Based on aged experience (Oberons) the boats get pretty well stripped during major overhauls and this incident may have nothing to do with age, The rapid resolution of the issue would suggest it was not too serious.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Well, NZ are looking at their 2030s plans for recapitalisation and the ANZAC replacement is on that horizon, so it should not come as a surprise. With the Hunters/T26 not doing so well....
New Zealand seeks new ships to replace ‘majority’ of naval fleet
New Zealand’s Defence Ministry has issued a request for information to replace nearly the entire naval fleet, which currently includes nine ships.
www.defensenews.com
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
NZ has released a Market Research RFI for its future fleet, @ngatimozart has posted a copy on the RNZN thread, post #8821. I suspect NZ will be showing interest in a wide variety of ship designs across a number of different types but they are a long way from settling on the capabilities required in any future Frigates. They haven't worked out yet if they want a size for size replacement for the Anzacs, a larger GP frigate in the AH140 class, a large ASW frigate in the Hunter class or a fleet of Corvettes.Well, NZ are looking at their 2030s plans for recapitalisation and the ANZAC replacement is on that horizon, so it should not come as a surprise. With the Hunters/T26 not doing so well....
New Zealand seeks new ships to replace ‘majority’ of naval fleet
New Zealand’s Defence Ministry has issued a request for information to replace nearly the entire naval fleet, which currently includes nine ships.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The one positive about NZ’s long delay in replacing the Anzacs is there will be numerous frigate programs underway by the time a decision is made. Numerous negatives for delay of course including a possible war in 2-3 years.
I'd like to quickly address this "Big War 2027" narrative that's been floating around, specifically as a result of a couple papers published regarding the decreased overall size of the US Navy during that time period.
The reality is that the forces which will be playing into the Chinese equation of when to start things is primarily the JMSDF and US 7th Fleet as those are the only forces which will be in theatre for the critical first week of a conflict. The US Navy having a dozen less DDGs in the Atlantic isn't going to factor much into Chinese planning. So in reality the 2027 timeline is based off the incorrect assumption that less ships in the USN overall will mean less ships in the West Pacific.
This by no means should decrease the urgency of preparing for a conflict with China as it's likely that the PLAN will continue expanding in the future, simply that there is no real basis for the 2027 timeline.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The timeline will likely be a function of political discord in US and the serious maintenance issues of key kit (SSNs, F-35 for example). There is also the massive amount of kit being directed into the Ukraine war. China has long term issues that will affect their ambitions ((so does the US). Seems like 2025-2028 might be optimal for a Taiwan invasion. The other factor is a mid-step by either China or the US that unintentionally starts a conflict.
By these points I would suggest that now would be the optimal time. By 2025 there's no guarantee the US won't have gotten SSN maintenance back on track and worked up it's industry to refill the stockpiles. A misstep is possible but unless something drastic happens I would consider a 2040-2050 timeline to be more likely.
I'll leave it there though as this is straying from relevant discussion.
Thanks. I guess one key point at the back of my head are things like manpower, circa 2030s, beyond just the threat perception would drive the concept of operations and therefore, the platform.
Automation would be a key consideration, like what similar manpower constraint countries like Singapore faces.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
My understanding of the “Hunter issues” is the way that it was selected by the RAN (& previous GOTD), integration of the CEAFAR 2 radar and the cost of the program but, in other respects, the program is proceeding well. The information that is in the public domain indicates that the Type 26/Hunter classes are going to be very capable ships, especially as ASW frigates. The very quiet propulsion system is costly which is why the RN is limiting the Type 26 to 8 ships and building 5 cheaper Type 31General Purpose frigates to complete the Type 23 replacement, something that the RAN may do as a result of the current review which now appears to be delayed further.
Where is the urgency? Surface fleet review delay only leaves us more vulnerable
Last edited:
Just a general,question on manpower. How many new Australian immigrants join up in the forces?
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Two factors that have influence on the possible 2027-2030 timeline is the thought that China would need to have 3 carrier battle groups operational to mount an attack and, the consequences of the one child per family restriction is expected to become more significant in the 2030’s.
China will need 3 carrier battle groups to invade Taiwan by 2027: Admiral | Taiwan News | 2023-09-25 12:32:00
A couple key lines from that article:
"He added that there must also be a decline in U.S. military strength"
This will not necessarily occur as I've previously stated.
"The first would be deployed in the southeastern waters of Taiwan to contain Guam, the second would be deployed in the northeastern waters to restrain U.S. and Japanese forces"
Neither of the active PLAN carriers are capable of containing the combined JMSDF and US 7th Fleet or Guam, the most notable capability they bring is their ASW helicopters. Fujian won't be finished fitting out and shakedown until 2027 at the earliest. So while the PLAN technically may have three CBG on paper by 2027, it would not be a force to fight a war with.
You are right about the issues (esp the integration of CEAFAR2). With RAN building the Hunter class now, it will help de-risk the program and soak up the NRE cost for the integration. In that sense, it is benefits RNZN by having a mature platform at the point of selection.
However, does RNZN need a platform with those type of capabilities (Aegis/CEAFAR2)? I guess the shipyards are anticipating RNZN requirements being less complex, less resource/manpower intensive.
I am neither Australian or New Zealander so I don't have the answer. A quick check suggest migration numbers (trans-Tasman) does not really tip the scale much on the long term and we will probably need to deep dive in the demographics of those Australians. Usually, younger people migrate for professional opportunties while older people are looking for family/retirement purposes.
But a common sense question would be, why would a fit young Australian migrate to NZ and serve in the Forces if he has ambitions for a military career? He can do that in Australia, no?
So the way to avert an invasion is to demonstrate the ability to sink carriers. Make it very very clear if an invasion starts the carrier's with be destroyed. Hypersonics, heavy weight torpedoes, and maybe even dust of the old Pershing missile designs and add a precision guided conventional warhead.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Another potential idea would be to develop guidance and glide-wing kits for the Stonefish, to enable standoff deployment at range. This, coupled with dummy ordnance and guidance kits could be used if/when the PRC threatens hostilities. It could force then to spend additional resources to make sure that important naval and port facilities are not mined.
I would question if 3 carrier groups could challenge Guam itself let alone contain the JMSDF or the 7th fleet. The ASW helicopters would shortly need to find a new place to land.
No idea, you'd have to get access to DFR's yearly demographic data to find out. Wherever they come from (and I'm assuming you're alluding to immigrants from non-5EYEs countries) they still have to be an Australian citizen to join, which means usually they've been in country for at least 4 years.
We don't allow them too because generally speaking they can't play good rugby
Seriously, I don't know but I served with Aussie immigrants in both the RNZAF and RNZN. There weren't as many as the Poms but there were some.