Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[PeterM]

Seriously doubt a ship like a San Antonio would be considered, yes its in the $ range of the new budget allowance, but then we would end up in the situation of another totally separate class of ship to support and maintain, plus the crewing which, I believe, is around another 100 more than a Canberra LHD.

I totally agree, an additional LHD is the only thing that makes sense to me for budget increase. I was just wondering aloud if there were any other viable potential options for the increased funding.

The LCH budget top end going from $300m to $500m could mean an even larger and more capable vessel than originally planned, or could it be extra hulls? (the LCH were originally a class of 8, with two given to PNG many years back), or it could just be a bit more "rubber" room in the budgeting allocation.

Interesting to see whats in the "detail" of these projects when the DCP is updated and released.

All good points, the detail will be very interested to see how this one goes.

Either way it looks like we are seeing a definate upgrade in amphibious capability.

 

[PeterM]

If we were going with a fleet of 12, 6 of each would be best. Giving us 2 available all the time. This gives us a pretty good fleet of 2 AAW ships and 2 ASW ships in a fleet. Instead of the AAW ships having a chance of not being there for the whole year.

considering the cost of AWDs that isn't going to happen.

I guess there is technically still the possibility of the 4th AWD, but it realistically isn't going to happen, particularly with the enhancement of the scope of the strategic sealift vessel.

 

[John Newman]

Interestingly, once the FFG's all pay off there will be six 76mm rapid fire and four sets of VLS looking for a new home.
Wonder what will happen to them?

And its interesting you should ask that question,see the link below:

Australian Government, Department of Defence - Stephen Smith MP

The Minister for Defence Material announced, a few days ago, "reforms" to the disposal of military equipment, including:
up to 24 ships;
up to 70 combat aircraft;
up to 110 other aircraft;
up to 120 helicopters;
up to 600 armoured vehicles;
up to 12,000 other vehicles; and
a range of communications systems, weapons and explosive ordnance

And he was comparing the British Government to us:

"The British Government has generated ₤650 million (about $1 billion AUD) from their military equipment disposals since 1997.

"Over the same period and with a similar number and type of assets, the disposal of Australian military equipment has cost around $20 million."


Probably not a real "fair" comparison, most of what we will be selling is at the end or near the end of their service lives and probably be subject to "clearance" from the USA to on-sell.

The Poms had to get something back for all the "newish" gear they have disposed of!!!

And a case in point, the recent purchase of Largs Bay!!

 

[Milne Bay]

And its interesting you should ask that question,see the link below:

Australian Government, Department of Defence - Stephen Smith MP

The Minister for Defence Material announced, a few days ago, "reforms" to the disposal of military equipment, including:
up to 24 ships;
up to 70 combat aircraft;
up to 110 other aircraft;
up to 120 helicopters;
up to 600 armoured vehicles;
up to 12,000 other vehicles; and
a range of communications systems, weapons and explosive ordnance

And he was comparing the British Government to us:

"The British Government has generated ₤650 million (about $1 billion AUD) from their military equipment disposals since 1997.

"Over the same period and with a similar number and type of assets, the disposal of Australian military equipment has cost around $20 million."


Probably not a real "fair" comparison, most of what we will be selling is at the end or near the end of their service lives and probably be subject to "clearance" from the USA to on-sell.

The Poms had to get something back for all the "newish" gear they have disposed of!!!

And a case in point, the recent purchase of Largs Bay!!

I was thinking more in terms of re-using them rather than disposing of them.
Particularly the VLS as these will be comparatively new.

 

[John Newman]

I was thinking more in terms of re-using them rather than disposing of them.
Particularly the VLS as these will be comparatively new.

I believe the VLS for the ESSM on the FFG's are the same "length" as on the Anzacs, so they will probably go into the spares "pool" for the Anzacs.

The VLS on the AWD's are longer for SM2's, so I don't think that the VLS on either the FFG's or Anzacs will carry over to them.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Ummm aviation enhanced canberra anyone???...just sayin.

 

[StingrayOZ]

4 x AWD and 8 x ANZACS seems ideal. 3 + 9 Means we will always be operating pretty much 1 AWD only. 12 surface combatants seems a good mix (esp if they are as capable as we hope the ANZAC II will be 7000t ABM, SM2/6, harpoons, tlam, essm). 20x OCV's will also free up the major assets for jobs they need to do.

LHD makes sense, really. Its flexable and as capable for anything we want. Its now within the budget.

Old 76mm would be great on some of the OCV's I would imagine. Doesn't the LHD have space dedicated for some essm VLS at the stern? I would think they wouldn't get chucked tho,

 

[ThePuss]

I believe the VLS for the ESSM on the FFG's are the same "length" as on the Anzacs, so they will probably go into the spares "pool" for the Anzacs.

The VLS on the AWD's are longer for SM2's, so I don't think that the VLS on either the FFG's or Anzacs will carry over to them.

Nope, ANZAC's have the full length launchers (And could accept SM-2 or TacTom) whilst the FFG's have the shortened version (And still only fits in with a 2m high deckhouse tacked on to the focsal).

Here's the trick they both take the same canister , aka the MK25 ....Tricky Hey! :smash

 

[StevoJH]

Ummm aviation enhanced canberra anyone???...just sayin.

Nope.

The Canberra class (should have been Australia class) have all the Aviation capability they will ever need.

Can you honestly say we'll ever see the pair of them with a full load of Helicopters aboard simultaneously? That would be >50% of the ADF's total helicopter inventory.

 

[John Newman]

Nope, ANZAC's have the full length launchers (And could accept SM-2 or TacTom) whilst the FFG's have the shortened version (And still only fits in with a 2m high deckhouse tacked on to the focsal).

Here's the trick they both take the same canister , aka the MK25 ....Tricky Hey! :smash

Well there you go! I had assumed that because the Anzacs were only armed with ESSM they they would have the same "short" VLS as the FFG's.

Makes sense, you can put "shorter" into longer but, obviously, not the other way!!

Well here's an idea for their use when the FFG's retire, put them on the back of the AWD's, (is there space above the hangar??) load them with ESSM and use the "space" at the longer front VLS for the TacTom that's planned for the future!!

 

[fretburner]

Quick question: Are the modified Perrys Australia's "premiere" in-service Anti-Air ships?

 

[Milne Bay]

Quick question: Are the modified Perrys Australia's "premiere" in-service Anti-Air ships?

Short answer is probably "yes" from an armament point of view, except that HMAS Perth has been fitted with Ceafar and is, I would guess, theoretically more capable of conducting/directing anti-air response.
I am open to correction here of course.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Can you honestly say we'll ever see the pair of them with a full load of Helicopters aboard simultaneously? That would be >50% of the ADF's total helicopter inventory.

cas with additional tigers,or not,and mabey ucavs in the not to distant future...whos to say.

 

[gf0012-aust]

cas with additional tigers,or not,and mabey ucavs in the not to distant future...whos to say.

UCAVs - I'd say not
URVs - a better chance

 

[fretburner]

Short answer is probably "yes" from an armament point of view, except that HMAS Perth has been fitted with Ceafar and is, I would guess, theoretically more capable of conducting/directing anti-air response.
I am open to correction here of course.

Just googled it: HMAS Perth.

It's only got Sea Sparrows? How could that be more capable than SM-1s (SM-2s?) and ESSMs even with an older radar?

 

[ThePuss]

Just googled it: HMAS Perth.

It's only got Sea Sparrows? How could that be more capable than SM-1s (SM-2s?) and ESSMs even with an older radar?

Sir, You googled failed. I suggest you have a second more comprehensive attempt.

 

[ADMk2]

Just googled it: HMAS Perth.

It's only got Sea Sparrows? How could that be more capable than SM-1s (SM-2s?) and ESSMs even with an older radar?

Your Google Fu is weak old man! That's out-dated information. Just like the RAAF Super Hornet page states our Super Hornets are equipped with AIM-7 Sparrows...

HMAS Perth is on exercise in Hawai and fired ESSM's just the other day...

 

[aussienscale]

Your Google Fu is weak old man! That's out-dated information. Just like the RAAF Super Hornet page states our Super Hornets are equipped with AIM-7 Sparrows...

HMAS Perth is on exercise in Hawai and fired ESSM's just the other day...

He He, that's funny, our own defence website not even up to date Even Wiki list's the ESSM's

Although it does say ESSM's if you click on the link

 

[Milne Bay]

I would be interested to know if HMAS Perth and CEAFAR could orchestrate an anti-air response for a multi-ship group that included HMAS Sydney or any of the other FFG's. (ala mini Aegis)

 

[fretburner]

Booo. I don't trust Wiki and usually go to "official" websites for info. But in this case, Wiki trumps the RAN website. I also like Gobalsecurity.org and FAS.org.

The question remains though: ESSM + Phased Array Radar versus SM-1/2 + older radar. Which is more capable?