Is Australia's Navy Adequate?

[harryriedl]

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.



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.

its also now the french are on bord to argree to the carrier because the desperatly need a carrier when CDG in SELP. and its in their interst to get an agreement on CVF[FR] and CVF[UK] as they won't have an operational carrier when CDG in SLEP.

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

and the 23 are still new and have plently of life in them. so UK dosn't need to be think of a FREEM type vessle for a while



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

 

[harryriedl]

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.



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.



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

and the 23 are still new and have plently of life in them. so UK dosn't need to be think of a FREEM type vessle for a while
its also now the french are on bord to argree to the carrier because the desperatly need a carrier when CDG in SELP. and its in their interst to get an agreement on CVF[FR] and CVF[UK] as they won't have an operational carrier when CDG in SLEP.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

and the 23 are still new and have plently of life in them. so UK dosn't need to be think of a FREEM type vessle for a while

Indeed. They might not be the newest frigate out there, but they will do the job until the S2C2 project is completed and new types are produced as replacements.

 

[Sea Toby]

I would think Brazil may be interested in the last four Type 22s. Possibly other nations may be interested.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I would think Brazil may be interested in the last four Type 22s. Possibly other nations may be interested.

Yeah. So long as we don't sell them for a rock-bottom price!

 

[Tasman]

Compared with the RN Australia's ability to project power on a global basis is extremely limited.

Whilst the RN has its carriers and nuclear submarines it will retain the ability to project power around the world. Australians should be hoping it stays that way because the only reason that the strength of the RN is relevant to whether Australia's navy is adequate is its capacity to share some of the naval burden in the Far East. Even without a permanent presence the ability to deploy aviation assets and SSNs would enable the RN to take pressure off the RAN in times of need.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

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.

Not strictly true. The Seahar has been retired. The ships are operating with GR7/9's instead. The SeaHar was deleted as the DoD did not what to pay for necessary engine upgrades and maintenace noting the SeaHar has an older generation engine than the Harrier II. India refused the SeaHar becasue it was not offered with wiht the Blue Vixen radar and associated systems.

In so far as operating as a commando Carrier this is not new and I understand one of the Invincibles has been in this role on and off for the last decade. It does not remove the ships ability to revert to the primary role should it be requried.

Role on CVF

 

[swerve]

Not strictly true. The Seahar has been retired. The ships are operating with GR7/9's instead. The SeaHar was deleted as the DoD did not what to pay for necessary engine upgrades and maintenace noting the SeaHar has an older generation engine than the Harrier II. India refused the SeaHar becasue it was not offered with wiht the Blue Vixen radar and associated systems.

In so far as operating as a commando Carrier this is not new and I understand one of the Invincibles has been in this role on and off for the last decade. It does not remove the ships ability to revert to the primary role should it be requried.

Role on CVF

Exactly. The Ark was modified in her recent refit to increase her ability to function as an LPH (though Ocean is still better), but not at the expense of her ability to operate Harriers. The Ark is intended to be the last to be retired, as she's the newest, biggest, with steepest ski-jump, & the LPH mods mean she'll continue to be useful even when the first CVF enters service. Currently scheduled to retire only when the second CVF is commissioned, maybe about 2015. Illustrious will retire first.

The Sea Harrier issue was a monumental cockup (IIRC, a mod to increase engine power had a catastrophic effect on reliability, & it was decided it was too expensive to fix for a small number of aging aircraft), but doesn't diminish the RNs ability to launch attacks from carriers in the slightest (if anything, the opposite, since the GR7 & GR9 have much greater ground attack capability than the SHAR). It does reduce the carriers ability to defend themselves.

 

[Markus40]

If you had red my thread carefully you would have seen that i was making the point that the "numbers" of warships the RN have out numbers the RAN.
What you have pointed out in many ways was what i have already known. If you go to the RNs website you will see what is current in the fleet and what is not. The list i submitted to you before was what was current, not projected.

Sure there will be new projects underway, and the SURE the RN urgently requires the CVF carriers and replacement of the type 22 and type 42 destroyers. From what i understand and know is that the greatest problem within the RN is the numbers of personel operating within the RN. They are too low. So in future years this will be addressed. However in saying that, with advent of new and more capable warships less numbers of crew will be required to man the warships thus allowing crew numbers to be distributed more effectively and covering the number of Naval assets.

From the current numbers of surface combatants that are outdated, the same number are replacing them. Give or take one or two.

I need to point out that the opposition parties intention is to continue the CVF program as set up by the Current governments defence initiatives so the RN continues operating its fixed wing assets.

Now one other thing to the Invincible Class carriers. They are a cold war relic that were used primarily for anti submarine operations. So they are "carriers" in the normal sense because the RN operated the harriers off them. The Harriers and RNs biggest asset was the weapons used to counter the bombers off the harriers. Nothing wrong with that. Sounds sensible to me. But like any large asset like a carrier they are a sitting duck unless they have a strike group around them. And its this also this that the RN has had to take stock off.

Having read the RNs website i understand that all replacement ships will be built as specified.

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.

 

[Markus40]

This was a clip from the article from the Daily Telegraph about the situation of the RN.

"The MoD said yesterday that it had no plans to cut the destroyer and frigate fleet but it "routinely reviewed" defence capabilities "to ensure resources are directed where our front line Armed Forces need them most".

PAYS TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. rivate

Besides Blair will be out of government shortly anyways.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Okay, I will admit I was being a bit dramatic. The RN isn't dead yet.

But the RN is certainly going to struggle to replace, upgrade, update, and decommission all these units.

Also the CVF seems awefully weird to me, atleast the designs I've seen. It has a extremely tall yet small hanger. It can hanger only 1-4 more planes than the BPE LHD australia is concidering. Despite nearly 3 times the displacement. Decking stealth aircraft is a particularly risky business (increase maintence cost and reduces stealth effectiveness). Ideally you want them in the hanger when ever possible. I wonder how many F-35 they really plan to operate off them.

Many navies are struggling with crew numbers. Spanish, Australian, RN, even the USN. Hence the big push towards lower crew numbers for newer ships.

Hence why Australia, RN etc are all going to struggle to increase or maintain current fleet numbers.

While we may all sit here and say how nice it would be with 8x ssk's, 6 awd's etc theres no way Australia can man them.

With the upgraded ADF, Australia will be able to project power where it really wants. Not globally, but certainly regionally in the Asia pacific and independant of any other nation. Being able to park a credable blue water carrier strike group off the coast of anywhere in the region at anytime gives you that status.

And effective carriers are the measure of power projection.

 

[Markus40]

You are absolutely right. carriers do forward power projection and i believe this is Australias strategy for the future. And so it should. Its now becoming a global power and needs the current security policy to co ordinate the future.

As to the manning of the future Navy personel, the armed forces should start a campaign in getting into colleges and schools and high schools and giving students the chance of looking at the defence forces as a career option and future option. This should or would increase the number in personell numbers and this needs to be dome urgently and proactively in the UK.

Okay, I will admit I was being a bit dramatic. The RN isn't dead yet.

But the RN is certainly going to struggle to replace, upgrade, update, and decommission all these units.

Also the CVF seems awefully weird to me, atleast the designs I've seen. It has a extremely tall yet small hanger. It can hanger only 1-4 more planes than the BPE LHD australia is concidering. Despite nearly 3 times the displacement. Decking stealth aircraft is a particularly risky business (increase maintence cost and reduces stealth effectiveness). Ideally you want them in the hanger when ever possible. I wonder how many F-35 they really plan to operate off them.

Many navies are struggling with crew numbers. Spanish, Australian, RN, even the USN. Hence the big push towards lower crew numbers for newer ships.

Hence why Australia, RN etc are all going to struggle to increase or maintain current fleet numbers.

While we may all sit here and say how nice it would be with 8x ssk's, 6 awd's etc theres no way Australia can man them.

With the upgraded ADF, Australia will be able to project power where it really wants. Not globally, but certainly regionally in the Asia pacific and independant of any other nation. Being able to park a credable blue water carrier strike group off the coast of anywhere in the region at anytime gives you that status.

And effective carriers are the measure of power projection.

 

[Tasman]

Okay, I will admit I was being a bit dramatic. The RN isn't dead yet.

But the RN is certainly going to struggle to replace, upgrade, update, and decommission all these units.

Also the CVF seems awefully weird to me, atleast the designs I've seen. It has a extremely tall yet small hanger. It can hanger only 1-4 more planes than the BPE LHD australia is concidering. Despite nearly 3 times the displacement. Decking stealth aircraft is a particularly risky business (increase maintence cost and reduces stealth effectiveness). Ideally you want them in the hanger when ever possible. I wonder how many F-35 they really plan to operate off them.

It is normal for carriers to permanently deck park a reasonable portion of the airgroup, even on the big American CVNs, with the hangar being used largely as a maintenance area. By operating smaller airgroups in peacetime the proportion of aircraft that can be protected by the hangar can be increased. This can lessen maintenance issues like corrosion caused by exposure to salt water, reduce flying hours and therefore attrition, and save costs. Whilst I think the hangar of the CVF is reasonable the hangar in the BPE seems surprisingly large, presumably at the expense of other things. However from an Australian point of view it would certainly provide a tremendous versatility in that it could function as an effective amphibious ship with the capacity to switch, if the situation requires, to a light carrier role, with an effective aircraft complement. Of course the aviation assets would have to be acquired for this. Maybe down the track...!

Many navies are struggling with crew numbers. Spanish, Australian, RN, even the USN. Hence the big push towards lower crew numbers for newer ships.

Hence why Australia, RN etc are all going to struggle to increase or maintain current fleet numbers.

While we may all sit here and say how nice it would be with 8x ssk's, 6 awd's etc theres no way Australia can man them.

With the upgraded ADF, Australia will be able to project power where it really wants. Not globally, but certainly regionally in the Asia pacific and independant of any other nation. Being able to park a credable blue water carrier strike group off the coast of anywhere in the region at anytime gives you that status.

And effective carriers are the measure of power projection.

There is no question that the RAN is struggling to man its fleet and will continue to do so unless some innovative ways are found to improve retention. I think this is a major issue that needs to be addressed.

Even if the LHDs have all helicopter air groups they will still, in conjunction with the new Hobart class destroyers, upgraded Anzacs and upgraded Collins, provide Australia with a considerable capacity to project power. The addition of F-35s to the LHDs in the future would enhance that capability considerably but we will have to wait and see if that ever comes about. I hope it will.

Cheers

 

[icelord]

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.

Navy League Australia Mag. had a segment regarding this, with talk inside and out of the RAN discussing a 4th AWD, designate HMAS Melbourne IV. The true concern at present is of course cost, but, if there was a rise in Regional tensions or if the current Economy maintained itself for nother 5-10 years(likely with Resource sectors making gains across the world) then we may be looking at an add on order, as their appears to be a gap between the last AWDs construction and the timing for the Adelaide Class replacements construction in the Australian Ship builiding Industry.

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

Well how bout we let the Poms build one first, as they appear to have a better chance of being ordered here for the RAN then RN get one

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.

The decking of the Mistral is also unable to bear the heat from a JSF or harrier for that matter. The Govt. as well as DOD state that their is no CURRENT requirment for carrier, lets not forget 10 years ago their was no requirment for an LHD at all. With the BPE there is at least a better chance of converting in the future to a carrier then with the mistral if a requirment is needed

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

~shudder~ I won't be able to sleep tonight, gee thanks!

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'll bend the rules a little and say this, if Labor get in, then we may no longer have this sort of 'open chequebook' for the ADF that we currently have, as was the case with the Javelins and C-17s, a requirment needed now and whatever the cost. And it may also be why the LHD and AWD decisions are scheduled for this year, and will start before the november elections, so that they can't be changed or cancelled(it would be beyond suicide to do so, as the ADF is still the pride of the Current Patriotism going around.)

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.

RAR soldiers are considered the best trained regular force in the world, and with the number of casualites we are getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq its no wonder( we have lost 0 soldiers to combat, out of 1000, and whats more, more soldiers were sent home due to injuries created during sport then on patrol(seeking exact numbers) SAS are also considered some of the best in Global special forces community. (and don't start the whole argument over hazardous zones, because we could go on for hours)

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

Hopes are pinned on the Spanish. It has more room and better accomadation on board for both RAN and RAR. The luxury of 14 rec rooms would be a welcome relief for troops about to be deployed to a warzone, and allow for a strong fitness regime in the travel time, if i recall a bloke telling me, it took 2-3mths to get to Iraq instead of 1 as the ship(kanimbla or manoora, can't remember) detoured for drills while they sat around. not great for a digger to sit around getting seasick and losing high fitness standards.
The BPE is also designed for longer distance travel and for a spanish marine detachment to live on board, the mistral is designed for the troops to be taken over a shorter distance without need for resonable accomadation as they won't be onboard for too long.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I know currently that decking aircraft is standard. But future aircraft like the F-35 may change that.

F-22 pilots have commented that there is a significant difference in stealth ability operating over say a desert to operating over a coast. For the F-22 not so much of an issue, flying supercruise, thrust vectoring at 60,000 ft, fire off a few missiles 50 km away, fly through the wreckage of the exploding mig25, while danger zone is blaring away in the background, head back to the airfield knowing the entire USA is back there to repair and restealth you back up. Hell, they have proberly built you a new F-22 for you to fly next time, and still have time to punch ice man in the face before the next sortie! Yeeha!

F-35 is in a diffrent beast. With a carrier steaming through choppy seas at 20+ kts, with a 20 kt headwind theres a great deal of spray. There just isn't the space nor the man power to continously perform stealth repairs and keep sea salt off the surface while flying ops. The F-35 doesn't have a clear aerodynamic advantage (esp the f35B) so stealth is absolutely key. While on the deck during ops is unavoidable, leaving them on deck while going to a hotspot would bring great difficulties. With the CVF possibly carrying half its airwing on deck during war thats a major headache.

You can bet the USN will hanger its F-35 as much as possibly while leaving F-18's and helicopters on deck more of the time. Then again they can hanger 90 aircraft anyway so its less of a problem for them. And the ships are higher and bigger so spray is again less of an issue.

The BPE does not have this problem. It also doesn't have deck edge lifts which increases its seaworthyness and maintains the hanger as less of a problem area for salt etc. The BPE design appears to have the makings of a very good light carrier for a country like Australia. The spanish have learnt many lessons from the previous carrier. As a small country Australia would be wise to reduce damage to the F-35's as much as possible.

This would be one of the reasons I would choose the BPE over say the italian Cavour carrier which has edge lifts and possible sea worthy issues operating outside of the Mediterranean. Not to mention the BPE far superior amphibious capabilties (floodable dock) and lower cost to buy and cost to run. (fewer engines, fewer crew etc).

But as just a LHD, with a few tiger's, chooks, NH-90's, blackhawks etc it would definately be hugely capable. And able to move tanks and other vechicals. As by far the largest LHD's owned/operating in the region. Few regional countries can really field highly credable airforces, certainly few that would ever challenge even a single Hobart AWD.

But with some F-35's things get real interesting. Operating F-35B's would further make Australia a prime candidate for regional service contracts for the F-35 program.

 

[icelord]

I know the landing craft are in darwin on "other duties" now they are not seaworthy on the LPAs, any news on replacements or a stop gap? will the replacements intended for the LHD be stepped up, although this may not work if LCAC is in the running.

 

[Tasman]

I know the landing craft are in darwin on "other duties" now they are not seaworthy on the LPAs, any news on replacements or a stop gap? will the replacements intended for the LHD be stepped up, although this may not work if LCAC is in the running.

I presume that the LPA's are continuing to operate the LCM8s, but I stand to be corrected.

Joint Project 2048 states:

Amphibious Watercraft Replacement
JP 2048 Ph 3
Last updated/reviewed: 18 Jul 06
JP2048 Phase 3 seeks to acquire craft that will replace the existing capability inherent in the RAN’s current LCH and LCVP and the Australian Army’s LCM-8, LPA Watercraft, LARC-V and NLE. The Phase 3 craft will be a key element of the future Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment (ADAS) capability.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/dmo/function.cfm?function_id=71

This was last updated (for public release) in July last year before problems with the LCMs emerged and may also not have taken into consideration the fact that the new craft could not transport the M1A1 Abrams MBT.

I haven't seen any information re how far advanced the above project is or how long the LPA's existing landing craft can be kept in service. It would be good to hear from anyone 'in the know".

Cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

But the RN is certainly going to struggle to replace, upgrade, update, and decommission all these units.

I disagree. Although it may have a lot of ships to replace, the destroyers are now being replaced, and that's the most crucial project on at the moment (apart from CVF). The frigates can keep going for many years yet and plans are being made to replace them.

Decking stealth aircraft is a particularly risky business (increase maintence cost and reduces stealth effectiveness).

They aren't "stealth aircraft" - they have some features of the sort. No one would be using a plane on an aircraft carrier that lost its capabilities from being exposed to the elements!

As to the numbers of planes being carried, it will depend on what the mix of F-35s to helicopters will be. But either way it will be more than enough for the RN's needs.

 

[harryriedl]

I would think Brazil may be interested in the last four Type 22s. Possibly other nations may be interested.

RN ships seem popular with South American nations are there any reason why RN ships are so sort after in the used warship market.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

RN ships seem popular with South American nations are there any reason why RN ships are so sort after in the used warship market.

As far as I can understand it, it's because they're fairly cheap yet have decent capabilities. Although there are some very nice things you can buy these days, they're expensive for middle-income countries - there aren't so many good second-class ships that come on to the market.