Is Australia's Navy Adequate?

[Birdman70]

Is Australia's Navy adequate to defend Australia?

The Aussie combat capable fleet http://www.navy.gov.au

8x ANZAC frigates
Main armament - 5 inch Auto
Secondary Armaments - Sea Sparrow Anti-Air missiles
2x triple mounted mk32 anti-sub torpedoes
6x .50 cals
Others - Air detection Radar, Hull mounted sonar, advanced combat data system and flies 1x Seasprite (have they worked out their problems yet?)
does a bit of everything, seems ok

6X Adelaide Guided Missile Frigates
Main Armaments - Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles
the 'standard' Surface to Air missiles
Secondary armaments - 76mm rapid fire gun
2x trple mk32 Anti-Submarine torpedoes
Vulcan Phalanx close in surport weapons system
Others - Medium range Sonar, Air and Surface detection Radar, Electronic Warfare Surveillance equipment and flies 2x Seahawk


14x Armidale Patrol boats
main armament - 25mm deck gun
secondary armament - 2x .50 cal
others - low light optical, communication direction finding and radar
looks like 14 more targets

5x fremantle class patrol boats (the rest are decomissioned, these may also go)
main armament - 40/60 bofor
seconadary armament - 2x .50 cal
others - Radar


6x collins class submarines
main armament - 6x tubes capable of either mk-48 torpedoes or sub-harpoon missiles
others - (can't find info on this)



From what i see the RAN is rather small for the size of our country.
It may be effecient at capturing illegal fishing vessels but could it protect our country without America's surport (it may be possible we loose it if that Obama guy is elected and we still have John Howard) from a large scale invasion from China or India?

If it is not, what capabilities are need to be increased to make it so that it can defeat most threats in our region?
what would be the ideal fleet composition for Australia (considering population and budget to some degree)?

One more question
When the AWD's hit the seen are they worth the loss of the Adelaide, i dont doubt they will be effective but would more hulls be better as they can be in more places?

 

[Rich]

Frankly the biggest deterrence I see there are your submarines. Having boats that capable, with crews that good, an with that range, would tie down a huge component of any aggressors Navy.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The weapon and sensor system in your list with respect to the Adelaide and ANZAC class frigates are a bit out of date. They have and are being significantly upgraded.

Both classes have served Australia well and will continue to do so til at least 2017-2020. The 3x AWD's will provide a massive boost to our surface combat power.

There is some discussion at present whether the AWD's will REALLY replace the FFG's or will be an addition to them. RAN apparently plans on a future surface combatant force of 14 ships, 3 up from now...

The 6x Collins Class Submarines are getting continual updates, advanced new torpedo's and are widely considered amongst the very best "conventionals" on the planet. It is also a LARGE force in regional terms.

As to the Armidales, they are NOT meant to be used in front line combat roles. If they were, they would have a greatly enhanced sensor, weapon and combat system. They would also need a greater hull size and better electrical generation system. As they currently are, they certainly WOULD be a target if used in a "frontline" role. The Fremantles will be retired very shortly, if they haven't all gone yet.

As to the size of the Australian Navy, it's certainly "large" and relatively powerful by regional standards. For the size of our nation (physical I presume) population and GDP wise we are rather small on the World scale.

With the capabilities of the AWD's to be added to the Navy, as well as new LHD's, new helo's, the follow-on frigate project (to replace the ANZAC's and perhaps FFG's as well) and new weapons (ERGM, Harpoon II, MU-90, Mk 48 ADCAP Mod 7, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, Mini-Typhoon etc) RAN will be amongst the most capable Navies in the world. Small yes in terms of relative fleet size, but as they say, "size isn't all important"...

 

[Dave H]

For a population of 20 million the Aussie fleet is very impressive and proportionate to other western countries. As with most western countries there is only so much that the population will tolerate in taxes to pay for defence.

We in the UK have three times your population. If you times the Aussie fleet by three and compared to UK equivalents you would have 15 Type 42 (we only now have 8), 24 Type 22 and 23 frigates (we now only have 17), 18 subs (we will have 8 but SSN). You have a decent amphibious assets as well. The RN looks quite light in destroyers and frigates because we have Trident, Three small carriers, Ocean, LPD's and numerous other money draining projects on the go.

If you add capabilities such as carriers then as with the UK, your other assets would need to be trimmed. Can you afford the cost? Or like us, have you spent a vast fortune on wars in the last 5 years that will eat into the budget? Australia has the benefit of distance between your rival. Frankly India isnt going to invade, China highly unlikely. The may be a China "creep" as its influence increases on its neighbours. To prevent the hypothetic invasion by such huge countries you would need to buy the equivalent of the USN or embark on a programme to develop a nuclear deterrent...probably quite economically viable and as you have vast deserts, it could be land based without scaring the public.

 

[Aussie Digger]

For a population of 20 million the Aussie fleet is very impressive and proportionate to other western countries. As with most western countries there is only so much that the population will tolerate in taxes to pay for defence.

We in the UK have three times your population. If you times the Aussie fleet by three and compared to UK equivalents you would have 15 Type 42 (we only now have 8), 24 Type 22 and 23 frigates (we now only have 17), 18 subs (we will have 8 but SSN). You have a decent amphibious assets as well. The RN looks quite light in destroyers and frigates because we have Trident, Three small carriers, Ocean, LPD's and numerous other money draining projects on the go.

If you add capabilities such as carriers then as with the UK, your other assets would need to be trimmed. Can you afford the cost? Or like us, have you spent a vast fortune on wars in the last 5 years that will eat into the budget? Australia has the benefit of distance between your rival. Frankly India isnt going to invade, China highly unlikely. The may be a China "creep" as its influence increases on its neighbours. To prevent the hypothetic invasion by such huge countries you would need to buy the equivalent of the USN or embark on a programme to develop a nuclear deterrent...probably quite economically viable and as you have vast deserts, it could be land based without scaring the public.

Australia is pretty well off air and naval wise thanks to successive Australia Governments focusing our defence posture on an ability to intercept any possible attacks in the "air - sea" gap to our North.

Any serious attacks would come from that direction, hence the attention paid to capabilities that would be useful in conducting the kinds of operations that would make it difficult for any attacker to succesfully carry out operations against our mainland.

As Dave H correctly pointed out, our geography works massively in our favour and allows us to provide credible defence options, on a (relatively) limited budget. This is also helped by the (relatively) weak economies of the potential "threat nations" near us.

Our defence spending is specifcally designed to allow us to maintain an "overmatch" against our regional neighbours in most critical capabilities. Nothing more. We do not seek an extensive warfighting capability (though clearly our Economy would allow us to do this if necessary) and we spend only 1.9% of our GSP on defence. This still provides us with around $17b a year in current year dollars.

An interesting study (one of the the few) conducted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute showed that a 1% of GDP increase in defence spending (EASILY achievable in a time of some "crisis") would allow us to purchase and maintain a force comprising 6x AWD destroyers, 8x upgraded ANZAC class frigates, 2x VSTOL carriers each operating a Squadron of F-35B fighters, up to 5x squadrons of F-35A fighters for RAAF and a 2nd mechanised brigade for Army.

Such a force would give us significant "offensive" capability without resorting to a nuclear option and of course makes no attempt to discuss how we could possibly man such a force, but does provide an insight to the sort of capability we could afford in a time of real crisis...

As I mentioned before, RAN through AWD, LHD's, ANZAC and Collins upgrades is heading for a VERY capable force structure, though limited in size. It will however be more than a match for any of our regional neighbours and that I suppose is the most important thing...

 

[Dave H]

I wouldnt advocate Australia becoming a nuclear power, thats entirely australia's business. As long as non of your threat nations to the north have them then you are more than a match militarily, just in Birdmans thread He cites India and China. I suppose we just need to see who else gets them in the next 20 years.

I dont know a great deal about Aussie shipbuilding capacity but in this "time of crises", could you build your own VSTOL carriers etc or would they be purchased from abroad?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Tha ANZACS are produced locally in williamstown victoria i think (or assembled there at least), the collins are largely built in adelaide SA. I know some light carriers would be alot bigger and more complicated that an ANZAC but i'm sure we could manage it.

 

[jaffo4011]

it would be adequate if it aquired a carrier or two.australia could have 2 invincible class carriers from the royal navy,complete with sea harrier frs2 (amraam carrying) for a knock down price to tide them over until thay purchased something a little more recent.just think,if they changed their f35 order vto the vtol version then they have an impressive capability for the minimum(ish) cost...problem solved!:

 

[ren0312]

Australia is pretty well off air and naval wise thanks to successive Australia Governments focusing our defence posture on an ability to intercept any possible attacks in the "air - sea" gap to our North.

Any serious attacks would come from that direction, hence the attention paid to capabilities that would be useful in conducting the kinds of operations that would make it difficult for any attacker to succesfully carry out operations against our mainland.

As Dave H correctly pointed out, our geography works massively in our favour and allows us to provide credible defence options, on a (relatively) limited budget. This is also helped by the (relatively) weak economies of the potential "threat nations" near us.

Our defence spending is specifcally designed to allow us to maintain an "overmatch" against our regional neighbours in most critical capabilities. Nothing more. We do not seek an extensive warfighting capability (though clearly our Economy would allow us to do this if necessary) and we spend only 1.9% of our GSP on defence. This still provides us with around $17b a year in current year dollars.

An interesting study (one of the the few) conducted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute showed that a 1% of GDP increase in defence spending (EASILY achievable in a time of some "crisis") would allow us to purchase and maintain a force comprising 6x AWD destroyers, 8x upgraded ANZAC class frigates, 2x VSTOL carriers each operating a Squadron of F-35B fighters, up to 5x squadrons of F-35A fighters for RAAF and a 2nd mechanised brigade for Army.

Such a force would give us significant "offensive" capability without resorting to a nuclear option and of course makes no attempt to discuss how we could possibly man such a force, but does provide an insight to the sort of capability we could afford in a time of real crisis...

As I mentioned before, RAN through AWD, LHD's, ANZAC and Collins upgrades is heading for a VERY capable force structure, though limited in size. It will however be more than a match for any of our regional neighbours and that I suppose is the most important thing...

Well I think Australia needs a budget of between 2.5 and 3 per cent of GDP for defence, this will give it the capability that is somewhere between an offensive force and a traditional "overmatch force" doctrine, so that if Australia ever finds the need to transition to a formidable offensive force, it will be easier budget wise, and from a perspective of building up the armed forces, based on your figures, I really think that Australia is spending much more than 1.9 per cent of GDP on defence, since 17 billion US dollars for defence will equal to about 2.43 per cent of GDP using your 2005 GDP figures, which is around 701 billion US Dollars, so a defence budget of 2.8 per cent of GDP for that year will amount to 19.62 billion US dollars, which is quite acheivable politically, considering that 17 billion US dollars is not that far away from that figure.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Our GDP is just over $1 trillion AUD for fiscal year 2006/7, and our defence budget is $17 billion AUD not USD, thats 1.7% GDP pa. At 2.7% to 3% of GDP, which isn't large by any standard, you would be looking at about <$30 billion AUD PA. Thats alot of cash for aquisitions of new capabilities. At 5% which would be a reasonable wartime footing your looking at over $50 billion AUD PA.

personell is another problem, were having masive problems with retention at the moment.

The reason we only spend 1.7% when we could afford alot more is that it costs alot to maintain the massive infastructure needed here to alow our economy to thrive. We are the size of the continental US with the population of california, so we need to maintain all the communications infistructure to suppport commerce over such large distances. We also have public healthcare, welfare, publicly funded primary secondary and tertiary education, various forms of government aid and international aid. Some of these would have to suffer if we drastically increased spending on defence, but the budget looks to be at a $10 billion AUD surpluss for this fiscal year, so theoretically if we spend $10 billion AUD more on defence this year, without making any other changes we would still ballance the budget.

 

[tphuang]

Our GDP is just over $1 trillion AUD for fiscal year 2006/7, and our defence budget is $17 billion AUD not USD, thats 1.7% GDP pa. At 2.7% to 3% of GDP, which isn't large by any standard, you would be looking at about <$30 billion AUD PA. Thats alot of cash for aquisitions of new capabilities. At 5% which would be a reasonable wartime footing your looking at over $50 billion AUD PA.

personell is another problem, were having masive problems with retention at the moment.

The reason we only spend 1.7% when we could afford alot more is that it costs alot to maintain the massive infastructure needed here to alow our economy to thrive. We are the size of the continental US with the population of california, so we need to maintain all the communications infistructure to suppport commerce over such large distances. We also have public healthcare, welfare, publicly funded primary secondary and tertiary education, various forms of government aid and international aid. Some of these would have to suffer if we drastically increased spending on defence, but the budget looks to be at a $10 billion AUD surpluss for this fiscal year, so theoretically if we spend $10 billion AUD more on defence this year, without making any other changes we would still ballance the budget.

actually, from your ministry's document, http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/to_defend_australia.pdf
it says that you spend $19.6 billion on national defense.
Can't comment on your nation's needs, but you certainly do spend more than Canada in terms of % of GDP.

 

[Dave H]

The sea harriers have gone...scrapped. Even India didnt want them. Also the invincibles wont be sold until the first new ship is in service and by then will be 30 plus years old.

 

[Tasman]

Is Australia's Navy adequate to defend Australia?

The Aussie combat capable fleet http://www.navy.gov.au

8x ANZAC frigates
Main armament - 5 inch Auto
Secondary Armaments - Sea Sparrow Anti-Air missiles
2x triple mounted mk32 anti-sub torpedoes
6x .50 cals
Others - Air detection Radar, Hull mounted sonar, advanced combat data system and flies 1x Seasprite (have they worked out their problems yet?)
does a bit of everything, seems ok

6X Adelaide Guided Missile Frigates
Main Armaments - Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles
the 'standard' Surface to Air missiles
Secondary armaments - 76mm rapid fire gun
2x trple mk32 Anti-Submarine torpedoes
Vulcan Phalanx close in surport weapons system
Others - Medium range Sonar, Air and Surface detection Radar, Electronic Warfare Surveillance equipment and flies 2x Seahawk


14x Armidale Patrol boats
main armament - 25mm deck gun
secondary armament - 2x .50 cal
others - low light optical, communication direction finding and radar
looks like 14 more targets

5x fremantle class patrol boats (the rest are decomissioned, these may also go)
main armament - 40/60 bofor
seconadary armament - 2x .50 cal
others - Radar


6x collins class submarines
main armament - 6x tubes capable of either mk-48 torpedoes or sub-harpoon missiles


One more question
When the AWD's hit the seen are they worth the loss of the Adelaide, i dont doubt they will be effective but would more hulls be better as they can be in more places?

As AD has stated the Anzacs and the FFGs have/are being updated, but 2 FFGs have been earmarked for scrapping. One, Canberra, has already gone but the second, Adelaide, has been kept in service a bit longer to cover delays with the FFG upgrade program.

As updated the RAN has:

8x ANZAC frigates

Main armament - 5 inch Auto
Secondary Armaments - ESSM Anti-Air missiles
2 x 4 Harpoon SSM in 2 - being fitted to others
2x triple mounted mk32 anti-sub torpedoes
4x .50 cals (2Mini Typhoon in RWS))
Other - Air detection Radar, Hull mounted sonar, advanced combat data system, Nulka decoy system and flies 1x Seahawk

5 (reducing to 4)X Adelaide Guided Missile Frigates

Main Armaments - Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles
SM-I (being upgraded to SM-2 Surface to Air missiles)
Secondary Armament 76mm rapid fire gun
ESSM anti airmissiles (in 1 - being fitted to others)
2x 3 Mk32 Anti-Submarine torpedoes
Vulcan Phalanx CWIS
4x .50 cals (2 Mini Typhoon in RWS)
Other - Medium range Sonar, Air and Surface detection Radar, Electronic Warfare Surveillance equipment, Nulka decoy and flies 2x Seahawk

Add:

6 Huon class MCMV also used for patrol

Speed 14 knots
Weapon Systems 1 x 30 mm DS30B rapid fire cannon.
2 x .50 calibre HMG
Two SUTEC Double Eagle mine disposal vehicles.

Delete:

The remaining Fremantles will be withdrawn when all 14 Armidales are in service.

Because of the cost and the extent of the upgrades some of the FFGs could continue in service after the AWDs come into service if the RAN/government sees fit. I suspect the two youngest, (Melbourne and Newcastle), will remain on for some time. There are also pressures for a 4th AWD. Again as AD has said the desire of the RAN is to have a surface combat fleet of 14 vessels.

Another important asset is the amphibious force. The major units also have a significant capability to provide command facilities and act as a base for additional helos to be deployed.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

I wouldnt advocate Australia becoming a nuclear power, thats entirely australia's business. As long as non of your threat nations to the north have them then you are more than a match militarily, just in Birdmans thread He cites India and China. I suppose we just need to see who else gets them in the next 20 years.

I dont know a great deal about Aussie shipbuilding capacity but in this "time of crises", could you build your own VSTOL carriers etc or would they be purchased from abroad?

Australia is certainly capable of building sophisticated warships. Examples are the Collins class SSKs, the Anzac class FFHs and the Adelaide class FFGs (last two built in Australia). The new AWDs are to be built here and it is hoped to build the LHDs locally. If Australia is able to build a ship of the size of the LHD and the sophistication of the AWD and SSK I see no reason why it would not be able to build a light carrier.

The need for such an acquisition is another matter and has been argued on other threads. I'd rather see additional funds allocated to bringing the submarine force up to the 8 the navy has always wanted, building 3 follow on AWDs and adding some F35Bs to the JSF order (operated as a joint RAAF/RAN squadron) so that these could go to sea on the LHDs if the need arose. This would give the navy the 14 surface combat vessels and 8 SSKs it feels it needs and also provide the capacity to embark fixed wing aircraft.

I believe that this would provide a credible force that is within Australia's budgetary capacity.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia is concidering a few "flat tops".

The Canberra class is going to be either the spanish made "BPE" or the French "Mistral". The BPE is 27,000 t ~230m long ship capable of supporting Harriers and F-35B's. The mistral isn't STOVL (although Australia requested the french to come up with a STOVL preposal for the mistral with extra length). The canberra class will be made up of two ships.

F-35B aquistion is certainly a possibility, and flying them off two BPE's is also a possibility. At the very least Australia will have 24,000 t ship supporting Tiger ARH helos with hellfire missiles, with NH90's etc. Which for our region is far more than anyone else. Bar the major powers.

The BPE is the favoured ship at the moment. The deal will be signed off closer to when the spanish have the first in the water. As a small carrier it seems to be capable. With the ability to hanger around 20 F-35B's if required. It also has a floodable dock so it, its primary use would be an amphibious but would seem to make a reasonable light carrier in war time or as required.

Collins is certainly the wild card. Running the latest USN weapon systems and Cbass. With numerous billion dollar improvements. The only navy with any thing remotely close in our region is Japan and its O boats. Having an extra 2 would have been even better. But replacement is already being drawn up.

AWD's will help protect surface assets, in particular the LHD's. With the UK's recent rumored cuts, Australia may get nearly as many destroyers as the Uk.

If you compare numbers Australia has an extremely capable navy. In war it would be nicer to have a few more in number. But as most of the ships are built here, its not impossible to add more frigates, destroyers and submarines as required.

 

[Tasman]

As to the Armidales, they are NOT meant to be used in front line combat roles. If they were, they would have a greatly enhanced sensor, weapon and combat system. They would also need a greater hull size and better electrical generation system. As they currently are, they certainly WOULD be a target if used in a "frontline" role.

Would the Armidales have the stability and structural strength necessary to be upgraded with a more powerful main gun (such as a 57mm or 76mm), Mini Typhoon in place of the manual HMGs and perhaps canister launched SSMs? . I am thinking of a situation arising in the future where they might be likely to encounter enemy fast attack craft and therefore find themselves, perhaps inadvertently, in a frontline role. Or would the RAN be better to meet such a threat with new construction and relegate the Armidales to safer waters?

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

actually, from your ministry's document, http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/to_defend_australia.pdf
it says that you spend $19.6 billion on national defense.
Can't comment on your nation's needs, but you certainly do spend more than Canada in terms of % of GDP.

sorry was going of AD's numbers and a using common sense equasion to correct a missunderstanding in an earlier post. You know 1.7% of a trillion is 17 billion..

By the way when has canada ever been under threat of invasion or been under sustained air bombardment. The only possible threat they have is the US, "defence of Canada" would be pretty accademic. The only need they really have is to fufill their treaty obligations. So thats not really a relevant comparison.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Would the Armidales have the stability and structural strength necessary to be upgraded with a more powerful main gun (such as a 57mm or 76mm), Mini Typhoon in place of the manual HMGs and perhaps canister launched SSMs? . I am thinking of a situation arising in the future where they might be likely to encounter enemy fast attack craft and therefore find themselves, perhaps inadvertently, in a frontline role. Or would the RAN be better to meet such a threat with new construction and relegate the Armidales to safer waters?

Cheers

Just a thought, would 25 knots be enough for the Armidales to function as a missile attack boat? Just put some canister launched Harpoon block II's, and see if they can do same quick runs at enemy surface formation's. They're probably not stealthy or fast enough but they could be a real pain in the ass.

 

[icelord]

Our defence spending is specifcally designed to allow us to maintain an "overmatch" against our regional neighbours in most critical capabilities. Nothing more. We do not seek an extensive warfighting capability (though clearly our Economy would allow us to do this if necessary) and we spend only 1.9% of our GSP on defence. This still provides us with around $17b a year in current year dollars.

I recall a Government pledge is to raise the defence spending above 1.9%
Not sure as to how much though, and whether it will happen.
But if the AWD, LHD and F-35 are added to budget, sounds bout right in the rise, as these plus the C-17 would not be added to GDP budget

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

yeah but they're just aquisitions and will be replacing past systems, and therefore arn't really an expansion in our forces so dont requier any sustained rises in anual spending. So they dont really constitute a rise in the % of GDP going to defence, apart from the years just after aquisition. 2 New battalions are a different story.