Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stock]

The ADF has always reused equipment, the Bofors on the Fremantles were rebuilt 1940s guns on a new ADI mount, the torpedo tubes on most of the ANZACs were from the River class DEs / frigates, with the exception of the new units ordered for the AWDs the RANs Phalanx are part of a pool, that is being refurbished, including those from the FFGs and LPAs (Kanimbla and Manoora were each delivered with one fitted). It makes sense when you think about it and is also quite common overseas, i.e. the Mk-13 GMLS on the French Jean Bart DDGs were refurbished units from 1950s vintage destroyers that were converted to DDGs in the 1960s. So realistically there is no reason why we couldn't do the same with existing systems, in particular the eight cell Mk-41 VLS of which there are twelve.

Actually on the French upgrade of older gun destroyers, one of the reasons Tartar was the RANs prefered system as well as why there were only three DDGs and that they were built overseas (a fourth was very seriously considered) was that we planned to convert both the Daring and Battle class destroyers to DDGs. Competing systems such as Sea Slug and Terrier were to large to retrofit to such small ships and it was assumed our yards would be too busy with conversion work to build new ships. These were not the only reasons but they were up there, as a force of eight or nine DDGs was seen as vital at the time.

So there is precedent. Most interesting.

CoA's appetite for technical risk involved in re-use of equipment and systems will be key though. Unless its provided as GFE and the integration risk and performance warranties then passed onto the prime. That could also work.

 

[Volkodav]

Most of the component systems we are talking about are proven and already integrated into a broad range of platforms. The versions of the SAAB 9VL combat system are used throughout the world on vessels ranging from corvettes to very large frigates, it is the core system of the ANZAC and LHD and is proven scaleable. It is already integrated with all the weapon systems I have mentioned and the Australian team is well versed in upgrading and improving it, i.e. ANZAC ASMD and the system is assumed to be the core of the future frigates combat system. Opting for a version sing a scaled AMSD suite would be considered very low risk.

 

[Stock]

Most of the component systems we are talking about are proven and already integrated into a broad range of platforms. The versions of the SAAB 9VL combat system are used throughout the world on vessels ranging from corvettes to very large frigates, it is the core system of the ANZAC and LHD and is proven scaleable. It is already integrated with all the weapon systems I have mentioned and the Australian team is well versed in upgrading and improving it, i.e. ANZAC ASMD and the system is assumed to be the core of the future frigates combat system. Opting for a version sing a scaled AMSD suite would be considered very low risk.

Noted. In that case the Saab 9VL seems a strong contender for the OPV combat system, scaleable as it is.

 

[John Newman]

@rockitten...I have followed the Australian sub replacement program with much interest. I was under the impression that Australians would not support nuclear subs (can't access the newspaper article).

Given the budget numbers being thrown around for a Collins replacement, perhaps 8 Virginias could be a better solution than 12+ whatever diesel electrics which have yet to be configured and modified to Australian requirements with no even semi-firm cost estimates. Current price of a Virginia is about $2.6 billion US. Does a nuke boat ease the one third rule somewhat (1 training but available on short notice, one on patrol, one under refit). Albeit a Virginia is expensive but it seems to be a proven product.

John,

Nuclear subs this time around? It's never going to happen, realistically I can't imagine that nuclear subs would be considered until at least when these Collins 'replacements' actually come up for their eventual 'replacement'.

It's not really that the 'majority' of Australian's won't support nuclear power or nuclear powered submarines, but it's going to take both sides of politics (and I mean the two major political parties capable of forming Government) to be finally and firmly on the same page, and at the moment they are not, and it would be political suicide for one party to go it alone without bipartisan support of the other side.

For a proper debate on the subject to take place, there would have to be a joint ticket by both sides promoting and supporting the debate and both pushing for the expected eventual outcome of creating and fostering a nuclear industry in Australia and the eventual equipping of the Navy with nuclear powered submarines.

Have a read of the link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia

It will give you an idea of where things have been and where they are today in regard to the 'nuclear question' in this country.

A couple of things that are interesting are the stats in a number of polls taken, I'll reproduce as best I can below (table formatting can be a buggar!):

“Do you favour or oppose the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia?”

1979 .. 2007 .. 2009
34% .. 41% .. 49% - Favour
56% .. 53% .. 43% - Oppose
10% .. 6% .... 8% - Don't know


The poll below is based on which political party people interviewed supported:

Do you favour or oppose the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia?

TOTAL .. ALP ... Coalition ... Greens
41% ...... 30% ....... 59% ...... 22% - Favour
53% ...... 66% ....... 34% ...... 78% - Oppose
6% .......... 4% ......... 7% ........ 0% - Don't know

As you can see support (or not) is pretty well split inline with a lot of people's politics. Voters for the 'centre right' (Liberal-National Coalition) are majority in favour, the 'centre left' (Australian Labor Party) the majority is against and the 'extreme left' (Greens) are heavily opposed.

So it's going to take both the ALP and the Coalition to get their heads together and form a joint ticket for change to happen.

Anyway, have a read of the Wiki article and it should give you a clearer picture of the landscape here.

Cheers,

 

[vonnoobie]

Out of curiosity seeing as nuclear and conventional submarines both have there respective strengths and weaknesses 'if' Australia was to some time in the future acquire nuclear submarines would it be better of we went 100% nuclear or a mix fleet of nuclear and conventional submarines?

 

[John Newman]

Out of curiosity seeing as nuclear and conventional submarines both have there respective strengths and weaknesses 'if' Australia was to some time in the future acquire nuclear submarines would it be better of we went 100% nuclear or a mix fleet of nuclear and conventional submarines?

Obviously that will depend on what each type of the two capabilities (nuclear or non nuclear) is able to deliver, I don't know. But if the Government, Defence and the RAN decided/concluded that the role that was to be undertaken was better served by one or the other, whatever that may be in our particular circumstances, I'd hope they made the correct choice or choices.

Maybe there is a role for 'both' but then of course it will also come down to, can we actually operate 'both' types effectively and afford to do so? Maybe it will come down to (within our resources and capabilities), that the most appropriate type is selected for service.

Still I wouldn't know, maybe we can have our cake and eat it too, or we have to make a choice on which system is the best compromise between the two.

Until such time arrives (way into the future), the 'then' Government of the day is going to be faced with that choice, and hopefully is able to 'evaluate' both choices and come up with the correct solution!

 

[vonnoobie]

Obviously that will depend on what each type of the two capabilities (nuclear or non nuclear) is able to deliver, I don't know. But if the Government, Defence and the RAN decided/concluded that the role that was to be undertaken was better served by one or the other, whatever that may be in our particular circumstances, I'd hope they made the correct choice or choices.

Maybe there is a role for 'both' but then of course it will also come down to, can we actually operate 'both' types effectively and afford to do so? Maybe it will come down to (within our resources and capabilities), that the most appropriate type is selected for service.

Still I wouldn't know, maybe we can have our cake and eat it too, or we have to make a choice on which system is the best compromise between the two.

Until such time arrives (way into the future), the 'then' Government of the day is going to be faced with that choice, and hopefully is able to 'evaluate' both choices and come up with the correct solution!

Couldn't have put it better my self, In which case we are screwed if we are expecting any government to make the 'correct' solution , Honestly they get worse each year.

 

[the road runner]

I doubt very much if Australia could afford to operate both Nuke and conventional subs.
The money could be better spent on other areas of the ADF. More Helicopters, Frigates, IFV would be on my wish list.

Volk liked your post on recycling

Alexas points on Alloy Vs Steel should be taken on board by all forum members.
We can always lease a JHSV if we need one like we did in Timor IE Jervis bay

 

[Stampede]

I doubt very much if Australia could afford to operate both Nuke and conventional subs.
The money could be better spent on other areas of the ADF. More Helicopters, Frigates, IFV would be on my wish list.

Volk liked your post on recycling

Alexas points on Alloy Vs Steel should be taken on board by all forum members.
We can always lease a JHSV if we need one like we did in Timor IE Jervis bay

For those interested there is an informative article on HMAS Canberra in the July edition of Australian Aviation.
Gives a good overview and information on the ship with an emphasis on its helicopter capabilities, recent trials and future aviation expectations including cross training with US Navy / Marines in 2016. Sorry, no"jump jets".

A bit of trivia that gave me a smile. Some of the space under the ski ramp is not totally usless as it's used for office space and general storage. Maybe we can put a ski ramp on all our ships
All up a good read and some great photo's.

 

[John Newman]

Couldn't have put it better my self, In which case we are screwed if we are expecting any government to make the 'correct' solution , Honestly they get worse each year.

Mate, that's a pretty pessimistic view, how are we screwed? If we were Greek at the moment we would definitely be screwed! (though there will certainly be some good real estate deals on the odd villa or two on the Greek Islands at the moment if you have a handful of Aussie Dollars to throw around!!).

All jokes aside, I don't get why you say we are screwed? Sure Governments here don't always get it right and some in recent memory are worse than others (the Gillard Government is a standout), but for the most part I think they try and do the right thing (ok, don't all laugh and choke!).

It may be that sometimes, for whatever political or other reason, a piece of equipment is selected that might look good at the time of the decision being made, but turns out to not be the best decision, so if in the way distant future the then Government is able to make a choice between nuclear or conventional submarines, lets hope they do listen to those in the know in Defence at the time and make the right decision for the country.

At least at the moment, love them or hate them, the current Government does appear to be more serious about Defence (raising spending and planning to get it to, and stay at, 2% is a good start), and if in the future enough dollars are allocated, then hopefully that will mean the 'right' decision is easier to make and do!!

Anyway, the decision, if possible on nuclear submarines for the RAN is many decades into the future, (if I'm still around I'll probably be in a nursing home, with my special adult nappies on, trying to chase the nurses around, pacemaker willing of course!!!).

Cheers,

 

[AndyinOz]

Definitely we are not Greece that is a given with Debt/GDP 29% rather than the Greek's with 158% (Source CIA Factbook 2012 Debt/GDP figures). It doesn't necessarily mean we can have the English knock us up a couple of QE Class carriers to go with the Future Frigates and Future Submarines but we are not quite destitute yet (not that I have enough dollars in the bank to myself a Greek island just yet).

I suspect that deciding what procurement direction we go in should be based on a First Principles review of what exactly do we want the ADF to be able to do. Besides HADR missions and alike do we want to be able to easily defeat a near peer threat, tear the arm off a superior adversary to make them think twice or do we want to retreat back to a fortress Australia concept. In deciding that we need to be able to rely on the political class getting and then acting appropriately on expert advice on how we might achieve those things mentioned above.

It might be that we may like to build things here at home for the ADF and maybe we should aim to do some of that but that requires investment, direction and political and commercial will to achieve. Until such time as we can achieve that (assuming we want to)

For various reasons it seems a significant part of the population is a little wary of the whole nuclear submarine discussion much like the NIMBY response to nuclear power (funny because we have no issue going for X-rays if we break an arm, need cancer treatment or using radioactive isotopes for other reasons like smoke alarms) I do find it a bit strange as well because we seem to have little problem selling Uranium etc to friends and allies to though under the proviso they not make things that go bang with it.

Of course my views have to be taken in some context, that being someone that has never been in a position to be a part of the defence forces..... despite what my friends at school thought I didn't think the ADF recruiters would go for the idea of bolting a grenade launcher to my wheelchair..... (now there is an idea for the SPG, recoil could be a bastard though). It is definitely a whole of nation debate in my view, but in the end my perspective would be I would like the guys and girls in uniform to have the most appropriate equipment we could provide them with to do the jobs asked of them.

 

[Goknub]

Damn, 8 pages of debate in a week. That was a lot of catch up reading.

Concerning the amphibious fleet, I believe a high priority should be made in moving it to Brisbane. It was based there until 1985 so it's not without precedent.

If the Army is to grasp the amphib role fully it needs to have better access to these ships. There is space available at Bulimba and the surrounding area, including the old dry dock which can fit an LHD. ADF would need to be moving quick however as JLU next door is being sold to developers. The soft-power advantage of amphibs over combat vessels should be justification for the cost of this move.

As others have mentioned, a 3rd AOR would be very useful in supporting this as an independent fleet.

The composition of the fleet needs to be sustainable which could be best met by establishing an 'off-line' and 'on-line' amphibious group of identical build. The roles that need to be covered would be:

Amphibious assault: 1 x LHD
Sea-Lift ship (bringing the logistical tail): 1 x LPD (or replacement)
Sea Bridge sustainment ships (ongoing resupply of deployed forces): 2 x LST
Intra-theatre Lift/Heavy Landing ships: 3 x LSV

The LPD is not ideal but there is already one in service and we don't need perfect. A second would cost similar to a C17 which we seem to be able to afford.

The Dorman LSTs are good but too much ship for too little lift. A modified version with a broader beam could be a solution.

For the intra-theatre lift the General Frank S. Besson-class LSV of the US Army is a good model. It's as simple a design as you can get but at 80m can drop a dozen odd M1A1s at a go.

This would require 1 additional LPD, 4 LSTs and 6 LSVs plus 1 AOR to complete.
This would give the ADF the ability to rotate a complete ready group which should be far more sustainable in the longer-term. It should also be low cost enough that it doesn't scare off the govt considering what they pay for C17s.

Motto: "Go big, or go home"

 

[Volkodav]

Damn, 8 pages of debate in a week. That was a lot of catch up reading.

Concerning the amphibious fleet, I believe a high priority should be made in moving it to Brisbane. It was based there until 1985 so it's not without precedent.

If the Army is to grasp the amphib role fully it needs to have better access to these ships. There is space available at Bulimba and the surrounding area, including the old dry dock which can fit an LHD. ADF would need to be moving quick however as JLU next door is being sold to developers. The soft-power advantage of amphibs over combat vessels should be justification for the cost of this move.

As others have mentioned, a 3rd AOR would be very useful in supporting this as an independent fleet.

The composition of the fleet needs to be sustainable which could be best met by establishing an 'off-line' and 'on-line' amphibious group of identical build. The roles that need to be covered would be:

Amphibious assault: 1 x LHD
Sea-Lift ship (bringing the logistical tail): 1 x LPD (or replacement)
Sea Bridge sustainment ships (ongoing resupply of deployed forces): 2 x LST
Intra-theatre Lift/Heavy Landing ships: 3 x LSV

The LPD is not ideal but there is already one in service and we don't need perfect. A second would cost similar to a C17 which we seem to be able to afford.

The Dorman LSTs are good but too much ship for too little lift. A modified version with a broader beam could be a solution.

For the intra-theatre lift the General Frank S. Besson-class LSV of the US Army is a good model. It's as simple a design as you can get but at 80m can drop a dozen odd M1A1s at a go.

This would require 1 additional LPD, 4 LSTs and 6 LSVs plus 1 AOR to complete.
This would give the ADF the ability to rotate a complete ready group which should be far more sustainable in the longer-term. It should also be low cost enough that it doesn't scare off the govt considering what they pay for C17s.

Motto: "Go big, or go home"

Logical and well balanced, better value for money and more flexible than an additional LHD, overall a good suggestion.

Moving these purple assets out of Sydney also makes sense but I believe other major units should remain there and if we do end up getting twelve submarines some of them should be based there as well. I would like to see the RAN progressively move to an all destroyer major combatant force rather than the current high low mix as we simply have too few of them to split capabilities.

There is still a need for OPVs to replace the patrol boats but perhaps more importantly, for something more capable and flexible to provide MCM and hydrographic support to the ARG, i.e. an OCV or corvette with MCM and hydrographic configurations. The need for vessels of similar capability to the ANZACs to fill the types current roles in the Persian Gulf and Indian ocean, roles in which a destroyer would be wasted but an OPV too weak, suggests that a light frigate may be in order, something with the firepower of an ANZAC but much smaller crew and cheaper to own and operate. Such vessels can also beef up an ARG or any other task force as required, especially if fitted (or having provision for) CEC.

Sorry I can't help myself but I still believe, especially once we have rebuilt our naval aviation experience with the LHDs, that we should definitely look to acquiring small helicopter carriers to support our destroyers. The ideal would be one for every pair of destroyers meaning that a task force of a CVH / DDG, two destroyers, two light frigates and two OCVs or corvettes could be quite easily generated. In a perfect world we would eventually acquire a useful number of F-35Bs and AEW helicopters, initially used on the LHDs but then assigned to the CVH / DDHs as required. To be honest a flight of CEC equipped AEW helicopters (is that possible?) would be extremely valuable for any surface group, even without F-35Bs.

 

[t68]

Sorry I can't help myself but I still believe, especially once we have rebuilt our naval aviation experience with the LHDs, that we should definitely look to acquiring small helicopter carriers to support our destroyers. The ideal would be one for every pair of destroyers meaning that a task force of a CVH / DDG, two destroyers, two light frigates and two OCVs or corvettes could be quite easily generated. In a perfect world we would eventually acquire a useful number of F-35Bs and AEW helicopters, initially used on the LHDs but then assigned to the CVH / DDHs as required. To be honest a flight of CEC equipped AEW helicopters (is that possible?) would be extremely valuable for any surface group, even without F-35Bs.

I think making it F35B compatable is pushing it over the limit for the goverment to justify if you intended to replace some of the frigates for these, but in saying that I'd also say that Japanese Huyga class with modifactions is the bare minimum size. It's reported to carry between 18-24 Seahawks(depends on who you read)sized helicopters. I think the Huyga would make a good platform for a seacontrol ship with between 6x F35B and 8x MH-60R. I'am not saying replace the frigates with these but are in addition too it.

But if you drop the requirments for F35B and are looking for a direct replacement for a ASW frigate a modified Italian San Giorgio Class LPD would be the way to go

 

[Goknub]

I would like to see the RAN progressively move to an all destroyer major combatant force rather than the current high low mix as we simply have too few of them to split capabilities.

There is still a need for OPVs to replace the patrol boats but perhaps more importantly, for something more capable and flexible to provide MCM and hydrographic support to the ARG, i.e. an OCV or corvette with MCM and hydrographic configurations. The need for vessels of similar capability to the ANZACs to fill the types current roles in the Persian Gulf and Indian ocean, roles in which a destroyer would be wasted but an OPV too weak, suggests that a light frigate may be in order, something with the firepower of an ANZAC but much smaller crew and cheaper to own and operate. Such vessels can also beef up an ARG or any other task force as required, especially if fitted (or having provision for) CEC.

I believe a single major surface combatant type is a better bet for Australia. In particular the need for decent VLS capacity to support fire support missions. What is needed is a VLS JDAM that the deployed forces can rely on for even the smallest engagement. The SF hunt for Alfredo Reinado and his rebels in East Timor ended in a shoot-out. This doesn't need a 1,500km cruise missile. What this will mean is that even if dual or quad packed, the limited number of silos will fill up very quickly. This is before we even consider possible VLS UAVs.

There is a need for closer inshore support. Something similar to the early concept of the LCS as a literals brawler. Apart from a medium calibre gun, a 120mm mortar cable of delivering guided rounds and a decent anti-armour missile would be sufficient. This should be doable with a 2,000t OPV.

 

[Stampede]

I think making it F35B compatable is pushing it over the limit for the goverment to justify if you intended to replace some of the frigates for these, but in saying that I'd also say that Japanese Huyga class with modifactions is the bare minimum size. It's reported to carry between 18-24 Seahawks(depends on who you read)sized helicopters. I think the Huyga would make a good platform for a seacontrol ship with between 6x F35B and 8x MH-60R. I'am not saying replace the frigates with these but are in addition too it.

But if you drop the requirments for F35B and are looking for a direct replacement for a ASW frigate a modified Italian San Giorgio Class LPD would be the way to go

A through deck crusier?
Whats in a name. The Invincible class of aircraft carrier / TDC is a good example of a pragmatic name used for a class of ship to enable the UK navy to maintain aviation at sea.
Realistically what can we expect. The RAN has being very lucky to get two of the large Canberra class LHD's. I can see a benefit in a third LHD, but cannot justify a new class of flat deck helicopter carrier for a nation of our size. Desirable yes,
but not a priority.
Testing the memory, but before Australia went down the Canberra / MIstral path I think we were looking at the option of either two large 20k plus tonne sized ships or three of a smaller design. Had we not not gone with the Juan Carlos design then a Huyga may have had some appeal. It's design however is more for ASW rather than Amphibious assault.

I can see some rather large fleet sizes being speculated for the future.
For me if Australia can achieve the following we will be doing very well
.
Six large ships in what ever combination.? 2 x LHD / 1x LSD / 3x AOL.
A dozen AWD sizes destroyers. ( Thats 12 not 11 )
A dozen OPV/OCV 2000t plus sized ships. Some armed so they can sail and contribute rather than be a burden to a taskforce.
8 / 9 submarines. Realistically the number 12 is a line from the film "The Castle".Yes I know I'm being negative but cost and manning are not realistic.
Maybe a class of smaller ships to round out permissive inshore duties.
If we can achieve these numbers which I feel are realistic for a nation of our size and wealth we will be well place for the future.

ps - The Air Force is looking good, but the Army needs more funds to realistically fund and do justice to both Plan Beersheba and to get Land 400 right. For a well BALANCED defence force this will cost money
.

Kind regards

 

[rockitten]

I believe a single major surface combatant type is a better bet for Australia. In particular the need for decent VLS capacity to support fire support missions. What is needed is a VLS JDAM that the deployed forces can rely on for even the smallest engagement. The SF hunt for Alfredo Reinado and his rebels in East Timor ended in a shoot-out. This doesn't need a 1,500km cruise missile. What this will mean is that even if dual or quad packed, the limited number of silos will fill up very quickly. This is before we even consider possible VLS UAVs.

There is a need for closer inshore support. Something similar to the early concept of the LCS as a literals brawler. Apart from a medium calibre gun, a 120mm mortar cable of delivering guided rounds and a decent anti-armour missile would be sufficient. This should be doable with a 2,000t OPV.

Instead of Jdam VLS, how about some SH-60R with hellfire, ARH on deck or a F-35B instead. Regardless it is a LHD or DDH, if we see those helicopters/jump jet as a "weapon system module", then our fleet commander will have a range of very flexible weapon system, all depends on what is inside the hanger........

 

[Goknub]

Instead of Jdam VLS, how about some SH-60R with hellfire, ARH on deck or a F-35B instead. Regardless it is a LHD or DDH, if we see those helicopters/jump jet as a "weapon system module", then our fleet commander will have a range of very flexible weapon system, all depends on what is inside the hanger........

ARH and SH-60 certainly have their place but I believe there is a need to better utilise the MK41 system. It is a waste of a capability when it has nothing but SAMs in RAN service. Helicopters are also more vulnerable to enemy fire.

Boeing and SAAB recently developed the ground launched SDB with a range of 70km-150km. That could be quad packed as the ESSM currently are. Using 16 cells on an F100 would provide 64 GLSDB, leaving 32 for SAMs.

Now lets see what happens when a 1,000lb JDAM is strapped to a SM2 rocket motor.

 

[t68]

A through deck cruiser?
What’s in a name. The Invincible class of aircraft carrier / TDC is a good example of a pragmatic name used for a class of ship to enable the UK navy to maintain aviation at sea.

Call it what you like, Volks idea is for a heavy multi-role helicopter cruiser which could also be capable of fast jet operations. Only difference between Volks idea and past is his is future proofed unlike the Italian Cruiser Vittorio Veneto. It could also relives the pressure on the RAAF in providing fast air over the task force without compromising all our assets (AAR) to its protection at distance from the mainland

Realistically what can we expect? The RAN has being very lucky to get two of the large Canberra class LHD's. I can see a benefit in a third LHD, but cannot justify a new class of flat deck helicopter carrier for a nation of our size. Desirable yes, but not a priority.

Realistically, our amphibious capability. not much can’t see anything except for the LCH replacement on the horizon

It's design however is more for ASW rather than Amphibious assault.

And that’s Volks whole point; it’s a substitute for the Frigates not for the LHD. Remember it’s armed with a 16 cell Mk 41 VLS 16 ESSM and 12 RUM-139 VL ASROC in addition to the MH-60R with AGM-114 Hellfire & Mark 54 anti-submarine torpedo

instead of 9x ASW Frigates have 6x Frigates and 3x Heavy ASW Helicopter Cruisers

For me if Australia can achieve the following we will be doing very well
Six large ships in whatever combination? 2 x LHD / 1x LSD / 3x AOL.

Agreed the above is a good starting point. I too would like to see 6x large vessels capable of sustaining and rotating the task force, with the oilers in addition to the task force, in theory the RAN has a need of between 4-6 oilers to satisfy the requirements of both East &West fleets

 

[peterAustralia]

the trouble with corvettes is that they tend to cost a lot more than is originally planned. There is the risk of ending up with a ship that has small displacement and limited ability against nation states, but the cost is a high proportion of the cost of a destroyer.

Perhaps is better instead of talking vessel size, to talk vessel money.

A 7000t destroyer is say 1 to 1.5 billion dollars. An OPV is 100 to 150 million a piece. What is the cost of a corvette? 500 million, 600, maybe more. The original rational of the OPV was to replace the Armidale class at around 30 million dollars apeice. Do you want a 600 million dollar vessel checking up on fishing boats?

There is a definate need more an OPV. Cheap, long range, endurance, modest crewing etc. If you start to go down the corvette route with nukla decoys etc, the unit price is going to triple or more. There are heaps of areas where a lightly armed OPV would be fine, Solomons, Fiji, PNG, Polynesia, disaster relief, fishery protection, border protection.

Its nice to have a third carrier, its nice to have nuclear subs, its nice to have more money spent on items, but there are only so many dollars. What can be done for x dollars is the question. Australia comes in around 14th in the world in spending. Assuming is defence expenditure gets up to 2 percent of GDP (and thats a big if, since we cant balance the budget now), it might rise from 1.8% GDP to 2.0% GDP, thats roughly a tenth extra.

So working out what we want, has to be constrained by how much money we have. As to more amphibious capability in the Karl Dorman class, why add another class of vessel, why not just get another Choules, I am sure Britain would build us one if we asked.

I just ask, that when talking about ships, think of how much they are going to cost and what can be afforded