RAN Dreamland Thread

[rockitten]

Don't have access to it, But from reading what little tid bit I can $8 billion of $39 billion Frigate program and half or so of the $50 billion submarine program, I take it all with a grain of salt as to me it does sound like the reporter is basing it on number's released by the government with out any clarity as to what they will procure with said prices.

If I'm not mistaken we have moved more and more into costing the vessel not just for purchase but all say through life operations, support and maintenance? I also wonder if some genius in the government looked at the AWD Project, Seen $9 billion and figured that was the way to work out how much the Frigates would cost us considering last year it was 8 Frigates for $10 billion, Not even 12 months later it is 9 for $39 billion.. So I'll accept figures for the Submarines though 50/50 chance cost's will decrease if the government steps back and current management (at ASC) keep's on there current path of improvement, The Frigate number's I simply don't trust at all, Sound's too much like some one is making assumption's rather then basing it on fact, That they aren't taking into account that the price of an item more often drops when you build multiple of it continuously.

How about this link?
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

or this graph:
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/35dfe107b820cb88f83be924117e9489?width=650

That's not from the government, but from SA (well, Defence Teaming Center). In short, it gave an (overly) simplified cost break down for where will the $39bn for frigates and $50bn for submarine "may"go:

For frigate (rounded up to $40bn)
$14bn to build: $8bn to SA, $3bn to overseas and $3bn to interstate
$26bn to maintain: $13bn each for NSW and WA

For Submarine ($50bn)
$33bn to maintain: $11 each for SA, NSW and WA
$17bn to build: if build overseas: $16bn to overseas and $1bn to Australia, if build local, $10bn to SA, $4bn to overseas and $3bn to interstate.

So that may explain where's the cost "fluctuation" comes from.

IMHO, I take it all with a grain of salt as to me it does sound like the reporter is a bit bias towards local build. It assumed the cost to build and maintain will cost the same regardless if it is offshore or local. It also mixed the submarine build into the continuous build scheme, which are not true.

But not matter what, it is awfully few money would go to Vic.

 

[vonnoobie]

How about this link?
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

or this graph:
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/35dfe107b820cb88f83be924117e9489?width=650

That's not from the government, but from SA (well, Defence Teaming Center). In short, it gave an (overly) simplified cost break down for where will the $39bn for frigates and $50bn for submarine "may"go:

For frigate (rounded up to $40bn)
$14bn to build: $8bn to SA, $3bn to overseas and $3bn to interstate
$26bn to maintain: $13bn each for NSW and WA

For Submarine ($50bn)
$33bn to maintain: $11 each for SA, NSW and WA
$17bn to build: if build overseas: $16bn to overseas and $1bn to Australia, if build local, $10bn to SA, $4bn to overseas and $3bn to interstate.

So that may explain where's the cost "fluctuation" comes from.

IMHO, I take it all with a grain of salt as to me it does sound like the reporter is a bit bias towards local build. It assumed the cost to build and maintain will cost the same regardless if it is offshore or local. It also mixed the submarine build into the continuous build scheme, which are not true.

But not matter what, it is awfully few money would go to Vic.

That does make a bit more sense, Would be nice to see how they did come up with the various figures so to ascertain if they accurate or complete BS

In regards to were the money for the builds will go, I have a sneaking suspicion they have over simplified it, Just because the assembly will take place in SA does not mean they will be the state to receive the largest chunk of the work (financially), With both the submarines and the future frigates and even future OPV's they are almost guaranteed to be block assembly, Allowing a number of states to easily get in on the action. Looking at how the blocks on the AWD project was divided up could be a way to ascertain how such work on future project's would be divided up.

Simple matter of fact is while we may be able to guesstimate the construction costs (Really depends if the project's are set up how we did either the Anzac project or the AWD project) we can't say with any clarity as to who would get what financial gain as even the block's them selves are made from part's sourced all over Australia, Not just in the particular location they are built. Them trying to state as fact what gain each participant (state and overseas country) would attain just show's to me they are blowing smoke out of there a**.

 

[vonnoobie]

And now since I may as well add in some idea's the the dream RAN..

12 x Nuclear submarines (Based around either Astute or Virginia or an evolution of them)
18 x Conventional submarines (Based around current plans)
6+ x Destroyers
9+ x Frigates
or
15+ x Ships based around the DDG-1000 (Depends on how well it fair's in ASW combat over frigates)
2 x LHD's (Possible third)
1+ x Aircraft carrier (To me trying to squeeze F-35's onto the LHD's is like gaining one capability but losing another, Dont really gain anything.. If you want fixed wing aircraft in the fleet then you don't half a** it, You get an actual carrier.. naturally named HMAS Australia)
1+ x LPD's
6+ x Damen 120 LST's
3+ x AOR's (I wouldn't mind them being same as the British Tide class, Though realistically could we accommodate them? Or even have a slightly larger fleet of smaller AOR's?)


I'd also like to see a dedicated Coast Guard, Get rid of the Custom's naval asset's, the RAN operating patrol boats, and the various civilian and police maritime assets and just create a proper organised command, RACG (Royal Australian Coast Guard).

70 x Marine Protector class PB's
35 x 2,000t OPV's (fitted for, but not with weapons.. Possibly Stanflex modules??)
15 x 3,200t OPV's (fitted for, but not with weapons.. Possibly Stanflex modules??)
1-2 x Icebreakers based around the John G. Diefenbaker (If we have claim to such a large chunk of Antartica time to stop half a**ing it, If not then we may as well give the claim up).

Also wouldnt mind seeing rather then us supplying boat's to various Pacific nations who often don't use them more then a few weeks total each year, To create a single command pooling all the boats headed by Australia (and possibly NZ).

Alright, That is roughly my fantasy

 

[StobieWan]

That's "hallucinogen" territory not dreamland

 

[rockitten]

And now since I may as well add in some idea's the the dream RAN..

12 x Nuclear submarines (Based around either Astute or Virginia or an evolution of them)
18 x Conventional submarines (Based around current plans)
6+ x Destroyers
9+ x Frigates
or
15+ x Ships based around the DDG-1000 (Depends on how well it fair's in ASW combat over frigates)
2 x LHD's (Possible third)
1+ x Aircraft carrier (To me trying to squeeze F-35's onto the LHD's is like gaining one capability but losing another, Dont really gain anything.. If you want fixed wing aircraft in the fleet then you don't half a** it, You get an actual carrier.. naturally named HMAS Australia)
1+ x LPD's
6+ x Damen 120 LST's
3+ x AOR's (I wouldn't mind them being same as the British Tide class, Though realistically could we accommodate them? Or even have a slightly larger fleet of smaller AOR's?)


I'd also like to see a dedicated Coast Guard, Get rid of the Custom's naval asset's, the RAN operating patrol boats, and the various civilian and police maritime assets and just create a proper organised command, RACG (Royal Australian Coast Guard).

70 x Marine Protector class PB's
35 x 2,000t OPV's (fitted for, but not with weapons.. Possibly Stanflex modules??)
15 x 3,200t OPV's (fitted for, but not with weapons.. Possibly Stanflex modules??)
1-2 x Icebreakers based around the John G. Diefenbaker (If we have claim to such a large chunk of Antartica time to stop half a**ing it, If not then we may as well give the claim up).

Also wouldnt mind seeing rather then us supplying boat's to various Pacific nations who often don't use them more then a few weeks total each year, To create a single command pooling all the boats headed by Australia (and possibly NZ).

Alright, That is roughly my fantasy

Mate, you are not alone, I even propose something similar during defence white paper public hearing. If the kiwis are not so keen to more in defence, can ADF open a recruitment center in NZ? At least, for any kiwi who wants to be a fighter pilot, submariner or flying an attack helicopter, ADF welcomes you.

The problem for the PP boat project is that, there are too much area covered by too few boats without a coordinated scheme. And the funds (we paid those nations) for the boats' upkeep not really ended up spending on the boats.

Some nations like Marshall Islands does gives the U.S. sole responsibility for international defense of their nation. But that's a very rate case. In fact, due to the diplomatic war between Taiwan and China (in short, that 2 nation buying off small nations in Africa, pacific and Caribbean for diplomatic relationships), Australia's influence in those Islands are diminishing. Like Fiji, they don't care a damn about Aussie because China and Taiwan are paying more.

Well, as Australia is about 1/15 of America's population, then the "appropriate" size of RAN should be:
1 Ford class CVN
1 America class LHA
1 San Antonio class LPD
2 Ticonderoga class/DDG-1000cruiser
5 Burke class AEGIS destroyer
4 LCS "frigate" and future frigate
4 Virginia class SSN
1 SSBN
2 large fleet AOR

Which is surprising similar to the size of the 7th Fleet forward deployed to Japan and Guam.

 

[htbrst]

Mate, you are not alone, I even propose something similar during defence white paper public hearing. If the kiwis are not so keen to more in defence, can ADF open a recruitment center in NZ? At least, for any kiwi who wants to be a fighter pilot, submariner or flying an attack helicopter, ADF welcomes you.

A good first step would be allowing New Zealanders already living in Australia to join the ADF - e.g. NZ Teenagers whose families have been living in AU, and gone through the Australian school system, are ineligible to join the ADF because the ADF requires that recruits have at least permanent residency in Australia to join up.

This was a consequence of a law change back in 2001 where Australia stripped the ability for New Zealanders become permanent residents (This was done to save AU money on social services , despite them paying taxes etc)

There is a detailed article about the recruitment problem below, reporting on a loophole that allow NZers who lived in AU prior to 1994 to join up (but that doesn't help the aforementioned teenagers etc)

Expat Kiwis find Australian army loophole - National - NZ Herald News

 

[t68]

Well, as Australia is about 1/15 of America's population, then the "appropriate" size of RAN should be:
1 Ford class CVN
1 America class LHA
1 San Antonio class LPD
2 Ticonderoga class/DDG-1000cruiser
5 Burke class AEGIS destroyer
4 LCS "frigate" and future frigate
4 Virginia class SSN
1 SSBN
2 large fleet AOR

Which is surprising similar to the size of the 7th Fleet forward deployed to Japan and Guam.

That does not take into account the 3-1 ratio raise train sustain. I made this partial list some time ago and historical RAN names to go with it, it's not 100% compete but you can add to it if you want to,

5x ASW carriers (Cavour) HMAS Air Chief, Air Master, Air Watch, Air Faith *& Air Hope

4x LHD HMAS Anzac, *Milne Bay, Balikpapan & Bataan

6x AWD (Sejong) HMAS Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth & Darwin*

9X ASW frigates (type 26) HMAS Armidale,Ararat, *Bathurst, Bendigo, Cairns, Castlemaine, Cessnock, Derwent, Dubbo,*

4x GP support ships land attack (Absolon) HMAS Voyager, Vampire, *Vendetta & Vengeance*

14x OCV (Damen 2600)

6x Austral MRV*HMAS Penguin, Pioneer, Platypus, Protector,Psyche & *Poyang

6x AOR (Berlin) HMAS Westralia, Supply, Success, Sirius, Jeparit & Kurumba*

12x Submarines




I would like to reserve HMAS Australia for something like a Queen Elizabeth carrier, but have not added one to the list as I think 4x ASW carrier should be enough for our needs

 

[oldsig127]

That does not take into account the 3-1 ratio raise train sustain. I made this partial list some time ago and historical RAN names to go with it, it's not 100% compete but you can add to it if you want to,

5x ASW carriers (Cavour) HMAS Air Chief, Air Master, Air Watch, Air Faith *& Air Hope

4x LHD HMAS Anzac, *Milne Bay, Balikpapan & Bataan

6x AWD (Sejong) HMAS Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth & Darwin*

9X ASW frigates (type 26) HMAS Armidale,Ararat, *Bathurst, Bendigo, Cairns, Castlemaine, Cessnock, Derwent, Dubbo,*

4x GP support ships land attack (Absolon) HMAS Voyager, Vampire, *Vendetta & Vengeance*

14x OCV (Damen 2600)

6x Austral MRV*HMAS Penguin, Pioneer, Platypus, Protector,Psyche & *Poyang

6x AOR (Berlin) HMAS Westralia, Supply, Success, Sirius, Jeparit & Kurumba*

12x Submarines




I would like to reserve HMAS Australia for something like a Queen Elizabeth carrier, but have not added one to the list as I think 4x ASW carrier should be enough for our needs

Lucky that it's just a fantasy list. You'd fail to enlist anyone from Australia's third largest city with those ship names. And heartily annoy more than a few ex-sailors for the exclusion of their old berth.

oldsig

 

[ADMk2]

That's "hallucinogen" territory not dreamland

I doubt we even have enough slots to tie all that lot up port side, let alone actually operate it, afford it, sustain it...

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would have thought that at a bare minimum any dreamland fleet should have at least one real time constraint - ie the depth of budget that is available to all the services.

so at some point, the naval propositions promulgated to date would see australia end up with the RSL's taking a combat role and the RAAF relegated to rebadging the qantas fleet

and then there's the other real time constraint of raise, train, sustain which could double and even triple the baseline acquisition cost

TIC

 

[vonnoobie]

Since budget is being taken into account, I imagine any dreamland fleet or even army/airforce would also come in with an increased budget, What is the likely maximum budget we could sustain? I'd imagine 3% of the GDP wouldn't be out side the realm of possibilities??

 

[t68]

Since budget is being taken into account, I imagine any dreamland fleet or even army/airforce would also come in with an increased budget, What is the likely maximum budget we could sustain? I'd imagine 3% of the GDP wouldn't be out side the realm of possibilities??

This should give you an indication on our levels of defence spending. I have not read it yet a I am at work.

Trends in Defence expenditure since 1901 – Parliament of Australia

 

[oldsig127]

This should give you an indication on our levels of defence spending. I have not read it yet a I am at work.

Trends in Defence expenditure since 1901 – Parliament of Australia

I've frequently read that the proportion of GDP spent on Defence during WW2 reached 40% but by Vietnam it'd fallen to a more "normal" 4%

The graphs support that. I think that - national emergencies like WW2 excluded - a long term sensible average would be in the 2% to 3% range. After all, I *am* getting old and some of the money that seems destined to buy fll blown destroyers to do fisheries patrols would be better spent providing me with a pension sufficient to go fishing myself ;-)

oldsig

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

So you would like to operate a CVN, SSBNs, double digit SSNs, an America class LHA, LHDs, double digit SSKs, then DDGs FFHs, FFGs etc., where is the treasure / money going to come from. It will be very expensive to set up your own SSBN and SSN development and research programs plus the associated ICBM research and development program. The US and UK will not support Australia going down that path because they are signatories to the Nuclear non Proliferation Treaty along with France, Russia and China. Australia has also ratified the treaty so for Australia to develop and obtain nuclear weapons would invite a diplomatic disaster.

SSNs maybe a different proposition, however would Australia buy foreign or construct its own? Something like that would be classified as a strategic national security asset. Another question, would such an acquisition be politically acceptable in Australia, by both the general public and the political elite?

More general questions. Would the general public and the political elite accept the financial cost of such an across the board fleet expansion? What impacts would such expenditure have on the Australian Army and the RAAF? Would they each receive a similar increase in CAPEX and subsequent ongoing funding? How will other regional nations react to such an increase in naval capabilities? It could have the potential to be destabilising.

 

[SouthernSky]

It's the dreamland thread Ngati. Reality doesn't apply here!

 

[ngatimozart]

It's the dreamland thread Ngati. Reality doesn't apply here!

Maybe so, but nuclear weapons are above and beyond even in here. Even though it's a dreamland thread, it doesn't hurt to look at the larger picture and think about it as well. There are ramifications and unintended consequences that need to be factored in. Hence why I say nuclear weapons are a non starter. The other questions that I asked will have an impact upon your potential CONOPS and force structure so you need to think of alternatives. For example to crew a USN CVN it would take the whole of the RANs personnel and probably then some. Remember that the USN philosophy regarding crewing is different to the RANs, so they structure their shipboard systems differently.

Now if you want to have different weapons that's not an issue. Why not a shipborne laser system? Gives you good reach. Add a rail gun as well. Just need a really good power supply - extensive generation capability - possibly a nuclear fission reactor or a fusion one. Combine that with CEA radar products and then you have a highly capable weapons system.

 

[Volkodav]

Many would be surprised at some of the real world, fully costed and otherwise, proposals for the ADF over the years.

Modernised or new build Essex, or CVA01 with Phantoms, Trackers and Tracers, to replace Melbourne in the 60s.

Hot transfer of HMS Hermes, still in her CTOL configuration, with or without her Sea Vixens, Buccaneers and AEW Gannets, in 1967.

Wartime transfer of one or more Colossus Class CVLs along with a pair of Tiger class cruisers and six modern destroyers.

RAN manning and possible transfer of HMS Implacable and Indefatigable.

Local construction of cruisers post war.

Modernisation and retention of the cruisers Australia and Hobart, including possible missile conversion of Hobart.

Order of twelve Type 12 ASW frigates in the 50s.

Construction actually started on a fourth Daring Class destroyer, HMAS Waterhen.

Conversion of the Battle and Daring class destroyers into DDGs.

Plans to order a fourth Perth class DDG.

Plans to procure a modified Perth class DDG with a helicopter hanger and flight deck aft replacing the aft Mk-42 5" gun and two boilers.

A large class (ten plus) of corvettes / light destroyers to supplement the existing major combatants especially in operations such as those undertaken during the Indonesian Confrontation.

A class of larger light destroyers, the DDL, with Tartar and helicopter facilities, initially to supplement the existing destroyers and frigates then to replace them in the 70s and 80s.

Amazon class frigates in the 70s.

A class of new LSMs to replace the armies WWII vintage vessels.

Purchase of HMS Eagle, Ark Royal, and / or Hermes to supplement Melbourne and increase carrier numbers to two or three to support the planned two ocean navy in the 70s.

An additional batch of Fremantle class PBs kitted out as missile armed fast attack craft.

A barter deal in the early 80s where Australia builds an additional two LSH (Tobruk) and swaps them with the UK for a new build Invincible. (economy of scale of "hot" yards building additional ships more efficiently than switching designs).

Construction of a total of six Adelaide class frigates locally (in addition to the four US built ships) to replace the River class DEs / frigates.

Build a pair of M class frigates instead of additional Adelaides.

A new helicopter capable amphibious ship in the 80s (we got Bill and Ben instead).

Six air defence ANZAC derivatives to replace the DDGs and the US built FFGs (this would have been interesting in terms of an ASMD upgrade incorporating SM-2 and 6, as well as ESSM, CEAFAR, Vampir etc.)

Three licence built or FMS Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes in the late 90s.

Not a CoA or RAN one but I like it anyway, Type 45 with AEGIS and SPY3 for AWD.

There are probably a stack more I have forgotten or never heard of. Who needs fantasy when real plans and proposals were so interesting.

 

[vonnoobie]

Even though my list is the most out there even I realized using US carriers, or even SSBN's is just way way over the top. SSBN's are pointless for us as we would then be a nuclear armed nation in effect making us a target for any future nuclear conflict (No one wins with nukes involved), And having them loaded with cruise missiles (as the USN did with 4 Ohio's) would be a waste of funds as such system's can be fitted in to even our current planned conventional submarines. In regards to aircraft carrier's if we are really willing to invest to gain fixed wing capability in the naval sense then the Canberra's are too small, USN Carriers way too big, Something around the size of the Charles de Gaul would be ideal, Though with the low crewing numbers (In comparison to its size) the Queen Elizabeth wouldn't be a bad choice.

---------------------------------

That aside assuming an increase of budget to 3%, That would allow for a 50% growth among each of the commands (Army, Navy, Air force), Possibly more if efficiency can be found and made to work (with out eroding capability).

So using current and planned fleet number's with a 3% budget the RAN could grow to:

3 LHD's
18 Surface combatants (Frigates and Destroyers)
18-30 OPV's/OCV's
18 Submarines (Conventional)
9 LST's
3-4 AOR's
1-2 LSD's

That I reckon about cover's what we could afford realistically assuming we could get the extra personnel with the extra budget.

 

[Bonza]

There are probably a stack more I have forgotten or never heard of. Who needs fantasy when real plans and proposals were so interesting.

My personal favourite was the opportunity to purchase the four Kidd-class destroyers upon their completion once it was clear they were never going to Iran as originally planned. They would have provided a fantastic capability to the RAN, one that could have been upgraded as necessary to lead in to the AWD project, which (as you pointed out) would have ideally been filled with Flight II Arleigh Burkes purchased straight from the United States, rather than a competition which ultimately landed us a less capable ship for more money than an AB buy would have cost...

Those four Kidds could still be flying RAN colours now and presented a fantastic upgrade potential with technologies such as CEAFAR...

4x GP support ships land attack (Absolon) HMAS Voyager, Vampire, *Vendetta & Vengeance*

Sorry but why on earth would you assign the land attack mission to the Absalon-class? I realise it's everyone's favourite flavour of the month but as far as I know it doesn't even have strike-length VLS, just enough for ESSM and a little over a dozen Harpoons. If you're following a broadly American naval weapons fitout and can't fire Tomahawk then I'm sorry, but you're not going to be doing any land attack of consequence. The Korean destroyers you mentioned are far, far better equipped for such a mission even if they're doubling up as air warfare vessels.

But then this is the dreamland thread so carry on I guess...

 

[ADMk2]

I'd just be happy with RAN actually getting what it asks Government for...

Articles already written have quoted senior persons saying RAN's request for the 'Future Frigates' will be too expensive...

And if we could get a reasonable gun of at least 57mm calibre and some real estate and an open architechture to allow future modification on the 'Corvettes' that would be nice...