Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

What i like is how Gillard can find $43bn for a national broadband network but not 1-2bn for a 4th AWD...

The 4th AWD is proberly the major uncommitted asset that needs to be at least agreed to be aquired. Tactically it very important, as we have been playing with avalibility, its critical that you have that 4th AWD to be avalible when we need it. Without it we won't be going anywhere with out a US asset, and that US asset will put (eg screening) requirements on our fleet we can't or will struggle to handle. So not only do we have 1 less ship avalible, all our other assets will be required to perform other duties. Being dependant on a US asset means we can't pull together any international force until the US gives us a firm commitment. Now the whole operation is dependant on the US commitment and avalibility of capable US ships.

We can't be that cornerstone of any regional taskforce. With no navy taskforce, we wont be landing troops, equipment, aid, peacekeepers, oil, etc. Our whole defence and political policy is ineffective. Our regional player status is unsupported.

With that 4th AWD, it gives Australia a great deal more options. You are able to sustain a significant and useful force, multiply a force, allow your force to be networked and have redundancy if required (hardened?). With 1 AWD avalible, thats all we will have, 1 ship, sustainable as long as there are no problems, glitches, storms, scrapes, damage etc.

 

[riksavage]

I find it difficult getting my head around the Aus Governments attitude to defence. Over the next 15-20 years Australia will become a more and more attractive target driven by two indisputable facts: need for living space and raw materials. Historically the country has always been part of a greater coalition of English speaking partners (British Empire then US hegemony). With the power shift East and inevitable growing tensions in the region (China vs. Japan, China vs. India, NK vs. everyone) it's only a matter of time before we see a major flash-point exploding over territory or raw materials (including food and water in this context). China considers the South China Sea to be hers and hers alone, the same way Mussolini considered the Med to be his private lake - recipe for disaster!

The US can't be everywhere at once for ever and with an increasingly vocal and prosperous South America (specifically Brazil) acquiring more high-tech kit, we could witness the US being stretched to the point where she can no longer guarantee victory at sea in two theatres simultaneously against two separate medium/major sized combatants or alliances. For this reason the Australian government needs to undertake a serious reality check and start taking self-defense more seriously. Considering the land mass of Aus and distance between the primary revenue generation areas (the West Coast) and Government (East Coast) the military is woefully weak, the army is tiny and would struggle to deal with simultaneous attacks in the East and West. (assuming debilitating attacks by SF units against military airfields prior to h-hour).

If I was an aggressor I would simply plan to take out Western Australia (restrict action in the East to diversionary activity), secure the ports, airports, mine sites, offshore assets, grain supplies, cattle ranches and Bob's your Uncle. Leave the East to slowly wither and die. I would love to see a land assault across the Nullabor by Australia's Eastern deployed forces, the M1A2's would run out of petrol simply because currently the government doesn't have the supply chain to keep feeding those gas turbines?

One of the best ways to deter such agression is a strong submarine fleet, the enemy simply doesn't know where the boats are allowing for endless deception scenarios to keep the enemies Frigates / Amphib asets tied up indefinitely. The other is a strong airforce, however I doubt Aussie has the means in place to adequately defend the air bases from ground launched surprise SF attacks (no dedicated RAAF Reg?).

One of the biggest bullets the country needs to bite is that of manpower costs, in an all volunteer army they eat up one third of the defence budget, so any increases in hull numbers will have a huge knock-on effect on the cost of manning. We always hear about the cost of vessel's, airframes and tanks, but very little attention is given to addressing manning increases. 12- subs and a much needed additional AeW asset will result in the need for increased manning. 12 -subs in effect means the submarine branch will end up being one of the largest operational arms of the Navy, extremely specialised and not to everyone's taste, it's one of the hardest branches to recruit for. No one as yet appears to have come up with a credible plan as to how the subs will be sustained (recruiting, training & manning).

As tension in the region rises Aussie will have to increase defence spending, possibly to the same level as a country like Singapore - 4%+ of GDP.

 

[lopez]

If I was an aggressor I would simply plan to take out Western Australia (restrict action in the East to diversionary activity), secure the ports, airports, mine sites, offshore assets, grain supplies, cattle ranches and Bob's your Uncle.
it isn't exactly easy and chances are we would know you were oming and you would be sitting on the bottom of on of the various seas you would use in your approach.

Leave the East to slowly wither and die. I would love to see a land assault across the Nullabor by Australia's Eastern deployed forces, the M1A2's would run out of petrol simply because currently the government doesn't have the supply chain to keep feeding those gas turbines?

i think ours run on diesel and we can transport them by air train and truck so they don't have to drive, that is in the unlikely case that a substantial force makes it to the Australian mainland. small scale sf raids more likely but we can deal with them.



this is a two edged sword. imagine an attacking force gets to the Australian west coast but where to then? they cant just sit there indefinitely


One of the best ways to deter such agression is a strong submarine fleet, the enemy simply doesn't know where the boats are allowing for endless deception scenarios to keep the enemies Frigates / Amphib asets tied up indefinitely. The other is a strong airforce, however I doubt Aussie has the means in place to adequately defend the air bases from ground launched surprise SF attacks (no dedicated RAAF Reg?).
it is unlikely to be a surprise and we have the adgies... Airfield Defence Guards: Royal Australian Air Force : Royal Australian Air Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfield_Defence_Guards

One of the biggest bullets the country needs to bite is that of manpower costs, in an all volunteer army they eat up one third of the defence budget, so any increases in hull numbers will have a huge knock-on effect on the cost of manning. We always hear about the cost of vessel's, airframes and tanks, but very little attention is given to addressing manning increases. 12- subs and a much needed additional AeW asset will result in the need for increased manning. 12 -subs in effect means the submarine branch will end up being one of the largest operational arms of the Navy, extremely specialised and not to everyone's taste, it's one of the hardest branches to recruit for. No one as yet appears to have come up with a credible plan as to how the subs will be sustained (recruiting, training & manning).
im sure someone somewhere has a plan or is making one.

As tension in the region rises Aussie will have to increase defence spending, possibly to the same level as a country like Singapore - 4%+ of GDP.
and you think the aus gov wouldn't respond to the tension? unfortunately the government these days lack foresight and focus on the here and now but im sure they would react if neighbors became more aggressive

and who is capable of all of this?

and as far as i am aware the defence force is set up to defeat such an event and i highly doubt that even the government ignorant as it is would allow defence force to get to the point where it would be incapabel of dealing with this event...

but i do hope the government does one thing and is says another to keep others in the region happy. we need that fourth frigate as it makes things a hell of a lot more practical. and the situation might not be as bad with only the 12 major ships if these planned corvettes are capable. and if that turns ou to be the case we will need more patrol boats for border protection, but they might transfer more of that responsibility to custom?

 

[icelord]

Saw a media alert that HMAS Kanimbla had a minor fire on board, any news on the extant of damage or cause of the fire.
MSPA 448/10 Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Minor fire in HMAS Kanimbla

A small fire occurred in HMAS Kanimbla this afternoon in the vicinity of Sydney Heads.

There was a brief loss of power while efforts to extinguish the fire took place, causing Kanimbla to drift towards North Head.

Sydney Ports Corporation and Svitzer Corporation were contacted just prior to
4.00 pm to provide tug support as a precaution. This support was not required as the ship subsequently restored power and proceeded to sea, clear of the entrance to Sydney Harbour and other navigational hazards.

No one was injured in the incident and no external assistance was required.

Kanimbla is conducting an initial damage assessment at sea. If necessary, the ship will return alongside to Fleet Base East, Garden Island to conduct further damage assessment.

Fire was in engine room, still being repaired, and they came within 200Yds of Nth Head...the photos from the boys are priceless to say the least...the 'brief' loss of power saw the ship almost park on Nth Head, and that would have made it worse.
Good ol 51, always struggling to make it to sea week in, week out.nfloorl:

 

[riksavage]

and who is capable of all of this?

and as far as i am aware the defence force is set up to defeat such an event and i highly doubt that even the government ignorant as it is would allow defence force to get to the point where it would be incapabel of dealing with this event...

but i do hope the government does one thing and is says another to keep others in the region happy.

Maybe not now, but in 15-20 years time the military balance in Asia will have changed. Most developed and developing nations are currently rearming, primarily in response to China's growing confidence, military expansion and sabre rattling (current Japan spat a prime example). Whilst you are confident Australia maintains the ability to defend itself today, that may not be the case against a large regional player forced to seize commodities to ensure its very own survival, regardless of the risk. In WWII Japan was forced into war because its oil supply was being slowly cut-off, it changed from being an ally of the Triple Entente in WWI to an uncompromising enemy in a single generation.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Fire was in engine room, still being repaired, and they came within 200Yds of Nth Head...the photos from the boys are priceless to say the least...the 'brief' loss of power saw the ship almost park on Nth Head, and that would have made it worse.
Good ol 51, always struggling to make it to sea week in, week out.nfloorl:

Both are currently subjected to an 'operational pause' as of today...

 

[StingrayOZ]

I worry that any sudden decline in the power of the US would be really bad for Australia due to tensions across asia. I don't see whole large scale conflict with a rising China, but I do see plenty of skirmishes like we saw during the cold war era.

You don't have to look far in the region to see a lot of competing interests, fragile governments, fractured countries, disputed territories etc. Any pressure, religious, seperatists, oil, resource, food, water, ethnic, natural disaster would cause big problems.

Meanwhile the RAN is struggling to put ships outside of Sydney harbour.

 

[StevoJH]

Maybe not now, but in 15-20 years time the military balance in Asia will have changed. Most developed and developing nations are currently rearming, primarily in response to China's growing confidence, military expansion and sabre rattling (current Japan spat a prime example). Whilst you are confident Australia maintains the ability to defend itself today, that may not be the case against a large regional player forced to seize commodities to ensure its very own survival, regardless of the risk. In WWII Japan was forced into war because its oil supply was being slowly cut-off, it changed from being an ally of the Triple Entente in WWI to an uncompromising enemy in a single generation.

None of them have the aerial tanking capacity to neutralise our greatest advantages. The RAAF, its network of bare bases and JORN.

However that could change depending on how India and China develop their Aircraft Carrier capability. In which case the Australian Government would be forced to respond, although a doubling of the SSG fleet is already a fairly considerable response.

It should be noted that there are 3 battalion sized formations in northern australia whose one and only role is to patrol and reconnoiter the terrain. Large percentages of these units are made up by Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island troops whose family have lived in the areas for hundreds or thousands of years.

 

[aussienscale]

None of them have the aerial tanking capacity to neutralise our greatest advantages. The RAAF, its network of bare bases and JORN.

However that could change depending on how India and China develop their Aircraft Carrier capability. In which case the Australian Government would be forced to respond, although a doubling of the SSG fleet is already a fairly considerable response.

It should be noted that there are 3 battalion sized formations in northern australia whose one and only role is to patrol and reconnoiter the terrain. Large percentages of these units are made up by Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island troops whose family have lived in the areas for hundreds or thousands of years.

How woud the ADF, and the RAAF handle this in the reverse ? IE: The bare bases would obviously have fuel, ammo, stores etc, and we have regular operations from these bare bases, but how would we go logistically trying to maintain the supply lines for fuel, ammo, stores etc over an extended period of time during a potential conflict or repulsing an agressor from reaching our shores ? There is a big difference between running a planned 2 week exercise and making not just one but probably all of these bases operational

Also I understand what is being said about doubling the sub fleet, but I just cant see how we will ever make it work ? just recruiting alone on history over the last 30 years into the subs would suggest we cant do it. I know people are saying they have "plans in place" but they have had numerous plans that don't work, what can we do different this time around that has not already been done.
And don't get me wrong ! I really hope we can overcome this and make it work

 

[StingrayOZ]

How woud the ADF, and the RAAF handle this in the reverse ? IE: The bare bases would obviously have fuel, ammo, stores etc, and we have regular operations from these bare bases, but how would we go logistically trying to maintain the supply lines for fuel, ammo, stores etc over an extended period of time during a potential conflict or repulsing an agressor from reaching our shores ?

Many of these bare bases have been significantly upgraded. It would take a pretty big effort to remove our supply capability to these bases on the mainland and Australian territory. Thats where most of our defence resources would be focused, securing these points.

Also I understand what is being said about doubling the sub fleet, but I just cant see how we will ever make it work ? just recruiting alone on history over the last 30 years into the subs would suggest we cant do it. I know people are saying they have "plans in place" but they have had numerous plans that don't work, what can we do different this time around that has not already been done.

Subs do not have huge crewing requirements, just selective crewing requirements. Collins is at what, 46? Finding an additional 6 x 46 = 276 people is entirely possible out of a population of 25 million. Even if you operate a two crew per sub with reserve crews, etc thats entirely feasable. However they will struggle to find and retain that in WA only. Everything in WA has problems attracting and retaining personel. Its like building an army barracks at Ballarat during the 1860 gold rush, except miners are actually making good money this time. I think the ADF needs to rethink how to attract, recruit and retain personel.

Having some subs based at FBE (where historically they have been based) would go a long way to assisting that.

What I find interesting is how far the white paper went. It has some grand plans. It exceeded most peoples expectations for it. While in peaceful times the government may cut some of it away, in war it would meet or exceed it. All it requires is compentent management and political agreement. I had thought that political agreement on defence was at least getting better (Cosgrove I think was making fantastic strides in that area), but we will have to see how that turns out. As for compentent management, I guess we will see as well.

 

[Sea Toby]

Subs do not have huge crewing requirements, just selective crewing requirements. Collins is at what, 46? Finding an additional 6 x 46 = 276 people is entirely possible out of a population of 25 million. Even if you operate a two crew per sub with reserve crews, etc thats entirely feasable. However they will struggle to find and retain that in WA only. Everything in WA has problems attracting and retaining personel. Its like building an army barracks at Ballarat during the 1860 gold rush, except miners are actually making good money this time. I think the ADF needs to rethink how to attract, recruit and retain personnel..

I am not aware of the RAN train of advancement, but if the submarine service is a dead end job, you will see dead end retention. Geography has nothing to do with career advancement, but dead end jobs have a huge effect on career advancement. The solution is simple and easy, provide those in the submarine service somehow a fast track advancement...

I wonder how many Aussie CNOs have come from the submarine service. Half, or less?

 

[StingrayOZ]

The solution is simple and easy, provide those in the submarine service somehow a fast track advancement...

But how are we ment to maintain submarine personel when we have to promote them?

 

[Sea Toby]

But how are we ment to maintain submarine personel when we have to promote them?

Recruits will be lining up quickly for the fast tracking advancement postings. The point I was attempting to make is if the submarine service is considered a dead end, it will remain a dead end...

I ask again, how many Navy CNOs have come from the submarine service? If its less than a third when a third of your main warships are submarines, there lies your retention problems. But it probably reaches farther down the ladder as well into the nco ranks as well...

Some postings or positions in the military lead to more advancement. If you are having retentions problems its a very good place to start making changes.

Advancement is much more important with retention than any geological location even in the civilian world. If a grocery store assistant manager wishes to become a manager and that assistant has to move to Western Australia from Sydney, you jump or get passed by...

 

[riksavage]

Many of these bare bases have been significantly upgraded. It would take a pretty big effort to remove our supply capability to these bases on the mainland and Australian territory. Thats where most of our defence resources would be focused, securing these points.



Subs do not have huge crewing requirements, just selective crewing requirements. Collins is at what, 46? Finding an additional 6 x 46 = 276 people is entirely possible out of a population of 25 million. Even if you operate a two crew per sub with reserve crews, etc thats entirely feasable. However they will struggle to find and retain that in WA only. Everything in WA has problems attracting and retaining personel. Its like building an army barracks at Ballarat during the 1860 gold rush, except miners are actually making good money this time. I think the ADF needs to rethink how to attract, recruit and retain personel.

Having some subs based at FBE (where historically they have been based) would go a long way to assisting that.

What I find interesting is how far the white paper went. It has some grand plans. It exceeded most peoples expectations for it. While in peaceful times the government may cut some of it away, in war it would meet or exceed it. All it requires is compentent management and political agreement. I had thought that political agreement on defence was at least getting better (Cosgrove I think was making fantastic strides in that area), but we will have to see how that turns out. As for compentent management, I guess we will see as well.

Another critical area, which impacts many nations not just Aus is war stocks. Australia retains the ability to manufacture dumb munitions (bullets & shells), it does not have the industrial base to manufacture torpedoes, sophisticated air-air, air-ground, ground -air munitions. How long could Australia last against sustained attacks from an enemy (China for example) before the country's war-stocks ran out? The nation is so far away from the primary manufacturing base of most modern weapons systems in its inventory (US & Europe).

Did the white paper account for this sustainability issue when costing out new hulls and airframes?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Another critical area, which impacts many nations not just Aus is war stocks. Australia retains the ability to manufacture dumb munitions (bullets & shells), it does not have the industrial base to manufacture torpedoes, sophisticated air-air, air-ground, ground -air munitions. How long could Australia last against sustained attacks from an enemy (China for example) before the country's war-stocks ran out? The nation is so far away from the primary manufacturing base of most modern weapons systems in its inventory (US & Europe).

Did the white paper account for this sustainability issue when costing out new hulls and airframes?

The White Paper instituted the Explosive Ordnance Warstock replacement project, which is designed to reinstate ADF munitions warstocks, in line with directed levels of capability.

We have acquired significant weapon stocks in recent years, though exact holdings are a closely guarded secret for opsec reasons, but the quantities of weapons that HAVE been announced and purchased, have been significant.

We acquired an initial batch of 2500x JDAM kits and 260x JASSM missiles for example when those projects were announced. Given that follow-on purchases tend to be direct commercial sales, the quantities are rarely ever announced and only overall package prices are ever released, it's a bit difficult to state exactly how sufficient our warstocks may be, but from the quantities that HAVE been announced, we maintain a pretty substantial weapons inventory when compared to many nation's weapons acquisitions...

Still we are only 17hours flying time away from the US and as observed during Israel's 2006 operations, the US can and will provide munitions in a hurry to their allies in a time of need. Any increasing tensions, would see Australia bolstering it's warstocks in a hurry, I expect...

 

[rip]

The White Paper instituted the Explosive Ordnance Warstock replacement project, which is designed to reinstate ADF munitions warstocks, in line with directed levels of capability.

We have acquired significant weapon stocks in recent years, though exact holdings are a closely guarded secret for opsec reasons, but the quantities of weapons that HAVE been announced and purchased, have been significant.

We acquired an initial batch of 2500x JDAM kits and 260x JASSM missiles for example when those projects were announced. Given that follow-on purchases tend to be direct commercial sales, the quantities are rarely ever announced and only overall package prices are ever released, it's a bit difficult to state exactly how sufficient our warstocks may be, but from the quantities that HAVE been announced, we maintain a pretty substantial weapons inventory when compared to many nation's weapons acquisitions...

Still we are only 17hours flying time away from the US and as observed during Israel's 2006 operations, the US can and will provide munitions in a hurry to their allies in a time of need. Any increasing tensions, would see Australia bolstering it's warstocks in a hurry, I expect...

I live not too far from Tucson Arizona where Raytheon makes many of these supper weapons you are talking about. Like all the Standard Missile family, The Patriot, AIM-7 Sparrow, AGM-88 HARM, BGM-109 Tomahawk, AGM-65 Maverick, AIM-120 AMRAA, and the AIM-9 Sidewinder. When you consider how few of these very expensive weapons are produced each year, even if you doubled the production rate, in a real war you would use up your smart bullets very quickly.
I can say that Raytheon has the space and the facilities at present double its production. I do not know and cannot even guess if they could get and or train the expanded highly specialized workforce needed to double production for all of its weapon lines at the same time or if their parts suppliers could supply the ramp up to that rate as well. Yes, in time other factories could be brought on line but even with a crash program, would take eighteen months before you could start really cranking them out at a level needed to meet the day to day needs of a full scale war as it is currently scripted to run.
Assuming the worst, a full on convention war, after the first flurry of fighting is over, all sides that are left standing will start to both hold back, conserve, and to then hoard their best and most powerful weapons for worst case events. Why is it that every body thinks, when history has proved over and over again that it isn’t, that Bang Bang your dead hardly ever works out that way?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Which is why you still want a 5" on a ship + 20 or 25mm, a gun on an aircraft, and dumb loads for artillary, planes or tanks. Cheap and easy to mass produce.

However Australia seems to have some depth to its weapon stocks, and has plenty of allies to draw on for more. While the US may only be able to double its production easily, thats still pretty amazing, and the US and allies has a pretty big world store of toys. Which is why its often good to use US munitions, supply, stocks and avalibility are impressive compared to anything else.

We certainly had the capability to remanufacture/maintain torpedos. I think we proberly still have that capability in WA. ?

 

[riksavage]

I live not too far from Tucson Arizona where Raytheon makes many of these supper weapons you are talking about. Like all the Standard Missile family, The Patriot, AIM-7 Sparrow, AGM-88 HARM, BGM-109 Tomahawk, AGM-65 Maverick, AIM-120 AMRAA, and the AIM-9 Sidewinder. When you consider how few of these very expensive weapons are produced each year, even if you doubled the production rate, in a real war you would use up your smart bullets very quickly.
I can say that Raytheon has the space and the facilities at present double its production. I do not know and cannot even guess if they could get and or train the expanded highly specialized workforce needed to double production for all of its weapon lines at the same time or if their parts suppliers could supply the ramp up to that rate as well. Yes, in time other factories could be brought on line but even with a crash program, would take eighteen months before you could start really cranking them out at a level needed to meet the day to day needs of a full scale war as it is currently scripted to run.
Assuming the worst, a full on convention war, after the first flurry of fighting is over, all sides that are left standing will start to both hold back, conserve, and to then hoard their best and most powerful weapons for worst case events. Why is it that every body thinks, when history has proved over and over again that it isn’t, that Bang Bang your dead hardly ever works out that way?

Unfortunately this mind-set of keeping low stocks of sophisticated weapons is one of expense and a just in time mentality inherited from private sector. By storing expensive weapons for long periods means sooner or later they will need to be transferred to the training bin, returned for upgrade or re-certification. Also the old cold war mentality of 'we will only be firing a limited number of salvo's before we go nuclear anyway' attitude!

This is where there are some advantages in long term agreements with industry. Instead of buying a fixed number of assets outright and transferring them to the ordinance depots, you sign a contract over a 20-25 year period whereby the manufacture is obliged to ensure a guaranteed number of airframes (BAE do it with the UK Gov). The same could be done for cruise missiles etc. The prime contractor is paid to keep a fixed number on retainer in the buyers country, they (the contractor) accepts the burden of obsolescence, recertification for a fee guarenteed over 10-20 years.

If Aus was to fight a war in conjunction with the US there could be a pecking order issue, you could in times of extreme duress find yourself at the bottom of the list because the manufacturing country demands all munitions be reserved for domestic consumption.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

The thing about desert storm is that it allows anyone to estimate how much munition stocks is considered enough (compared to the previous 10 year long Vietnam war era benchmark).

AMRAAM production is already in lot 24?

JDAM production has topped 210,000 averaging almost 20,000 a year (of which only 23+k has been used). Desert storm used 224,416 bombs/missiles of which ~10% were smart. In equivalent terms, to whack a country the size of Iraq could probably only need 40-50k JDAMs. Iraqi freedom only required 19,948 guided munitions out of 29,593 bombs dropped.

332 tomahawks were used in desert storm. 2,000+ blk IVs have been produced by Raytheon so far not counting the few thousand earlier blks.

What isn't enough?

 

[icelord]

Many of these bare bases have been significantly upgraded. It would take a pretty big effort to remove our supply capability to these bases on the mainland and Australian territory. Thats where most of our defence resources would be focused, securing these points.

there would be a supply issue at first, as most Ammo is located in Vic and NSW, with a relatively small Thale Amunitions station in WA.

Subs do not have huge crewing requirements, just selective crewing requirements. Collins is at what, 46? Finding an additional 6 x 46 = 276 people is entirely possible out of a population of 25 million. Even if you operate a two crew per sub with reserve crews, etc thats entirely feasable. However they will struggle to find and retain that in WA only. Everything in WA has problems attracting and retaining personel. Its like building an army barracks at Ballarat during the 1860 gold rush, except miners are actually making good money this time. I think the ADF needs to rethink how to attract, recruit and retain personel.

Having some subs based at FBE (where historically they have been based) would go a long way to assisting that.

Ive been saying for a while, FBE or a new sub base in the East. Seeing as FBE is going to get a little busy in the next few years with 3 FFH, 2LPA and 1 fleet barge(tobruk...or is that 3 barges now?) handing over to 2 LHD, AO being replaced(eventually!) and 4 FFG becoming 3 AWD there is going to be a fight for room. FBW needs to be extended and enlarged over the next few years to accomadate 6 collins handing over to 12(uhuh) which will also need berthing space for regular USN visits for WA open water sub excercise areas. Then holding 5 FFH and may hold a AWD in the end with East shortage of room. With no expanding area in Darwin or Cairns able to be seen, as they are expecting a larger OPV size to replace Armidales and Hydro fleet. Waterhen wont hold Subs as the surrounding water is too shallow at this stage and little room to move. ADF still own an island in Sydney harbour which is used for large scale "char" storage, said to be a historians wet dream...im still asking how to get out to it...
Jervis Bay is no go for fleet before anyone says it, theres a rare seaweed(yep) that wont allow construction. Could be room in Hervey bay maybe?

What I find interesting is how far the white paper went. It has some grand plans. It exceeded most peoples expectations for it. While in peaceful times the government may cut some of it away, in war it would meet or exceed it. All it requires is compentent management and political agreement. I had thought that political agreement on defence was at least getting better (Cosgrove I think was making fantastic strides in that area), but we will have to see how that turns out. As for compentent management, I guess we will see as well.

The white paper was a waste in the end, it lead defence into a puzzling direction, as platforms named, 12 subs, OPV, had no basis when the threat is not mentioned. There is a difference between hinting and china and naming it. Its like reading the koran and having different interpretations. All it needed was to confirm some purchases and reccomend some others, instead it lacked mentioning current purchases(land 17 is still being considered, 3 years after due date and here we are claiming lack fire support). Already theres been talk of the next White paper...we're still decoding the last one!