Is Australia's Navy Adequate?

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
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".
I agree with the 14 major surface combatants, and this matches RAN wishes, but I would still push for the submarine force to be increased to 8. I will be surprised if the RAN doesn't make a strong case to government for this. I also wouldn't be surprised if once again they are unsuccessful! The navy wanted 8 'O' class and received 6 and they wanted 8 Collins and still only managed to get 6! :(

I'd still like to see the possibility of a joint RAAF/RAN squadron of VSTOL JSFs followed up. I realise that RAN fixed wing pilots (or rather the lack of them) would be a problem in the short term, but this could be a long term project.

Apart from the submarine numbers and consideration of the F-35B for the final JSF buy, I have to concede that anything more than what you have put forward is somewhat unrealistic at the present time.

Cheers
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
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.
I don't remember exactly where I read it, but I do remember mention of a fast landing ship as a replacement for the final Kanimbla vessel. I'll see if I can locate where I read it. I think it would be good for Australia to have one for operations in the region. Definately agree though on the shortcomings of HSV-style vessels when operating over open oceans and/or away from port facilities. Hadn't heard about at 40k ton Ro-Ro though. That would be a considerable increase for a trooplift vessel over the Tobruk or Kanimbla. Does the talk about such a design get into whether the vessel would be built milspec, or to commercial military standards like the RNZN Canterbury?

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.
Given my limited knowledge of ship design, here's a question. How much of a negative impact on fuel/ammo cargo is there, by including the provision for lane-meters to transport vehicles? I understand that the cargo tonnage used by vehicles being transported would reduce the amount of fuel/ammo cargo. Do the fittings needed to work well as a replenishment vessel preclude carrying deck cargo?

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.
Okay, understand the idea now. Except for having a heli platform as a design requirement (when being initially constructed, not the bridal-train heli platform slapped on the stern of the Sirius) I think the idea is a good one. Already having a government owned vessel, with modification plans completed would significantly shorten the time to get into service if needed. And being operated commercially until taken into service (if ever done) could potentially cover the acquisition cost, and certainly the maintenance/upkeep costs. Unfortunately, I also agree that this looks too "outside the box" for the DMO currently.

-Cheers
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
:unknown
I don't remember exactly where I read it, but I do remember mention of a fast landing ship as a replacement for the final Kanimbla vessel. I'll see if I can locate where I read it. I think it would be good for Australia to have one for operations in the region. Definately agree though on the shortcomings of HSV-style vessels when operating over open oceans and/or away from port facilities. Hadn't heard about at 40k ton Ro-Ro though. That would be a considerable increase for a trooplift vessel over the Tobruk or Kanimbla. Does the talk about such a design get into whether the vessel would be built milspec, or to commercial military standards like the RNZN Canterbury?
The Australian Government's AusTender document says:
Joint Project 2048 will provide the ADF with increased amphibious deployment and sustainment capability to support a land force. Phase 4C will see the second LPA replaced with a strategic sealift capability in 2016. This capability will enable the ADF to transport bulk equipment, supplies and forces into a theatre of operations and provide significant ongoing support to deployed forces. Strategic sea lift is complementary to amphibious operations. The Contractor shall plan, develop and produce a report on the options available to achieve JP2048 Ph4C - Strategic Sealift in support of an enhanced deployed force. ... This report shall address the platform options available and the possible financial arrangements to achieve the capability requirement.
https://www.tenders.gov.au/federal/...id=2867&p_criteria=CMS2006-6-00476&p_advert=1

This suggests that the type of vessel or vessels to meet the requirement is extremely flexible and it will be up to contractors to put forward proposals. I guess these could range from one large ship to several small high speed vessels.

Cheers
 

Rich

Member
As far as I know we plan to continue with 12 carriers. The new designs, along with new aircraft and equipment, should if anything increase our sortie rate and time on station.

My reason for 4 of the new AWDDs is so's the dual mission can be accomplished. One or two will always be in port for repairs and upgrade after all.

I agree the frigate upgrade program looks like a nice program. But a frigate is still a frigate even if wired into Aegis and the 5"/54 gun is unremarkable, even with erm, as a "only" land strike package. TacTom is not an option. The RAN absolutely needs it!

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.
I thought all that was in the upgrade program? Maybe with the exception of the VLS on the Anzacs. I thought SeaRam was going to be installed, replacing the CIWS gun? As to the new torp your probably going to keep the M-46 correct?

Anything beyond this, short of a serious threat appearing on the strategic "horizon" seems a bit far fetched to this "realist".
We can hope right? Thats the problem with "threats". They can appear quickly.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
As far as I know we plan to continue with 12 carriers. The new designs, along with new aircraft and equipment, should if anything increase our sortie rate and time on station.

My reason for 4 of the new AWDDs is so's the dual mission can be accomplished. One or two will always be in port for repairs and upgrade after all.

I agree the frigate upgrade program looks like a nice program. But a frigate is still a frigate even if wired into Aegis and the 5"/54 gun is unremarkable, even with erm, as a "only" land strike package. TacTom is not an option. The RAN absolutely needs it!


I thought all that was in the upgrade program? Maybe with the exception of the VLS on the Anzacs. I thought SeaRam was going to be installed, replacing the CIWS gun? As to the new torp your probably going to keep the M-46 correct?

We can hope right? Thats the problem with "threats". They can appear quickly.
The ANZAC's are getting a new 3D phased array CEA-FAR radar (with 6 panels) and the associated CEA-MOUNT phased array fire director, along with an enhanced combat system and passive IRST system to provide "multiple" channels of fire for ESSM. They are not getting SM-2, which the ANZAC Warfighting Improvement Program (WIP) would have provided.

The ANZAC's have had a single 8x cell Mk 41 VLS system installed from the beginning. The Anti-ship missile defence project "may" install an additional 8x cell Mk 41 to bring the total ESSM's up to 64x missiles. It "may" also introduce a "second layer" type of anti-air/anti-missile system, with MISTRAL previously being spoken of as the preferred system.

However since RAN and Government decided to go with the more capable 3D radar system (including an entirely new mast and attenae array), RAN is now studying whether ESSM alone will be sufficient. This is mainly because the project is designed to provide "reasonable" level of defence only, given the ANZAC frigates "2nd tier" role within RAN. "Mini-Typhoon" has already been ordered and introduced into service, to cover the close in anti-surface role, so RAN simply has to decide whether a gun or missile based CIWS is necessary for the ANZACS's. Personally I think a "stand alone" CIWS such as SeaRam would be a good addition, but I'd take 64x ESSM first, if the choice were 1 or the other...

As to the Mk45 gun, I agree the Mod 2 version IS unremarkable. This is the version that equips the ANZAC's and most other Mk 45 variants today. The Mod 4 is a more advanced variant, which even using the same ammunition, provides double the range of the Mod 2. With ERGM the strike range is over 100k's.

Little compared to Tactom I agree it's limited, but it is not an insignificant capability (particularly given the number of available shots, compared to any Tactom load out) in the littoral warfare RAN is likely to engage in mostly within our region. Such a capability for instance would have allowed RAN to provide NGS fires from multiple vessels for Interfet ANYWHERE in Timor in 1999, a capability we STILL lack.

TacTom would clearly improve our strike capacity, but it would take a strong committment from our Government, as our neighbours would see it as a provocative move and would attempt to match or better the capability.

Without significantly improved recruiting and retention, a 4th AWD would be tied up at the docks, the situation is that bad. It's pointless advocating a 4th at present. It's beyond our capacity to operate, let alone fund. You might as well advocate 10. I understand the thought behind the 4th AWD acquisition, particularly the maintenance and "rotation" of operational vessels benefits that would come from a 4th AWD, but it's simply unfeasible at the present time. A significant long term boost to recruiting would be necessary for RAN to do this and unfortunately the complete opposite has been happening.

On top of that, the cost is not insignificant, with the cost for 3x AWD's now reaching AUD $7b. A fourth would push it close to $8.5 - 9.0b...

As to the Torpedo, the European MU-90 torpedo has been chosen to arm the ANZAC's, FFG's, AWD's, Seahawks and AP-3C's... It's already integrated on 3x ANZAC's and (I believe) HMAS Sydney, the first FFG-UP...

Cheers

AD.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
The ANZAC's have had a single 8x cell Mk 41 VLS system installed from the beginning. The Anti-ship missile defence project "may" install an additional 8x cell Mk 41 to bring the total ESSM's up to 64x missiles. It "may" also introduce a "second layer" type of anti-air/anti-missile system, with MISTRAL previously being spoken of as the preferred system.

However since RAN and Government decided to go with the more capable 3D radar system (including an entirely new mast and attenae array), RAN is now studying whether ESSM alone will be sufficient. This is mainly because the project is designed to provide "reasonable" level of defence only, given the ANZAC frigates "2nd tier" role within RAN. "Mini-Typhoon" has already been ordered and introduced into service, to cover the close in anti-surface role, so RAN simply has to decide whether a gun or missile based CIWS is necessary for the ANZACS's. Personally I think a "stand alone" CIWS such as SeaRam would be a good addition, but I'd take 64x ESSM first, if the choice were 1 or the other...
I can understand the RAN's dilemma over whether to seek funding for an additional 8 cell VLS system for additional ESSMs or a VSRAD system such as SeaRAM, if funds are limited (which they almost certainly will be) but my worry is that the Anzacs will end up with neither. The failure to fit the Phalanx CIWS to the Australian Anzacs, at a time when their air defence relied on just 8 x Sea Sparrow SAMs to back up the 5" gun, suggests to me that the RAN have not seen hard kill close in air defence as a priority for these ships. On the other hand I believe the Anzacs are at the forefront of soft kill anti missile technology with 4 x 4 Nulka launchers in each ship.

I would be much happier to see both the extra VLS cells and a VSRAD system installed. I will be very disappointed if at least one of these options is not implemented in the upgrade.

Cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...And being operated commercially until taken into service (if ever done) could potentially cover the acquisition cost, and certainly the maintenance/upkeep costs. Unfortunately, I also agree that this looks too "outside the box" for the DMO currently.

-Cheers
The RN ro-ros were built to RN spec, while meeting commercial standards, but are owned & operated by a commercial company. Two have to be permanently available to the RN. In theory, the RN can relinquish them when they're not needed, but AFAIK in practice they're kept busy. The other 4 are operated on commercial contracts, but have to be available to the RN after a specified notice period.

This has saved money compared to buying & operating 6 RFA ships, but is far from cost-free. The 4 ships not in permanent use by the RN cost a little more than straight commercial ships, & because of the risk of them being commandeered by the navy, they're less in demand than other ships, so make less money. In practice, a lot of their custom comes from government agencies (e.g. they're used for the St. Helena run). Also, the armed forces have used them more than was forecast, because of the unscheduled increase in overseas deployments.

My point is that you shouldn't start thinking in terms of it being possible to completely cover acquisition & running costs for transport or support ships by commercial use when they're not in demand. But, that said, I think it's working pretty well for us. We have saved money, though not as much as the more optimistic forecasts, & we've got some damned useful ships. We'd have been scraping around all the time for suitable ships for private charter without them, & often having to make do with less than ideal ships, paying top dollar on charter rates. Their cost partly being covered by other government agencies is fine, as that money would have been spent anyway, & by all accounts we're getting good service from them.

So tell your lot to go for it! They can look at what we've done, & with a bit of luck improve on it. If the RN's done it, how far outside the box can it be?

BTW, Flensburg will happily build more to the same design, so if the RAN has any use for 23K ton ro-ros . . . . . :)
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My point is that you shouldn't start thinking in terms of it being possible to completely cover acquisition & running costs for transport or support ships by commercial use when they're not in demand. But, that said, I think it's working pretty well for us. We have saved money, though not as much as the more optimistic forecasts, & we've got some damned useful ships. We'd have been scraping around all the time for suitable ships for private charter without them, & often having to make do with less than ideal ships, paying top dollar on charter rates. Their cost partly being covered by other government agencies is fine, as that money would have been spent anyway, & by all accounts we're getting good service from them.

:)
If an owner who is bare boat chatering a tanker in the current market cannot recoup the vessel costs within ten years there is something wrong. Don't forget fuel and maitenace costs are to the chaterers account. The cream is when you sell the vessel at the end of that period. This should cover any outstanding costs and provide some profit. The princiapl here is to base the charter on a long term basis with a recall cost if the vessel is called in early.

The market is softening but handy size tankers are still very sought after provided some silly bugger does not stick RAS gear on them.
 

ssmoore

Member
Have they tried all the tricks like the US as far as recruiting? Like bonuses and money for college?

Also what would be the feasability of the RAN getting one of our non nuclear carriers like the kitty hawk when we replace her with the new version. OOPS I remeber now that the Japanese dont like the idea of a nuclear carrier so she might stay. How about the kennedy? I just read its being decomissioned this month and stated it needs refusbishing and its flight decks were not certified. Would it be more economical to aquire this ship and rebuild her or would it be better to just start from scratch. Forgive me if these questions are stupid as I have just recently became interested in naval forces and have much to learn.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Have they tried all the tricks like the US as far as recruiting? Like bonuses and money for college?
The ADF is open to ideas and the suggestion of paying for tertiary education is a good one. Bonuses have been offered to RAAF fighter pilots to stay on in the service but I'm not certain about the RAN using bonuses. I seem to recall bonuses being discussed for submariners. Perhaps someone else can help here.

Also what would be the feasability of the RAN getting one of our non nuclear carriers like the kitty hawk when we replace her with the new version. OOPS I remeber now that the Japanese dont like the idea of a nuclear carrier so she might stay. How about the kennedy? I just read its being decomissioned this month and stated it needs refusbishing and its flight decks were not certified. Would it be more economical to aquire this ship and rebuild her or would it be better to just start from scratch. Forgive me if these questions are stupid as I have just recently became interested in naval forces and have much to learn.

The addition of a carrier like Kittyhawk to the RAN would make a wonderful dream but there is no way that Australia could provide a crew or an airwing for the carrier, or acquire and man the additional escorts and support structures that would be needed. Basically neither the money nor the manpower is available. The manpower needed to operate Kittyhawk exceeds the combined crews of all the RAN frigates! In addition the age of the carrier means that it would be very costly to refit it for further service.

In addition the RAN has not identified a need for a 'super carrier'. Even when it had a fleet air arm the RAN always planned around a fleet of several light carriers and once budgetary constraints reduced the force to just one the writing was on the wall. As has been mentioned in a number of RAN threads there is very little likelihood of the Australian Navy getting back into the carrier business in the foreseeable future. Even providing VSTOL JSFs for operations from the LHDs would be a major project that seems beyond Australia's capacity at the moment.

The RAN is struggling to man its existing fleet of frigates and submarines and will be hard pressed to absorb new assets already planned like the 3 air warfare destroyers and the 2 large LHDs.


Cheers
 
Last edited:

ssmoore

Member
well I suppose if we must dream then might aswell dream big.:D But you could just imagine her with a new coat of paint and a few F-35 lightinings and super bugs on her deck.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
well I suppose if we must dream then might aswell dream big.:D But you could just imagine her with a new coat of paint and a few F-35 lightinings and super bugs on her deck.
I often used to dream of an RAN fleet led by big carriers. In the 1960s they were ex Essex class. By the 1970s I had moved on to ex Midways and later I thought ex Forestals were the way to go. The trouble was I kept waking up and the reality was that the navy kept on getting smaller! :D

Cheers
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
I often used to dream of an RAN fleet led by big carriers. In the 1960s they were ex Essex class. By the 1970s I had moved on to ex Midways and later I thought ex Forestals were the way to go. The trouble was I kept waking up and the reality was that the navy kept on getting smaller! :D

Cheers
perhaps if you as the UK and French government nicely there be a CVF in RAN colors. it might be the most possible of the fantasy's carriers invisable crewing forestall weight and air wing
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Have they tried all the tricks like the US as far as recruiting? Like bonuses and money for college?
The USN offers sign on bonuses for certain jobs and reenlistment bonuses as well for a lot of rates.

OOPS I remeber now that the Japanese dont like the idea of a nuclear carrier so she might stay.
I'm pretty sure they have agreed to let a nuke be stationed in Japan.

How about the kennedy? I just read its being decomissioned this month and stated it needs refusbishing and its flight decks were not certified.
That ship is the naval equivalent of a car on cinder blocks, the engineering plant is a mess (and has been for years), none of the catapults or arrester wires work you have voids that have rusted through to the water and all kinds of other problems. Best thing the USN can do is just get rid of it in a sink-ex.
 

ssmoore

Member
So what your saying is that when the navy states they have 12 carriers its not true as only 11 are operational?
 

Markus40

New Member
The thought of having the Kitty Hawk for the RAN is a folly, and is from what i believe and read ready for retirement. The Australian Navy is far better going the way of the multi tasked LHDs its planning to build with less crew etc. This is the way of the future for the RAN, and i would go as far as to say that the LHDs do need to have a forward operating ability by operating the F35Bs once they are operational on the USN. This gives them awesome ability to be able to operate outside their regional envionment and in International waters where most likely they will be needed in a war time scenario.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
The thought of having the Kitty Hawk for the RAN is a folly, and is from what i believe and read ready for retirement. The Australian Navy is far better going the way of the multi tasked LHDs its planning to build with less crew etc. This is the way of the future for the RAN, and i would go as far as to say that the LHDs do need to have a forward operating ability by operating the F35Bs once they are operational on the USN. This gives them awesome ability to be able to operate outside their regional envionment and in International waters where most likely they will be needed in a war time scenario.
I totally agree with you Markus and I think your point about Kittyhawk has already been conceded. The LHDs are the way ahead and if it is possible to get F35Bs on board some time in the future then that would be an excellent outcome for Australia.

Cheers
 

Markus40

New Member
Letter to John Key Re: NZ Defense Forces. Wrtten by myself.

Dear John Key,


Re: New Zealand’s Defence Role and Relationship with Australia and Asian Countries as current for 2007.

The Overview.

Recently New Zealand’s Defence posture due to years of neglect and poor upkeep is now seeing resurgence in upgrades and procurements of equipment that our Defence forces require to maintain a certain level of operational effectiveness. We have seen this in Project Protector, the Army’s new vehicles and new weapons, and the Air forces new helicopters and Hercules upgrades just to name a few.

Its quite obvious that New Zealand in the past has not kept to its obligations with its defence partners by pulling its weight when emergencies have arisen where New Zealand has been called upon to participate in even limited action like the Yugoslavian war effort where we saw our C-130 Hercules unable to take off due to mechanical failures and our APCs (now decommissioned) unable to take on the tasks as required due to not having proper anti armour to protect them. We also have seen to the embarrassment of the Military and the government the LAV 111s are showing cracks in their superstructure. I can name many more examples of failures within our Defence Forces ability to operate with the right equipment and weapons needed to carry out the roles they are supposed to be assigned too.

Due to global terrorism and the increasing unstable nature of the governments within the South Pacific, New Zealand needs to take security of our region seriously, without relying on Australia to always do the job for us. It’s also been interesting to see a shift in the Labour government’s policy towards Defence, especially in light of the terrible disbanding of the A-4s. Something I would like to cover later in this document.

The Labour governments strategy is to lay out a further 4.5 billion dollars over the next ten years on top of the Defence cap for general Defence spending to cover further upgrades and to look at options of adding to the Defence Force further infrastructure and procurement that may be necessary to keep New Zealand at the so called cutting edge of our ability to operate alongside our key partners such as Australia.





Having checked and read New Zealand’s Long Term Defence Initiatives for the next Ten years and seen what New Zealand has done to replace the existing platforms it is plain to see that the 4.5 Billion that is required for the upkeep and further upgrading will not go far enough for the benefit of our Defence Forces and adequately maintaining the current force structure the way it is. Inflation in itself will have an effect on the proposed spending required as well as pay requirements for Defence personnel, and the government will be forced into a position of buying equipment that simply is urgent rather than what is required. We have already seen how a budget blow out has occurred for the purchase of the NH-90 Helicopters for the Air Force.

Australia as it is does to some extent rely on the New Zealand forces to work alongside with them and to do so in any theatre of operation that may be called upon. It is also obvious that Australia’s Defence strategy has extended dramatically to a more global one where we will see Australia more involved with coalition partners in any theatre of war or peace keeping worldwide, and to maintain its assets in those places of risk, will require New Zealand’s Naval assets in some respects to cover their normal operational tasks throughout South East Asia and South Pacific. An area that’s now becoming more unstable as we have recently seen.

Many New Zealand people are unaware that Defence arrangements made with countries in our region is vital for our own level of security, despite the benign level of an immediate threat to New Zealand throughout the South Pacific. Its also important for the general public to be aware that our trade routes through Asia remain open and threat free at all times as well as being able to train our personnel to a high level, equal to the technology of other armed forces, and also integrate our forces with others, where ever that may be.

Keeping a small yet effective Defence Force like New Zealand’s requires a lot of investment. However when needed its invaluable. Lastly, in any field of operation each section of the armed services can’t operate effectively without the other. If it continues to do so under fire then there can only be one result. Heavy casualties. The Navy needs the Airforce for Air cover, the Army needs both the Navy and Airforce for an Air strike and the Airforce needs the Army and Navy for communications and for self protection in a war zone.

Security is and should always be the first priority of any country regardless of how benign that may be; to being fully exposed to an aggressor and to be able to respond at a moments notice to any contingencies should they arise is vital.

As a National supporter I thought it prudent to contact you and see what Nationals policy is towards Defence now that the Cold War is over and the years of neglect that occurred under previous National lead governments are and what the National Governments policy will be when they come into government.


I would also like to briefly comment on some of the current short falls that seem to have not been addressed across our three armed services. These are what I would call major fundamental operational issues that need urgent attention and I hope that National will address these in the coming years in government.


Royal New Zealand Navy.

The Labour government’s policy on the Navy’s strategy is good. But we have a fundamental weakness by not having a third ANZAC frigate or similar that is able to operate at the same level with the same equipment as the current ANZAC frigates. Why I mention this is for two reasons:

1-If we have one ANZAC frigate in dry dock for refitting and maintenance we have only one for deployment if an emergency arose. Another ANZAC would give the RNZN more options and put the “teeth back into the tiger”

2-Currently our ANZACS are overworked. That means the ANZACS will need more maintenance work. Currently there is a stress on meeting our Exercise arrangements to keep the Navies systems at operational readiness, and Personnel working at levels required at war level, and Persian Gulf obligations with our partners, as well as putting stress on our personnel shore leave.

The OPVs will provide a limited option for operational use, but not at the capacity if required suddenly to replace the wide sea keeping ability such as the ANZAC. Unless of course the OPVs were equipped with self protection weapons such as a CIWS or a bigger gun. It’s worthy to note that the OPV is used for Patrol/Navy work and for the Fisheries protection currently.

3-The new MRV (HMNZS Canterbury) being the capital ship for the RNZN, does not have enough self defensive weapon systems to protect itself in a war zone if called upon. There should be at least one CIWS if attacked by missiles or aircraft. If the current NZ government is serious about its mission and what it transports then it would make sense to install a VLS carrying the Sea sparrow or a short range anti Aircraft Missile system like the Mistral.

4-It would appear that as a result of the purchase of the OPVs that an additional number of SH-4Gs would need to be supplied to augment the number already in operation and have the OPVs operating with their full mission ratios.


Royal New Zealand Air Force.

The Labour Governments policy on the Airforce is extremely poor. It’s a big bird with its wings clipped and caged for that matter. Our own Airforce can do better. The RNZAF has in the past been a proud flag bearer of our countries abilities to get Defence jobs done yet our Labour governments choices, by disbanding our small, yet effective fast jet fleet, was a nail in the coffin for specialised pilots and Defence force personnel that as a result went over seas. It’s sad to see today that we still have these old yet still capable aircraft still sitting in our hanger at Woodbourne.

However some improvements have been made through the purchase of the 757 and the replacement of the Iroquois helicopter. Just to name a couple of upgrades. Within our Air Force lies a deep, yet untapped ability that this country needs to be able to perform to the task it needs so it’s able to pull its weight fully with our partners. Let me list these issues.

1-New Zealand needs to look at a full replacement of our ageing C-130 Hercules Squadron with a longer reach Aircraft such as the very new Airbus A400M which has a maximum load range of 1700 nm (something New Zealand needs to reach places such as Fiji or Cairns or Darwin direct from Auckland without refuelling). The Aircraft is able to handle 2 x LAV 111s, or 116 fully equipped troops or 9 pallets of supplies.

This is mentioned in response that New Zealand requires a Military Transporter that is able to handle and carry heavier and vital equipment to an area of operation quickly rather than relying on HMNZS Canterbury to spend days on delivering the equipment and which the insurgency/skirmish would be over and done with. Thus costing the New Zealand government in having it sent in the first place. It’s interesting to note that the A400M can be refuelled from the air and Australia’s help with tanker support, could be invaluable.

2- There is a huge hole in our ability to be able to respond to a terror threat at sea and be able to neutralise it. As mentioned before, due to New Zealand’s location we don’t have an immediate threat coming from anywhere immediately. However, as New Zealand is being seen as a player against the war on terror, it can only be logical to suggest that New Zealand would be a country of target, like Australia, by would be terrorists using maritime routes to gain access into our country. Thus we need a rapid response air wing that is also able to interoperate with our Australian counterpart. This would mean a squadron of BAE Hawks or similar so as to maintain a ready reaction, fast attack wing and maritime surveillance platform, with a weapon that is able to neutralise this threat.

The BAE Hawke is an aircraft that is used as a trainer for the RAAF and our own pilots would have invaluable experience being able to train their skills with theirs on the same type of aircraft.

3-The P-3K Orion. Despite major overhauls of the fuselage and systems, the aircraft itself, despite being capable for maritime search and rescue, requires more advanced mission computers for surface warfare and weapons delivery packages. There is currently ECM packages on the existing mission computers and improved cockpit navigation upgrades, but no equivalent like the Australians have. This has a limiting factor on our personnel and Defence, which should be able to train and maintain systems for maritime warfare alongside our partners.

Let’s make no mistake the P-3 is the only surveillance platform that is able to take this role and it’s vital to maintain it. Its also important now to recognise that there is the possibility that Chinese submarines may be on the prowl through our waters undetected, not to mention the latest news that the Indonesian Navy has also now got a submarine capability that will give the war planners in Canberra a few late nights.

The Labour governments Long Term Defence Initiative requires the P-3s to be armed with an anti-ship missile, although from what I understand they haven’t at this point selected the type. This does of course go some way into giving our Defence Forces the ability for a maritime strike, but it doesn’t address the overall needs within our Air Force for rapid improved Air Strike capability like we used to have, and now desperatly need.


4-Another suggestion is that instead of the New Zealand Armed Forces funding its own combat wing that we base a squadron of Australian F-18 Hornets or F-35s in New Zealand as part of a closer Defence arrangement. This would mean keeping Whenuapai or expand another base such as Woodbourne as a home base. The Defence Department could work around such a commitment and having this closer Defence relationship would further enhance our Defence relationship.


Royal New Zealand Army


The Current Labour government’s policy towards the Army of late has been very good. The government has seen the Army as being pivotal to being on the front line of warfighting and peace keeping. This has been reflected in the government opening its purse strings to almost the whole inventory in the New Zealand Army. This included of course the replacement of the APCs with the LAV 111, and the importing of the transport vehicles from Austria, as well as new purchases such as the Mistral Surface to Air Missile, Anti-Tank Javelin Missile, and Communications Systems. These to name a few.

However, the current Labour government’s policy of tilting the Army into one of “peacekeeping” is a disincentive for those who joined the Army, who all they want, is to protect, serve and put the skill they have learnt with other countries into good use.


To conclude, New Zealand will never field the same qualitive numbers of military hardware like Australia, such as the proposed 2 x LHDs assault carriers, and the 3 x Air warfare destroyers to be built by Tennix. We don’t have budgets of larger western countries by putting ourselves in a position of competing with them. Its amazing to see that New Zealand has been able to contribute in the way it has to overseas commitments such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sinai, Solomon’s, East Timor, Persian Gulf, and others. For such a small country we do give a lot of our forces and put them into peacekeeping roles that helps free up other Armed Forces to do other work in other countries.


In the future New Zealand will need to step up its Defence spending and Defence commitments as well and most significantly of all, integrate more fully with Australians Policy of Defence. This requires New Zealand to forward our forces to exercise alongside Australia and Asian countries and just as importantly be able to deploy more effectively by using the New Zealand Armed Forces resources and platforms ourselves more independently. This will require more investment and focus by our government to turn round the years of neglect and bludging so we are making effective contributions in mostly all areas of Defence.

I will have to be honest and say it was a very hot and humid day in Sydney in 1986 at the Bi Centennial Airshow at Richmond Air Base to see the over pass of Number Two Squadron, which made all the New Zealanders, including myself, who were present, very proud to be kiwi and have our very own jet squadron flying for our country.

I do hope National will think about these traditions once again, in keeping with the RNZAF future in mind, and can also lead our Armed Forces into a place of pride and confidence to be able to utilise and use our systems effectively and with the proper training and implement them responsibly without a repeat of the decadent years of neglect that has only taken away New Zealand’s ability to work efficiently with its partners.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
There is no need to buy a full carrier.

If the BPE design is choosen it will make a excellent carrier. It can hanger as many F-35's as the optimisitical preposed 75,000t French/UK CVF! Hanger space will be prime concideration for naval stealth aircraft. As a full carrier, at war, the canberras could pack an entire 100,000t USN Nimitz carrier F-35 Airwing! It has additional lifts for weapon rearming and is certainly long enough to launch heavily loaded F-35B's. Infact the only thing limiting them as a carrier is the number of planes (at most 24 F-35b's) and who will operate them (airforce or navy) and the commitment to do so.

Manning, inital price and on going costs are extremely reasonable. And will in part be made up by retiring some current ships.

Nimitz would be able to have a higher sortie rate, and be able to operate F-18's, proper AWAC etc. But this is only a real issue if you want to carpet bomb someone from a carrier. Something Australia will never have to do. These light carriers are exactly what Australia has always needed. Plus the F-35b's intergrate into the airforces F-35A's and US/UK forces.

The wave is smart ordinaces and smart delivery systems. With modern ordinaces even small airwings can pack huge punch. As air superiority, strike, anti shipping, anti submarine, surveliance etc. The F-35 will be able to perform all of these roles.

And we will have two of these carriers. They can also operate in mixed role as amphibious ships and supply a mix of fixed and nonfixed wing aircraft as well as landing craft, 1,000 troops and other equipment.

We can afford and look like getting two such capable ships. Thats more carriers than France, UK, Spain or Russia currently have. Anyway you cut it, tonnage, deck space, sorties, airwing. Australia looks like getting a great deal.

The Kitty hawk would cost atleast $3+ billion to get it semi serviceable. Manning would be prohibitive. Steam boilers. Health and occupation, running costs means even if it was free and brand new we still couldn't afford it. Certainly could not afford the airwing for it. And its only one ship, and would not be avalible for long periods during refits.

Not to mention the complete lack of amphibious capabilities.

The large US carriers have crewing requirements of 4-5,000 people. Even the Wasps require ~3,000 paychecks to get moving. We are talking huge % of the ADF if Australia tried to operate one. The BPE has a naval crew of ~170 people + aircrew. Entirely reasonable. Aircrew and aircraft would be drawn from existing pilots and equipment.

The LHD is a mind blowing good idea, and the BPE design is a stand out multirole platform. It can be justified for its amphibious capabilities, but as a light carrier it is a huge force multiplier. Suddenly the number of frigates or patrol boats is less important when you can back the few boats/ships you have with one or two dozen fixed wing aircraft anywhere in the region. Launching UAV's off them you can get huge coverage over the entire region. Illegal fishing and people smuggling will be come near impossible. Australia could project power to where ever it was needed single handedly. Atleast for a short while.
 
Top