Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

Could this be related to an increase in the AWD build? It may be wishful thinking, but adding 2 AWDs and removing two frigates would have to be a good thing...

If, and I'll say it again, "if" the Government is actually going to build another 2 AWD's, then yes, trading off two Future Frigates is reasonable.

More than likely the talk of a possible 4th AWD will then be at the expense of 2 Future Frigates.

If that happens,or there is no 4th AWD, then its a backward step, just another reduction in capability due to the budgetry position of this inept Government.

 

[ASSAIL]

So there you go, from Smith's mouth "Half a dozen, six".

Looks like the Frigate program is being cut by 25%, so much for supporting Australian shipbuilding, and of course the Navy too!

What did you expect from this minister who holds zero regard for the men and women who serve and the job they do. He is still sulking from not being Foriegn Affairs and seems happy to trash the services.

He doesn't give a big rat's ... for those that sully their hands working metal either, doesn't believe they can think.

Anyway, rant over sum result zero because he and his 2013 Defence WP will be out soon enough and as the Anzac replacements won't commence building for another seven years, quantum is not that important today.

In answering the question- Brit, Spanish or US gear - We will soon have US designs, Spanish designs, German designs and probably more. Provided that sensors and weapons and comms are all US based or compatable, it doesn't really matter.
However, it would be nice if we gradually standardised in order to improve sustainment.

 

[hairyman]

"Anyway, rant over sum result zero because he and his 2013 Defence WP will be out soon enough and as the Anzac replacements won't commence building for another seven years, quantum is not that important today."

A worry for me is who is going to take over from Smith? The Liberals are not setting the place on fire with their extreme negativity. And their history when in office has not been much better than the ALP's efforts.

 

[Volkodav]

If, and I'll say it again, "if" the Government is actually going to build another 2 AWD's, then yes, trading off two Future Frigates is reasonable.

More than likely the talk of a possible 4th AWD will then be at the expense of 2 Future Frigates.

If that happens,or there is no 4th AWD, then its a backward step, just another reduction in capability due to the budgetry position of this inept Government.

Additional AWDs would be the only justification and I would suggest a second batch of three improved ships rather than one or two repeat Hobarts would be the way forward to incorporate lessons learnt and overcome obsolscense and operational issues identified in the first three.

That said there is always the possibilty he can't count or isn't actually aware we have 8 ANZACs and his comment have no basis in reality........flipside of that is from a bean counters point of view weren't two of the eight non-operational for crewing reasons for the last few years, if six did then why do we need eight now?

One final point, if Abbot implodes after winning the election and Labor are re-elected after two or three years, then Smith will likely be PM.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A worry for me is who is going to take over from Smith? The Liberals are not setting the place on fire with their extreme negativity. And their history when in office has not been much better than the ALP's efforts.

the Libs shadow minister has been spectacularly indolent

Labor have had so many free goals its not funny

 

[hairyman]

I like the idea of a second improved batch of three AWD's. as suggested by Volkodav, but the only catch is, where would they be built? I presume Adelaide will be concentrating on the new submarines once the third AWD is built, so what other yard could build them? Newcastle?

 

[justsomeaussie]

I like the idea of a second improved batch of three AWD's. as suggested by Volkodav, but the only catch is, where would they be built? I presume Adelaide will be concentrating on the new submarines once the third AWD is built, so what other yard could build them? Newcastle?

I'm unsure of the operational need for the 3rd and 4th AWD. Where are all the frigates and support vessels operating under their umbrella? Aren't they invalided by a mediocre submarine force. Since we don't have more than 6 subs till what 2040.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm unsure of the operational need for the 3rd and 4th AWD. Where are all the frigates and support vessels operating under their umbrella? Aren't they invalided by a mediocre submarine force. Since we don't have more than 6 subs till what 2040.

The thing people don't seem to realise is that the AWDs are high end multi role ships that are good at many things over and above air warfare. Considering that their crewing requirements do not differ that much from that of a less capable ASW or GP frigate, so long as you can afford the acquisition and operating cost, the more AWDs in the mix the better.

I would even go so far and suggest that were the money available ten or twelve AWDs, supported by minor warfare vessels (the proposed OCV, or even higher capability corvettes) would be the way to go over the current "balanced" force we seem to aspire to.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The thing people don't seem to realise is that the AWDs are high end multi role ships that are good at many things over and above air warfare.

some don't seem to get the fact that the AWD's are battlespace managers in their own right - they can't take over the joint managed role like the phatships will, but they can make a decent fist of it

 

[justsomeaussie]

I would even go so far and suggest that were the money available ten or twelve AWDs, supported by minor warfare vessels (the proposed OCV, or even higher capability corvettes) would be the way to go over the current "balanced" force we seem to aspire to.

What are you smoking and can I have some.

You need to look at not only the whole of platform cost but also the the entire cost of the life of vessels.

We've stuck a frigate in the northwest because the Armidales are being run to death and you propose a bigger ship, bigger logistics, manning and supply chain to solve the problem.

Unless we are talking about 2000 ton CEAFAR ESSM OCV's and we pretty much do away with frigates you are crazy thinking more AWDs will do anything other than keep BAE and Rayethon lobbiests happy.

 

[ASSAIL]

We've stuck a frigate in the northwest because the Armidales are being run to death and you propose a bigger ship, bigger logistics, manning and supply chain to solve the problem.

The is a Main Fleet Unit assigned as standby ship for Northern ops, this is not new for Operation RESOLUTE | Royal Australian Navy.

Yes the ACPB have been flogged and their sustainment has been patchy but when the wet season kicks in, the standby MFU usually heads North. The wet is also the traditional time when more SIEV's have put to sea.

I don't know what the best "balance" for our surface force is but it seems that there should be a better mix of high end capability ships (AWD's) to GP frigates than the proposed 3:8.

As the 12th largest economy in the world sited in the most dynamic geopolitical region of the world and, being totally dependant on secure SLOC's, we need to do better.

Our politicians can blow all the hot air they like on the world stage/UN Security Council but if we continue to dodge our strategic/defence responsibilities the rest of this region will consider us a blowhard, irrelevent joke and our influence with our allies will be degraded. Kim Beazley, John Faulkner, Kevin Rudd and John Howard knew this all too well. Its a pity others don't get it.

 

[Volkodav]

What are you smoking and can I have some.

You need to look at not only the whole of platform cost but also the the entire cost of the life of vessels.

We've stuck a frigate in the northwest because the Armidales are being run to death and you propose a bigger ship, bigger logistics, manning and supply chain to solve the problem.

Unless we are talking about 2000 ton CEAFAR ESSM OCV's and we pretty much do away with frigates you are crazy thinking more AWDs will do anything other than keep BAE and Rayethon lobbiests happy.

Perhaps if you were smoking less you would have read "were the money available" in the first line of the paragraph you quoted.

Base manning of the AWD is not much greater than an ANZAC, running on diesels the fuel usage should not be that much greater, in fact if the RAN could get over its fear of high pressure fuel systems, it would be cheaper to run. Through life costs of ten to twelve AWDs would likely not differ much from a mix of AWDs and high end ASW frigates when you factor in savings of a common fleet. So TLS costs not that different and much greater capability.

On the cost of using an AWD to support boarder protection, well if you had a fleet of corvettes / OPVs / OCVs instead of patrol boats you wouldn't need to use frigates for the role.

 

[justsomeaussie]

The idea of a split AWD and OCV+ (corvette) might sound good on paper, but there are still plenty of reasons why no major navy that I know of has gone down this round.

Please provide an example of where another Navy has used this combination successfully?

 

[Richo99]

The idea of a split AWD and OCV+ (corvette) might sound good on paper, but there are still plenty of reasons why no major navy that I know of has gone down this round.

Please provide an example of where another Navy has used this combination successfully?

USN with Burkes and LCS......though success of the LCS is very much debatable. Its capabilities are definitely more corvette than frigate.

 

[hairyman]

The USN LCS would have to be the dearest Corvette in history, and by a large margin I would imagine.

 

[ASSAIL]

The USN LCS would have to be the dearest Corvette in history, and by a large margin I would imagine.

We're in the wrong thread for this but here goes; the LCS is a damn side cheaper than owning a MCM ship, a task force survey ship, an anti surface littoral patrol ship and an ASW escort for high value (but not CSG's) convoy.

You're still stuck on platforms, LCS is multiple capability and for that you pay. Granted it has yet to prove the full capability but as the production run lasts for another 20 years, that will come.

Show me a corvette that can match that and I'll eat this notebook

 

[justsomeaussie]

USN with Burkes and LCS......though success of the LCS is very much debatable. Its capabilities are definitely more corvette than frigate.

When do you propose we buy aircraft carriers?

 

[Richo99]

When do you propose we buy aircraft carriers?

Are you suggesting the Burke/LCS combination only works because the USN also has carriers, or are you being cynical and suggesting that if we were to purchase 12 AWDs we may as well have a couple of carriers for good measure?

Either way, cant see that aircraft carriers are particularly relevant to the issue being discussed in the Australian context.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Either way, cant see that aircraft carriers are particularly relevant to the issue being discussed in the Australian context.

I'm implying that each vessel class needs to be evaluated not on its own but how it works as a whole of fleet solution, from cradle to grave.

I was pointing out that the US has a very different structure, posture and operating concept compared to Australia.

The best ship in the world is useless if it can't interoperable with your fleet or you can't maintain it (Collins and Armidale are good examples here).

 

[Richo99]

I'm implying that each vessel class needs to be evaluated not on its own but how it works as a whole of fleet solution, from cradle to grave.

I was pointing out that the US has a very different structure, posture and operating concept compared to Australia.

The best ship in the world is useless if it can't interoperable with your fleet or you can't maintain it (Collins and Armidale are good examples here).

I appreciate that moving from an AWD+OPV/Corvette mix to a AWD+Anzac+Armidale would require a rethink of how the combined fleet would operate.

On face value, given their different capabilities and their resultant different taskings, and assuming there are an adequate number of each type, whilst it might (currently) be seen as unconventional, I dont see it being a totally unreasonable structure.

Of course in reality $$$ are all important so there would have to be a pretty compelling economic study to back up such a drastic change.

I must point out here that Im not particularly advocating such a change, but it is an interesting one to contemplate.