if it were more appropriate to merge it with the RAN thread?

Brett.

RAN has no program to acquire SM-3. The VL missile options for the AWD at the start of their service will be ESSM, SM-2 and Tomahawk.

SM-6 will gradually replace SM-2, in time, leaving AWD's to manage an ESSM, SM-6 and Tactom (or equivalent) land attack missile capability, amongst their VL systems.

Abe, has postulated that space and weight may be available to include specific additional VLS over time to accomodate ESSM only, so the long term weapons loadout for the strike length VLS system could well only include SM-6 and Tactom (for arguments sake as the LACM).

32x SM-6 and 16x LACM would provide useful capability in both roles. Australia is not seeking to emulate USN strike capability, but 16x Tactom's would provide a useful strike capability, especially in later years if the Future Frigate and submarine were also equipped with such a capability. A taskforce of 3x RAN surface vessels (what was deployed to Timor for instance) and a submarine (24x weapons for arguments sake) could see up to 72x LACM's, 96x SM-6 and over 150x ESSM available to the taskforce.

A not inconsiderable capability, especially if contributed to a coalition effort...

 

[battlensign]

RAN has no program to acquire SM-3. The VL missile options for the AWD at the start of their service will be ESSM, SM-2 and Tomahawk.

Given our involvement in US Missile Defence more generally and the likelyhood of specific consideration of it by the the NSC of Cabinet during the AWD program determinations, I wouldn't be so sure about that in the future. Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence for deployed forces may become more necessary as more countries (read Iran/DPRK) maintain arsenals of SR, IR and even LRBMs.

SM-6 will gradually replace SM-2, in time, leaving AWD's to manage an ESSM, SM-6 and Tactom (or equivalent) land attack missile capability, amongst their VL systems.

Agreed. Very likely. Of course, this is dependent on there being no more weapons developed over the life the AWDs that might be deemed necessary.

Abe, has postulated that space and weight may be available to include specific additional VLS over time to accomodate ESSM only, so the long term weapons loadout for the strike length VLS system could well only include SM-6 and Tactom (for arguments sake as the LACM).

I am hoping that this is one of the happy potential consequences of increasing the displacement of the Hobart Class derivative of the F-100 in Australian service. Certainly would be a very useful advantage. Ultimately I suspect that Australia's vessels are more likely to be in harm's way where air threats are a concern than the Armada, if only for alliance management policies. The more protection in terms of defensive missiles the better.

32x SM-6 and 16x LACM would provide useful capability in both roles. Australia is not seeking to emulate USN strike capability, but 16x Tactom's would provide a useful strike capability, especially in later years if the Future Frigate and submarine were also equipped with such a capability. A taskforce of 3x RAN surface vessels (what was deployed to Timor for instance) and a submarine (24x weapons for arguments sake) could see up to 72x LACM's, 96x SM-6 and over 150x ESSM available to the taskforce.

A not inconsiderable capability, especially if contributed to a coalition effort...

Unless you are factoring the ANZAC replacement as a 7000 tonnes F100 derivative with 48 cells and an AUSPAR capability then I would doubt those numbers. We will not be having three AWDs in one location. It is also unlikely that the government would allow the construction of effectively 11 AD destroyers that had only the AUSPAR/AEGIS systems as differentiation. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that you would get more than 8-12 LACMS in the subs (unless they are massive and include VLSs). The Astute loadout of 38 weapons and 22 for Collins should indicate the basic range within which the likely total number of weapons carried might fall. It is also important to remember that as a convential submarine solution (likely at this stage) configured for broad area sea-denial it is unlikely that there would be only a small number of torpedoes carried. And what of harpoon?

However, despite disagreeing with your figures here I think your general point still stands and that it would still be a very significant contribution to allied operations.

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well the ANZAC replacements are most likely going to be 7,000t F-100 hulled acording to the WP.

How many cells are actually put on them and how many are filled are a different matter. In high threat enviroments they might have all those cells filled.

With 4 AWD you can get 2 deployed at once, add a reasonably well armed frigate (anzac/anzacII) and you are still looking at simular numbers. Or deploy 1 AWD and 3 frigates and you are still looking at simular numbers. Enough to go into high threat enviroments by themselves without allies.

Given our involvement in US Missile Defence more generally and the likelyhood of specific consideration of it by the the NSC of Cabinet during the AWD program determinations, I wouldn't be so sure about that in the future. Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence for deployed forces may become more necessary as more countries (read Iran/DPRK) maintain arsenals of SR, IR and even LRBMs.

It has been mentioned that PAC-3 (navalise patriot) might be aquired for terminal interception (and also covering things that sm-2/6 don't). We may obtain SM-3 at a latter date. That purchase doesn't have to exclude SM-3 at a latter date.