Is Australia's Navy Adequate?

[Tasman]

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.

This may be true so far as number of platforms is concerned but in all cases they will provide a huge increase in capability over the ships and aircraft they are replacing. Looking at the three example that were given in the post you replied to:

The new LHDs will be light years ahead of the LPAs. They will carry more troops, more equipment and will have a more efficient means of launching their landing craft. Above all they will each be able to carry up to 16 ADF helos compared with 3-4 in the LPAs.

The AWDs will have far more capability in both air defence and surface warfare than the vessels they will replace.

The RAAF is one of the few airforces in the world looking to replace earlier generation aircraft with a 5th generation fighter on a 1 to 1 basis.

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Exactly, new platforms will cheaper to run, relativly, and apart from the aquisition costs should help long term spending. So the over all % of GDP after the aquisition stage sould not significantly increase due to these aqusitions. I'm not arguing that these arn't a good idea. All of the MOD's plans for aquistions are great and i'm exited about all of them (we need an IFV for true Mechanised capability though, i know this is in the works but it might be a while) and all of the examples above will give us a huge leap in capability. But the new battalions are the only significant expantion of the force structure, and therefore are the only development that will increase the long term % of GDP spent on defence. Thats the only point i was making.

 

[Tasman]

Thanks for the clarification Ozzy.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

I think that figure includes the $2b "supplementary" funding for the C-17's. If supplementary funding is included in 2007, it's probably going to look more like $21-$22b in 2007...

 

[alexsa]

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

In a word ... No. The Fremantles were fitted with space for a 76mm with a handling room (used as a store) located between the crew accomodation and forward wash room. In addition there was sapce for a basic combat system. No such provisions have been made in the case of the APB. In addition this is a very light hull and is not designed to take weopnary beyond the type for which it has been fitted (as was designed).

 

[Tasman]

In a word ... No. The Fremantles were fitted with space for a 76mm with a handling room (used as a store) located between the crew accomodation and forward wash room. In addition there was sapce for a basic combat system. No such provisions have been made in the case of the APB. In addition this is a very light hull and is not designed to take weopnary beyond the type for which it has been fitted (as was designed).

Thanks for the info alexsa.

I think that's a pity. As you say they were not designed for a heavier calibre and I think the manufacturer has done well in using a lightweight structure to meet the RAN's requirements. I just think it is a shame that the RAN's specifications didn't call for the ability to be 'upgunned' if circumstances change in the future.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Thanks for the info alexsa.

I think that's a pity. As you say they were not designed for a heavier calibre and I think the manufacturer has done well in using a lightweight structure to meet the RAN's requirements. I just think it is a shame that the RAN's specifications didn't call for the ability to be 'upgunned' if circumstances change in the future.

Cheers

It all comes down to "you get what you apy for". In this case the provider (DMS) was seperate to the builder (Austal). This package comes as a complete service with DMS offering the vessel and support package. It is understandable the DMS wanted to pay the absolute minimum on the vessle to maximise profit but it is also true such a move increases the risk that support costs and complications will arise. Austal only need to fulfil the construction contract and have no obligation to ensure ongoing servicability.

I will be interested to see how the APB is going in ten years time.

 

[Markus40]

Australias Navy

Earlier in this forum there was some debate as to whether the RAN was up to strength size for the size of Australia. I believe it is CURRENTLY. That is if the Australian government doesnt down size the numbers or have the FFG replaced by the 3 x AAW Destroyers. So the strength size for regional projection is good in my opinion. We will also see the integration of the 2 x LHDs as well as a further "statement" of the governments intention of maintaining and expanding the RAN into a more global force than a regional one.

The weapon systems in all of the Australian warships are in line with regional/global deployment if that was required and secondly New Zealand does have a role to play in this as well. If you add New Zealands Naval contribution to the Australian Navy you have a rather formidable Naval element in this region. Thats why i believe that its important for New Zealand to align its defence procurement with Australias so as to have that commonality. Its interesting to read from someones thread today that at the Whenuapei Airshow the aircrew of the P-3 were saying that the P-3 will be armed with the Harpoon.

 

[Tasman]

Earlier in this forum there was some debate as to whether the RAN was up to strength size for the size of Australia. I believe it is CURRENTLY. That is if the Australian government doesnt down size the numbers or have the FFG replaced by the 3 x AAW Destroyers. So the strength size for regional projection is good in my opinion. We will also see the integration of the 2 x LHDs as well as a further "statement" of the governments intention of maintaining and expanding the RAN into a more global force than a regional one.

The weapon systems in all of the Australian warships are in line with regional/global deployment if that was required and secondly New Zealand does have a role to play in this as well. If you add New Zealands Naval contribution to the Australian Navy you have a rather formidable Naval element in this region. Thats why i believe that its important for New Zealand to align its defence procurement with Australias so as to have that commonality. Its interesting to read from someones thread today that at the Whenuapei Airshow the aircrew of the P-3 were saying that the P-3 will be armed with the Harpoon.

As has been stated earlier the RAN is believed to have a 'desire' for 14 major surface combat ships and 8 submarines to meet its needs. However it has never actually had more than six submarines in service and AFAIK there are no approved (or even publicly projected) plans for an extra two at present. As a lot of money is being spent on the FFG upgrade it seems reasonable to assume that these 4 ships could be kept on in service for some time after the AWDs enter service. However, ministerial statements don't suggest that this will happen and one of the Hobart class is to be named Sydney, which is the oldest of the FFGs that are being upgraded. In my opinion it will be a waste of an expensive upgrade program if at least the two newest FFGs don't serve on beside the Hobart class. To meet a target of 14 surface combatants a fourth AWD would be desirable to provide a fleet of 4 AWDs, 2 FFGs and 8 FFHs.

It would be good to see the Kiwi Anzacs brought up to similar standards as the RAN ships and plans are in hand to fit ESSM and mini typhoon to these ships. The Phalanx CIWS, which is not fitted to the RAN ships, is also to be upgraded, so these ships would be able to provide a worthwhile reinforcement to RAN operations.

Re the P-3K the NZ LTDP does provide for provision of an AShM for these aircraft, but I wonder if the comment about Harpoon is based on good inside knowledge or wishful thinking!

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

The comment passed down about the Harpoon you will need to address to the person who made it originally, however in my professional opinion it would be circumspect and logical to follow the lead and opinion of a fellow servicemans opinion. The Harpoon itself bought of the shelf will probably cost something around $500 000 each. Numbers may have to be limited. Not a purchase the government would make lightly, yet due to interoperability there may be no choice other than the Penguin, which the Australians have, or another european eqivalant.

Going back to the strength of the Australian Navy, i agree that any further naval asset purchases will add muscle to the Navy itself and for the future of the service. Adding numbers like the AAWs and the LHDs and then decommissioning the FFGs is only going to weaken the force structure. In my opinion it would be far better for the government of Australia to keep its structure in place and replace them in time when required. Not decommission them without further replacement.

Actually an 8 Submarine force would be better than the 6 as Australia has a far greater coastline and teritorial boundary to patrol. Not to mention the extra 2 being a buffer for an eventuality like Indonesia if this came to be. My argument also lies in the fact that Indonesia itself has purchased further submarines to its forces just recently thus probably giving the Australian Military a few late nights on the contingency plans of its own debating the issue.

As has been stated earlier the RAN is believed to have a 'desire' for 14 major surface combat ships and 8 submarines to meet its needs. However it has never actually had more than six submarines in service and AFAIK there are no approved (or even publicly projected) plans for an extra two at present. As a lot of money is being spent on the FFG upgrade it seems reasonable to assume that these 4 ships could be kept on in service for some time after the AWDs enter service. However, ministerial statements don't suggest that this will happen and one of the Hobart class is to be named Sydney, which is the oldest of the FFGs that are being upgraded. In my opinion it will be a waste of an expensive upgrade program if at least the two newest FFGs don't serve on beside the Hobart class. To meet a target of 14 surface combatants a fourth AWD would be desirable to provide a fleet of 4 AWDs, 2 FFGs and 8 FFHs.

It would be good to see the Kiwi Anzacs brought up to similar standards as the RAN ships and plans are in hand to fit ESSM and mini typhoon to these ships. The Phalanx CIWS, which is not fitted to the RAN ships, is also to be upgraded, so these ships would be able to provide a worthwhile reinforcement to RAN operations.

Re the P-3K the NZ LTDP does provide for provision of an AShM for these aircraft, but I wonder if the comment about Harpoon is based on good inside knowledge or wishful thinking!

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

The comment passed down about the Harpoon you will need to address to the person who made it originally, however in my professional opinion it would be circumspect and logical to follow the lead and opinion of a fellow servicemans opinion. The Harpoon itself bought of the shelf will probably cost something around $500 000 each. Numbers may have to be limited. Not a purchase the government would make lightly, yet due to interoperability there may be no choice other than the Penguin, which the Australians have, or another european eqivalant.

I would certainly like to see NZ get the Harpoon for its P-3Ks as I think they would offer a lot more capability than a missile like Penguin (which I still think is a good ASM). BTW, my comment about wishful thinking refers more to the time frame than to whether the Harpoon will be the missile chosen as part of the LTDP. Personally I would also like to see them on Te Kaha and Te Mana as well. Even if only a small number of missiles is acquired it may be possible to do a deal with Australia to draw on a shared 'pool' of missiles in an emergency.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

You may have slipped a typo error on Te Kawa. Its Te Kaha. Yes, the Harpoon is a weapon that would or should be installed on the frigates. The NZ government hasnt at this point made any commitment to naming the missile to be deployed on the P3 or whether the same missile chosen for the P3 will be installed on the ANZACS.

I would certainly like to see NZ get the Harpoon for its P-3Ks as I think they would offer a lot more capability than a missile like Penguin (which I still think is a good ASM). BTW, my comment about wishful thinking refers more to the time frame than to whether the Harpoon will be the missile chosen as part of the LTDP. Personally I would also like to see them on Te Kawa and Te Mana as well. Even if only a small number of missiles is acquired it may be possible to do a deal with Australia to draw on a shared 'pool' of missiles in an emergency.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Re: Harpoon

Does anyone know why there isnt a VLS version for Harpoon on US Naval ships and Australian ships? If the Tomahawk missile can be used by VLS why not the Harpoon?

 

[Tasman]

You may have slipped a typo error on Te Kawa. Its Te Kaha.

Thanks Markus- Some Aussies (well me anyway!) don't cope well with Kiwi names!

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

RAN Projected Strength 2015

I just found a copy of the RAN's projected future naval strength based on a Parliamentary report tabled in June 2004. For 2015 it projects that the RAN will have the following fleet:

2 x air warfare destroyers (plus one building)
3 x Adelaide class upgraded FFG (presumably the oldest, Sydney, will have gone by then)
8 x Anzac class upgraded FFH
6 x Collins class SSK
12 x Armidale class patrol boats (2 more ordered since this paper was prepared)
6 x Huon class mine warfare ships
2 x large amphibious ships (new LHDs)
1 x Kanimbla class LPA
1 x fleet replenishment ship (AOR)
1 x auxilary oiler (AO)

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/maritime/report/chapter2.pdf

Whilst there would no doubt have been some changes since the report was written it can be seen that there are plans for some of the FFGs to remain after the AWDs enter service and the RAN plans to have 13 major surface combatants and 6 submarines in service in 2015.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Does anyone know why there isnt a VLS version for Harpoon on US Naval ships and Australian ships? If the Tomahawk missile can be used by VLS why not the Harpoon?

This is a good question. AFAIK the Harpoon Block I and Block II are not cleared for VLS launch but I recall reading somewhere that a proposed Harpoon Block III upgrade would be able to be launched using VLS. Unfortunately I can't find the source to confirm this. Perhaps someone else may be able to provide this.

Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

Does anyone know why there isnt a VLS version for Harpoon on US Naval ships and Australian ships? If the Tomahawk missile can be used by VLS why not the Harpoon

I asked that question a few years ago at a Harpoon handling class, and the answer I got was that the USN didn't feel the need to spend any additional money on a VLS Harpoon. Most USN (and allied) ships already have a set of Harpoon launchers that can handle 8 missiles so a VLS version is redundant, and the Flight IIA Burkes don't have the equipment to fire them anyways.

 

[Todjaeger]

I just found a copy of the RAN's projected future naval strength based on a Parliamentary report tabled in June 2004. For 2015 it projects that the RAN will have the following fleet:

2 x air warfare destroyers (plus one building)
3 x Adelaide class upgraded FFG (presumably the oldest, Sydney, will have gone by then)
8 x Anzac class upgraded FFH
6 x Collins class SSK
12 x Armidale class patrol boats (2 more ordered since this paper was prepared)
6 x Huon class mine warfare ships
2 x large amphibious ships (new LHDs)
1 x Kanimbla class LPA
1 x fleet replenishment ship (AOR)
1 x auxilary oiler (AO)

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/maritime/report/chapter2.pdf

Whilst there would no doubt have been some changes since the report was written it can be seen that there are plans for some of the FFGs to remain after the AWDs enter service and the RAN plans to have 13 major surface combatants and 6 submarines in service in 2015.

Cheers

IIRC, it is anticipated that the third (currently planned) AWD will commission sometime between 2015-2018. And for the Adelaide, the class is to be decommissioned in 2020. The timing is desired to coinside with the start of the Anzac replacement project, having been nearly thirty years since the start of that project. Hopefully by then another "bare-bones" frigate won't be selected. I do think a design provision leaving room to add additional weaponry and/or technology is a good thing. But "fitted for but not with," when taken to the level of the original Anzac launches, is a bad, potentially dangerous idea.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Not a terribly good explanation, considering that USN is looking at designing and building stealthy ships for the future. The harpoon is roughly the same size as the tomahawk, perhaps not as long, but i really dont think an 8 cell launcher is the limit to the USN ability to store weapons like the Seasparrow only. Im sure a 12 cell launcher would make the ships more stealthy.

With the advent of the DDX destroyer coming on line i would expect that a VLS for the Harpoon or similar would be installed. The current cannisters are not stealthy and i would think surely that they (USN) would take this issue head on.

I asked that question a few years ago at a Harpoon handling class, and the answer I got was that the USN didn't feel the need to spend any additional money on a VLS Harpoon. Most USN (and allied) ships already have a set of Harpoon launchers that can handle 8 missiles so a VLS version is redundant, and the Flight IIA Burkes don't have the equipment to fire them anyways.

 

[Markus40]

Without being racist, its a Maori name. ! Good name for a warship though.

Thanks Markus- Some Aussies (well me anyway!) don't cope well with Kiwi names!

Cheers