Ah that explains it. Always strange and mysterious happenings in the front row of the scrum
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Goes slightly into the land of fantasy some what which I know makes you admins want to slap me across the back of the head but a 3+% budget should allow for enough of an increase in assets to vastly increase the Australian content even more so with appropriate government policies.
3+% even after taking out investments in enablers and the back end thus improving things up front should still allow for a 1/3rd increase in surface and sub surface combatants. 16 destroyer/frigates and submarines respectively built over the same time frame as planned for 12 or even shorter would allow to vastly increase the Australian content making us even more self sufficient. 1 submarine and surface combatant each every year for as long as we can keep the politicians hands out of such a program... Is a nice thought.
My wondering idea's aside from the experts on here, Is there any area's of key importance that would need the funds first or perhaps could make the biggest difference in improving the RAN outside of just buying more ships?
In regards to Indonesia I don't see any big issues there, While we have had our set backs time to time since we went into Timor things have generally improved year on year, Hell they didnt complain one iota about our fleet plan and they are right on our door step compared to China that chucked a hissy fit. Indonesia and Australia more likely to have a complimentary relationship being happy with one an others borders and policies for the most part. Any issue from Indonesia will be from internal strife and when they are suffering that then they are in no position to be a major threat to Australia.
I think our current approach in Asia is going well, Increasing relations and cooperation with South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia along with a few smaller ones. There are others but they are either up for sale (And we cant beat China in the finance game) or have already been bought (Burma).
3+% even after taking out investments in enablers and the back end thus improving things up front should still allow for a 1/3rd increase in surface and sub surface combatants. 16 destroyer/frigates and submarines respectively built over the same time frame as planned for 12 or even shorter would allow to vastly increase the Australian content making us even more self sufficient. 1 submarine and surface combatant each every year for as long as we can keep the politicians hands out of such a program... Is a nice thought.
My wondering idea's aside from the experts on here, Is there any area's of key importance that would need the funds first or perhaps could make the biggest difference in improving the RAN outside of just buying more ships?
In regards to Indonesia I don't see any big issues there, While we have had our set backs time to time since we went into Timor things have generally improved year on year, Hell they didnt complain one iota about our fleet plan and they are right on our door step compared to China that chucked a hissy fit. Indonesia and Australia more likely to have a complimentary relationship being happy with one an others borders and policies for the most part. Any issue from Indonesia will be from internal strife and when they are suffering that then they are in no position to be a major threat to Australia.
I think our current approach in Asia is going well, Increasing relations and cooperation with South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia along with a few smaller ones. There are others but they are either up for sale (And we cant beat China in the finance game) or have already been bought (Burma).
I have thought about dishing out a slap but then you might enjoy it so I won't
I think as someone previously posted that if the CoA was to increase defence spending to ~3% the first items that would have to be funded would be hum drum things, like deferred maintenance and increasing personnel numbers, especially in branches / trades where numbers are at critical levels in order to fully utilise the gear that the ADF has now. Once you have that sorted, including the new capabilities coming on line in the near term to medium term e.g.,F-35, T26 & Boxer, then you can start looking at what capabilities that you would like to expand or introduce, how you will do it, the resources required and the funding needed.
Hey, if the budget was doubled I'd be going a couple of carriers and F-35B, a fourth brigade, two full squadrons of tanks for each of the four ACRs, and acquire tilt rotors to supplement (or even replace) MRH in the assault role (maybe keep them for SAR, CSAR, and naval utility) .
Correct we should not fear China, however we will need to manage the transition to the new age with some very good diplomacy.
Caution, patience and a little less arrogance will be needed balanced with a need to draw a line in the sand and assert ourselves on what we believe and value.
No easy task for a relatively small population on a big Island.
The line in the sand may prove to be on our northern waters and it will be the Navy who will be called upon to action the Commonwealths desire.
I trust the Fleet is equipped for the task should our political diplomacy fail us.
Regards S
Volk ,
Forget the stuff that goes bang.
'I'd go for an Ice cream Ship.
In WW11 the US Navy had a ship ( Barge ) dedicated to making ice cream to bring a bit of home to the serving lads and lasses in the Pacific Campaign.
It could produce some 10 gallons of ice cream in 7 minutes and had refrigeration for some 2000 gallons. Complete with different flavours.
After all, a happy crew is a fighting crew.
Maybe a fleet of these across the north could form a passive defence to any future aggression.
I'm sure it would get bi partisan support plus the greens and would not break the bank.
Thoughts, or is it late and humour fails me.
Regards S
PS - I still like the F35B suggestion.
Just had a vision of a T-ESD with its deck covered in BBQsVolk ,
Forget the stuff that goes bang.
'I'd go for an Ice cream Ship.
In WW11 the US Navy had a ship ( Barge ) dedicated to making ice cream to bring a bit of home to the serving lads and lasses in the Pacific Campaign.
It could produce some 10 gallons of ice cream in 7 minutes and had refrigeration for some 2000 gallons. Complete with different flavours.
After all, a happy crew is a fighting crew.
Maybe a fleet of these across the north could form a passive defence to any future aggression.
I'm sure it would get bi partisan support plus the greens and would not break the bank.
Thoughts, or is it late and humour fails me.
Regards S
PS - I still like the F35B suggestion.
Looks like Type 26 for Canada
Might be of some interest on this forum: Type 26 named as the design for Canada’s future warship
Wonder which nation will get one in the water first?
Might be of some interest on this forum: Type 26 named as the design for Canada’s future warship
Wonder which nation will get one in the water first?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Won’t be Canada, no steel will be cut until at least 2023.
A little question I have seen in various press that there are a few interested parties for Adelaide class the Polish and the Philippines seem to be the most interested parties. When they decommission are they good deal or are they too tired, they seem to be the best deal for cheap ESSM and SM2 being one of the few used VLS ships coming on the market.
That many BBQ's? You would need another two T-ESD's just to bring the beer needed fr that caper, Book in ACDC and have them play Highway to Hell as we sail down the Taiwan straight again
They both entered service in the 90s so I imagine they would still have a fair bit of hull life left in them. From Australia's perspective, it would be better if they went to the Philippines but I don't think they have ever shown any interest in them.
My understanding is Melbourne and Newcastle are the newest and the best built ships of their class, as well as the most capable. The quality of work may (but not necessarily) increase initial cost and build time, but reduce on going / arising maintenance costs and requirements.
A higher standard of fabrication, better application of coatings etc. can literally add years to a ships life while reducing the frequency and extent of remedial maintenance required. This is the case with the Australian built FFGs and I have heard the USN has had a similar experience with BIW built ships verses Ingles.
Not saying the others in the class weren't fit for purpose, but rather when they reached the end of their intended lives that the better built examples were in better material condition and required less investment to keep them going longer.
A higher standard of fabrication, better application of coatings etc. can literally add years to a ships life while reducing the frequency and extent of remedial maintenance required. This is the case with the Australian built FFGs and I have heard the USN has had a similar experience with BIW built ships verses Ingles.
Not saying the others in the class weren't fit for purpose, but rather when they reached the end of their intended lives that the better built examples were in better material condition and required less investment to keep them going longer.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think the need for any sale to be able to clear the US Congress would be a limiting factor and the USN also has a few Perry class Frigates available for sale.
The question is how much effort is involved in maintaining 3 different classes of Surface Ships out of a total of 12 , with only a handful of the same Weapons and systems on all 3. I know we are currently doing it but the Adelaide class Training streams would be winding down.
Having an additional two 4000t ships with ESSM / SM2 / Harpoon/ CIWS / 76mm gun and M32 torpedo tubes with flight deck and hangar for two helicopters would appear a good addition for most navies, even if they have a few nautical miles under the belt.
Regardless of their history these ships are still good all rounders with much to offer.
In my opinion, the reason for discarding these assets don't appear as sufficient as the reasons for keeping them.
They may not be in the DWP ,but a good call would be to keep them in RAN service and pay the bill for their upkeep and an increase personal.
Regards S
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Should the Government allow for the retention of both FFG 05 & 06 to stay in commission beyond their current planned retirement date? It is an interesting question, not so easy to find an answer to.
To the best of my knowledge both FFGs will be out of service by the time the third DDG (Sydney) commissions, and it would appear, if reports over the last year are accurate, Poland is very keen to take ownership of both ships.
Could the retention of both ships signal a desire by the Government to show concern (and action) regarding the strategic situation in our area of interest? Or if both are retired and disposed of (as planned), that it shows that the Government is not as concerned as some make out (especially the media) regarding the strategic situation?
Unless we see some dramatic escalation in the SCS in the next little while, I suspect that both ships will be decommissioned as planned and sold off to Poland, a 'half way' point could be to keep both in a maintained reserve? And if kept in commission that would require an increase in Defence expenditure to both ensure they are maintained at an operation level and additional manpower too.
Not saying that I wouldn't like to see an increase in the RANs fleet of DDGs and FFGs sooner rather than later, but I still find it hard to see that happening unless something dramatic happens in the next little while.
Anyway, just my opinion of course.
Cheers,
To the best of my knowledge both FFGs will be out of service by the time the third DDG (Sydney) commissions, and it would appear, if reports over the last year are accurate, Poland is very keen to take ownership of both ships.
Could the retention of both ships signal a desire by the Government to show concern (and action) regarding the strategic situation in our area of interest? Or if both are retired and disposed of (as planned), that it shows that the Government is not as concerned as some make out (especially the media) regarding the strategic situation?
Unless we see some dramatic escalation in the SCS in the next little while, I suspect that both ships will be decommissioned as planned and sold off to Poland, a 'half way' point could be to keep both in a maintained reserve? And if kept in commission that would require an increase in Defence expenditure to both ensure they are maintained at an operation level and additional manpower too.
Not saying that I wouldn't like to see an increase in the RANs fleet of DDGs and FFGs sooner rather than later, but I still find it hard to see that happening unless something dramatic happens in the next little while.
Anyway, just my opinion of course.
Cheers,
Flexson
Active Member
There were a couple other news articles to the same effect as the below link but that's the first one I found when searching in reply.
Poland ‘won’t buy used Australian warships’: reports
Even if we kept them we couldn't crew them.
Last edited:
- Status