ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Australia’s New Combat Ships: Which vessels? How many? When?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ส.ค. 2024
- Australia's review into its surface combatant force has been released to the public. The devil is in the detail!
Related briefings:
Naval Power - Australia: • Naval Power - Australi...
Australia's New Fighting Force - the ADF after the Defence Strategic Review: • Australia's New Fighti...
References:
www.defence.go...
www.defence.go...
defencesa.com/...
Congressional Research Service: Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles
www.austal.com
![น้าครับ..ผมรักน้า EP.04 - ปีกแดงเดอะซีรีส์2024[ฟินมาก] บทซีรีส์สร้างขึ้นเพื่อความบันเทิงเท่านั้น](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m9Q6MwoWgaQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Update: Concerning the Large Optionally-Crewed Vessels, the Minister has said that they will enter service from the mid-2030s through to the early 2040s, so they will not be in service as per my 2033 example.
Also, of the 4 new general purpose frigates to be in service by 2033, the first 3 are to be built overseas. Again note the final total may be only 7.
"The Minister says" LMAO. If I had dollar for every time a MinDef, standing front of a model/surface fleet vessel/Boxer etc for the 'photo op' - I would be a millionaire.
The BIG problem has/is with Russell - the top echelons in uniform/APS staff are USELESS - you should see some of the beyond shoddy contracts Russell's useful idiots have signed up for.
The BAE Type 26 the latest example, while Russell 'still' cannot decide on what main gun can be fitted on the offshore patrol boats.
The list of malfeasance, arrogance and just plain simple cultural myopia is endless.
So we conduct an audit of a DoD acquisition - the audit criteria is agreed to by the ANAO + the 'auditee' - this is done to maximise co-opertion as much as possible with the 'auditee'.
Yet ANAO after ANAO report finds the exact same problems - and Russell ALWAYS 'accepts' the ANAO findings, only to eventually ignore them.
The BEST check on the Minister and Executive of the day is something sadly MANY Australians know nothing about - Senate Estimates. SE's is one of, if not 'the' best mechanisms that hold the wider APS and Russell to account.
The recent British situation of not being able to send a carrier to the Red Sea because they had insufficient tier 1 vessels available, shows us we must thing in terms of flotillas, not single vessels.
All the ships here must be thought of in terms of the nature of flotillas. With or without the Canberra class LHD’s.
The fact is the x2 LHDs have a pathetic defensive capability - it is embarrassing. Look at Japan's flat tops - one/more are being modded for the new JSDF's F35 STOVL - the Japs have been brilliantly innovative - their powerful civil service has been fully supportive of the modding - strategic changes the main driver.
PM Abbott requested a cost of what changes were required to enable RANs LHDs to operate the STOVL JSF - Russell slow walked their response, then replying 'oh it is too hard - and the cost is too much'. When it reality the cost at the time was half a billion, a drop in the DoD Budget Outlays, and only minor changes are required internally - and a 'hardened flight deck' was also needed to take the STOVL down jet blast.
Abbott was rolled before he could press Russell on this - the LINO CINO disaster 'Malcolm' wanted nothing to do with anything Tony was pursuing.
There's NO way the LHDs could ever be deployed in theatre with the current RAN fleet - the x2 LHDs are a serious joke. A handful of small guns, that's it.
The RN's position is dire - the First Sea Lord's recent comments are mind-blowing. The once RN when you take out their SSN nuclear deterrent - when compared the Spain, France and even Italy is pretty poor.
The parlous state of the RN is evident in personnel having to pinch parts from other ships in the fleet.
But decades of under funding from government [s] are responsible for this.
PM Tony Blair started bleeding the Budget Appropriations, the leftist Treasurer then PM Gordon Brown accelerated this, the in name conservative PM David Cameron just did nothing - and the revolving door of PM's since have not done much at all.
I'd argue that without the RN's truly magnificent submarine fleet the UK would be fully exposed.
My prediction on the Frigate selection is this, range is crucial as they are unlikely to be support by supply vessels and crew size needs to be as small as possible.
Alpha 3000 not in the contention, it is a paper tiger and should be dropped.
Daegu/Chungnam, this is resource hungry - 140 crew. Low endurance 4500nm, only 16VLS but K-VLS. All this needs to change. 3 years from build to commission. To change this is too hard to do quickly.
Meko A200: Great range 7200nm, 120 crew, design is mature, VLS needs to change, but main gun is same calibre. 5 years from build to commission. There is space to hold more than 8 SSM as well. There might be space to hold 24 VLS.
Mogani: Range unknown, 90 crew, 3 years from build to commission. SAme weapens ssytem as for RAN, has a facility for UUV and USV. Politically a good choice.
So I believe that it will be between the Meko and the Mogani. Both need more VLS 24-32, at least 8 cells need to Tactical length. We are going to see more coordinated saturation attacks on ships in the future, refer to Red Sea/Black Sea. So the frigate solution will need better CIWS(2+). Need to standardise on the 30mm canon, get rid of the 25mm. This provides compatibility with the Army canons.
The LOSV need the range to be at least equal to the Hunter class. Will need to have 64cell VLS + 8-16 SSM units with good CIWS (3+) and the ability to land a SH60. How else do you plan to transfer maintenane pople in the event of a breakdown.
The Tier 3 should be Canberra Class, Supply Class, Choules Class then Mine Counter Measures (4), Survey/Hydrographic (3) and other support services(4), these being based on the Austal HSSV 72, with CIWS (3+) as they will act closer to shore, and option of VLS/NASAM and NSM.
The Arafuras and the Cape class should be used for the border security/coast guard.
The A210 is what we should be looking at. It has the vls, and we know the design.
Meko A300, granted it is a paper design that should be updated, it would have quite the firepower! 30mm/35mm needs to be the standard for CIWS wholeheartedly, the 20/25mm is too small for airburst and with drones being such a threat we all need to upgrade our CIWS to larger rounds that sling a wall of lead/steel/tungsten not just as fast as possible but with good airburst options.
@@robertharper3754Exactly, the 20/25mm range doesn't have the ammunition types to be effective moving forward, this is only the case in the 30/35mm range. Also commonality with the army ammunition will drive down price and make avaialbility better.
@@Caine1277Do we have the time to wait for the design tto be finished?
Very good opinion [s]. The only issue I have is the Japanese Civil Service are anal about exporting 'any' kind of offensive naval capabilities - they made then PM Abbott's life hard when Tony was looking at the 'Soryu Class' AIP subs.
Then there's the Constitution - it'd need changing. The Civil Service within the Japanese Government is extremely influential over the government of the day - and Japan also does 'not' have a history of exporting serious naval platforms.
For this reason alone I cannot see Japan winning - here's a doozy - when Navantia transferred the F105 schematics/designs to RAN/DoD they had not even translated the details into English.
Yes, true - and although it took RAND/others and serious arm twisting, serial f ups - finally the entire program got their sh#t together.
That BOTH the ALP + Liberal Government's refused to buy into a 4th 'Hobart' imo will remain one of the biggest blunders in a MASSIVE' line of DoD failures.
The 'costs' were seriously attractive - but Russell's 'brains' know best, and you had one of the most anti defence govt's in our history in power.
Gillard used DoD Budget Appropriations as an ATM - hence spending was cut to 1938 levels.
Tier 3 must have defence and attack capability. The Arafura class vessel. 40 crew for a single 25 mm gun.
Imagine telling the army they had a new 25mm gun, but it would take two platoons to take it into battle.
So a couple of fast boats carrying ROG crews could sink an Arafura as they have no rolling airframe missile defence or CWIS.
In the era of unmanned surveillance aircraft, what is it that we think we are patrolling.
Australia should have Anzac sized ships as their tier 2, if configured properly they can do the same tasks as Hunter and Hobart by having Captas 4c towed array sonar, 300-400km range Ceafar radar, 16-32 mk41 vls cells. As simple as that really....
The Meko offers best tonnage to VLS. And crew numbers are essential. It will become increasingly hard to crew ships into the future
The Danish Iver Heuitfeld fregat class has 24 ESSM, a 32 cell MK41 VLS and space for 18 NSM. They are inexpensive to build and maintain and can also be equiped for ASW and carries a MH60-R Seahawk helicopter.
Why not double the VLS celles on the Hunter class as it is possible and proposed by BAE. These steps would make for a strong surface navy
The part that confuses me is that thought Marles said in the announcement that it won’t be corvettes but a patrol frigate of upto 5,000 tons because he said some 50% bigger than the Anzacs. That would surely mean the alpha 3000 would be out and replaced with the alpha 5000 type. Although it’s a paper design it’s more capable than the alpha 3000 corvette
Not really the Tasman class Corvette is more a frigate and pretty well on par with our current ANZAC frigates, Tasman 109m length ANZAC 119m length with both ships being 3,600 ton displacement with Tasman having twice the armament and half the crew of our current ANZAC frigates.. You're right with Marles saying the ship will be either same size as ANAZAC frigates which the Tasman Corvette is same displacement or up to 50% larger.. None of the ships they are looking at suit what we need and are all to lightly armed, they should of built Tasman corvette's instead of Arafura OPV and share current workload our ANZAC frigates fill and build Arrowhead 140's as the multirole frigates, also up gun Hunter class to 64 VLS while retaining the ASW tow array..
As for the rest of our fleet they are planning on replacing Hmas Choules with 2 Joint Support ships in addition to our 2 LHD's which means we need 4 task groups for the 2 LHD's and 2 JSS's, then in addition we have 8 SSN which will need at least 1 or 2 ships as support task group.. Basically we need 16 shps for LHD/JSS task groups and additional 8 ships to support our SSN's as our minimum surface fleet, halve all that and that's what our actual active fleet will look like..
Whichever they pick will be the lightest armed and least capable option with basically no offensive weapons which they will vastly over pay for. Then they will wonder why no one wants to join the navy to operate second class ships. The threat doesn't have to be a war look at what is happening in the red sea where US arleigh burke class destroyer's are almost running out of anti air missiles while trying to defend shipping from Houthi rebels. How would one of these ships go defending Australian shipping?
Arafura was bad modifications from the start, like removing the ability to land a copter.
Yer it could become drone mothership, handling patrols, survey and mines.
Honestly the review missed a important area that is the need for Antarctica patrol ships. Currently that is left to NZ and that may disappear.
...and down grading the main gun from a air defence capable 40mm Marlin to the stupid thing they have now. The Original design allowed for canister housed anti-ship missiles and 26knots. The Aust Government cheeped out and down graded them.
Australians can thank arguably 'the' most detested MP Federally since Federation Christopher Pyne for this dud decision.
Unfortunately Australia is behind the eight ball as usual. Europe and Russia started this process long ago and they are well ahead
The conservative coalition sat on their hands and put all their hopes on subs
The Arrowhead 140 would be a great option for the general purpose requirement, it's a proven design that is highly adaptable and with it being larger than the other designs you have greater range and growth potential.
I'm pretty sure I read this design is being promoted to the RNZN.
And has 32 vls compared to 16 vls in all options being looked at by Australia. I almost feel like the ship should be chosen based on how many missiles it can carry
Arrowhead has a smaller manpower requirement than some of the other options
@@quannyfourtwo4366 Poland and Indonesia have picked this design and for good reason.
@@demun6065 The ship should be chosen to best fit the requirements. VLS cells are not the most important aspect of a warship that is primarily an ASW escort with a local air defence capability, but people judge ships by VLS count alone because they are a simple numerical metric to understand.
Honestly 16-24 is probably enough for the GP frigates, that gives 32 ESSMs and 8-16 tomahawks, with NSM in separate canister launchers. I believe the updated version of the Mogami will have 32 cells.
Best option i agree, be good to work with NZ on this also.
There are many unanswered questions about this plan.
How long will the Defence Department and the RAN take to select the new tier 2 frigate?
How will they resist spending years and many dollars 'australianising' the selected design?
If Japan, for example, can build and commission a Mogami-class frigate in ~4 years, what would it take for Australia to do the same?
They’ve claimed they’re are selecting it next year, and it’s an off the shelf design with no customisation.
"next year"? let's just wait and see 'if' this happens - cos it aint going to happen - the 'only' factor that might put a rocket up Russell is next year is an election year and Marles might want a huge 'announcable' for political optics.@@jakal0
How is it that we continue to buy ships with such a small number of VLS? 36 for the hunt class frigate? One Chinese ship with its 90 cells (?) can match three of the HCF’s. Our tonnage to VLS is abysmal.
You don't need missiles just as long as our ships have heaps of range .
Strange strategy.
@@ondoogretchtub Ye you do, gotta swarm defences and also defend yourself lol
The original Hunter had 72 be we Australianised it buy replacing a perfectly good air warfare radar with a built in Australian version of the Agis system. Which is a lot bigger.
Chinese frigates Type 54A/B have 32 VLS cells... only destroyers have more than that... if VLS count is your chief complaint then you should point to Hobart class why RAN did not buy Burke class destroyers instead....
@@fatdoi003 I think its more the Chinese have more Jiangkai's while we are going to have considerably less frigates...so think he is implying more VLS because we have less. But also agree...hobart class was a stupid decision.
The opvs could have been so much better by simply selecting the opv 95 or 90 which both were offered
if you go to a 90/95m ship .... may as well just get corvettes.
It is interesting to note the the Hunter class is "Agreed in Principle" to receive Tomahawk cruise missiles for Long range strike.
This would indicate to me that the class is going to receive additional VLS Cells. But the Independent section says "Of current design." which contradicts the government response to the Independent recommendation. This we'll have to see how this shakes out.
The Optionally Crewed vessel is the really different and interesting one. I wonder if they will have anything other than the 32 VLS cells for weapons? Or if those 32 VLS tubes will see an increase.
As for the "Light Frigates" in the Tier 2 force. There is a document made by Navantia Australia that lays out the Alpha 3000 Corvette/Tasman Class, as they call it.
It may need some adjustment to it's weapons systems, but they are fairly on par with the others and its 5,000nm range might be considered good enough.
It's interesting to note that the Alfa 5000s isn't on that list. I wonder why? Purely because it's not "In the water" I guess.
By all accounts it's an Alfa 3000/Tasman but a bit bigger. At about half the weight of the Hunter's, and around the weight of the proposed Mogami-class competitor. It has more room for weapons, which I assume could be adjusted from their proposal and presumably it has a longer range and endurance.
None the less, Both are worth considering. We have a good history and working relationship with Navantia. They are proven reliable.
The MEKO 200 is interesting. A bit more range compared to the Navantia designs, and it has 3 Phalanx units onboard. But I'm not sure the rest of it's capabilities stack up against the others. Maybe if the design can be adjusted, and it can be put on a fast-track It could be worthwhile.
The Japanese choice is interesting. Previously what kept the Japanese out of the now cancelled Attack-Class program was an unwillingness to allow local production. This was due to several factors, including a lack of experience in these sorts of deals.
Will they be willing now to allow the technology transfer needed to allow us to build the Mogami at Henderson?
If so, then as a recent Lowey Institute article says the Mogami may be the frontrunner.
It's in the water, and being built at a larger scale than the others. It is modern, and potentially has the size to allow for more & better growth of those weapons. It is also very crew light. I would be very interested to see the class in RAN service and to see what the Japanese have learned since the Attack-class program
Thanks for the very detailed comment. I'll reply in more detail tomorrow.
The main reason Abbott could not get the Japanese subs was within Japan the civil service is extremely strong. Japan does not have a track record of exporting defence kit, and then there's the Constitution - so any Japan platform is absurd, that it is even mentioned is Marles at his bantamweight best.
South Korea has a highly efficient defence industry - the MEKO lineage 'may' in theory seem attractive - but as I noted Russell's broken - it takes years to make the most simple no brainer decision.
Russell culturally is sclerotic and every ANAO audit I ever worked on found nothing but ineptness at Russel - the ONLY way this might be fixed is if you had a STRONG Min Def who sacked the entire ranks/Sec/Dep Sec/FAS'/AS's - and officer cadre.
And 'both' sides of politics lack such a person who'd do this.
@@BTR-xw4ofThe Attack Class Program would of been the first Large scale defense export AFTER they "changed" their constitution to allow for it way back in 2014.
However, they lacked experience in these deals. The Program specifically required local construction of the Subs, Japan was unwilling to do this.
Second, They did not have the Domestic capacity to meet both JMSDF and RAN Demands. Third, they banked too much on the relationship between Abe and Abbot, Once he was out they were on a more level playing field with other bids. However that is the least likely reason why they lost.
I do not know who "Russel" is. But I doubt they have much to do with it.
Re the Hunter's receiving the Tomahawks, it will probably be the same as the Hobart's where the current VLS cells are modified to launch them, rather than additional VLS or slant launchers.
"Russell" for those of us that work in Canberra is Defence HQ.@@birdmonster4586
Could we get some videos on your analysis of the options for the general frigate and a preferred choice? I’d like to see more of that in general for future procurement across the services, interested in your opinion and analysis
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it serious thought. Don't want to make promises I can't keep, but I'll try to do it.
Good basic coverage. Several positives that has come out of the latest Federal announcement; Firstly the adoption of a 3 tier system. I believe armed patrol boats give a more layered approach to overall security. Secondly, the reduction of the Arafura class is a definite positive as these were not designed as weapon platforms. Conversion to MCM vessels and/or survey ships would be a better fit for these hulls. The Japanese Yoon Youngha class patrol boat seem to be a better Teir 3 option. They are more than twice the size of the older Armadale patrol boats, more heavily armed than both the former Armadale and the current Arafura class boats. These patrol boats could be stretched out to 700 tonnes to improve range, survivability, include a Ciws and upgraded crew comfort. I suggest 12 of these boats for the RAN's tier 3 over and above the existing Cape class vessels to give a total of 18-24 vessels.. Thirdly, the reduction in type 26 frigate numbers is a step in the right direction,. The size of these frigates is in stark contrast to the RAN's direction of small ships in greater numbers. I and others firmly believe Australia is better off to cut their losses. The whole deal should be scrapped and the money used to purchase other equally capable less expensive anti-submarine frigates. If the Mogami class frigate are selected for the Tier 1 vessels then part of the multi mission bay could be used for more VLS - as suggested in the latest Mogami batch II proposal. Forthly; I firmly believe that 3 more Hobart class destroyers need to be ordered. These ships need to come into service before the mid-life refit of the current Hobart class destroyers in order to maintain front line security. Lastly; The move for larger numbers of Tier 2 vessels provides a good general work-horse basis for the RAN. These vessels need to be in the 2,000 - 3,500 tonne displacement range. The Meko A200 is a reasonable fit and is an updated version of the current Anzac class. In summary, I feel The RAN needs to increase its fleet size to 48 surface combatants with 9-12 Trie 1, 12-15 Teir 2 and 18-21 Teir 3 over the next 10-12 years in order to fulfill its maratime security needs. However, given the past and current federal governments ability to sit on their hands and waste taxpayer money, I do not put much stock into this being fully realised.
While the Tier 1 order has been cut, to my mind, the most logical plan would have been to amend the contract with BAE to build at least three, but up to six, of the AAW variant of the Hunter that was shown at IndoPac 23, in addition to the six ASW examples. BAE even stated that the second tranche of three could quite easily be altered to fulfill that requirement. This would significantly increase the VLS cells in the Tier 1 ships and result in all Tier 1 vessels having a high degree of commonality.
I daresay the ALPHA 5000 is a much more viable design than the 3000, or really of any of the other designs. If the whole point of this Tier 2 exercise is to increase the number of VLS cells available and spread them across more ships, the ALPHA 5000 has twice the VLS cells of any of the touted designs, yet is of similar dimensions and weight to the Mogami. Additionally, the design features a multimission area under the flight deck to further increase its flexibility.
With respect to the Tier 3 vessels, all the Capes should be transferred to the ABF (and if any Navy crew wish to transfer along with the ships, go for it), and the six Arafuras should be modified to serve as MCM and HGS replacements, with the flight deck replaced with a garage and launching davits for UUVs and USVs that are becoming standard in the MCM and HGS realms. Naval's City-class and BMT's Venari-85 designs offer a good template for a contemporary design.
One pertinent factor that has fallen out of discussion is at-sea replenishment and support; with this large increase in surface combatants, one would think there would be plans to increase the number of AORs in the fleet, as only having two seems very tenuous. While the replacement for Choules is supposed to incorporate RAS facilities, again, only two are planned, so having two dedicated AORs and two multirole (amphib/transport/AOR) vessels seems a little light. Perhaps three to four of each of the AORs and the JSSs seems a more appropriate number, and if crewing is going to be a problem, perhaps exploring restoring a Fleet Auxiliary service to operate both the AORs and JSSs might prove viable. The Royal Navy does this, so why can't we?
I covered the 2 AORs in my Navy brief, and will cover the 2 multirole ships in a future briefing. As you say, critical for Australia. I need to check but its possible the 2 LHAs can do some at sea replenishment.
Been waiting for this. 👍
Hope you enjoyed it!
Every surface vessel must be able to counter air and missile, and drone attack.
We live in the missile and drone age.
Vessels with a gun and nothing else might as well be from the 1940’s
They might as well just build a few hundred American-designed wooden PT Boats with off-the-shelf-ship radar, satellite communication radio, and a Stinger Missile. That will give them more firepower and open-water coverage than all of the Arafura class boats and at a cheaper cost.
The Navy League of Australia's magazine The NAVY, has said 'Even if Navy gets all its submarines and frigates, it will not have the sailors to crew them, by the early 2030s. It cannot crew all its warships today - when recruitment is failing to keep pace with those leaving.'
Indeed. You can have lots of equipment but you need people to operate it.
I think it will come down to crew requirement. The Mogami require 90, and lead the field, the batch 2 Mogamis are what we will see, same crew requirement, more VLS and better sensors, but still cheap.
Hope so, certainly the most versatile accommodating uavs, usvs AND uusvs, question is what kind of time frame would Japan need to deliver 3 batch 2s to Australia while punching out a dozen for itself ?
I suspect the door is not closed on the option of replacing the Hobart class with DDG variant of the Hunter class. So we could still see 9 Hunter class Frigates built.
Would like the RAN to spilt Tier two into two separate programs. First acquire three or four completely off the shelf with absolutely minimal changes (e.g., communication systems only) so that an order could be placed before the end of 2024. With the rest to be built locally, not necessarily the same design. With the overseas sourced ships preventing a RAN RAN fleet of just 3 Hobart class boats in service come 2035. The biggest surprise was the elimination of the Type 31 as a option so early in the process.
Tier three, it will be interesting to see how this develops. Up gunning the Arafura class has clearly been ruled out. Up gunning Cape is possible, a new design about 500 t's is possible, but means nothing will happen anytime soon.
The Optionally maned element is an easy ten years away, the USN has not even issued a design contract yet. No chance we will be issuing a procurement contract anytime soon. If we have two by 2032 we will be doing well.
Does the RAN have the resources to manage four major programs in the 2030's? (Hunter/Tier 2 Frigate/Hobart replacement/AUKUS SSN) Recent history would suggest they can't.
The most disappointing thing to come out of the recent announcement, is the fact nothing is going to happen for a long time, and nobody in Canberra or the RAN thinks it is a problem. Unfortunately I suspect your projection for 2028 is actually optimistic. We should be down to 5 ANZAC's by them, with only the six Arafura class OPV's arriving during that time.
I would not beat against yet another review in three to four years time, where everything committed too this week was reconsidered yet again after three to four years of limited progress.
USN is still testing its LUSV Ranger and LUSV Mariner in the Pacific as part of USN ghost fleet
@@everypitchcounts4875 My understanding is these ships are not armed. We have not heard anything about how the USN intends to handle maintenance on these ships, remember this is one of the big issues with LCS. The concept looks interesting, but we are a long way from seeing something the RAN could procure.
Honestly, if it goes the way they're saying it'll go, then we'll have a great Navy by 2050.
ah an optimist !!!!
Got to make the point, way back in the 1990s, we had a two-tier composition: 3 DDG air warfare vessels (Perth Class) plus 6 FFG (Adelaide Class) and 4 Swan Class coastal/littoral waters frigates (based on the Leander Class). The Swan Class were replaced by the ANZACS and the capacity of our coastal defence was doubled to 8 such vessels. Along came John Howard and his disgraceful policy of only needing to be a good regional US deputy dog, at the expense of continental defence. Thus, the 3 Perth Class destroyers went without replacement, despite being blatantly and strongly shown in East Timor operations, as being a critical capability for the country. Thus, the Navy swapped Project Sea 4000, the FFG (Adelaide Class) replacement programme into being the Air Warfare Destroyer programme. Hence, the FFG replacement programme to replace 6 such ships went to actually being the DDG replacement programme for 3 ships. So, in all that we actually ended up with a top tier of only 3 ships (Ultimately the Hobart Class but 3 FFGs went through expensive and slow upgrade programmes to fill in as a stop gap tier 1 capability. Then, our coastal defence, littoral water fleet of ANZACS (at the expense of continental defense) went through a series of up arming upgrades to become a de facto blue water substitute. We also used to have the Fremantle class patrol boat, which was replaced by a much less warfighting, semi-comercialised Armidale Class. These are being replaced by the even less militarised Cape Class, plus the Arufa Class (in the here and now).
So, the point is that here we are back at the two-tier fleet, what, 30 years after it was obliterated by the Howard Liberal government? The real issue at hand, however, is that the consequence of what Johnnie Howard did to our fleet, is that we are left with a mess of poorly armed, low performance vessels, and no genuine coastal defensive capability.
At the same time we are told there is imminent threat of war with China within 5 years. Further, we are licking the US's balls while it is fully supporting Israel and stirring massive hate amongst the Muslim World. We, have the most populated Muslim nation on our border, who is at the forefront of anger against Israel. With any conflict with China the northern coast of Australia is a massively important piece of terrain. Should that be lost to the US, such would represent a devastating blow to the US capacity to project power in the Asia Pacific against China. Hence, Indonesia taking the north of Australia would be very beneficial to China. Therefore, for this nation not to have a very strong coastal defence capacity right at this point in time is criminal negligence, at best, if not outright Treason.
The best thing we could do right now, is bolster our patrol boat capability. Convert it from the disarmed semi-commercialised crap we have now to a genuine military coastal defence capability. Any attack on Australia by Indonesia will not come in a conventional military manner. It will be a mass flood of small private/commercial fishing vessels loaded with Reservist/Militia/Refugees backed by a small number of professional forces. Patrol boats are quite simply the most effective method of countering this threat.
Bravo, top job!!! Great information and good presentation, thankyou 👏👏👏👏
Thank you. Much appreciated.
That it. Australia needs 9 Perth Class Destroyers, 9 Hunter Class Frigates, 9 Anzac 2 Class Frigates, 9 Loss Angeles Sumbarines, 12 Arafura Class Corvettes, 18 Patrol Boats, 3 AO, 9 Amphibian Landing Ships, 3 Transport Ships, 3 Heavy Lift Ships, 3 LSD, 2 LDH, 9 Supply Ships, 36 Attack Navy Helicopter, 36 F-16 F, 4500 Marines. Also 4 Mechanized Brigades HQ.
They should have just ordered three of the flight three Navantia destroyers and nine Navantia F-110 frigates
I would not be surprised if the Spanish Government and Navantia push for Australia to order the F110 by increasing the current order book from 5 to 8 offering Australia ships 4, 6 and 8, Spanish Navy 5 and 7. Next generation Destroyers will follow the 6 Hunters, the flight 3 Destroyers are far too immature a design at this stage for consideration, be like ordering the Type 26 in 2012.
They would make great artificial reefs around the coast while we get some decent ships like the a210.
Spanish ships are not good man
can you please provide reasons 'why' you have this opinion? Thanks.@@TrugginsOFFICIAL
@@BTR-xw4of if you worked on them, you would know
I personally would recycle ANZAC hulls to fulfil tier 3 roles at the end of their life cycle.
A refit and repurpose program with the following objectives.
Repair and strengthen hulls for sea worthiness.
Removal of the VLS (to be maintained and reused on more tier 1 and 2 vessels and keeping it's tilt launcher modules.)
The addition of a mine/countermine capability.
Lastly, replacing the 5inch gun with a rapid firing 40mm gun system for counter piracy, and small high speed boats.
This ship would now be able to conduct peacetime maritime patrol of Australia's waters, and still be capable enough to supplement tier 1 and 2 ships as required with it's radar and 8 tilt launchers.
The last time Australia put together a fleet plan and actually ended up with the fleet they planned was in 1910, so any real hope of this one lasting is not that great.
My two concerns are:
1. How will RAN crew these - the PNF is flat out trying to crew the current platforms without this surface and sub-surface growth.
2. Funding? To my knowledge this is "coming out of hide" so I guess Army is again in the cross hairs for budget cuts.
Thought we were building more AWDs based on Hobart class?
A further 2 Evolved Capes have just been ordered, so 10 Capes in 2028, I can't see ABF operating Arafura's, as far as I understand it, they are still classified as warships, especially armed with 25mm Guns and a military standard CMS. There would be legal issues with a civilian agency operating them.
Maybe legal issues in Australia, but no where else. US coast guard and Chinese coast guard are examples of this.
@@thomasb5600 The Australian Border Force is a Civilian agency, their ships are registered and operated by civilian crews under rules governing civilian vessels, AFP, Customs and RAN personnel deploy on an as needed basis, but they are still civilian registered vessels and subject to International law concerning armament. US and Chinese and many other Coast Guards are Para-Military organisations and their vessels are registered and operated as Naval vessels.
keep em coming mate
Thanks. Appreciated.
Nice summary. Would be interested in you did one for Japan or South Korea.
Indeed, I will be covering them in the future.
May i quote from a classic Aussie movie Bad Boy Bubby
" If thats all we got were stuffed "
Could you do this with New Zealand?
th-cam.com/video/vRhchpb6fMU/w-d-xo.html
Already done a few days ago.
@@HarldinI meant for like a combat thing.
@@ketimarsh-solomon6679oh you mean a ‘what if’ NZ had a combat capability? 😂😂😂😂
@@donaldmatthews7226Yeah, sometimes like that.
Good points on the naval expansion of what's fast becoming and thoroughly deserves to be easily the biggest and most capable maritime power in its home region and (as any Brit familiar with Australia's people and history should be able to vouch) the most courageous and dependable global ally as well. However, a point re your projected 'Arafura Class' OPVs that, in many regards seem to be viewed very much like our own Batch2 River Class ships and for what at first might seem to be much the same reason.
OK, both classes are VERY under armed. Even for vessels intended for, at most, top-end constabulary roles (say, anti-piracy). As opposed to outright combat missions, including plausibly against peer-level opponents. As such, the Arafuras (and more importantly, their crews) could be far better protected and so thoroughly merit, a realistically modest weapons upgrade. However, whether or not anything significantly greater and an accompanying re-evaluation so some deployments featuring a much higher combat probability could also be appropriate, should really rest on two other linked considerations. Namely;
1) Do the ships' final design and construction already innately incorporate all the usual "passive" structural and relevant system upgrades to enhance any combat unit's survivability?
..and very simply
2) What's the current basic unit cost of the ships, independent of any specific weapons fit option (and thus possibly enhanced sensor fit as well)?
For example, w.r.t. our batch2 'Rivers', they were built as already modified to meet RN requirements for increased survivability, so included "as built";
- fire safety and fire-fighting enhancements,
- watertight integrity improvements,
- better emergency lighting,
- full ballistic protection of the magazine,
- enhanced engine room layout for better power plant survivability and easier repair, plus power sufficient to allow speed of 25kts+,
- a small operations room fitted with the BAES CMS-1 combat management system and ‘Shared Infrastructure’ using a common console system,
- a full military communications fit,
- military GPS
- a Warship Electronic Chart Display and Information System (WECDIS).
ALL of which, from the apparently mundane features that are, however, fiendishly difficult and expensive to add later, AFTER construction, up to the de facto prior-provision for the more complex and capable sensor fit that a far more sophisticated weapons fit would need, have resulted in a potentially FAR more combat-survivable platform than the average OPV.
After which, of course, despite all these essentially 'passive' innate upgrades that genuinely allow (even 'invite') later very marked weapons upgrades and which meant that the average unit cost was increased to c£130 million a pop, the hoped for weapons upgrades have never materialised. Simply as our odious London elite establishment vermin, who always think "FFBNW" ("Fitted For But Not With") is only a useful cash-saving lie that actually stands for "Fibbed we'll Fit it But Never Will", have preferred to myopically leave the ships with just their 30mm pop-gun "main" armament, and therefore the RN with the five most exorbitantly over-priced (and very nearly the most under-armed) OPVs in recorded history.
SO, you see, it's very much the same sort of calculation, or SHOULD be, that unlike our clueless AND callous London elites, your establishment (or far better, the RAN) APPLIES INTELLIGENTLY to the Arafuras. Are they, in effect;
- not already real, albeit unarmed warships, but just OPVs that even with an appropriate real OPV's weapons fit, shouldn't be deployed in more than constabulary roles, anyway. Given that irrespective of how many additional weapons are bolted on them, they'd STILL not be fully capable warships and thus an unjustifiable menace to their own crews in sustained or frequent combat situations.
OR
- if they DO already include all or most of the features I listed above, what on earth do/will they cost you merely to use them as overpriced OPVs, when the RAN would obviously benefit from the increased flexibility conferred by their being appropriately upgraded? So able to both increase the number of available real combat units generally and to substitute effectively for the limited number of higher value units in some blue or green-water deployments for which they'd be better suited.
Thanks for the detailed comment. One of the problems is that the Arafuras are called "Minor War Vessels". What does this mean? That is left unanswered.
@@Strategy_Analysis A.f.a.i.c.t, it often merely seems to indicate that they're nominally armed naval vessels sailing under the relevant ensign and crewed by naval personnel. Though are not envisaged as being among those units intended to be used pro-actively in combat against opponents up to and including peer level ones and, as such, usually carry some form of designation signifying this. Either specifically w.r.t. main intended function (eg, OPV, Mine Countermeasures, etc) or by being grouped in a general category (eg, your "tier 3").
As for what's left out in the 'official' sense, usually any actual detail, relevant or not, that the country concerned's establishment's defence hierarchy currently sees no advantage (and possibly every disadvantage) in releasing or even just alluding to. While any data that actually is released will then, over time, still perhaps be fudged or just adjusted/omitted with zero explanation or admission that anything at all has changed since before the relevant vessel/class was even commissioned, built or the design details summarised.🤣🤣🤣
Several issues related to our Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, for instance, the shifting history of our establishment's reporting of which, and despite their being punctuated occasionally by indiscreet remarks (maybe born of frustration) by serving RN officers, now exhibit some virtually Orwellian characteristics. Though perhaps one of the best and most recent examples involves the possible ongoing row-back by our Civil Service and political vermin on their capitulation last May re the new T31 GPFs, with their then announcement that the ships WILL receive a real 32 cell strike length mk. 41 VLS installation.
In a world when even the "houthi rebels" have a significant missike and attack drone capability...
I would not want to take to the seas on a surface military vessel that lacked a VERY substantial point defence armanent.
Indeed. This of course also applies to the land force.
yeah i dont think we can wait 10-20 years when were probably going to need the capability a LOT sooner
Why I don't hear the need of an additional Navantia's AOR like the HMS Supply??? For the new fleet, at least 3 of them in total are necessary.
the simplest and quickest solution would be to can the Hunter class at 6 ships and parallel build (or buy a couple from Navantia) more F100-110/Hobart class with 64 VLS cells which is what we should have done once HMAS Sydney DDG42 was nearly complete, ordered 4th DDG for continuous production. Most of the workforce got boned at Osbourne shipyard and those that I have met will never go back. Now they need to expand the workforce but its all new people, so we have lost the skilled workforce built up during the Hobart build.........back 2 the beginning.. EDIT also retiring ANZAC class ships before a replacement is ready is insane!!
I agree, Can the Type 26 frigates - they are an expensive over bloated waste of money. The actual cost of these 6 ships would be better spent on procuring 8-9 ships for the same amount of money with greater number of Offensive weapons such as 3 more Hobarts with 64 VLS cells and up to 6 of-the-shelf Meko A200 or A210 for Teir 2 or 5-6 off-the-shelf Mogami Batch II with between 64-96 VLS cells for Teir 1 vessels. Yes, sadly those workers at Osborne shipyard did get boned by the past and present governments who have a poor track record of wasting taxpayers money while sitting on their hands. There is no government or ministerial watchdog or accountability. I stongly suspect the the whole systemic problem will continue in the near future as no announcement to purchase new ships has been made or likely to be made until closer to the next election.
You didn't mention the 2 aircraft carrier with no aircraft and no weapons no fleet aircover patrol boat with no weapons only 3 destroyers to defend Australia.
Seeing as everything on the table lacks the VLS lethality for an actual conflict, maybe they should wack together some cheap VLS barges that they can tow into a conflict.
Why are the Hunters not being redesigned to accommodate extra VLS in the mission compartment and why are we not building additional 3 plus Hobart AWD which are proven and have capabilities
I can't believe the type 31 frigate has been overlooked. It's a proven design adopted by the Royal Navy from a Danish design. It can be configured for constabulary or high end warfare. It's a large ship but that just means it has growth potential.
Really a shame the RAN didn't take the recommendation of the Navy League of Australia and build a 4th Hobart class DDG. I still say AUS should take Navantia up on its offer to manufacture three new Hobarts in an updated Batch II configuration. These could be in the RAN order of battle in as little as three (3) years. Surely worth considering if the goal is to get as much firepower into the water as quickly as possible to provide some security while building the "real" fleet for 2040, right? Why hasn't this option gotten any traction with the ADF?
I think the Germans shared a design with the 32 vls
Australia needs a ghost fleet like USN has for the Pacific. Some coastal defense LRUSV armed with kamikaze drone launchers. A few Ocean Aero Triton's wouldn't hurt either.
Australia’s navy is anemic given the threat from the PRC.
Why not buy uk type 31 140 arrowhead for cheaper frigate?
The UK shipyards can't handle additional orders.
Mogami is cheaper, requires less crew, batch 2 has 32 VLS and Japan has shipyard build capacity to deliver us 3 quickly
@@thenegociater3387 I'm not sure this is true, I'm not saying you're wrong but do you have any credible sources to prove this claim? I would have imagined that Babcock has the ability to build more should that be required.
The UK builds river barges. The Hunters will be a massive disappointment. We need to go with the Spanish.
@@MrTallpoppy58 And the Nuclear submarines, Aircraft carriers as well as destroyers and frigates, but just river barges yeah no worries 👍🏼
I’m not sure that having a split fleet will give the estimated savings. I’m also concerned with sizes. The Pacific requires legs.
Of course for the OPVs, you could buy DeWolf class, but I suspect cabinet would look at the costs and keel over from heart failure. The DeWolf class are about the size of an Anzac.
Much sea ice in the Coral sea is there? Northern Indian Ocean? around Fiji, Samoa? Arafura Sea? The Harry de Wolf class are Polar class 5 rated, in other words designed for operating in the Arctic.
@@Harldin
Look south of Australia and what do you see?
@@waynesworldofsci-tech We are not allowed to conduct military patrols around the Antarctic coast, actually around the ice itself so what are the point of 6400t Icebreakers with a top speed of 17kt for the RAN? We can get far better designs for open ocean operations in the Southern Ocean than that.
@@Harldin
You aren’t allowed to patrol the southern continent? Can you point me at the legislation, I’d like to read it.
Yeah, I’m weird. I read legislation, both before and after it goes through Parliament. A friend was a federal cabinet minister, and he got me interested in how the sausage is made.
@@waynesworldofsci-tech Never heard of the Antarctic agreement restricting military presence in Antarctica and what are we patrolling for? Wild Penguins? Australia has signed an International agreement that says we will not deploy any military force to Antarctica. There is one reason and one reason only for Australia to buy armed Ice Breaker OPVs and that would be to operate within site of the Antarctic coast, that ain't gunna happen.
Having just 32VLS cells on the Hunter is the most ridiculously undergunned ship of its size in the world. Potential adversaries have ships with 3-4 times that many. Our sailors would be taking a knife to a gun fight. 6 x ASW configured Hunters, down from 9. Our Hobarts are similarly undergunned. Why don't we pick up 3 x AWD ships like the upgunned F-100 Navantia 96 cell VLS offered? We could have them in just a few years.
Australia's navy is piss weak. Such a large country to protect with too few warships. Australian politicians from successive governments have let us down.
Any plans to buy minelayers to deploy the mines that were ordered recently.
Again, tks for this briefing that we all have been waiting for!! 😂
A fleet expansion of this size would take many many years to accomplish, who knows what successive govt might change by then, especially if the geopolitical environment ends up being more peaceful.
But just in case it does follow through, my suggestion would be to forgo the very expensive Hunter- class n just make up the numbers with more GP frigates.
The new frigate should at least have the basic of; 36+ VLS for air defense, x8 AAhMs, x1 76mm gun, 1 or 2 CIWS, a few RWS machine guns, torpedoe launchers, x1 helicopter n most importantly a high-end sonar, either in the bow or towed. Best if the complement is below 100pax. A total of 8-12 frigates would suffice, along with the 3 AWDs. If speed of production is key then the, often mentioned, Mogami-class would work!! 😂
Much appreciated. As for the Hunters, the Navy is stuck with them, whether they want them or not. The choice for the new general purpose frigate will be interesting. We'll know next year.
@@Strategy_Analysis oh ic. Well hopefully the Hunter becomes a capable ship so it's money well spent.
The Babcock Arrowhead General Purpose Frigate, selected in the UK as the Type 31, should be included in the tender selection process.
The UK is operating it alongside the (Type 26) Hunter equivalent.
It is the only GPF with enough reach (up to 9,000nm) and endurance endurance (60 days) for our vast expanses.
It is more cost-effective than the four exemplars and has beaten the A-200 in multiple selections and the Navantia F-100 in at least one other.
It offers more real estate, more VLS than the others and more, non-crew accommodation than the other four combined.
Surely, it needs to be considered.
For some reason the government has decided not to include it in the shortlist.
The first question to be answered is where are they going to fight. The South China sea will be a no go area for any of our surface fleet and our new nuclear subs are too big for that sea. The Chinese have a number of 50+ meter subs designed to fight in that area (supposedly) each controlling a number of drones. They will also have a large number drones based on the artificial islands. Our surface fleet on the west side of the country is going to be confined to the Indian ocean basically because we will not have an aircraft carrier for forward air protection and our F35's are based on the other side of the country. I doubt that the Christmas Islanders will ever allow that island to be fortified which is what we really need. It would be a lot cheaper than buying a ship.
Great presso
Much appreciated.
Danish friGates are beautiful like the hdms absalon class Multi Purpose friGates verY verY sPacious and can use a variety of equipment
Pathetic .... absolutely pathetic. From 20 years of political soft-cock procrastination and we now have to depend on the 3 Hobarts and the laughably outdated Collins & Anzacs for Australia's defence. We wasted 10years on the French subs, never a viable option and why the fuck did we stop building after the 3rd Hobart were delivered ? By now, we should have 6 upgraded AWS destroyers. Lastly the fat, slow, under gunned OVP's were again always a stupid soft-cock option. If it can't do 28knots, operate a sub-hunting helicopter, fire missiles and defend it's self with CIWS .... WE DON'T WANT IT. That includes the HLD's that are also big fat sitting ducks. A standard option for the HLD's was an 8 cell VLS which could by now be providing 32 Evolved Sea Sparrow air defence missiles. But our government cheaped out. The Government and the ADF are still half asleep.
Naval News is stating Japan will build 12 new Mogami Improved calls FFM's.... in 5 years. That is essentially the entire additional capacity for the RAN by 2028. Why can't Australia do that? Well, I know the answer already, but my bigger point is - time is of the essence. Of course there are many moving parts to this acquisition as has been discussed at length, but at the end of the day the Aussie model of ship building is woefully inept. I won't touch on the pollies and RAN apparent ADHD over getting hulls in the water, at any point in time, but the nuts and bolts of construction is massively constipated compared to nations like the US, Japan and even Italy.
Agree, and don't understand only many levels why we would select the old variant. The evolved build is 32 cells as well.
@@davidchismis715 much improved endurance as well as armaments and ASW capability, with exactly the same compliment of 90. And only 1000 tons increase. So much to like about this ship.
Just so you know mate the new block V tomahawk missiles we are getting are anti ship missiles and land attack missiles, not exactly sure of the range it's a little less than 1500km.. The yanks have the new HACM missiles which was co developed with us and the yanks using our Aus hypersonic missile tech through SCIFIRE, HACM is the naval variant of SCIFIRE.. Knowing how useless the canberra brains is the chances of us using our own australian made tech is a 50/50 chance because canberra has always prioritised arms exports 1st and our defence last while we waste millions of $$ shelving aus tech while canberra waits to find allied countries to sell it to..
All labor has done is waste another 2 years on reviews when we should of been building up our ADF and bolstering our economy to increase our resilience.. Our country is run by clowns who care more about their career portfolio's and their investments with their corporate mates also their property portfolio's than they do about our countries defence and people.. Watch canberra continue to sell our country and people out to the CCP for the rest of this decade as their bartering chip to try and prevent a war.. Least worse case scenario our country becomes a CCP vassal state, worse case scenario our country/continent gets broken up into multiple smaller countries similar to the continent africa..
As you say Tomahawks can come in dual-use mode, anti-ship and anti-surface (land). Ranges do vary between blocks. I would question how significant a long-range subsonic anti-ship missile is.
@@Strategy_AnalysisNot sure mate of what details are public, other assets like drones or our wedgetails can help guide till the ships are within range for the upgraded missile targeting system can target vessels.. From what i've seen integrated systems will be used to help guide over long ranges for moving targets..
@@Strategy_Analysis In our scenario we will only have 3 ships in our navy with Tomahawks, every little extra bit of range we can get helps make up for the lack of vessels in our RAN.. We could also forward deployed amphibious forces on islands that could guide missiles like tomahawks being fired from standoff ranges, that's just 1 scenario of many..
@@user-xm3fo5vu1s In a forthcoming briefing I'll talk about other surface (ship and land) strike capabilities in the ADF.
Scott,
What are the chances of your analysis of an interim option for Government/ Defence to consider…picking up US retiring platforms e.g. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
Do you mean the retiring Ticonderoga-class cruisers? There is no plan I know of to retire early any of the Burkes. They'll stay in USN service until worn out. Even then, regardless of either the Ticinderogas or Burkes, they are crew intensive and need upgrading (early Burkes). Can't see it being a good idea.
Thank you - always good to valuable calibration. As this is not my area.
I think south korea's or japan's warship go to australia.
because USA's shipbuilding infrastructure too old, so have problem increase warship.
USA is not in the running for the GP Frigates and the LOSV may be an American design, but they will be built in Australia.
Just to add to your comment, both countries have good things going for them:
- South korea already knows how to export military equipment and has done so in australia successfully , but requiring a larger crew of 140 compared to japans ship (ANZACS are 177 per ship for comparison) 16 vls + 8 slant launchers,
- Japan's ship only needs a complement of 90 per ship though that way increase in size dependinbg on which 30ffm frigate block we get (block I or II which changes the number of VLS) (ANZACS are 177 per ship for comparison), but Japan doesnt really export military equipment and could lead to delays and over-budget programmes. 16-'32' vls + 8 slant launchers
the number of personel needed for 11 ships (if the navy gets what it wants)
- if we went with SK then we would 1540
- if we went with Jap then only 990 crew but that calculation maybe off, depending how many more crew would be required for an extra 16 VLS cells
cheapest and quickest would most likely be the SK design, but the Jap design would be easier to crew. so i guess take your pick
@@Harldin Why would the LOSV be built in Australia?
@@everypitchcounts4875 Only the 6 for Australia, the US vessels can't be built here.
First problem was buying an FFG and classing it as a DDG lmao
It’s a farcical situation down to years of neglectful decisions and policy based on building ships and subs in Australia with nothing built since the Hobart Class and useless Arafura class ships. Hand over border security to that agency and let the navy focus on their tasks. We need six AWDs, six Antisub frigates with capable VLS and about 12 Corvettes or light frigates with more VLS and naval strike missiles.
So.. almost exactly what they are doing, 6 asw Hunters, 11 Frigates, 3 awd upgraded hobarts + 3-6 replacements following the Hunter build and top of that 6 32 cell loyal wingman losvs.
Unfortunately we have a voting public who'll elect any party who promises tax cuts, when we actually need taxes to increase to cover the cost of running our Nation.
Less room for VLCs so as to fit the BBQs and esky’s mate!
Nowhere near enough vessels to defend the Australian coastline..plain and simply poor.
Why not the new US Constellation class frigate . . . . . . . Either way, don’t know where they are going to the crews for these things, particularly with the current state of the ADF.
Crew requirement to high and to expensive, twice the cost of Mogami
The Constellation is an expensive class of Frigates, closer in cost and capability to the Type 26/Hunter class, for a general purpose frigate there are more cost effective options such as the Arrowhead 140.
Re crewing this is a guess. We won't build or crew in time. US rotations will be extended.
The Constellation class was designed to operate in the Med, several articles have come up about their ability to operate in a sea state over 3, would not like to serve on a ship that was not designed to operate in rough seas.
9 tier one war ships, does the name George Armstrong Custer mean anything to you?
Build more small frigates in Australia. Sell a few to New Zealand.
Buy off the shelf larger warships from UK.
Buy aircraft from America.
Oh and deport 2.5m temp visa holders resident in Australia.
china said we Australia can not have a navy so we wont
Build a battleship with 16inch navaL Guns at least it can helP
With some mordern cruise missiles included and additional torpedo launcher will be cool 😂
Sorry, where did you get that timeline from ? You think in 9 years time we will have 4 of the GP Frigates in service ? The OPV's are not warships, bit of a hint in the designation of OPV. They are a constabulary vessel with better range and sea keeping so they free up more time for the MFU's.
The timeline is from the Minister. Note the first 3 are to be built offshore.
Re the OPVs, the government refers to them as "Minor War Vessels". As I say, I think that is misleading at the very least.
@@Strategy_Analysis Re the OPV, yes misleading, but also more likely because they just don't know what they are talking about or use it for a specific purpose. Understand the first 3 are being build overseas, but no way will we have 4 in service in 9 years time, they are kidding themselves !!
@@aussienscale Mate, I'm not saying I believe it either. Highlighting what officials statements are, then letting others decide. I also don't think it will be achieved. Just look at the new timeline for the Hunters.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yep, all good, get that and realise you are 👍
You get a better microphone? Definitely better audio quality.
Thanks, yes. Also improving my process.
The future of war fare is changing via drone attack ??one did advise safety of shores via drones flight around Australia 20 years ago your all ships are vulnerable to drone attack = one would look at your defense differently via think narco drug ships very flat decks low in the water = difficult to spot on radar ??? Take your tier 3 vessels a few of 3/4 very low top structure but a very flat deck = it can fly attack drones of of it many of it is behind the tier 1 class and is used as a type of aircraft carrier but drones only = it can protect the tier 1 craft and attack over the horizon
Too few, too expensive, too hard to maintain and we can on,y afford two ships
Weird, no carriers?
with long range stealth and early warning aircraft and plus JORN, I believe Australia does not need a carrier besides we do not have the ships to act as escorts. Aircraft carriers are usually used as projection for power.
@@boredatsea whats wrong with that? i mean, F-35B plus maybe joining South korea's carrier plan
One of the problems is that Australia does not have the manpower to man the aircraft carriers, nor the ships to provide escorts, have a look at the USN or the RN and see what sails with them and that includes what is under the water. If Australia had the budget and no manpower restraints I could see 2 or 3 in the fleet.@@VectorGhost
Anyone who thinks the government is going to double the size of the surface combatants in the RAN by early 3040 is off in ladida land. Dancing with the pixies and the fairy's, tip toeing through the meadows sniffing buttercups and licking moon pies.
Does Admiral Hammond really believe this is a reality????😂😂😂
Why not we have 1016 years to do it 😀
Put your hand up if you think labor will deliver any new ships?😂😂😂
We don’t need new warships in ten to twenty years! We need them now! We need them in the near future!
Any announcements that involve commitments to prioritise support for our local shipbuilding industry in the medium to long term with no recognition of the immediate danger facing this nation is ignoring the massive buildup of Chinese naval forces that threaten this entire region now! It is appalling that any Australian government would place the entire nation in peril by squibbing their responsibilities because of the vagaries of political ideology and self interest by politicians.
We need genuine deterrent capability ASAP, both in asymmetric form and with cutting edge weaponry carried by modern weapons platforms.
Enough of this pie in the sky grandiose announcements that come to nothing!
Either get the job done for this country or make way for someone who will!
Where are we going to fix the ships when they get damaged or break down? We need to build up our work force to have the skills to completely refit and repair these ships, so you have to basically be able to build one.
The nuclear subs are a waste of money and completely wrong for a country that has a huge coastline with very low population. What they need is a whole lot of smaller AIP subs that can patrol their waters constantly and the number to cover a huge area. For one overpriced, difficult to operate nuclear sub, they can get 3-4 AIP subs that can do the same job better in shallow seas surrounding Australia and into SE Asia waters where the actual lines of communication lies. There are always numerous choke points between SE Asia and Australia waters where nimble, small AIP subs will be deadly and large nuclear subs will be too clumsy to operate in. Heck, cancelling the nuclear subs might free up money for more surface ships which they desperately need to also cover the huge coastlines.
The nuclear subs are just windfall extracted from Australian taxpayers to feed the insatiable US and UK MIC, money that Australia really does not have.
What little I know about Submarine warfare, I totally disagree with you, these subs would not be operating on the Australian coast but in the IO as far as Africa and the Pacific, nuke subs dive deeper and are a lot faster the conventional, armed with Mk48, NSM and Tomahawks, any country would like think twice at attacking Australia.
@@boredatseaFor what? For power projection? Why will Australia need such forward power projection when it can't even defend its own waters? You are not going to get enough to make a credible forward power project. All this point to is that these nuclear subs is just the US telling Australia to buy these subs so they themselves don't have to buy and maintain but will be part of their power projection against China. You are literally paying to maintain the American empire while leaving your own defenses vulnerable.
You are absolutely right man!! Australia needs that money for this expanded fleet... if it ever comes to fruition.
@@boredatseaand that's the issue if Australia's future strategic intend is to act as U.S.'s Asia Pacific "wing". But national interest should come 1st n not follow someone else's. That said, who knows what future Australian governments will decide again, when the submarine program has yet to mature. There is a high chance AUKUS will fall through if ties with China improves in the future... hopefully before Australia sinks too much money into it. 😢
What a complete waste of money on any of this… we are not going to be fighting another Falklands War in the future. Almost all the Generals and Admirals are fighting the last war. Hell! Even my job as a mortar company forward observer has been taken up with drones in Ukraine.
Dude... Your audio is killing me. Please just use your phone or something to record the voice over. The explosive fade-in is gonna blow my speakers, or my ears!
Once again we have a pissweak Min Def who is also, in an act of sheer insanity from a PM who has never, in the decades he's been in the House - rated as a 'leadership viability' - AA got lucky, his dominant SL Faction delivered the numbers to roll Shorten - how long this holds is debatable as Shorten wants his old job back - but to make the Min Def the Deputy PM at the same time is 'the' perfect evidential example of Albanese having 0 real interest in defence, AA's career as an MP has been obsessed with social policies, how he can 'socially engineer' Australia to suit his own deep hard left ideological agenda - the racist 'Voice' the perfect example - AA is an old school Trot, a fanatic.
Marles left EVERY senior civilian/bloated top/middle officer cadre in place - as the ANAO again recently handed down - DoD is known as the most inept, wasteful, dysfunctional, culturally broken Dept in the wider APS.
So this 'announcable' does the usual - a big media headline - but factually, historically -this means the same inept, pathetic forces that have 'the' most appalling record will push the 'decision' out for as long as they can - and as night follows day - any down selection platform chosen will not be the best options, the fanatical, cultural need to 'Australianise' the selected platform will ensure whatever platform is selected - you're looking at a decade +, even if Russell decide on a MOTS/FMS sale.
NOTHING will ever change at Russell - the public service + bloated mid level officer cadre know their Min Def 'splits his time' rotating as acting PM.
The coalition have an appalling record also but the ALP have delivered nothing. The same 2 clowns who presided over cutting Defence Budget Outlays two 1938 levels - Smith/Houston were unbelievably given responsibility for the 'Defence Strategic Review' - and then another wasted year for the second 'Naval Review'.
Federal Government's get a three year mandate. So already AA and Marles have wasted over half of that timeframe.
WHY the government refused x3 Spanish MOTS F105's beggars belief - Navantia would have delivered the first new [4th] AWD within 2 years. The entire 'process' is as illogical as it is typical DoD. Stretch out any decision for as long as possible.
WHY you would build a 10,000 tonne behemoth and arm it with a pathetic x32 VLS is - but hey, Australia's Dept of Defence has a global reputation as arguably the most dysfunctional defence Department in the western world. At least they are consistent - there's that. Marles could not run a bath.
The Spanish ships are crap. I much prefer Albo's social engineering to the crap that you are peddling mate.
As LLB students we were hammered 3 things, 'facts/evidence/context'. Please do tell me 'where' I have 'not' applied those three core principles?
Some advice - 'never' allow your emotions to drive a reply. It just betrays the type of person you are.@@Caine1277
Btr the extent and depth of your comment sounds very emotionally driven. I don't entirely disagree though, easy for a politician to leverage the long time frames and vague goals. Also easy for the department to pull the wool over the eyes of a politician.
"emotionally driven"?
Thanks for raising a common sense and very good point.
Look, again I apply 3 core principles - facts/evidence/context. ALWAYS - emotion does not get you far - but when it is defence - the only time I 'do' get emotional but with the 3 core principles the main benchmark - is due to what remains, decades after it was established - the Dept of Defence - a dept that refuses to reform, has mastered to art of 'playing' EVERY single MinDef - 'frustration + rage' are real. But if the Dept was 'best practice', the Dept actually 'delivered' quality of service [and there 'are' examples of Russell doing some things really well] - but on balance they are a culturally dysfunctional, arrogant behemoth.
Now that Marles has received the 'Surface Fleet Review' - these is NO reason for DoD to delay - a down selection MUST be made within 10 months - DoD 'have' the options available to RAN.
WHY RAN did not just select the UUS 'Constellation Class' which is an Italian pedigree FFG is insane - all/most US FMS/MOTS decisions are imo always a way to get defence kit FOC in an expedited timeframe.
There are NO excuses for DoD to drag the selection/contractual process out at all. A decision must be made by years end.
Time is not on RANs side. And as much as possible 'must' be constructed OS - there is already WAY too much Budgetary pork to appease domestic defence SMEs.
The first selected FFGs must be FOC by 2030. Russell has run out of excuses.
@@mitchellvangrieken3900
@@BTR-xw4of all I would like to say to you in response is, yes. 🤷♂️
I give up. This is a joke.
All they have to do is talk to Israel about weapon systems. if they want new weapons then call them
What about arleigh Burke class destroyer
Need a large crew and far more expensive than the 4 shortlisted general purpose frigates. They are of course far more capable. Also they are larger then the current Hobart-class and the future Hunter-class.
I doubt the US Shipbuilders will be able to sell Burke Class DD to anyone except the US. Navy due to a severe lack of shipyards and shipbuilding capacity in the USA.
At the time in the NSCC Cabinet Howard wanted the Burke but then RAN Head Shackleton freaked out about crewing it so the 'stalking horse' as it was then known F105 won.
Of course Treasury were all in on this decision.@@Strategy_Analysis