Australia's Defence Future.

[Aussie Digger]

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 may. But that doesn't change the fact that ADF has no plans to incorporate SM-3 into the AWD's.

BMD doesn't only encompass naval platforms...

I agree that it could change however. It IS the case though, that VLS cells on the AWD's will not be filled with SM-3 at their entry to service.

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.

The only guidance on the Future Frigate that has been released is that the future frigate is to be larger than the ANZAC, along with all other ADF platforms is to be fitted with not for and have a focus on ASW roles AND be fitted with LACM capability.

It is has been speculated that the FF will be up to 7000t, in which case it may very well be the same basic hull, as the F-100 series.

If the frigate IS built that large, I cannot see why it would be constructed with less VLS numbers than the AWD. Less battle-management capability, yes, but less firepower? Not necessarily.

In any-case it is a bit too far out to speculate, same with the submarine, but if it doesn't maintain a minimum of 38x weapons I'd be very surprised (and disappointed)...

 

[StingrayOZ]

The white paper stated 7,000t. From that we assume it will be the same 7,000t as the AWD.

I think it will have the same number of VLS. Modifying the design and screwing around isn't worth it IMHO. If you don't have the missiles just leave it empty as future capability. Or rotate missiles in and out as you need them.

The only reason to really screw with it is to add additional helo capability. But with 20 OCV offering that, the 2 LHD offering that, UAV's filling that role as well it hardly seems worth it. Plus your stuffing around the top weight at the back of the ship and removing below deck weight at the front, doesn't seem to really offer the space we want.

I think that was the most exciting part of the WP. If we have 3-4 AWD and 8 frigates with same missile loadout (missile ship concept) with Auspar, then as long as we can intergrate them into the network then it would be like having 12 destroyers. AusPar will be fine for use as a frigate doing lower level stuff, but in a high threat enviroment when teamed with AEGIS would extend the AWD's reach and capabilities. With Auspar/AEGIS complementing each other.

Thats why the extra AWD is so important with 3 it would be pretty hard to sustain operations over longer periods of time or in higher threat enviroments. You also couldn't do/have major diffculty doing things like having two fleets each with atleast 1 AWD, which would be nice with the whole FBE/FBW. Throw in 8-12 subs (4-6 at each of FBE/FBW or simular) and the image is complete.

Like I said, the RAN as a complete navy and the ADF as a complete force. Capable of independant deployment into high threat enviroments performing the full range of missions. The only thing we won't be able to do is fixed wing carriers, but the Tigers are better for CAS, the ships are certainly capable of land attack, and the RAAF is fully stocked with longer range aircraft and refuellers.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think that was the most exciting part of the WP. If we have 3-4 AWD and 8 frigates with same missile loadout (missile ship concept) with Auspar, then as long as we can intergrate them into the network then it would be like having 12 destroyers. AusPar will be fine for use as a frigate doing lower level stuff, but in a high threat enviroment when teamed with AEGIS would extend the AWD's reach and capabilities. With Auspar/AEGIS complementing each other.

Considering the possible issues that can pop up after making small changes to an established design (e.g. weight issues with the ANZAC) I doubt they will mess with the design too much. The main difference will be in the combat system IMO.

A ship with that load-out is a de-facto AWD, quite a capability (fingers crossed).

 

[battlensign]

It may. But that doesn't change the fact that ADF has no plans to incorporate SM-3 into the AWD's.

BMD doesn't only encompass naval platforms...

Yeah, but I can't imagine it in any other form for Aust. We would already have the perfect platform and with SM3 or PAC3 you never know....

I agree that it could change however. It IS the case though, that VLS cells on the AWD's will not be filled with SM-3 at their entry to service.

Agreed.

The only guidance on the Future Frigate that has been released is that the future frigate is to be larger than the ANZAC, along with all other ADF platforms is to be fitted with not for and have a focus on ASW roles AND be fitted with LACM capability.

It is has been speculated that the FF will be up to 7000t, in which case it may very well be the same basic hull, as the F-100 series.

It certainly has Australian Industry advantage, but I am still concerned by the age of the design by that stage.....though if that's what we have to do to get a 7000t frigate with Auspar and 48 cells......

If the frigate IS built that large, I cannot see why it would be constructed with less VLS numbers than the AWD. Less battle-management capability, yes, but less firepower? Not necessarily.

Pethaps to enhance the political distinction between the two, but I hope you are right. The felxibility offered by the extra Frigate cells that may go unused most of the time can be used to compensate the AWDs smaller numbers of cells in contingencies.

In any-case it is a bit too far out to speculate, same with the submarine, but if it doesn't maintain a minimum of 38x weapons I'd be very surprised (and disappointed)...

The major contributors to debate in this arena appear to be arguing for a 4000-ish ton design. I have no idea how many weapons that would allow carriage of, but I suspect not more than 30 tbh. Time will tell.

Brett

P.S I would reiterate my earlier call for there to be consideration by the MODs towards merging this thread with the RAN thread.

 

[battlensign]

Considering the possible issues that can pop up after making small changes to an established design (e.g. weight issues with the ANZAC) I doubt they will mess with the design too much. The main difference will be in the combat system IMO.

A ship with that load-out is a de-facto AWD, quite a capability (fingers crossed) .

Shhh.....let's hope nobody notices.......it may very well be the reason the RAN hasn't been publicly complaining about the F100 decision. Perhaps they were merely thinking strategically and were hoping for 12 Destroyers while we were all hoping for 3 Baby Burkes.

Brett.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Folks, surely, if the RAN goes ahead and buys 7000t warships to replace ANZAC, they'd become, because of displacement alone, DDGs. Aren't Frigates supposed to be around the 2500 - 4000t range and Destroyers, over this displacement? It'd be kinda handy to have 11 - 12 Destroyers wouldn't it, even if, on paper, 8 of them would only be FFGs.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Folks, surely, if the RAN goes ahead and buys 7000t warships to replace ANZAC, they'd become, because of displacement alone, DDGs. Aren't Frigates supposed to be around the 2500 - 4000t range and Destroyers, over this displacement? It'd be kinda handy to have 11 - 12 Destroyers wouldn't it, even if, on paper, 8 of them would only be FFGs.

I think in reality its just semantics. The navy will be able to get away with having 7000t "frigates" because we already have the rights to that design. It would be "cheaper" just to build 12 F100 derivatives.

Still the question remains, what are the Kiwi's going to do for an ANZAC replacement?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Spain calls them frigates anyway.

While the design will be somewhat older, its still pretty good. Atleast they are large enough to fit with modern systems and equipment off US vessels. I still reckon for us they are better than the Burkes (which are an older design). Auspar is actually a really good option because it makes up for one of the weaknesses of the F-100 design with so few illuminators. However we might put somesort of miniAuspar on the AWD anyway like what we are currently trialling, the AEGIS setup certainly coveres the weaknesses of Auspar. A mixed Aussie fleet will have a very interesting radar setup.

7,000t is the total design max, they will most likely be more like 6,000t at launch, which is only a few tho bigger than the FFG's or anything else we would be looking at, why reinvent everything to save ~ 100 t of steel per ship?.

NZ should buy into the design too. Even if they only get two and not even fully load the VLS by only using the current ANZAC missile load. Buy more once you have them. That would significantly lower the costs. The 5" would be carried across and so could the R2D2's. Your talking about a mass produced hull and Auspar as a cost. That would result in 14 destroyers for our region. If you are going to get only 2 ships, why not make them fully capable ones? With the number Australia will be building it will be a good deal and honestly the Anzacs were a pretty good program for NZ.

With so many high quality ships the OCV's could be pretty much defenceless with just a 25mm a few 12.7mm (perhaps some low cost stuff,GPS 80mm+ motars, javalin fitted when needed) and a helicopter/uav (hellfires? perhaps only a few armed shared among all). To perform EEZ stuff and provide additional support to the bigger ships.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

NZ should buy into the design too. Even if they only get two and not even fully load the VLS by only using the current ANZAC missile load. Buy more once you have them. That would significantly lower the costs. The 5" would be carried across and so could the R2D2's. Your talking about a mass produced hull and Auspar as a cost. That would result in 14 destroyers for our region. If you are going to get only 2 ships, why not make them fully capable ones? With the number Australia will be building it will be a good deal and honestly the Anzacs were a pretty good program for NZ.

Personally I think this vessel is overkill for the RNZN, you could argue the ANZAC is too much. This will probably be a watered down AEGIS class destroyer, complete with AUSPAR. Way too much capability for the threat environment the NZDF is going to face.

 

[battlensign]

Personally I think this vessel is overkill for the RNZN, you could argue the ANZAC is too much. This will probably be a watered down AEGIS class destroyer, complete with AUSPAR. Way too much capability for the threat environment the NZDF is going to face.

It may be overkill for them, but remember they tend to chose what threat environments they enter based on what equipment they have, so 'dog biting its tail'? In the past the RNZN operated Cruisers and joined Task Groups of Australian, US and RN ships. If they had the ships then I wouldn't see that changing anytime soon. Though they really need at least three ships to do it properly and if more expensive ships=less ships then NZ would really need to carefully consider what it wanted to do.

Brett..

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It may be overkill for them, but remember they tend to chose what threat environments they enter based on what equipment they have, so 'dog biting its tail'? In the past the RNZN operated Cruisers and joined Task Groups of Australian, US and RN ships. If they had the ships then I wouldn't see that changing anytime soon. Though they really need at least three ships to do it properly and if more expensive ships=less ships then NZ would really need to carefully consider what it wanted to do.

Brett..

I think equipment purchase is driven by geopolitical goals rather than some theoretical contingency i.e. you will only realise you don’t have enough capability when your military is unable to provide you with viable options when they are needed. If that happens you invest in more capability (happening with the Japanese now), if not then you see no change. NZ maintained a credible coalition participation force when maintaining a great power alliance was considered a geopolitical imperative. With the end of the cold war apparently it is no longer.

I agree military capability increases your options, however you have to consider the likelihood of those options being necessary. Having the RAN build 3x 30,000 ton STOVL carriers would provide Canberra with plenty of additional contingencies in a range of possible scenarios. However what are the chances that they will provide adequate utility for the investment? Pretty darn low I would think.

The same stands for NZ acquiring what is in effect a watered down AEGIS class AWD. Considering 4 ~ 6 large OPV or small frigate type vessels would likely provide more utility in the non war fighting roles than 2 AWD light's I don’t think the investment is worth it. Could these vessels allow NZ to participate on a global scale? Sure, but the question remains do they really want to?

 

[StingrayOZ]

2 x ANZAC II's would keep NZ internationally relevant in terms of intergrating into a larger taskforce. These ships would also allow blue water operations and protect thier own ships during lower level operations. They wouldn't cost a huge amount concider the missiles, CIWS, gun are complete carry overs. Other smaller less capable frigates aren't going to be a whole lot cheaper to purchase or offer much over what they already have. Which is most likely why Australia going this route.

Not replacing the ANZAC's with something atleast comparible means that NZ is a completely internationally useless force, only able to offer commerical quality ships not suitable for any conflict and you would be better off leasing commerical vessels and fishing boats. NZ would then have a navy of simular quality to Fiji, Samoa or PNG.

The ANZAC's are already 3,600t and look at the weight issues there. NZ has also been burnt with OTS commerical designs not up to the task. The watered down AWD will have simular complement to an ANZAC (perhaps lower), simular cost to anything comparible (look at what europe is buying), be compatable with US and Australian warships and have additional capability.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

2 x ANZAC II's would keep NZ internationally relevant in terms of intergrating into a larger taskforce. These ships would also allow blue water operations and protect thier own ships during lower level operations. They wouldn't cost a huge amount concider the missiles, CIWS, gun are complete carry overs. Other smaller less capable frigates aren't going to be a whole lot cheaper to purchase or offer much over what they already have. Which is most likely why Australia going this route.

Not replacing the ANZAC's with something atleast comparible means that NZ is a completely internationally useless force, only able to offer commerical quality ships not suitable for any conflict and you would be better off leasing commerical vessels and fishing boats. NZ would then have a navy of simular quality to Fiji, Samoa or PNG.

The ANZAC's are already 3,600t and look at the weight issues there. NZ has also been burnt with OTS commerical designs not up to the task. The watered down AWD will have simular complement to an ANZAC (perhaps lower), simular cost to anything comparible (look at what europe is buying), be compatable with US and Australian warships and have additional capability.

But the question still remains do they really want to be credible on an extra-regional scale? What purpose does it serve apart from improve internet forum morale? Clearly NZ's interest’s lay in maintaining stability in the south pacific and protecting it’s EEZ, and unless the strategic situation in East Asia drastically deteriorates I don’t think that will change. Thus why have a 48x cell, AUSPAR equipped AWD derivative when you can have 2 or 3 smaller OCV vessels for the same price?

P.S. I don’t think and ANZAC II would be comparable in cost to the ANZAC I in contemporary terms, the sensor suite alone is that much more sophisticated the cost MUST be significantly greater. That’s fine for us; we want a ship that's really capable in a war-fighting environment so the extra cost is worth it. The Kiwi's on the other hand, will they get a return on investment?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well with China setting up naval bases in the pacific I wonder if NZ will maintain its current military policy.

2,3 or 4 OPV's are certainly options. I do think they should concider them. Again Australia's OCV may be something interesting for that. That is a different issue however.

The navy is the only branch that is able to go afar and participate in international missions because the ANZAC is still a pretty good ship. Take that away and all the training with international forces, experience, blue water naval skills, a proper navy etc is gone. While an OPV is good for catching commerical fishing in your waters, Im not sure how suitable it is for anti piracy missions or other grey area operations etc. While few nations could get fighter aircraft over NZ airspace, nearly everyone could push ships into its waters. This would be the first time that NZ had no war capable ships and be reduced to a (fairly flismy) coast guard.

While many countries cheap out on military expenses, not many have completely dissolved their military. Internet status or not, thats a pretty big leap for a country with 4 million people and a fairly healthy economy.

 

[MrConservative]

Well with China setting up naval bases in the pacific I wonder if NZ will maintain its current military policy.

2,3 or 4 OPV's are certainly options. I do think they should concider them. Again Australia's OCV may be something interesting for that. That is a different issue however.

The navy is the only branch that is able to go afar and participate in international missions because the ANZAC is still a pretty good ship. Take that away and all the training with international forces, experience, blue water naval skills, a proper navy etc is gone. While an OPV is good for catching commerical fishing in your waters, Im not sure how suitable it is for anti piracy missions or other grey area operations etc. While few nations could get fighter aircraft over NZ airspace, nearly everyone could push ships into its waters. This would be the first time that NZ had no war capable ships and be reduced to a (fairly flismy) coast guard.

While many countries cheap out on military expenses, not many have completely dissolved their military. Internet status or not, thats a pretty big leap for a country with 4 million people and a fairly healthy economy.

Taking this thread back to its original premise - Australia's Defence Future and away from the NZ tangent I would be interested in peoples views regarding the mix of future OCV's and Anzac II's. Is 20 - 8 about right? What is the rationale behind that mix?

 

[recce.k1]

You can be sure if China setup naval bases in the southern Pacific then NZ would respond (the question of course would be to what extent though). I say that because reading previous NZ Govt defence policies, they will expand only when their is a direct and perceived threat, hence things are kept minimum in the meantime (the major glaring problem here though is the chopping of the ACF rather than maintaining at least a training element eg MB339's - but as we know that was a personal political not a practical defence decision).

Currently/recently the NZ Govts can claim there are no threats since the demise of the USSR and its Pacific Fleet etc. China putting a naval base somewhere closer would mean that the NZ Govt couldn't ignore it, but realistically where would that happen and when?

Maybe we can throw in a wild card, like Fiji, although that is a long, long way to project power for China. Then again relations between Fiji and Australia/NZ are just getting worse (that's why previously I've advocated meaningful dialogue, I'm sure the Commodore doesn't really want to go begging to China, but the more A&NZ run their economy into the ground well who else can he turn to? So IMO it's either dialogue .... or A&NZ would just have to invade Fiji and topple the Commodore - those are the two choices. This current embarrassing tit-fot-tat standoff that has dragged on for 3 years now is totally ridiculous and is a testiment to former NZ PM's bullying attitude to others that are weaker, be that Fiji, the NZDF or people of NZ that were against her etc).

As for NZ downgrading its Frigates in favour of OPV's, Norm, Mr C and I have reported on the current Govt announcing that funding for the ANZAC replacements are being planned for. Alas no kiwi here on DT will know any details until publically released, perhaps next year, but maybe the Aussie def-pros such as GF and AD might be able to find out with their contacts, assuming they are allowed to say anything (probably not).

So should NZ go with the F100 derivative FF? Maybe that depends on cost. But one can be sure behind the scenes Australian and NZ Govt and Defence officials are talking. Australia will play hardball of course to ensure NZ signs up. For NZ, unlike buying off the shelf perhaps cheaper from the EU, or maybe Singapore (as there's nothing suitable in the US, unless we go LCS etc) and thus handing over buckets of money, at least buying into the Australian programme probably would have some handsome offsets i.e. at least NZ companies can bid for aspects of the project. At a A-NZ political level, this would be win-win for both countries.

Is the FF too big for NZ? I'm not a naval architect, but my uninformed opinion would be it would be perfect. NZ (like Australia) has seen that the ANZAC's (despite being larger than the previous Leanders and Rothsays) don't have sufficient weight-growth etc.

It seems reasonable to me for NZ to go for a bigger hull, after all not all weapons and sensors would have to be fitted eg same old fitted for and not with, and you chaps have already suggested talking over the main gun and R2 unit (and fit a second unit, fore). Fit it out with Harpoon and ESSM (jeez I'd love for NZ to also have Standard for medium range threats but who knows). Could NZ get away with AUSPAR or have it fitted for but not with? I dunno I'm not an expert. But it seems sensible to me if the funding were there, or allowances were made for a later date. After all the RNZN frigates aren't purely there for the defence of NZ, they also of course range as far as Japan/China and westwards into the Indian Ocean, and work in with of course the RAN (and on the quiet the US) so the NZ Govt knows that RNZN Frigates must be equipped better than their EEZ patrol OPV equivalents.

For NZ (and maybe Aust) if the FF had the room to accomodate, say another 20-30 or so extra personnel (eg SF, by helo insertion, or marine boarding parties etc - the NZ OPV can accomodate 34 extra non-naval personnel) and for NZ a couple of customs/legal types, then again the FF could be sold to the NZ public as having other (longer range) anti-piracy/border/terrorism protection roles, which is very important in this post 9/11 world.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Taking this thread back to its original premise - Australia's Defence Future and away from the NZ tangent I would be interested in peoples views regarding the mix of future OCV's and Anzac II's. Is 20 - 8 about right? What is the rationale behind that mix?

It should be a total of 20-8-3 (hopefully 4).

The OCV's I would have guess numbers from the patrol and mine hunters being replaced by them over time. ~ 14 patrol boats I think we had 6 mine and survey vessles = 20 ships.

The number seems about right. While on occasion they may operate with a ANZAC II thats not the normal mission profile, they are to fill in the gaps in Australia's border security. The can detain large numbers of people, operate far out to sea, operate a helo for anti piracy and early detection. Mine and survey ships are pretty self explanitory but at least the Huons have been pressed into service as patrol boats too.

Given our patrol boats aren't that old they may be gifted to pacific island nations in an agreement as to prevent the chinese tempting any one allowing them a base or needs a boat to enforce eez's, rescues or sold onto a buyer (possibly regionally like Malaysia, Indonesia etc).

The more important ratio is 8:4 in terms of ANZACII:AWD. As good as a ANZACII might be we still need 4 AWD's. Its very hard to operate a navy with two main coasts with only 3 ships. You won't even be able to train (fleet/taskforce intergration etc) effectively with 3 ships. Unless all your ships are in one port. 4 we become a networked force, 3 means we are an isolate target.

I know the white paper says "7,000t" but look at the figures for the F-100. They are closer to 5,800 at the moment, with a lighter/no missile load out, lighter radar, smaller lighter superstructure etc that might put them closer to 5,000t flat. Given the ANZAC's are 3,600t and the weight issues there, 5,000t doesn't seem excessive.

 

[battlensign]

Taking this thread back to its original premise - Australia's Defence Future and away from the NZ tangent I would be interested in peoples views regarding the mix of future OCV's and Anzac II's. Is 20 - 8 about right? What is the rationale behind that mix?

The rationale is simply the direct repacement (1 for 1) of the ANZAC class frigates with a new warship and then the consolidation of the RANs Patrol (14), Oceanographic (2), Survey (4) and MCM vessels (6) with a single class of multi-role vesses. A replacement of 26 vessels with 20, athough I believe the whitepaper says 'around 20' at para 9.20. The replacement of the ANZACs one for one is probably the best deal around in terms of the fact that there is the crewing issue preventing more from being acquired and that we cannot allow less due to the magnitude of our controlled waters and international engagement. The OCV is likely to be on the larger side due to the requirement for a flexible mission deck capable of handling modular mission packages and possibly a small transport role in the Archipelagic region. Personally I do not believe that 20 replacement vessels will be sufficient as Navy currently employs more than the 14 Armidale vessels for patrol tasks. Therefore a force of 20 leaves only at best 6 vessels for other tasks with mission packages and more likely only 3-4.

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Personally I do not believe that 20 replacement vessels will be sufficient as Navy currently employs more than the 14 Armidale vessels for patrol tasks. Therefore a force of 20 leaves only at best 6 vessels for other tasks with mission packages and more likely only 3-4.

We may keep the younger armidales to assist in that purpose. We might have some permanently based out at Christmas Isl, Cocos etc.

While 20 sounds impressive it is less hulls than we already have. And the whole purpose of this type is to have many hulls.

 

[ThePuss]

It seems reasonable to me for NZ to go for a bigger hull, after all not all weapons and sensors would have to be fitted eg same old fitted for and not with, and you chaps have already suggested talking over the main gun and R2 unit (and fit a second unit, fore). Fit it out with Harpoon and ESSM (jeez I'd love for NZ to also have Standard for medium range threats but who knows). Could NZ get away with AUSPAR or have it fitted for but not with? I dunno I'm not an expert. But it seems sensible to me if the funding were there, or allowances were made for a later date. After all the RNZN frigates aren't purely there for the defence of NZ, they also of course range as far as Japan/China and westwards into the Indian Ocean, and work in with of course the RAN (and on the quiet the US) so the NZ Govt knows that RNZN Frigates must be equipped better than their EEZ patrol OPV equivalents.

NSSM, The missile that ANZAC, ARUNTA, TE KAHA and TE MANA commissioned with and what TK and TM still have is very much a point defence weapon. ESSM (which really is not a evolution of NSSM but a all mostly entirely new weapon) IS a medium range naval SAM.

I have heard from my contacts in the RNZN that it is a given that they will have to upgrade to ESSM soon, due to NSSM becoming unsupportable in the near term.

ESSM is twenty times the missile NSSM is, so TK and TM will soon be vastly more capable in a war fighting environment.

I hope that the ANZAC ASMD upgrade is a success and the RNZN decides to jump onto the tail end of the project. As it is the Kiwi ANZAC's are currently undergoing a major platform (Engineering) upgrade so they are not going anywhere soon.