Why Are we sinking HMAS Canberra

[Whiskyjack]

Current Budget is spending 1.4 Billion for 3 AWDs , designated Hobart Class. Plus there is talk in Navy circles about the purchase of an Extra AWD, designated Canberra to fill a gap in defence ship builiding, before the ANZAC needs replacement in 2020.

If we order the Canberra, this may finally make the "magic 14" mark, a problem long held in the navy.

You must be talking about New Zealand, don't worry, we can handle themnfloorl:

When you say 'Current Budget Spending' do you mean what has been spent so far? Because I thought the total budget was $4.5b to $6b?

As for your second point....I am to polite to answer.

 

[icelord]

hmm, fine fine, picky kiwis

In addition to the $28.5 billion already committed over the decade to 2010-11,
the Government will provide an additional $10.7 billion over the period 2011-12
to 2015-16. This will fund vital projects such as the Joint Strike Fighters and Air
Warfare Destroyers and other priorities set out in the revised 2006-16 Defence
Capability Plan to be released in June.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Icelord dont you sleep man????

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Also the combo standard/harpoon launcher has more firepower than the ANZAC and the puny sparrow -even the always in the furure to be deployed QUAD PACK and th future to be deployed Harpoon capability (I guess the sailors are suppose to throw those pieces of paper that explain the future harpoon capability at their advesary instead of shooting a real one)

But the ANZACs will have a quad pack ESSM. Althought they're really only good for self protection and wont be able to fill the fleet protection role that the Adelaides did, and ESSM wont have the range of an SM1. But remember that role is about to be filled by three AWD's, and i'd much rather have AEGIS backed SM2's than SM1's, and Harpoon Block 2 upgrades will make the ANZAC's just as capable in a anti ship role, especially now the yanks have stoped manufacturing SM1's. And i doubt the RAN can justify the costs of maintaining and crewing the Adelaides when there about to be replaced with something much bigger and bader. Not to mention the problems of crewing two new LHD's when were struggling to make recruiting targets at the moment. I do agree with you re the sea hawks, the sea sprites are a pain in the ass and it might dent our surface ASW capablilty, escpecially with the posibility of 6 ex ruski SSK's moving into the neighborhood.

 

[icelord]

Icelord dont you sleep man????

Sleep is for the weak!
now i'm going to bed

 

[abramsteve]

I dont beleive crewing to be an issue. Every year there are more and more applicants, a trend which I seriously doubt will change anytime soon. Loosing one of our older vessels is not a problem and wont seriously effect commitments, not sure about its effect on surface ASW capability, but I dont see the 'possible' purchase of the Russkie subs a threat. a)their Russian, b)their owned and operated by indonesia... go figure

Boomer, mate I think your about 15 years behind with your info on our armed forces. Dont mean it in a bad way

 

[gf0012-aust]

I dont beleive crewing to be an issue. Every year there are more and more applicants, a trend which I seriously doubt will change anytime soon.

Its actually a huge issue, but something thats not appropriate to discuss in full/detail in here.

One of the members in here is currently tasked with trying to come up with solutions to some very very significant crewing, retention and attraction issues..

 

[contedicavour]

Its actually a huge issue, but something thats not appropriate to discuss in full/detail in here.

One of the members in here is currently tasked with trying to come up with solutions to some very very significant crewing, retention and attraction issues..

With a booming economy and low unemployment I'm not surprised young Aussies can find better-paying civilian jobs without the risks of ending up in the Persian Gulf...
Though with a budget surplus then may be the government can try to boost salaries and help former sailors re-integrate in the civilian economy via good training programmes (up to MBAs and PhDs for officers if that's what it takes).
Another idea from Italy is to limit entry into the police to former armed forces servicemen. This helps motivates further young people.

cheers

 

[abramsteve]

Its actually a huge issue, but something thats not appropriate to discuss in full/detail in here.

One of the members in here is currently tasked with trying to come up with solutions to some very very significant crewing, retention and attraction issues..

If thats the case I would be interested in discussing it, perhaps we could open a thread on the issue?

I should add that I based my info on my own personal experience and that given to me by my recruting officer.

 

[icelord]

If thats the case I would be interested in discussing it, perhaps we could open a thread on the issue?

I should add that I based my info on my own personal experience and that given to me by my recruting officer.

Go for it, i could a few tales of the retardation of recruiting...but i don't really care now, selection board soon^_^
Back to thread
How much would it be to maintain the HMAS Adelaide, 2-3 million? on count most work is volunteer, so more likely couple thous

 

[gf0012-aust]

perhaps we could open a thread on the issue?.

seems fair. I'm just averse about discussing some manning details.

 

[abramsteve]

Nah thats fair enough mate! Ive actually been interested in starting one for a while, just for discussing some of my personal issues from intial stages through to selection board and the like.


Good question about costs. I would think there would be a substancial set up costs involved, but once shes in place then maybe costs would level out?

 

[Boomer1961]

I dont beleive crewing to be an issue. Every year there are more and more applicants, a trend which I seriously doubt will change anytime soon. Loosing one of our older vessels is not a problem and wont seriously effect commitments, not sure about its effect on surface ASW capability, but I dont see the 'possible' purchase of the Russkie subs a threat. a)their Russian, b)their owned and operated by indonesia... go figure

Boomer, mate I think your about 15 years behind with your info on our armed forces. Dont mean it in a bad way

Sorry there mate, it is not that I am 15 years in the past but you are in the 15 year idealistic-to be canceled due to budgetary constraint future. Today their are 6 ANZAC and Three Adelaide ready for service and two more ANZAC and one or two Adelaide that can be made ready. That is the reality.

There are volumes of books, internet postings, studies, huge reams of paper, about the future Aussie fleet that will be a significant upgrade and better suited for the current needs but as history has proven the AUSSie's are good at talking about the awesome future vapor fleet that goes poof when the time comes to pay for it.

I had high hopes of Six Adelaide and 8 ANZAC and hopefully another four Air Defense Ship [Hopefully not another HORIZON vapor wear ship where France/Italy/Germany/Britain had theirs go poof and nothing but a bit of vapor seen, and have no Aegis but Spain/Japan/ROK do! so what did they do right, I suspect they talked less and just DID!).

The Sydney/Melbourne were a great ships, even caused the KIWI's to make all air assets Melbourne compatible with all their A-4's with tailhook.

The vapor fleet was the Invincible, though real enough and useful to us English Speaking people and making the world safe for democracy was a vapor POOF ship the the AUSSie's as that labor government was happy to sieze those defense funds allocated for the purchase of this ship and use it for the WELFARE FOR VOTES PRGRAM and though the older Hermes offered instead the AUSSie's saying the money was better spent on summer holiday getting a tan at the beach.

The KANIMBLA's were an honest attempt but they copied us Americans by deciding to pay FIVE times as much as originally thought it would be by paying more to convert 20 year old ships that would have less capability than the same one new American or Brit or Dutch Amphib that would be good for 30 years instead of just 10.

I fear that to defeat future foes the AUSSie's will have to load their cannon with all those studies, budget forcasts, engineering packages, enviromental studies, union kickbacks payoff records, etc and fire a broadside of paper and opinion at their advesary and hope they die laughing.

The fleet you speak of will not ever occur, and even if it did would need another 10 surface combatants, another half dozen submarines, a squadron of F-35's, Twenty more long range air maritime assets, another two amphib ships, a brigade of naval infantry, and more before I would think they could challenge an overly aggressive neighbor, and if that neighbor was China would also require signifcant Air Assett upgrades with the air force.

TAKE CARE MY AUSSie friends, you can call me slow but don't call me stupid as it appears this is an AUSSie freinds of their military site and to be critical of the AUSSie' is not healthy here.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Mate you can critisize all you want, that's what this place is for, but dont expect people not to rebutt your points or this isn't a discussion its just someones opinion. I agree that the ADF needs soem serious upgrades if were going to take on the chinese, but with upgraded ANZAC's, AEGIS AWD's, Collins, LHD's that could carry F35b's, Upgraded bug's that arn't too shabby at all, Pigs for a while, soon 100 odd F35's, and an army thats more than capable of expoditionary campaigns i cant see any neighbor being a real problem, exept China or India and at the moment niether are a capable of threatening the region. So really the ADF is pretty well equiped to deal with any local potential threats at the moment.

 

[Sea Toby]

Your asking Australia, a nation of 20 million, to have as large a surface fleet as the United Kingdom, a nation of 60 million. To do so would break the Australian economy, changing its taxing policy similar to a military regime such as North Korea. Military might does not make right.

You implied that Australlia should double its naval fleet. Unfortunately, with today's low unemployment rate, Australia is barely able to recruit for the warships in service now. How do you intend to man more ships, with a draft? Warships without crews are sitting ducks, static immobile displays.

While you brought up 25 year old history about very small aircraft carriers, you missed the history about the New Zealand Skyhawks. Those Skyhawks were the Skyhawks flying off the carrier Melbourne, no wonder why they had tailhooks.

I'm satisfied and happy the British revolked the sale of the Invincible. From an intelligent point of view, one aircraft carrier isn't enough, it takes two to have around the clock carrier capability. One carrier is half a battle group.

Lucky, in the next year, Australia will be buying two 23-27 thousand ton LHD's, capable of supporting VSTOL aircraft. That's today, not ancient history.

Believe it or not, four of the OHPerrys are already past 20 years in age. By the time the new Air Warfare Destroyers are built, Aegis ships by the way, these four OHPerrys wil be reaching the end of their service lives, some 30 years in age.

At least Australia is giving four of their OHPerrys a mid-life modernization. All of theirs still have the Mk13 launcher aboard, I have noticed the Americans are pulling theirs off.

Unless you have a magic wand to change the passage of time, there isn't any way the RAN would have had 6 OHPerrys, 8 Anzacs, and 4 AWDs in its fleet.

And exaggerating the funds spent on the ex-US Navy's Newports doesn't make it a fact. Yes, there were overruns and delays, but they didn't cost five times as much. What Australia did spend would not have purchased two Dutch Rotterdams, only one. There aren't any cheaper LPDs on the world market.

Oh, its easy for a fool to say spend twice as much on the budget. Logistics and personnel statistics never crossed your mind, much less tax policy.

As I noted before Australia is increasing its defence budget. Its navy is growing in numbers and in capability. However, one cannot say that about many of the European navies, much less the US navy.

 

[scraw]

Sea Toby-

Agree with you regarding the sheer impossibility of Boomers fantasy fleet, I'm also left wondering just who these 'overly agressive neighbours' are that would require such an Armada.

Edit- Quick question, how come according to the US the Newports were LST yet according to the RAN they're LPAs?

 

[scraw]

Also, what's with the random capitalisation of Aussie? Random personal quirk or are we meant to be insulted in some way?

 

[Sea Toby]

The Americans used their Newports as LSTs. Australia in its overdo of its Newports pulled off the landing ramp, added a large helicopter hangar, and command and control facilities. Thus, changing a LST into a LPA.

I'll admit there are some simple minded Americans who forget they are a large nation of 300 million people. They cannot understand why much smaller nations don't have the same amount of armed forces. They are clueless, its obvious larger nations have more. They also forget because they order larger numbers they get things cheaper too.

 

[abramsteve]

Sorry there mate, it is not that I am 15 years in the past but you are in the 15 year idealistic-to be canceled due to budgetary constraint future. Today their are 6 ANZAC and Three Adelaide ready for service and two more ANZAC and one or two Adelaide that can be made ready. That is the reality.

And your problem is? I said we wont have any problems forfilling our current commitments.

I had high hopes of Six Adelaide and 8 ANZAC and hopefully another four Air Defense Ship [Hopefully not another HORIZON vapor wear ship where France/Italy/Germany/Britain had theirs go poof and nothing but a bit of vapor seen, and have no Aegis but Spain/Japan/ROK do! so what did they do right, I suspect they talked less and just DID!).

What do you think the 3 AWDs are? Whilst no keel has been laid I would put money on them not being 'vapor'.

The Sydney/Melbourne were a great ships, even caused the KIWI's to make all air assets Melbourne compatible with all their A-4's with tailhook.

The vapor fleet was the Invincible, though real enough and useful to us English Speaking people and making the world safe for democracy was a vapor POOF ship the the AUSSie's as that labor government was happy to sieze those defense funds allocated for the purchase of this ship and use it for the WELFARE FOR VOTES PRGRAM and though the older Hermes offered instead the AUSSie's saying the money was better spent on summer holiday getting a tan at the beach.

Maybe I was wrong, thats not 15 year old news, thats more like 25.

The KANIMBLA's were an honest attempt but they copied us Americans by deciding to pay FIVE times as much as originally thought it would be by paying more to convert 20 year old ships that would have less capability than the same one new American or Brit or Dutch Amphib that would be good for 30 years instead of just 10.

Again with the old news, and so what? They work and have proven themselves.

I fear that to defeat future foes the AUSSie's will have to load their cannon with all those studies, budget forcasts, engineering packages, enviromental studies, union kickbacks payoff records, etc and fire a broadside of paper and opinion at their advesary and hope they die laughing.

Say what you will, I'd put the RAN up against any navy in the world. And you know what, even with all that beuracracy you mentioned, even though I doubt its relevance, we still end up with a pretty potent fleet (small I grant you) which proves that we have on hell of a healthy country.

The fleet you speak of will not ever occur, and even if it did would need another 10 surface combatants, another half dozen submarines, a squadron of F-35's, Twenty more long range air maritime assets, another two amphib ships, a brigade of naval infantry, and more before I would think they could challenge an overly aggressive neighbor, and if that neighbor was China would also require signifcant Air Assett upgrades with the air force.

What fleet was mentioned? Call it plain arrogance but I dont think any of immediate neighbours threaten us. Of course Chinas a threat, but theyre a threat to everyone (millitarily speaking)

TAKE CARE MY AUSSie friends, you can call me slow but don't call me stupid as it appears this is an AUSSie freinds of their military site and to be critical of the AUSSie' is not healthy here.

Nobody called you stupid. Dammed right this is an Aussie (not AUSSie') friendly site, and being critical of Australia is not a healthy thing anyways. Seriously I dont mind you or anyone being critical, but be realistic at least.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Americans used their Newports as LSTs. Australia in its overdo of its Newports pulled off the landing ramp, added a large helicopter hangar, and command and control facilities. Thus, changing a LST into a LPA.

They have been considered to be the ideal command platform in the green water patrols off of Iraq.

they've now become a far more useful asset due to the mods