Australia's Future Navy?

Last week, two key contracts in th australian navy where anounced to world. The first was the victory of the spanish Navantia design over the american gibs and cox design in the SEA 4000 requirement. This will involve the construction of 3 Australain Hobart Class Modified F100 air warfare destroyers in australia.


Picture of Navantia F100 Air Warfare Destroyer (Hobart Class)

The other key contract given out last week was the victory by the Tennix Navantia team in the construction of the australia's new Landing HElicopter Docks. THe canberra calss ships however, have a obvouis advantage over that of their rival an modified mistral class ship.



Picture of Navantia/Tenix Canberra class LHD

What was this advantage? The fact that the navantia/tenix ship will be able to launch aircraft strike aircraft if it is equiped with them. While this has current been downplayed by the goverment, australia could very soon have its own aircraft carriers.

Obviously the F-35B would the prime choice of aircraft if such a path was chosen by the royal autralian navy.

We may be in with a litle surprise when australia's new canberra clas ships roll of the line.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by thorpete]

I think that in the future Australia's Navy will be formidable. I think it would be great to get our hands on some F-35Bs too.

I agree. Our navy is finally starting to get up to scratch. and what can we say? we need it with such a huge coast line....

WE have to keep those illegal fishermen at bay

Here's a question for you:
Brisbane - Perth class destroyer to Hobart Class AWD
Sydney - Adelaide class FFG to Hobart Class AWD
Canberra - Adelaide class FFG to Canberra class LHD
Melbourne - Adelaide class FFG to ?
Adelaide - Adelaide class FFG to Canberra class LHD
Hobart - Perth class destroyer to Hobart Class AWD
Perth - Perth class destroyer to ANZAC frigate
Darwin - Adelaide class FFG to ?
Newcastle - Adelaide class FFG to ?

So the question is since the Hobart class AWDs are supposed to replace the Adelaide class FFGs, what class of ship are they planning for the next HMAS Melbourne in particular, especially considering this was our last proper carrier. Darwin and Newcastle are also unknown but don't have the same history or prestige, both first being used on the Adelaide Class FFGs.

Pure speculation would be the purchase of a "real carrier" such as the new diesel-electric Anglo-French CVF especially considering we already have, and are purchasing more, carrier based aircraft. If we go on past form then we will buy the F35C also note that we didn't order the ski jump on the LHDs so F35Bs are unlikely.

So the question is since the Hobart class AWDs are supposed to replace the Adelaide class FFGs

"Ahh see now here's your problem!" The AWD are not replacing the FFG's. The Hobart class are replacing the capabillity lost when the last of the Perth class DDG's was retired back in 2000/01. They are retiring (early) the first two FFG's but are upgrading the remaing four, which is currently underway. The original plan was for all six to be upgraded but the Navy screwed up the whole program, and because it dragged on for so long and went so far over budget, it only made economic sense to upgrade the last four. It is probable that toward the end of the AWD production run of 3/4 hulls they may start a new build program to replace the Adelaide class. However nothing has been decided and it is even possible that a follow on order of Hobarts, possibly a modified or even simplified version could be built to replace the FFG's. The idea is to try and give Australian naval ship building a continuous stream rather than the traditional feast or famine approach with all the attendant problems and costs of the skilling and deskilling of the workforce this brings.

what class of ship are they planning for the next HMAS Melbourne in particular, especially considering this was our last proper carrier

...And probably will be. Where did you get the idea that they were plannng another carrier? In effect that is what the Navantia design is already giving the RAN. In fact it is fair to say that this was the ship they wanted all along. The RAN new they would be unlikely to convince any government of the need to build dedicated new carriers, and they would need more than one anyway, that was allways the problem with the Melbourne. So they set about getting a carrier capabillity of sort by stealth. It was blatantly obvious from day one that the Mistral class was little more than a "stalking horse" for the prefered Navantia offering. As for the no ski jump issue, I have not heard anything about this in the press yet, have you and if so where? Even if not fitted at build, its no big deal anyway as the design easily allows a retrofit at a later date. Frankly I would be glad if they dont, as this means that the RAAF will be making the stupid decision to water down its allready dubious F-35 comittment even further by buying the lower performance STOVL "B" model. Or it will indicate that the Navy is back dreaming about the glory days of flat tops and running with the big boys again, instead of concentrating on more realistic matters. In any case imagine the squabbles over who controls the air group, the RAAF who would own the planes? The Navy who's ships they would operate off? Or the Army who's troop's they would be providing CAS for? So you can forget the sexy idea of a couple of Anglo/French CVF's. They would cost us at least 3.5-4 billion a copy and that is probably only for the STOVL version WITHOUT airgroup.

On another note, the ship names debacle is going to get confusing in the future as we will have Adelaide class FFG's, but the Adelaide herself will be a Canberra class LHD. Instead of buying votes in marginal seats the government and Navy should have standardised naming conventions based on hull types, which is sort of the way it used to be. The LHD's should have had an Army connection by naming them after say Gallipoli, Kokoda, or Lone Pine. It would also be nice to see in the future a return of the past ship names that were not named after towns, for example the great "V" names like Vendetta, Vampire and fittingly Voyager. Of course sadly the latter name wont be used until the Navy faces up to the consequences of that horrible tragedy.

LEE.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by thebozeian]

The AWD are not replacing the FFG's. The Hobart class are replacing the capabillity lost when the last of the Perth class DDG's was retired back in 2000/01.

Well SEA 4000 states that the AWD will replace the FFGs. Also one of the remaining 4 FFGs (Sydney) will also be decommissioned so she can be recommissioned as a AWD.

Where did you get the idea that they were plannng another carrier?

As I said it is pure speculation.

for example the great "V" names like Vendetta, Vampire and fittingly Voyager.

Weren't these names just inherited from the RN when got their hand me downs?


Another question: Why doesn't the Canberra class project appear on the DMO website?

I think submarine warfare is going to play a huge role in any future global conflict. The Straits of Malacca would get blocked, resulting in all of China's, Korea's, Japan's and Australia's oil coming through Australia's Northern waters thus making submarine warfare a key factor in the outcome of any such conflict. I'm not sure how long any ship would last against the Kilo class subs Indonesia has just bought off Russia. To be sure, the waters North of Australia could be the location of some key naval engagements. I'm surprised that Australia doesn't have a large naval presence on Christmas Island, as this makes for a rather unsinkable aircraft carrier.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by JamesinOz3]

Yes you are quite right the DMO website indeed states that the AWD's are to replace the FFG's, however this may be an inference about role rather than physical replacement. I was also unaware that Sydney was to be replaced by (I assume) the last of the three AWD's. I will put this down to my own slackness in research, especially as I have a copy of The Navy magazine from Oct-Dec 2006 which details the program and included the chosen names. As I say I have no excuse .

However The DMO/2000 white paper statement is a political spin job. It covers the backside of senior Navy and the government over the slack planning that is leaving a fifteen year gap between the decommisioning of the last TRUE AWD's (the Perth class DDG's) and the new Hobart class. The statement that they are to replace the FFG's is misleading as it falsely implies that they are an anti air war design, nothing could be further from the truth. The FFG's were designed as a cold war cheap multi role escort frigate. Even with the current upgrade they are not on a par with a real air warfare design, although they are much improved and adequate for the role they are used in. The first of these Sydney, is only just re-entering the fleet now 7 years AFTER the last Perth class was paid off, while her sister Melbourne is currently in dock. At this rate the last will not be in service untill around 2010. Given that Sydney is to be replaced we may be very lucky if we get ten more years out of a still effective vessel that has just completed an overly expensive upgrade. Meanwhile her sisters will soldier on untill replaced around 2020. Point of fact incidentally is that the ANZAC class with the new CEAFAR phased array system and the allready retrofitted VLS will be at least as capable and probably more so than the FFG's upgraded. In fact the ANZAC's CEAFAR system is designed to work in concert with the new AWD's possibly including in the BMD role. See Here for a description of it

As for the issue of ship names, yes some of these were used on RN vessels but they were not hand me down ships they were built at Cockatoo Island (Sydney) in the 1950's to a modified RN design and like their sister ships were known as the Daring class. HMAS Vampire still exists as an exhibit at the National Maritime Museum at Darling harbour, Sydney.

And why does the Canberra class LHD's not appear on the DMO website you ask? Good question it would appear that with the exception of one news story about Nulka, there have been no site updates since early August 2006. Not a very encouraging sign of the DMO's competency is it?

LEE.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by thebozeian]

Interesting stuff about CEAFAR, I hadn't heard about that previously.

As for Vampire, Vendetta and Voyager, You're right that they were built as Daring class destroyers in Sydney. However prior to this they were V class destroyers built in the UK during WWI for the RN transferred to the RAN in 1933 and used by us during WWII.

I believe HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Darwin will get scrapped.
The newer four have had or having FFG Ship Upgrade Project.

Actually it's Adelaide and Canberra Jezza. Sydney has just been upgraded and Melbourne is in dock now, then Darwin and Newcastle. Sydney will be the third FFG to be scrapped however, I assume in about 2015 so we will be doing well if we get 8 more years out of what has proven to be a very expensive and protracted upgrade. So nice to see the Navy spending our money wisely, nice one guys!.

LEE.

Walked to the bottom of my street last night and had a look at the Kitty Hawk on her last visit to Sydney. It would be nice if we could have something like that.

I don't understand why Australia doesn't focus on having a bit of a larger navy, being that they are an island nation and all, and do rely on imports which come by sea. If you don't have the navy to protect shipping and supply routes, what will you do when an enemy who does comes to your doorstep? I mean, I know the US is also the big kid in the Pacific at the moment, but that has to change some day, its an eventuality really. If I was running things in Australia, I would be putting a larger portion of my budget into a strong and decently sized navy, and an air force with a strong maritime strike capability and very long legs. Keep in mind, this is only my opinion, I'm no expert on anything but thought I'd put it out there.

Yeah, we could beef up our airforce and navy. We really don't need to as we all carry Crocodile Dundee bowie knives and "don't take too kindly to folks who don't take to kindly" to us. Anyone who has fought with Australians knows they are the maddest bastards in uniform. You'd be surprised how quickly Australia could mobilise if threatened. *strokes knife*

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
Yeah, we could beef up our airforce and navy. We really don't need to as we all carry Crocodile Dundee bowie knives and "don't take too kindly to folks who don't take to kindly" to us. Anyone who has fought with Australians knows they are the maddest bastards in uniform. You'd be surprised how quickly Australia could mobilise if threatened. *strokes knife*

I do not doubt the ability of the Australian fighting man, history shows they are not one you want to confront in combat, ask the Italians, NVA/VC, insurgents ect. ect.

I'm just speaking as it seems it should be to me. And as I said, I'm no expert by any means. Just what I thought an Island nation like Australia would be after a dominant fairly large navy with a long-legged air force and a strong maritime punch. Seems like common sense to me.

Originally posted by ludaChris
I don't understand why Australia doesn't focus on having a bit of a larger navy,

Forget the Navy, Airforce and Army all we need is a massive Missile Base near Alice Springs with Intercontinental ability.

Then when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ( President of Indonesia ) or what ever his name is threatens to pull out Diplomats over spilt milk we can test a few flying over the Ashmore Reef which he so happens to turns a blind eye to with the raping of the fishery by his greedy thugs.

Imagine his position on the fisheries when we are blowing them out of the water from a great distance....I come to the barganing table to talk to youwhitey, we stop stealing and you no shooty us up!!.

Originally posted by mazzroth
Forget the Navy, Airforce and Army all we need is a massive Missile Base near Alice Springs with Intercontinental ability.

Then when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ( President of Indonesia ) or what ever his name is threatens to pull out Diplomats over spilt milk we can test a few flying over the Ashmore Reef which he so happens to turns a blind eye to with the raping of the fishery by his greedy thugs.

Imagine his position on the fisheries when we are blowing them out of the water from a great distance....I come to the barganing table to talk to youwhitey, we stop stealing and you no shooty us up!!.

If you say so, you live there and probly know better than I. I heard about the problems they were having with the fishing thing. All the more reason to have a corvette or two, or maybe a frigate patrolling the area where Australias fishermen are. That would give them a bit of pause to see a warship rolling up.

Umm no mazzroth, massive missile complex's are no real solution at all. For one they are not nearly as flexible a solution as you might think. Secondly they are incapable of doing things that the Navy and Airforce currently do like simply "taking a look" as in ludaChris's sensible suggestion of a corvette (or an Armidale class patrol boat), just in case your JORN contact turns out to be a private yacht, local fishing boat, etc. And of course massive missile bases with an ICBM type capabillity are not the greatest thing for fostering international diplomacy, or easing tensions in a region undergoing the worlds fastest growing current arms race. What do you think the Indonesians, Malaysians and Chinese would do in response? Downsize their fleets of SU-30's, subs and S-300's?

Naval vessels and airforce aircraft if carefully chosen are able to carry out patrol, defensive and offensive roles as need be. If you fire off an ICBM you can't just call it back if it turns out to be a false alarm, or ask it to loiter around an area for a while as a "showing the flag" exercise.

I might also point out that the Indonesian fisherman while breaching Australian law are often ignorant of it and illiterate, they are just trying to make a buck to feed their famillies. They are not mates or personal "thugs" of the president of Indonesia. They may be hired by local dodgy businessmen out to make a quick buck , but that makes them no better or worse than the loggers denuding the rainforest's on Borneo. In the end the best course is to patrol, pick up, and educate them on where our boundaries lie and what our laws are. Better still find a way to help them earn a decent living that doesn't involve ripping apart the biodiversity of our waters now that they have killed off most of their's. Remember that Indonesia is less a country and more a collection of islands. If we challenge the central authority too much and it collapses, who do you think ends up having to support all of them? We do. How will your massive missile complex deal with that kind of threat?

LEE.

Originally posted by ludaChris
If you say so, you live there and probly know better than I. I heard about the problems they were having with the fishing thing. All the more reason to have a corvette or two, or maybe a frigate patrolling the area where Australias fishermen are. That would give them a bit of pause to see a warship rolling up.

we have aircraft that regularly fly out of edinburgh airbase here in Adelaide and they patrol our waters for illegal fishing and illegal immigrants.

while we may live on the worlds largest island it is by no means a small place. we dont need lots of boats around our continent when a plane can do a handful of flights within much less time than a ship.

you also forget we do have some fa-18's and are only a population of 21million spread out over a massive chunk of land.
that means less income for our military, less population available for military service AND a huge chunk of land to monitor effectively.

we can have the Fa-18's sent from Edinburgh to Darwin and back in something crazy like 90minutes or so?? a boat would *probably* take half a day or more
(i get the ~90min figure on the basis they do a flyover for the V8 supercar round here in Adelaide then fly out to darwin, im sure they said 90min return trip over the p/a system at the last event?)

[edit on 19/7/07 by Obliv_au]

Obliv_au, may I humbly suggest you pull out a few maps and do a measurement. Even a straight line one will do, and then divide that distance by 45 mins. Its over 3000km which means an FA-18 would need to be able to CRUISE at a speed in excess of 4000KPH!. That is WAY faster than anything flying even an SR-71 couldn't do it. Add to this that a Hornets range is well short of what is required and would need AtoA tanking or frequent stops for ground refueling. In reality an FA-18 even if it had enough onboard fuel would be no faster than a commercial airliner. And that goes for most combat aircraft, with the exception of the F-22. An F-111 would be marginally quicker than most other combat aircraft including the FA-18 but even it would not be as quick as the F-22 in high altitude super cruise (around Mach 1.3-1.5, the lower end if it want to do it economically). I think it’s fair to say that you either misheard what was said over the PA, or the guy didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

The same goes for naval vessels, it takes way more than 1/2 a day to get from Adelaide to Darwin, try 4 or 5 days+. However you are wrong to say we don’t need many vessels as aircraft can cover more area. In reality searching large areas at sea is complicated, sometimes an area you searched that had no target of interest can gain one while you were busy in your search pattern somewhere else. The real disadvantage of aircraft is there inability to loiter in an area for a long time, even UAV's like the RQ-4 Global Hawk cannot conduct missions longer than about 40 hours. This is also yet another reason why the FA-18's are not very effective in the long range patrol role. A ship can remain on station for days or even weeks. This is precisely why the Navy bought the new Armidale class patrol boats instead of just relying on the RAAF's AP-3C's or buying UAV's. The reality is you need both.


[edit on 19-7-2007 by thebozeian]