PDA

View Full Version : Future navy plans


herakles
24-03-2008, 22:16
THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.



The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away.
The list comes at a time when the RAN can barely find enough sailors to crew its existing fleet.


It also coincides with a Federal Government push to save $1 billion a year in defence costs as well as a government-ordered White Paper which will set the spending priorities for the next two decades.


According to insiders, the Government was unimpressed by the RAN's push for more firepower at a time when the Government is aiming to slash spending.


"The navy is out of control," one defence source said.


It is understood that the wish list was the final straw in the tense relationship between the Government and Chief of Navy Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders - who will be replaced in July by Rear Admiral Russell Crane.
Admiral Shalders last year also pushed hard for an expensive US-designed destroyer, but lost out to the cheaper, Spanish option.


Taxpayers will spend more than $11 billion to provide the RAN with the two 26,000-tonne amphibious ships and three air-warfare destroyers equipped with 48 vertical launch missiles.


The two big ships, known as Landing Helicopter Docks, are designed for amphibious assaults and will be fitted with helicopters and be capable of carrying more than 1000 troops and heavy vehicles such as tanks and trucks.


The RAN wants a third ship to carry vertical take-off fighter jets.
Its last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, was decommissioned in 1982 before being sold for scrap.


The latest ships are 10m longer and 8m wider than the Melbourne and will be built in Spain and fitted out at the Tenix shipyard in Melbourne.
The Spanish navy will carry 30 Harrier jump jets aboard its similar ships.
They will each cost more than $1.7 billion. The fighters would cost about $100 million each. The destroyers will cost about $2 billion each, taking the total cost to more than $4 billion.


Tomahawk cruise missiles cost about $1 million each and can carry a 450kg conventional or 200 kiloton nuclear warhead more than 2500km.
In the past Australia has stayed away from long-range strike missiles for fear of triggering a regional arms race.


The wish list is what the RAN would like to see make up part of the White Paper process which will later this year provide a strategic blueprint for the defence of the nation for the next 20 years.


That process will direct new spending worth more than $50 billion over the next 10 years.

astraltrader
24-03-2008, 22:55
Leaving the "V/STOL carrier" to one side the RAN should end up with a quality, balanced and compact fleet capable of dealing with the wide range of potential problems that could come its way over the next 25 years.
The Harrier carrier is of course a total non-starter. For a start in the unlikely event that an Australian Government would sanction the massive costs over and above the already huge bill that will need to be paid to finish the other naval orders, by the time it would be ready to enter service the Harrier would be obsolete. Then of course as you rightly alluded to there would be all the extra manpower needed for this on top again of the extra manpower that will have to be found for the other ships...

herakles
24-03-2008, 23:17
Your point about a harrier carrier seems quite valid.

There is a lot of manoeuvring going on right now. There's a public brawl about fighter plane replacements for instance.

Typically, the new Labour Govt. is hell bent on public spending savings, wanting to create an impression of efficiency by pruning just about everything. Associated with this are vague comments about cutting personal taxes. This is to create a "feel good" impression with the proles. But as usual, the baby will be thrown out with the bath water.

Labour feels it's a good time to prune the Services especially as they won support by insisting our troops will be withdrawn from Iraq soon.

I feel that we don't want to end up with a navy that New Zealand now has. A couple of warships carting oranges around the Mediterranean.

People in the north have little idea of the potential that Indonesia has to be a serious threat. One of the largest Muslim populations in the world and well stocked up with oil.

Maritime Michael Ian
25-03-2008, 16:02
Herakles,

Since my return to this country in 1973 I've seen cuts after cuts to all three services, by both Tory and Labour governments, yet these same sevices are being expected to be able to operate 100% in every theatre of conflict.

It would be nice to see a bigger Navy but as has been said.... ships need crews.

Politicians just cannot keep their hands off any of the services and I very much doubt that the majority of the Aussie population would thank their politicians if their respective Armed Forces find they are unable to do the job(s) required.

When I did my National Service in Victoria in 1958.... and note the date... 50 years ago! Our RSM at Puckapunyal declared, during our induction on the parade ground, that those 'puveyors of drinks behind the bar' ( if you get my drift) in both Indonesia and China pose the greatest threat to us here! and we have a huge coast line to defend!...nothing has changed has it!!

Ian

herakles
25-03-2008, 18:51
Yeeks! You were at Pucka Ian?!? I was at RMC then. My RSM was too busy torturing us with drill to bother telling us why we existed. I was at Pucka in '57. Hell of a place. All that dust!

Wonderful man. Ex Guards. Could be tissed as a pick at 5am and bright as a penny to take my Defaulters at 6am.

Seriously - at the time Indonesia was a huge threat to us. We were given privy to alarming material. Sukarno and all that.

That aside, the pruning done in the UK borders on the obscene. And this seems to have come home to haunt them now. I have a feeling that the Bear in the East may also come back to haunt them.

Anyway, our future needs a strong Armed Services very much today. My crystal ball is fairly glowing.

Maritime Michael Ian
25-03-2008, 20:03
Yes I agree with the Puka dustbowl.... one thing I always remember was the MO and his staff telling us all 'don't touch the local girls with a barge pole'... some of the more sceptical among us wondered whether 'they' wanted to keep them for themselves!

Had a go at driving a Centurian Tank there.... wasn't very impressed with the space inside, or the feeling of being in a tin can!

Re Navy cutbacks.... yep I was also alluding to Oz as well as UK... funny how the powers that be can find themoney to go to a war, but cannot find the money to provide the proper wherewithall for our Services to do the job(s) foisted upon them.

herakles
25-03-2008, 20:24
Ah! The Centurian. With it's Morris Minor engine and the crash gearbox which always did going from 1st to 2nd!

That's the real point isn't it. Send them off to fight for Queen and Country then don't supply them with all the wherewithalls.

doug.birch
24-07-2008, 14:54
It was a news item on the TV this evening that the RAN's HMAS.WALLAH A Collins class submarine succcessfully fired a new type torpedo at an old USA Navy target ship & sank it. the Collins class Boats were contructed in Adelaide. doug,birch

herakles
24-07-2008, 17:22
Yes, I saw the news item too. The old US ship went down in about a minute.

It's part of a major exercise between several countries off Darwin.

Here's a report on it all:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/aussie-sub-sinks-us-warship-20080724-3kfz.html