Is Australia's Navy Adequate?

[Todjaeger]

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.

Per globalsecurity.org the Harpoon (SLAM-ER) is about 4.5m long and weighs in at 629kg. The Tomahawk is about 5.5m (6.25 w/booster) long and weighs 1315kg (1587kg w/booster).

Here's additional information on the Mk 41 VLS
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm

Please note though that there appear to be three different versions of the Mk 41, based off of maximum missle cannister length. Given that the Mk 13 cannister (with Tomahawk) fits in a Mk 41 Strike VLS, a Harpoon would certainly fit. Development work would probably need to be done to modify the Harpoon flightpath, as well as designing an appropriate cannister. It appears that the work being done to further the Mk 41 is either for an AAW or land-attack role. Not quite sure why that is, though perhaps it is because some of the planned land-attack missles will have secondary roles as AShM.

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the Aus navy is looking up..

If you compare its 2015 projections with what some are negitively predicting the RN will have in 2015 they are looking simular. RN is apparently now concidering only 4 missile destroyers. CVF is still fairly shakey.

While we only have 6 ssk's, the new generation of Australian made subs is on the drawing board. If a 4th AWD was to be built (delivered ~2020), the next generation of SSK's may not be too far behind. Which would be good, because it would keep ASC pretty busy and viable. When the first of the next gen of SSK's are to be delivered the collins can have a period of co-operation. This way we can phase in the new subs, while keeping the full capability of the collins. We can spread the build process out, so block obsolence is less of an issue.

The subs and AWD's would come into their own if we ever decided to operate the LHD's as mini carriers giving them a more offensive roll. The fixed wing component acting as a huge force multiplier. Allowing anti-shipping, anti sub, and ground strike as well as airsuperiority.

 

[Waylander]

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

Isn't one AOR and one AO a little bit less for a fleet of this size?
With keeping in mind that the distances between the next safe port and the operating ships should be bigger than for example the average distances around europe it looks not enough for me. Especially when you have to consider that one ship per class means that there is not always a AO or AOR available due to maintenance cicles.

 

[Tasman]

Isn't one AOR and one AO a little bit less for a fleet of this size?
With keeping in mind that the distances between the next safe port and the operating ships should be bigger than for example the average distances around europe it looks not enough for me. Especially when you have to consider that one ship per class means that there is not always a AO or AOR available due to maintenance cicles.

Both the existing AOR, Success, and the newly commissioned AO, Sirius, are expected to be replaced before 2020 by two new AORs. Hopefully the design of these vessels and the fact that a second AOR will substitute for the less versatile AO will provide a more flexible and capable force. For many years after WW2 the RAN had no tanker at all, and in the 60s and 70s it had only one. But at that stage the RAN was able to call upon British replenishment vessels for support when operating in the Far East. It wasn't until 1989 that a second hand tanker was acquired to serve as an AO to provide a second refuelling ship (albeit without the other capabilities provided by the AOR). The RAN normally deploys the AOR from Fleet Base East (Sydney) and the AO from FBW (near Perth, WA) but they sometimes deploy together during major exercises. Australia has plenty of refuelling bases along the East coast, between Hobart in the South and Darwin in the North but ships operating from FBW in the Indian Ocean have fewer 'home' ports available. The RAN, of course, works closely with the RNZN, which has a small AO, Endeavour, and the USN.

A third ship would be nice as it would ensure that at least two would normally be available and I guess this is similar to the German Navy situation where the same situation is being discussed on another thread. With a limited budget the RAN is opting at this stage to push for more surface combatants as its priority and is satisfied that 2 AORs will meet its needs.

Cheers

 

[Waylander]

Yeah we also have two big AORs in service but a third is approved and going to join the fleet.
But unlike the RAN we also have 2x Rhön fleet oilers, 2x Walchansee fleet oilers, 6x Elbe tenders and 1x Westerwald ammunition transport.

I am no pro when it comes to naval themes but for me one AOR and one AO (Even when being replaced by another AOR in the future) looks not that much for a navy which is nearly as big as the german one but which seems to have to cover a larger area of the sea.

 

[Tasman]

Yeah we also have two big AORs in service but a third is approved and going to join the fleet.
But unlike the RAN we also have 2x Rhön fleet oilers, 2x Walchansee fleet oilers, 6x Elbe tenders and 1x Westerwald ammunition transport.

I am no pro when it comes to naval themes but for me one AOR and one AO (Even when being replaced by another AOR in the future) looks not that much for a navy which is nearly as big as the german one but which seems to have to cover a larger area of the sea.

In WW2 the RAN was able to requisition oil tankers to serve as fleet auxilaries. Today, however, Australia only has 53 ships over 1000 tonnes on the Australian Register and only 6 of these are tankers.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html

Even in wartime it is doubtful that more than 1 or 2 of these could be requisitioned and taken off the coastal trade so the RAN would be dependent on support from US replenishment ships if it was operating in areas like the Gulf or North Pacific in a major conflict. However, the RAN would only be likely to be operational in these areas as part of a coalition with the USA.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Could atleast another oiler be put on perhaps a simular system as the RN roro's. Operated by the merchant marines, and does commerical runs except when required by the RAN?

It would seem that Australia is opening itself up to to supply issues.

Particularly with the LHD's. Which will need to be resupplied regularly if ever used. With limited range and endurance. For say relief missions and even just command/hospital operations. 16 helicopters, possibly F-35's, certainly up to 1000 troops.

Also if any highspeed boats (Kanimbla style) were purchased, they would put additional strain on resupplying.

 

[Tasman]

Could atleast another oiler be put on perhaps a simular system as the RN roro's. Operated by the merchant marines, and does commerical runs except when required by the RAN?

I think this is a good idea. It would be good ,IMO, to do anything that would increase the number of vessels on the Australian trade routes that the government would be able to access in wartime. This could apply to oil tankers, RoRo ships, and even smaller vessels down to trawler size that could be used as auxilary minewarfare ships in wartime.

It would seem that Australia is opening itself up to to supply issues.

Particularly with the LHD's. Which will need to be resupplied regularly if ever used. With limited range and endurance. For say relief missions and even just command/hospital operations. 16 helicopters, possibly F-35's, certainly up to 1000 troops.

The LHDs will actually have a long range capability. The Mistral class, for example, is quoted as having a range of 19,800 nm at 15 knots. However, there may well be a need for auxilary supply ships, in the event of a sustained deployment, that could be filled by chartered or requisitioned merchant vessels, if they are available.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mistral-class-landing-platform-dock

Also if any highspeed boats (Kanimbla style) were purchased, they would put additional strain on resupplying.

As well as transporting troops these could also be useful for the high speed transport of supplies to troops who find themselves standing off a trouble spot in the LHDs for a sustained period.

BTW, the Kanimbla type is not a high speed ship. This is the current LPA class with a top speed of 22 knots.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Could atleast another oiler be put on perhaps a simular system as the RN roro's. Operated by the merchant marines, and does commerical runs except when required by the RAN?

.

Not as simple as it sounds. UNREP requires specialised equipment such as that fitted to HMAS Sirius and this takes time. The RN have used tankers to replenish the AOR's and AO's using a floating line but this involves stopping or very slow speed.

Given we managed to convert Sirius the methododgy for converting a modern handymax tanker is now known and so other ships should be able converted in a reasonable timeframe should the need arise. Hopefully with a better helo deck option than the abomination on Sirius.

 

[Tasman]

Not as simple as it sounds. UNREP requires specialised equipment such as that fitted to HMAS Sirius and this takes time. The RN have used tankers to replenish the AOR's and AO's using a floating line but this involves stopping or very slow speed.

Given we managed to convert Sirius the methododgy for converting a modern handymax tanker is now known and so other ships should be able converted in a reasonable timeframe should the need arise. Hopefully with a better helo deck option than the abomination on Sirius.

I think the idea would be to fit out a couple of tankers with the necessary specialised naval equipment and fittings and then lease them out for commercial service. This would have to be funded but it would eliminate the ongoing running costs when not required for naval service.

BTW, I have to agree that the helo deck on Sirius does look fairly awful in photos taken from some angles.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Nice idea but the RAS gear does compromise compliance with MARPOL to a degree and limits the vessel flexibility for commercial operations.

Sirius was a pretty good deal and was purchased new but operated by Teekay for a while as the Delos. A better option for a 'reserve fleet' would be to buy one or two tankers and hand them over to a commercial operator in the same manner with strict requirments on maintenacne. This would allow a modification to be designed for that specific vessel.

The idea would not to be to make a large profit but to have tonnage available but as freight rates are currently very high so money should be made and should pay back part (or all depending on how long thye are operated) of the construction cost and design work. It should be noted that ship building cost are currently high but there is a slow down so there may be opportunities for a good deal.

 

[Tasman]

Nice idea but the RAS gear does compromise compliance with MARPOL to a degree and limits the vessel flexibility for commercial operations.

Sirius was a pretty good deal and was purchased new but operated by Teekay for a while as the Delos. A better option for a 'reserve fleet' would be to buy one or two tankers and hand them over to a commercial operator in the same manner with strict requirments on maintenacne. This would allow a modification to be designed for that specific vessel.

The idea would not to be to make a large profit but to have tonnage available but as freight rates are currently very high so money should be made and should pay back part (or all depending on how long thye are operated) of the construction cost and design work. It should be noted that ship building cost are currently high but there is a slow down so there may be opportunities for a good deal.

This sounds like a good idea. It would overcome my main concern which is that there is such a shortage of available tonnage in the Australian Merchant Marine. It could even be worth subsidising an Australian operator (like Teekay for example). As well as providing a naval reserve I'm pretty certain this would be well received by the Maritime Union which is concerned about the increase in foreign vessels on the Australian trade.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

In WW2 the RAN was able to requisition oil tankers to serve as fleet auxilaries. Today, however, Australia only has 53 ships over 1000 tonnes on the Australian Register and only 6 of these are tankers.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html

Even in wartime it is doubtful that more than 1 or 2 of these could be requisitioned and taken off the coastal trade so the RAN would be dependent on support from US replenishment ships if it was operating in areas like the Gulf or North Pacific in a major conflict. However, the RAN would only be likely to be operational in these areas as part of a coalition with the USA.

Cheers

But overseas vessels such as Sirius was may be available. Afterall the ship purchase only cost $50m to which the cost of modifications (conducted over a roughly 6 month period) has to be added.

However I doubt the whole capability cost more than $150m which to a modern wartime budget, would be very small change.

An additional vessel for "each" coast would provide an outstanding capability level, but would cost only around $300m.

Compared to fighter and surface combatant costs, it's next to nothing...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Brain fry..

I was actually refering to HMAS Jervis Bay not Kanimbla. I know several navies have been throwing the idea around of a high speed ship of some sort and they are thirsty and have a short range.

While the LHD have quite a long range, they are most likely going to need some protection, including destroyers, frigates and submarines. This is going to be a thirsty task force. More so if they are going flat out somewhere.

 

[Todjaeger]

Brain fry..

I was actually refering to HMAS Jervis Bay not Kanimbla. I know several navies have been throwing the idea around of a high speed ship of some sort and they are thirsty and have a short range.

While the LHD have quite a long range, they are most likely going to need some protection, including destroyers, frigates and submarines. This is going to be a thirsty task force. More so if they are going flat out somewhere.

According to current plans, the proposed LHDs will replace one Kanimbla LPA and the Torbruk LSL. The second 2nd Kanimbla LPA will be replaced with some sort of HSV like the Jervis Bay or Westpac Express. No word yet on any characteristics though.

Personally, for the replacement of HMAS Success, I would like to see something like the planned Canadian Joint Support Ship. Albeit without the requirement for command & control of forces the Canadians have. When the Sirius is also set to retire, another could be added. This would give the RAN increased sealift, as well as RAS capacity.

Nice idea but the RAS gear does compromise compliance with MARPOL to a degree and limits the vessel flexibility for commercial operations.

Sirius was a pretty good deal and was purchased new but operated by Teekay for a while as the Delos. A better option for a 'reserve fleet' would be to buy one or two tankers and hand them over to a commercial operator in the same manner with strict requirments on maintenacne. This would allow a modification to be designed for that specific vessel.

The idea would not to be to make a large profit but to have tonnage available but as freight rates are currently very high so money should be made and should pay back part (or all depending on how long thye are operated) of the construction cost and design work. It should be noted that ship building cost are currently high but there is a slow down so there may be opportunities for a good deal.

Just seeking clarification on this. With the RAS gear, does the addition (on a civilian flagged vessel) mean that some ports might not allow the oiler to dock? Does the RAS gear make the vessel more difficult to operate/maintain? Basically trying to determine what sorts of issues will arise, and if there are ways around them. Or if it's even worthwhile.

Also, for the second part, commercial operation of a government tanker. Is the idea to have a government owned tanker (like MV Delos) used by a civilian operator until the vessel is needed by the RAN? With appropriate modifications for underway replenishment initiated when the RAN takes over the vessel? With the Sirius modifications taking approximately 6 months, would that be rapid enough to augment RAN capacity when needed? I'm thinking of situations like the fire aboard HMAS Westralia, taking that vessel out of service for a period.

-Cheers

 

[Rich]

Ive been watching this thread with interest, and learning instead of posting. At this point I would have to say "yes" the RAN is inadequate for the full range of possible missions it could be called upon to do. There is a significant lack of assets in refueling and resupply, a significant lack of assets needed for amphibious operations, and an inability to provide air cover outside the range of Land based air.

Surface ship-wise the RAN is also lacking. The Adelaide's are a nice design but with the upgrade program you are robbing Mary to pay Paul. 4 of these ships are simply not enough. The Anzacs too. This modernization program is certainly welcome but it should have been done years ago. The air defense DDs will be welcome but their keels haven't even been laid down yet, correct? And there are no plans for Tomahawk on any RAN platforms. Nor are there plans for F-35 VTOL even if you will have the LHDs to operate them on. It appears that even in the future the strike power of the RAN will be very Limited. Most of all if you dont at least buy the LASM for your VLS.

So what are we looking at here? Were looking at a defense force that will probably be capable of defending Australia but will be limited in its ability to bring the war home to an enemy. With the exception of the Collins and even they are incapable at striking land targets. By not purchasing Tomahawk your being penny wise but pound foolish. It just doesn't make much sense to build such excellent platforms like the Collins and the new DD and not arming them with Tomahawk.

I acknowledge the excellent training and skills of RAN personnel, and, acknowledge the benefits of a naval exercise program that keeps the RAN sharp. However the RAN is a green water navy in a situation and a region where you need more. More then anything Australia is a maritime nation.

In my opinion, "which means nothing", the Ran should build a navy capable of two missions at one time. The first mission should be "protecting the land mass and vital seal lanes". The 2nd mission should be supporting A,air cover, fire support of a amphib op outside the range of land air cover "for at least meaningful loiter times". B, would be the same thing only in support of a coalition attack. Heres what the RAN needs for this.

1, 4 new DDs, not 3. And at least two of them armed with Tomahawk.

2, A cruise missile strike capability for the Collins boats.

3, 2 carriers in the 25,000 ton range optimized for amphib ops and carrying F-35bs.

4, 2 amphib support LPDs in the 15,000 to 20,000 ton class.

5, A significant increase in fleet support auxiliaries. And not grabbing civilian ships but dedicated fleet oilers and replenishment ships.

The baseline I'm using is the Italian navy.

 

[Tasman]

Ive been watching this thread with interest, and learning instead of posting. At this point I would have to say "yes" the RAN is inadequate for the full range of possible missions it could be called upon to do. There is a significant lack of assets in refueling and resupply, a significant lack of assets needed for amphibious operations, and an inability to provide air cover outside the range of Land based air.

Surface ship-wise the RAN is also lacking. The Adelaide's are a nice design but with the upgrade program you are robbing Mary to pay Paul. 4 of these ships are simply not enough. The Anzacs too. This modernization program is certainly welcome but it should have been done years ago. The air defense DDs will be welcome but their keels haven't even been laid down yet, correct? And there are no plans for Tomahawk on any RAN platforms. Nor are there plans for F-35 VTOL even if you will have the LHDs to operate them on. It appears that even in the future the strike power of the RAN will be very Limited. Most of all if you dont at least buy the LASM for your VLS.

So what are we looking at here? Were looking at a defense force that will probably be capable of defending Australia but will be limited in its ability to bring the war home to an enemy. With the exception of the Collins and even they are incapable at striking land targets. By not purchasing Tomahawk your being penny wise but pound foolish. It just doesn't make much sense to build such excellent platforms like the Collins and the new DD and not arming them with Tomahawk.

I acknowledge the excellent training and skills of RAN personnel, and, acknowledge the benefits of a naval exercise program that keeps the RAN sharp. However the RAN is a green water navy in a situation and a region where you need more. More then anything Australia is a maritime nation.

In my opinion, "which means nothing", the Ran should build a navy capable of two missions at one time. The first mission should be "protecting the land mass and vital seal lanes". The 2nd mission should be supporting A,air cover, fire support of a amphib op outside the range of land air cover "for at least meaningful loiter times". B, would be the same thing only in support of a coalition attack. Heres what the RAN needs for this.

1, 4 new DDs, not 3. And at least two of them armed with Tomahawk.

2, A cruise missile strike capability for the Collins boats.

3, 2 carriers in the 25,000 ton range optimized for amphib ops and carrying F-35bs.

4, 2 amphib support LPDs in the 15,000 to 20,000 ton class.

5, A significant increase in fleet support auxiliaries. And not grabbing civilian ships but dedicated fleet oilers and replenishment ships.

The baseline I'm using is the Italian navy.

I would love to see a fleet similar to what you describe Rich. I am particularly keen for the RAN to add Tomahawk to its inventory. The debate in Australia has largely come down to whether we should have a strike force based on the RAAF's fast jets with standoff weapons like JASSM or a submarine based force based on Tomahawk. I would like to see both and I also think that buying a quantity of Tomahawks for the AWDs would further increease Australia's flexibility with strike options.

The problem, of course, is cost. Australia is already committed to sustaining a 3% annual increase in real terms (over and above inflation) in its defence budget until 2015/16, and recent purchases such as the FA-18F buy are being funded with supplementary funds on top of this. At this stage I doubt many people would support pushing defence spending beyond what is already planned and whilst it can be argued that the navy should be stronger it would be impossible to find areas of the army or airforce that could be cut back to pay for it. On the contrary, the army, in particular, could argue strongly for an increase and there are parts of the air force that are also fairly thin.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/overview/html/overview_13.htm

However, I am one of the few who would like to see spending increased and my 'ideal' fleet would comprise:

Combat Force
6 x Hobart class air warfare destroyers (1 extra plus 2 to replace the last FFGs)
8 x upgraded Anzac class frigates
8 x SSK (6 'Collins' plus the first 2 of 8 follow on SSKs)

Tomahawk missile for SSKs and sufficient stock of these missiles to enable them to be deployed in at least 2 destroyers.

Amphibious Force
2 x Canberra class LHDs
2 x LPDs
2 x HSV

RAAF and RAN to form a 'joint' squadron of F-35Bs for deployment from the LHDs

Support Force
2 x AOR
2 x AO

Minewarfare Force
6 x Huon class minewarfare ships

Patrol Force
14 Armidale class patrol boats supported by the customs patrol fleet.

Perhaps this is a pipedream but you never know!

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

According to current plans, the proposed LHDs will replace one Kanimbla LPA and the Torbruk LSL. The second 2nd Kanimbla LPA will be replaced with some sort of HSV like the Jervis Bay or Westpac Express. No word yet on any characteristics though.

I don't know where you got this from. The third ship will be an amphibious support ship but as far as I know a HSV is not the front runner. Some individuals I know have proposed a vessel in the order of 40000 tonnes with a RO-RO and self discharge capacity built in. The problem with most HSV's is they need a port to discharge and are a bit fragile when it comes to using them with LCVP or LCH's as shuttles.

Personally, for the replacement of HMAS Success, I would like to see something like the planned Canadian Joint Support Ship. Albeit without the requirement for command & control of forces the Canadians have. When the Sirius is also set to retire, another could be added. This would give the RAN increased sealift, as well as RAS capacity.

If the amphibious support ship is quite capable, this combined with the two LHD's will give us all the capacily we need even if one LHD is focused on air support. Something like the Canadian support ship is very useful but there is a compromsie in that it limits its uplift capcilty in fuel, stores and munitions on a given tonnage. Givne the capcity already planned in for amphibious support the Success replacment should be optimised in the support role.

Just seeking clarification on this. With the RAS gear, does the addition (on a civilian flagged vessel) mean that some ports might not allow the oiler to dock? Does the RAS gear make the vessel more difficult to operate/maintain? Basically trying to determine what sorts of issues will arise, and if there are ways around them. Or if it's even worthwhile.

Why spend 60million on a ship to fit it wiht RAS gear then give it to a commercial operator wiht resulting increased maintenace burden, reduced uplift and complaince issues. Not a very attractive option. This gear, as fitted to Sirius, does compromise complaince SOLAS and MARPOL but then there is a diferent focus in the use of the vessel.

Also, for the second part, commercial operation of a government tanker. Is the idea to have a government owned tanker (like MV Delos) used by a civilian operator until the vessel is needed by the RAN? With appropriate modifications for underway replenishment initiated when the RAN takes over the vessel? With the Sirius modifications taking approximately 6 months, would that be rapid enough to augment RAN capacity when needed? I'm thinking of situations like the fire aboard HMAS Westralia, taking that vessel out of service for a period.

-Cheers

The reasoning behind this suggestion is that there may be no need to take the vessel up from trade. As such it operates and pays for itself as an asset in waiting (with all the design work done), They may even make a profit. If the dreadful helo deck was done away with and a more bare bones option taken up then IMHO it is possible the work could be done in a shorter time.

What this means there are no operating cost for the RAN and no demands for crew. It also give you the opetion of rotating the vessel wiht a new one every 10 to 15 years so the assest remains currently compliant and benefits from technology change. Mindy you this I think this would very much be a leap too far for the likes of DMO.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ive been watching this thread with interest, and learning instead of posting. At this point I would have to say "yes" the RAN is inadequate for the full range of possible missions it could be called upon to do. There is a significant lack of assets in refueling and resupply, a significant lack of assets needed for amphibious operations, and an inability to provide air cover outside the range of Land based air.

Surface ship-wise the RAN is also lacking. The Adelaide's are a nice design but with the upgrade program you are robbing Mary to pay Paul. 4 of these ships are simply not enough. The Anzacs too. This modernization program is certainly welcome but it should have been done years ago. The air defense DDs will be welcome but their keels haven't even been laid down yet, correct? And there are no plans for Tomahawk on any RAN platforms. Nor are there plans for F-35 VTOL even if you will have the LHDs to operate them on. It appears that even in the future the strike power of the RAN will be very Limited. Most of all if you dont at least buy the LASM for your VLS.

So what are we looking at here? Were looking at a defense force that will probably be capable of defending Australia but will be limited in its ability to bring the war home to an enemy. With the exception of the Collins and even they are incapable at striking land targets. By not purchasing Tomahawk your being penny wise but pound foolish. It just doesn't make much sense to build such excellent platforms like the Collins and the new DD and not arming them with Tomahawk.

I acknowledge the excellent training and skills of RAN personnel, and, acknowledge the benefits of a naval exercise program that keeps the RAN sharp. However the RAN is a green water navy in a situation and a region where you need more. More then anything Australia is a maritime nation.

In my opinion, "which means nothing", the Ran should build a navy capable of two missions at one time. The first mission should be "protecting the land mass and vital seal lanes". The 2nd mission should be supporting A,air cover, fire support of a amphib op outside the range of land air cover "for at least meaningful loiter times". B, would be the same thing only in support of a coalition attack. Heres what the RAN needs for this.

1, 4 new DDs, not 3. And at least two of them armed with Tomahawk.

2, A cruise missile strike capability for the Collins boats.

3, 2 carriers in the 25,000 ton range optimized for amphib ops and carrying F-35bs.

4, 2 amphib support LPDs in the 15,000 to 20,000 ton class.

5, A significant increase in fleet support auxiliaries. And not grabbing civilian ships but dedicated fleet oilers and replenishment ships.

The baseline I'm using is the Italian navy.

Whilst I agree with most of your sentiments, I disagree with some for the following reasons:

FFG's. They are to provide an interim air warfare capacity, until the introduction of the AWD's, only. As far as frigates go (which is all they are) they will provide excellent capability.

ANZAC's, agree with the much needed upgrade, however it doesn't go far enough. The full "warfighting improvement program" should have been conducted, which would have given: 3D radar and advanced naval combat system, VL SM-2 and ESSM capability, Mk 45 Mod 4 gun, Harpoon II, a CIWS and a new torpedo. They could have built 4 more vessels and completely replaced the Adelaide Class, leaving RAN with 1x surface combatant class, but a more capable fleet, with improved maintenance efficiencies.

AWD's: agree with your comments, however this proposal is very much dependant on which vessel is chosen. RAN desperately wants TacTom and BMD capability, plus the announced combat fit on the Gibbs and Cox design. It may be too expensive however and Government may end up opting for the F-100. If that happens, say goodbye to any RAN long range strike capability or BMD capability as the ships simply don't have the capacity for these AND their anti-air role.

As to the aircraft carrier idea: simply won't happen, despite the capability improvements they would obviously provide. The funding is unlikely to ever appear and RAN could not man the ships anyway. The introduction of such ships would require dedicated escorts, which would be over and above our existed and planned force structure.

The problem with this is that we can barely man our existing fleet. One of the main reasons in the reduction from 6x Adelaide class FFG's was our current parlous manning issue. We are not far from tying up existing combatants to the dock for lack of sailors to take them to sea. Conscription is political suicide in Australia so it's not likely to be introduced.

RAN's future land strike capability will revolve around the Mk 45 Mod 4 gun and ERGM rounds, plus the capability that Harpoon II has. Tactom is a possibility, a naval JASSM variant is also a possibility, as is a naval variant of NLOS-LS. VTOL UCAV aircraft may be a possibility in future as well.

An F-35B Squadron is unlikely but not a completely improbable option for RAAF. (RAN is unlikely to contribute pilots to this squadron, having NO fixed wing pilots). These would be more likely to operate from our planned LHD vessels, of which 2x in the 22,000 - 27,000 ton class, will be operated by RAN, eventually.

A future fleet of my wish list which is perhaps more realistic would be:

14x major surface combatants comprising:

3x AWD's.

3x upgraded FFG's (the 1st to be replaced by the last AWD and the remainder to be replaced under the "follow on frigate project).

8x upgraded ANZAC's.

6x upgraded Collins.

3x Amphibious warfare / sea lift vessels comprising:

2x LHD's.

1x Ro-Ro "sealift" ship.

6x "hi-speed" landing craft sufficient to transport vehicles up to and including M1A1 Abrams and heavy "armoured" Bulldozers.

A patrol / minehunter force comprising:

14x Armidale patrol craft.

6x Huon Minehunters.

A support force comprising:

2x fleet refuellers/replenishment vessels.

And a variety of other landing craft, survey craft and training vessels.

Anything beyond this, short of a serious threat appearing on the strategic "horizon" seems a bit far fetched to this "realist".

 

[StingrayOZ]

While not offical, I think the LHD will operate the F-35's. The BPE option is apparently favoured (bigger, more capable, cheaper, more flexable). While the offical word is no skijump, it could be added later or half way through the build process. The F-35A's won't be flying in Australia till ~2015 anyway, with B's flying sometime after that, and more like 2020 if Australia wanted them.

Amphib
2 x Canberra Fully equiped LHD's (BPE) able to operate as carrier and amphib.
1 x basic LHD (BPE) able to operate as an amphib (7 helo spots) no fancy radar maybe use existing landing craft. Replacing Kanimbla LPA (how long do they want this around for?) Maybe this is what they are planning. Its cheap at less than $300 million at current 2 ship buy. Radar, landing craft etc is where the real costs are. There may be enough budget in the Canberra class to do this.

With two ships sharing a total pool of 24 F-35B's (usual fixed air wing of 12 per ship) and all three also able to deck and hanger the current pool of Tiger, NH90 and chinooks. All three able to operate heavy UCAV's for AWACS. We should look at more tigers, more NH90's and possibly more chinooks.

This is supported by atleast one conventional RoRo of around 40,000 tons and atleast one AOR.

4 x awd's of the cheaper spanish design F-100, strike capability can be handled by the carriers etc. More would be nice but I don't see it happening.

Upgrades to the rest of the fleet inc SSK's and Frigates.

That would give Australia the ability to defend its territories, friendly nations and the ability to participate in multination missions on its own terms.

It would certainly make Australia a key defence player in the region.

Which is important because the US looks like winding back its carrier force significantly. Also Japan may get a some sort of carrier now it has no conventional carriers to port in Japan. The two small carriers would pack half a Nimitz F-35 airwing. Certainly a significant punch.