Wednesday, April 25, 2012

The Australian Navy gears up.

via News.com.au.
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.
Lets read between the lines on this.

First there is no reason why the RAN can't operate F-35B's off their current ships.  Perhaps not as many as would be ideal but they will be able to.

Second, there is a definite trend going on here.  I've said it before (Aussie Digger disagreed) but I'll say it again.  The Australian Navy is inches away from creating a Marine Corps.

Last, this move to station Marines in the Northern Territories just adds to future interoperability.  The more the Aussies train, observe and work with US Marines the more obvious it will be that this is the glaring hole in their force capabilities.

But more than just a need for F-35's and a Marine Corps the Aussies are finally coming to grips with the cold hard facts that warfare in the Pacific demands a Navy and Marine team.  If you are to actually engage in expeditionary warfare over the vast distances that is the Pacific then you need ships, planes, Marines and subs.

Much to the chagrin of the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Australian Navy is starting to put it together...and unlike the Europeans, the Australians realize that they have a potential foe that is a peer --- not some backwater Middle Eastern or African dictator.

NOTE:
What was left off the list is the fact that the Pacific is seeing an alarming build up in military power.  The traditional powers...Japan, S.Korea and China are starting to see the minor power arm up rapidly.  Singapore is the Israel of the Pacific and might have the most technologically advanced force in the region.  Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines all see China and each other as threats---and left unsaid are the ancient animosities that course throughout the region.  The Pacific is a future powder keg.

8 comments :

  1. That story is about 5 years old. ADF has won the argument to put Tomahawks on it's future ships and submarines, there are programs in our Defence Capability Plan to do just this.

    We won't be getting a third LHD and we won't be getting F-35B's however.

    Whilst we could operate a limited number of F-35B's off our current LHD's, they'd impact too greatly on these ships actual amphibious mission, which is why RAN asked for but wasn't authorised to acquire a third, let alone a dedicated aircraft carrier.

    We are definitely moving toward a greater amphibious capability, but I can't see a RAN sponsored Marine Corps any more than I can see a RAN aircraft carrier...

    Regards,

    AD

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Solomon,

    I couldn't agree more with this sentence:

    "If you are to actually engage in expeditionary warfare over the vast distances that is the Pacific then you need ships, planes, Marines and subs."

    It is difficult to understand why some in Australia obsess over long range strike aircraft.
    Long distances and small numbers of land based aircraft will always result in low sortie generation and minimal effect on the enemy at great cost.

    It is also difficult to understand why they are building an amphibious capability when they do not have the ability to provide it with air cover.

    An Australian aircraft carrier would make a lot more sense than a large submarine fleet or land based tanker aircraft.

    GrandLogistics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shalders retired as Chief of Navy in July 2005, so article appears to be from earlier that year.

    Since then, the budget has tightened further and the Navy has shown it needs to totally recapitalise its engineering capabilities before thinking about buying more tug boats let alone more capital ships!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe the UK would part with a CVF for a REAL good price :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The last time Australia agreed to buy a RN carrier they didn't end up getting it. It's questionable if Australia decided one day it required a carrier that the answer would be a ship as large as CVF.

    Australia is already buying 2 Juan Carlos LHD's from Spain with the ski jump retained. Frankly if they decide to operate F-35B's they already will have the ships. At some point USMC F-35B's will probably do joint operations aboard and maybe long term Australia ends up with a requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is unlikely USMC F-35Bs wll ever cross-deck with RAN LHDs. RAN deck personnel will have no experience deck-handling these aircraft, and the USMC pilots will have no ski-jump takeoff quals.

    ReplyDelete
  7. USN and USMC can send deck handling crew over by helo and USMC harrier pilots have taken off from ski jumps before ---- without having gone to formal schools. its doable. besides they'll also get experience from operating with the Spanish Navy that operates the same class of ships.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A Ship of the Cavour class would be a great addition to the RAN .It's a carrier with with the ability's of the LHDs coming into service
    take a look at COVOUR on youtube , a good ship at a good price i think ?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.