Is Australia's Navy Adequate?

[Markus40]

WE ?? As i personally wrote up the article for John Key its not everybody that shares the same ideas. As most of us come from a military background, building up a case for the defence of our defence forces in NZ to the leader of the opposition could give me and you (keep you posted) a good idea of what National intend to do when they come to government.

As for the current Labour party, they dont listen. Not any more. So its pointless discussing it. Thats why its aimed to the National party. So once i get some sort of reply we can ummm, lets say "move on".

We already determined that it wasnt feasable. Now we can move on..

 

[Markus40]

I agree fully and iam with you 100% on this for the exception of one thing.

The LHDs are going to require more or less the current force of ANZACs and FFGs and attack Submarines and a AAW Destroyer as a means of a small but yet effective carrier battle group. Such like the UK, France, US. This is for protection of the LHD for forward operations if required. The LHD will be a principle Warship in RAN and require anti sea, anti air and anti surface reconissaince protection.

The UAV option is very good as a means of recon. and the 24 F35bs will be a huge asset to the LHD. They can and would be a good option for CAP. Its unlikely in my opinion that the large LHD will be used for illegal fishing and anti smuggling ops, as the RAN have already addressed this with a force structure through customs having a fleet of their own Turbos and UAVs for this role. Not to mention the anti smuggling and illegal operations of the RAN using their fast yet small Armidal Patrol Vessels and Helicopters. So thats fairly well covered.



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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tasman]

WE ?? As i personally wrote up the article for John Key its not everybody that shares the same ideas. As most of us come from a military background, building up a case for the defence of our defence forces in NZ to the leader of the opposition could give me and you (keep you posted) a good idea of what National intend to do when they come to government.

As for the current Labour party, they dont listen. Not any more. So its pointless discussing it. Thats why its aimed to the National party. So once i get some sort of reply we can ummm, lets say "move on".

Markus, I think ssmore was responding to the Kittyhawk part of StingrayOZ's post when he said "Now we can move on".

BTW, I thought you're letter was excellent and the ideas in it would be worth discussing in the NZ thread. Perhaps it might encourage other Kiwis to write to the minister.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

I agree fully and iam with you 100% on this for the exception of one thing.

The LHDs are going to require more or less the current force of ANZACs and FFGs and attack Submarines and a AAW Destroyer as a means of a small but yet effective carrier battle group. Such like the UK, France, US. This is for protection of the LHD for forward operations if required. The LHD will be a principle Warship in RAN and require anti sea, anti air and anti surface reconissaince protection.

The UAV option is very good as a means of recon. and the 24 F35bs will be a huge asset to the LHD. They can and would be a good option for CAP. Its unlikely in my opinion that the large LHD will be used for illegal fishing and anti smuggling ops, as the RAN have already addressed this with a force structure through customs having a fleet of their own Turbos and UAVs for this role. Not to mention the anti smuggling and illegal operations of the RAN using their fast yet small Armidal Patrol Vessels and Helicopters. So thats fairly well covered.

I think you have covered this well.

I don't think that the purchase of F-35Bs is likely to be pursued by the ADF at this point in time as they won't want to do anything that would jeopardise the current major projects, namely the LHDs, the AWDs and the JSFs. The SH purchase by the RAAF has lessened the pressure to move quickly with the JSF and a decision on the VSTOL version can be delayed.

The RAN is unlikely to 'rock the boat' by doing anything that might suggest that the LHDs will be light carriers. To do so would play into the hands of the strong anti carrier lobbyist group in Australia who are already saying that the LHDs are unnecessarily large and should be replaced by smaller (and therefore less capable) vessels. I think the time to move on the F-35B will be after the LHDs are well into the construction stage.

The initial F-35B project calls for 'up to' 75 aircraft to equip 3 squadrons and I can't see the RAAF getting sidetracked by considering F-35Bs in the mix. A decision on a fourth squadron will be made at a latter date and that is when I hope the navy will apply pressure for the VSTOL version of the aircraft.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well the F-35B is still many years away. Theres certainly is no rush to secure them.

Infact not pursing them is a smarter move because it keeps our options open and our hand secret. If the RAN said they want to operate the LHD as carriers then we would have to get F-35's to make that possible. This then changes the whole tender process for the aircraft and the LHDs. Prices start to trend upward and many complications are made. Theres also less of a chance of the project being killed before fruition if its initally a simple amphibious aquisition.

The argument for operating F-35B's off a LHD makes more sense when you have two capable LHD sitting in port and your finishing off building your new expensive destroyers. Until then its not worth shouting about it. Capable F-35B's aren't going to be around until 2015 at the very earliest. It may even be a block II purchase to save money and work out the bugs. Until then the LHD will perform as origionally intended, carrying seabirds, NH-90's, chooks, Tigers etc. Hence why 7 landing spots.

By 2020 the greens could be in power and the economy could be in the toilet, so such aquisitions may not be feasable.

The RAN is going to take a massive jump in capability in the next few years. Jumping from a slightly larger version of NZ navy to something like a slightly smaller RN or (far smaller) USN.

 

[Markus40]

Yes i agree and you too have covered some important points laid out in the LHD and F35bs. Its hard to believe that the anti defence lobby group is that strong in Australia. I must have under estimated its political pulling power. I do think the Howard government is on track with its defence projects so far, and i would put the question to you whether the RAN would consider the prospect of putting money into 3 squadrons of F35bs when 2 smaller squadrons could do the job. IE 12 F35bs each LHD. Yes i agree that this isnt something that wouldnt happen overnight due to the political nature of the current defence spending thats now underway, and its incredible to see Australia putting in a truck load of money into all areas of its defence forces which is very good. However, due to the timing and cost restraints of the US F35s production lines and we have seen this with the C17 that it may put the hurry on with governments wanting to make purchases more in advance for such aircraft as the F35s. Maybe something to think about.

It would seem at this stage at least that Howard will get in for another term as Rudd isnt strong enough and experienced enough to lead Australia at this point. Would i be correct in that? So my feelings are that the defence forces are going to get their equipment upgrades and purchases as necessary along with national and global considerations in mind including the LHDs.

I think you have covered this well.

I don't think that the purchase of F-35Bs is likely to be pursued by the ADF at this point in time as they won't want to do anything that would jeopardise the current major projects, namely the LHDs, the AWDs and the JSFs. The SH purchase by the RAAF has lessened the pressure to move quickly with the JSF and a decision on the VSTOL version can be delayed.

The RAN is unlikely to 'rock the boat' by doing anything that might suggest that the LHDs will be light carriers. To do so would play into the hands of the strong anti carrier lobbyist group in Australia who are already saying that the LHDs are unnecessarily large and should be replaced by smaller (and therefore less capable) vessels. I think the time to move on the F-35B will be after the LHDs are well into the construction stage.

The initial F-35B project calls for 'up to' 75 aircraft to equip 3 squadrons and I can't see the RAAF getting sidetracked by considering F-35Bs in the mix. A decision on a fourth squadron will be made at a latter date and that is when I hope the navy will apply pressure for the VSTOL version of the aircraft.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Hello StingrayOZ. I do agree with you in many ways, that the Australian government would delay the F35bs purchase and work on a sole assault carrier force than an "aircraft carrier" force although in saying that the USN operates AV8Bs off its major assault carriers like the USS Wasp. Maybe this option might be better than the F35b at this stage as a introduction and step through till the F35bs do arrive.

On the other hand however, due to the timing and cost restraints of the US F35s production lines and we have seen this with the C17 that it may put the hurry on with governments wanting to make purchases more in advance for such aircraft as the F35s. Maybe something to think about.

Can i suggest that the RAN is far more than a slightly larger version of the RNZN. Its numbers far outweigh NZs ability and numbers in our Navy. However we have a good contributing factor to the RAN which i think makes even the Australian Navy far larger. Once the RAN is up to strength it will have the equivalent to the Spanish Navy, Italian Navy or Japanese Navy. I doubt it will come near the RN as there naval force structure is larger. Although of late the numbers of Naval assets and personell has dropped. Something the current government is trying to rectify.

Well the F-35B is still many years away. Theres certainly is no rush to secure them.

Infact not pursing them is a smarter move because it keeps our options open and our hand secret. If the RAN said they want to operate the LHD as carriers then we would have to get F-35's to make that possible. This then changes the whole tender process for the aircraft and the LHDs. Prices start to trend upward and many complications are made. Theres also less of a chance of the project being killed before fruition if its initally a simple amphibious aquisition.

The argument for operating F-35B's off a LHD makes more sense when you have two capable LHD sitting in port and your finishing off building your new expensive destroyers. Until then its not worth shouting about it. Capable F-35B's aren't going to be around until 2015 at the very earliest. It may even be a block II purchase to save money and work out the bugs. Until then the LHD will perform as origionally intended, carrying seabirds, NH-90's, chooks, Tigers etc. Hence why 7 landing spots.

By 2020 the greens could be in power and the economy could be in the toilet, so such aquisitions may not be feasable.

The RAN is going to take a massive jump in capability in the next few years. Jumping from a slightly larger version of NZ navy to something like a slightly smaller RN or (far smaller) USN.

 

[ssmoore]

Right I was refering to the kitty hawk. Altho I think we can agree it would be nice to have such a capable ship it would not be logistically and monetarily possible.

So what class of ship is under consideration? Something simular to the wasp class? Or something smaller?

 

[Markus40]

Hello ssmore. Thank you for your ideas and suggestions. Currently the government of Australia is or has put forth a proposal for two designs for Tennix of Australia to build 2 x LHDs either from the Spanish Navantia Class which is equiped for a F35b or the French LHD the Mistral Class which doesnt have the facilities immediatly for F35bs. I have included a link for your information. It would appear that the Australian government is leaning on the Navantia design from what i am learning.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-20b-large-amphibious-ships-program/index.php

Right I was refering to the kitty hawk. Altho I think we can agree it would be nice to have such a capable ship it would not be logistically and monetarily possible.

So what class of ship is under consideration? Something simular to the wasp class? Or something smaller?

 

[Tasman]

Right I was refering to the kitty hawk. Altho I think we can agree it would be nice to have such a capable ship it would not be logistically and monetarily possible.

So what class of ship is under consideration? Something simular to the wasp class? Or something smaller?

Two ships are under consideration, both smaller than Wasp, but very capable.

They are the Spanish Navantia BPE and the French Mistral. See link below for details:

http://www.answers.com/topic/canberra-class-large-amphibious-ship



Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think Australia will ever use 24 F-35B's on one LHD. It is a theoretical surge maxium that maybe possible during war time. However I could see 18 F-35B's possibly on a single LHD as part of a larger international mission. Such as afghanistan where, France, US, Uk, Italy and Spain all participated with carrier support.

The more likely airwing is 6-12 F-35B's for each LHD. Then some support helicopters and some UAV. Even 6 F-35B's would easily defeat any current regional threat and would be a great asset. 6 would also make a reasonable number to train with under normal circumstances. This would still leave the RAAF with a number to play with, and a number under going maintence.

Currently Australia and New Zealand share simular surface fleet combat units, mainly the Anzacs frigates. This is a period of change for the RAN, as several vessles are being replaced etc. However once the new aquisitions are complete the forces will be barely comparible, with Australia having a very capable navy.

In a simular way the UK is having to replace a number of its vessels. However the UK seems to have various cost pressures on it. The CVF is looking shakey as are the number of new destroyers they intend to build. It is entirely concivable that the CVF is cancelled, and only 4 destroyers are produced. In this case I would argue Australia may have a navy approximately as capable as the royal navy.

If the Mistral is choosen for the RAN, then forget the F-35B's. They will not operate off them. They are not long enough, don't have the hanger space, nor the deck surface, Im not sure the lifts can operate them either. It is also not capable of a skyjump. They cannot hanger a chook, even loading 1,000 troops will be a struggle. But they would be far better than anything we have currently.

I just hope all the right decisions are made, Its entirely feasable than within 10 years the RAN would be easily in the top 5 navies of the world. And this does not have to come to the detriment of other services with the RAAF and the Army also taking up high spots in any world comparison.

And it can be done with out blowing the budget.

 

[Markus40]

Shall i say i hope you are right with your last statement. No argument with your comments so far except for one thing. Having an air defence element on the LHD which by the way im fully in favour off, would be for the protection of the LHD and fleet operations in any area of operation. If we are to take any ideas or look at any experience in this field we need to to look at the Falklands War and how the British used and maintained its air element on their Aircraft Carriers. From what i understand there were 12 operating on each one during the hostilities and this gave enough ground support and air support to the operation, and effective at it might i add.

In my opinion it is unlikely that Australia will match the numbers of and even the capability of the RN having a full range of Submarines, Larger air element on the up and coming aircraft carriers, and a nuclear detterent as well, and a wide range of frigates, destroyer and some cruisers. I would have to agree to disagree with that suggestion.

I don't think Australia will ever use 24 F-35B's on one LHD. It is a theoretical surge maxium that maybe possible during war time. However I could see 18 F-35B's possibly on a single LHD as part of a larger international mission. Such as afghanistan where, France, US, Uk, Italy and Spain all participated with carrier support.

The more likely airwing is 6-12 F-35B's for each LHD. Then some support helicopters and some UAV. Even 6 F-35B's would easily defeat any current regional threat and would be a great asset. 6 would also make a reasonable number to train with under normal circumstances. This would still leave the RAAF with a number to play with, and a number under going maintence.

Currently Australia and New Zealand share simular surface fleet combat units, mainly the Anzacs frigates. This is a period of change for the RAN, as several vessles are being replaced etc. However once the new aquisitions are complete the forces will be barely comparible, with Australia having a very capable navy.

In a simular way the UK is having to replace a number of its vessels. However the UK seems to have various cost pressures on it. The CVF is looking shakey as are the number of new destroyers they intend to build. It is entirely concivable that the CVF is cancelled, and only 4 destroyers are produced. In this case I would argue Australia may have a navy approximately as capable as the royal navy.

If the Mistral is choosen for the RAN, then forget the F-35B's. They will not operate off them. They are not long enough, don't have the hanger space, nor the deck surface, Im not sure the lifts can operate them either. It is also not capable of a skyjump. They cannot hanger a chook, even loading 1,000 troops will be a struggle. But they would be far better than anything we have currently.

I just hope all the right decisions are made, Its entirely feasable than within 10 years the RAN would be easily in the top 5 navies of the world. And this does not have to come to the detriment of other services with the RAAF and the Army also taking up high spots in any world comparison.

And it can be done with out blowing the budget.

 

[ssmoore]

After looking at the links I hope they choose the spanish desighn. Which one would you guys prefer?

 

[Markus40]

Hello ssmore. Thank you for your ideas and suggestions. Currently the government of Australia is or has put forth a proposal for two designs for Tennix of Australia to build 2 x LHDs either from the Spanish Navantia Class which is equiped for a F35b or the French LHD the Mistral Class which doesnt have the facilities immediatly for F35bs. I have included a link for your information. It would appear that the Australian government is leaning on the Navantia design from what i am learning.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...gram/index.php

After looking at the links I hope they choose the spanish desighn. Which one would you guys prefer?

 

[Markus40]

Current numbers of Warships in the RN.

I rest my case.

Aircraft Carriers Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Invincible 1977 22,000 1051
HMS Illustrious 1978 22,000 1051
HMS Ark Royal 1981 22,000 1051

Amphibious Assault Ships Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Ocean 1995 20,700 265
HMS Albion 2001 18,500 363
HMS Bulwark 2001 18,500 363

Type 42 Destroyers Batch 2 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Exeter 1979 4,820 253
HMS Southampton 1980 4,820 253
HMS Nottingham 1980 4,820 253
HMS Liverpool 1980 4,820 253

Type 42 Destroyers Batch 3 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Manchester 1980 5,200 301
HMS Gloucester 1982 5,200 301
HMS York 1982 5,200 301
HMS Edinburgh 1983 5,200 301

Type 23 Frigates Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Argyll 1989 4,900 181
HMS Lancaster 1990 4,900 181
HMS Iron Duke 1991 4,900 181
HMS Monmouth 1991 4,900 181
HMS Montrose 1992 4,900 181
HMS Westminster 1992 4,900 181
HMS Northumberland 1992 4,900 181
HMS Richmond 1993 4,900 181
HMS Somerset 1994 4,900 181
HMS Sutherland 1996 4,900 181
HMS Kent 1998 4,900 181
HMS Portland 1999 4,900 181
HMS St. Albans 2000 4,900 181

Type 22 Frigates Batch 3 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Cornwall 1985 5,300 250
HMS Cumberland 1986 5,300 250
HMS Campbeltown 1987 5,300 250
HMS Chatham 1988 5,300 250

Vanguard Class Submarines Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Vanguard 1995 15,980 135
HMS Victorious 1995 15,980 135
HMS Vigilant 1995 15,980 135
HMS Vengeance 1998 15,980 135

Swiftsure Class Submarines Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Superb 1974 4,900 116
HMS Sceptre 1976 4,900 116

Trafalgar Class Submarines Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew

HMS Trafalgar 1981 5,200 130
HMS Turbulent 1982 5,200 130
HMS Tireless 1984 5,200 130
HMS Torbay 1985 5,200 130
HMS Trenchant 1986 5,200 130
HMS Talent 1988 5,200 130
HMS Triumph 1991 5,200

 

[Todjaeger]

Hello ssmore. Thank you for your ideas and suggestions. Currently the government of Australia is or has put forth a proposal for two designs for Tennix of Australia to build 2 x LHDs either from the Spanish Navantia Class which is equiped for a F35b or the French LHD the Mistral Class which doesnt have the facilities immediatly for F35bs. I have included a link for your information. It would appear that the Australian government is leaning on the Navantia design from what i am learning.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...gram/index.php

Slight correction here. There are two competing entries for the Canberra LHD. One is from the Tenix/Navantia team, which has the larger SPS-based design. The other team is a Thales ADI/Armaris team which has entered a version of the smaller Mistral LHD. Personally, I hope the SPS-based design wins, being larger, somewhat more capable, and presumably with more flexibility to expand for the future.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Slight correction here. There are two competing entries for the Canberra LHD. One is from the Tenix/Navantia team, which has the larger SPS-based design. The other team is a Thales ADI/Armaris team which has entered a version of the smaller Mistral LHD. Personally, I hope the SPS-based design wins, being larger, somewhat more capable, and presumably with more flexibility to expand for the future.

-Cheers

The Spanish design has a reasonable capability to operate VSTOL aircraft like the F-35B, but I understand that the French design, whilst 'Australianised' so far as troop capacity is concerned, is not being offered in a lengthened version that would support JSFs. Because of that I would prefer to see the Spanish design selected as it offers the greatest potential to be able to take on different roles, including VSTOL operations, in the future.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Yes, sorry. Forgot to add that in. It was just in the terminology. Yes, me too i am of the opinion that the best design for Australias future needs will be in the larger SPS design going for the Tenix build on the Navantia design. I think from what i know that the RAN want to look at a few modifications and specs so as to have the carrier operate according to its needs.

Slight correction here. There are two competing entries for the Canberra LHD. One is from the Tenix/Navantia team, which has the larger SPS-based design. The other team is a Thales ADI/Armaris team which has entered a version of the smaller Mistral LHD. Personally, I hope the SPS-based design wins, being larger, somewhat more capable, and presumably with more flexibility to expand for the future.

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Current numbers of Warships in the RN.

I rest my case.

Aircraft Carriers Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Invincible 1977 22,000 1051
HMS Illustrious 1978 22,000 1051
HMS Ark Royal 1981 22,000 1051

The UK is currently in the process of retiring its carriers and its aircraft. It currently only has two carriers. The sea harrier has been retired. What do you call a carrier with no fixed wing aircraft? The invincible is already layed up. The ark royal is apparently going to be a commando carrier or LPH until its replaced in 2012.

I would hazard a guess and say the harrier would really struggle against modern russian planes flown by a reasonably competent country.

The type 42 destroyers and 22 Frigates are potentially just targets in any modern conflict. This is early 80's technology. Which is why these are already slated to be mothballed with little or no maintence. The only real reason they are there is to keep crews trained and operational. Australia sunk simular destroyers several years ago.

The six warships to be mothballed are the Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and two Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml

Now only 6 new destroyers are going to be built. "Two of eight advanced air defence Type 45 destroyers on the Navy's order books will not be bought, defence sources said."

If the CVF is cancelled, which is a real possibility, this would leave the RN very crippled. Its SSBN are also under threat. Even not cancelled, with only 6 real destroyers, there are limited escorts for all of these ships.

Sure even crippled it would be (slightly) superior to Australia's wet navy dreams. But they will be a comparison of near equals with simular capabilities in the same class. Barring of course active nuclear deterrant, which seems less relevant these days.

The RN has certainly declined since the heydays. Meanwhile Australia is looking at possibilities it has never had.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The type 42 destroyers and 22 Frigates are potentially just targets in any modern conflict. This is early 80's technology. Which is why these are already slated to be mothballed with little or no maintence. The only real reason they are there is to keep crews trained and operational. Australia sunk simular destroyers several years ago.

I'm not sure about the capabilities of the Type-42s, but the Type-22s are still useful assets. Seawolf is not nearly as bad as many people make out - it is very accurate and does what it needs to do - people I know from the Navy are great fans of it. As to the rest, the ships have had upgrades to extend their usefulness.

As to mothballing, those are still essentially unconfirmed rumours.

If the CVF is cancelled, which is a real possibility, this would leave the RN very crippled. Its SSBN are also under threat.

All reports suggest CVF is still on course, and the Treasury has finally agreed to fund it properly. Equally both main parties are still committed to replace Trident - the only question is whether a formal order should wait until after the 2010 disarmament talks.

The RN has certainly declined since the heydays. Meanwhile Australia is looking at possibilities it has never had.

I would say the RN is poised to obtain capabilities not seen for generations/never had.