OT: Australian Navy

[Schone23666]

This article is a few days old, but it offers some interesting indications on what the Australian military is paying attention to, in particular defense of their resource assets in the north and northwest and at sea.

http://news.yahoo.com/australias-nav...063743668.html

I was looking at the Australian Navy, and was wondering, do they have plans to boost offensive capability with cruisers or carriers? And where do they get most of their hardware from?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In the past our naval vessels were largely sourced from the UK and the USA, now we have other European designs plus some local designs.
For example, the submarines in the past were all sourced from the UK but the latest design, the Collins class, is an enlarged Swedish sub. The new Anzac class frigates are developed from the German MEKO 200 design. The Armidale class patrol boat is an enlarged Bay class and the Bay class is an Australian design.

As for cruisers, it's unlikely we'll see anything like that again probably because we don't have the manpower for them let alone a real strategic need for them.
As for larger fighting vessels, we will be getting only three Hobart class air-warfare destroyers (based upon a Spanish design) instead of a more effective number (4 to 6 in my opinion).

Carriers - unlikely we will see aircraft carriers again as it seems that the idea that the RAN have a Fleet Air Arm of more than just helicopters is anathema to some in the Defence Department/Government.
We are getting two Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock carriers however and these could operate V/STOL type aircraft should the RAN be ever allowed to have some. (The Canberra class is based on a Spanish design.)

[Schone23666]

Only three destroyers? Sheesh. Hell, I would think destroyers would be almost the backbone/workhorse of any naval fleet interested in projecting offensive power. Ditto for carriers, especially. I don't really understand the argument AGAINST carriers because it's pretty obvious just the amount of tactical flexibility and firepower you gain from that, though of course it comes at the price of cost, high maintenance, a rather large amount of personnel (at least a thousand plus per carrier), logistics, etc.

At least the Canberra helicopter carriers might account for something if someone can persuade the RAN they actually SHOULD have VTOL aircraft allotted to them. Hell, the U.S. Navy has done pretty well with the aircraft they've had (for the most part).

[Webstral]

I’m not a Navy guy, but my limited understanding of the field is that frigates are the real workhorses of most modern navies. Modern frigates are large and capable when compared to WW2 era ships of the same classification—so much so that some frigates essentially are destroyers in all but name. Again, though, I’m no Navy guy.

It would have been interesting to see a maritime war in which US fleet carriers played no role, but European (and USMC) carriers with STOVL aircraft (Harriers) and helicopters played a major role. In addition to the Falklands, I mean. Though well-grounded in the ASW role, light carriers and helicopter carriers offer some intriguing possibilities for power projection if the enemy isn’t Russia, China, India, or one or two of the other top-tier potential OPFORs for the principal operators of light/helicopter carriers. In the absence of a high-quality air defense network, armed helicopters can add a lot to maritime/littoral operations.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

Only three destroyers? Sheesh. Hell, I would think destroyers would be almost the backbone/workhorse of any naval fleet interested in projecting offensive power. Ditto for carriers, especially. I don't really understand the argument AGAINST carriers because it's pretty obvious just the amount of tactical flexibility and firepower you gain from that, though of course it comes at the price of cost, high maintenance, a rather large amount of personnel (at least a thousand plus per carrier), logistics, etc.

The idea amongst the higher-ups is that two air warfare destroyers (AWD) are at sea at any one time while the third is undergoing any maintenance. This has been the situation since at least the mid-1980s. Before then we had two destroyer squadrons with I think at total of 5-7 destroyers (3 x missile/gun and the rest pure gun platforms).
We have basically two fleets, one for the west coast and one for the east coast though the reality is most assets are based in the east. One AWD per fleet is understrength in my opinion. I'd argue for at least two per fleet with perhaps one or two in maintenance (for a total of 5-6) like we had in the 1970s.

Originally Posted by Schone23666

At least the Canberra helicopter carriers might account for something if someone can persuade the RAN they actually SHOULD have VTOL aircraft allotted to them. Hell, the U.S. Navy has done pretty well with the aircraft they've had (for the most part).

The RAN doesn't need convincing, they'd be very happy to have even just one aircraft carrier of modest size - it's the government and the Department of Defence that thinks we either don't need any or they are too expensive to justify.

Originally Posted by Webstral

I’m not a Navy guy, but my limited understanding of the field is that frigates are the real workhorses of most modern navies. Modern frigates are large and capable when compared to WW2 era ships of the same classification—so much so that some frigates essentially are destroyers in all but name. Again, though, I’m no Navy guy...

Quite so. The Australian navy might only have three destroyers but we have maintained a fleet of approximately 7+ frigates for several decades and at the moment we field 12.
In fact the new AWD is a modified version of the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán class frigate - the hull is large enough, all we're basically doing is adding more weapons and systems to bring the classification up to 'destroyer'.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I’m not a Navy guy, but my limited understanding of the field is that frigates are the real workhorses of most modern navies. Modern frigates are large and capable when compared to WW2 era ships of the same classification—so much so that some frigates essentially are destroyers in all but name. Again, though, I’m no Navy guy.

That's probably true in most navies. I was under the impression though that frigates at least in the U.S. Navy served mainly for anti-submarine work, along with ESW and SAM roles while the destroyers typically functioned for more offensive purposes.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

At least the Canberra helicopter carriers might account for something if someone can persuade the RAN they actually SHOULD have VTOL aircraft allotted to them. Hell, the U.S. Navy has done pretty well with the aircraft they've had (for the most part).

I should apologize for an error here, I should have said the U.S. MARINE CORPS has done pretty well with the Harrier VTOL aircraft they've had.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I was looking at the Australian Navy, and was wondering, do they have plans to boost offensive capability with cruisers or carriers?

Originally Posted by Schone23666

Only three destroyers? Sheesh.

Cruisers or carriers? LOL! We might have a continent all to ourselves but most of it is pretty much uninhabitable. We only have 22 million or so people, and our defence spending is a fairly modest proportion of our GST.

It is unfortunate that Australia is an Asia-Pacific nation, what with the many billions of neighbors we have. Australia is a first-world nation with a very well developed economy and strong tech base but we are few in number, us Aussies. And we don't have the centuries of tradition demanding a strong military presence like the US does.

Personally I'd love to see Australia massively increase the size of its military but, at least in the short to medium terms, it's just not going to happen.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

Cruisers or carriers? LOL! We might have a continent all to ourselves but most of it is pretty much uninhabitable. We only have 22 million or so people, and our defence spending is a fairly modest proportion of our GST.

It is unfortunate that Australia is an Asia-Pacific nation, what with the many billions of neighbors we have. Australia is a first-world nation with a very well developed economy and strong tech base but we are few in number, us Aussies. And we don't have the centuries of tradition demanding a strong military presence like the US does.

Personally I'd love to see Australia massively increase the size of its military but, at least in the short to medium terms, it's just not going to happen.

Tradition plays a small part in this but our population is certainly one of the main factors (if not the main factor). We simply cannot maintain a force the size of the UK let alone the USA because we do not have enough people as a tax base even before we start worrying about the percentage of the population available for military service.
And it should not be forgotten that in the past Australia has had a decent sized Fleet Air Arm with vessels to support it starting with seaplane carriers in the early part of the 20th century and during the Korean War era we actually had two aircraft carriers on strength (the carrier HMAS Sydney was the only non-UK, non-US carrier to be involved in the Korean War).

[Sanjuro]

Given the historic links, I can see the rationale for Australia, like India and the UK, to recruit Gurkhas as extra (and top-quality) infantry manpower. This would indirectly help the RAN, by freeing some Australian-born recruits (with more advanced technical education) for service in the more technically-demanding Naval careers...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Given the historic links, I can see the rationale for Australia, like India and the UK, to recruit Gurkhas as extra (and top-quality) infantry manpower.

Australia hasn't got any significant links with the Gurkhas. There's little reason for Gurkhas to come here beyond the odd exchange or training course (saw a handful during my years in, but more soldiers from other countries).

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Targan

Cruisers or carriers? LOL! We might have a continent all to ourselves but most of it is pretty much uninhabitable. We only have 22 million or so people, and our defence spending is a fairly modest proportion of our GST.

It is unfortunate that Australia is an Asia-Pacific nation, what with the many billions of neighbors we have. Australia is a first-world nation with a very well developed economy and strong tech base but we are few in number, us Aussies. And we don't have the centuries of tradition demanding a strong military presence like the US does.

Personally I'd love to see Australia massively increase the size of its military but, at least in the short to medium terms, it's just not going to happen.

Well, not that I'm suggesting anything, and neither is the Australian military, but I think they are looking directly at a certain Asian/Pacific neighbor to the north/northwest that's got a massive population, massive military and is hungry for the resources that Australia has. Hint: It's not just Indonesia they're worried about...

Granted, things look fairly stable in the Pacific right now (mostly), but in another 10-20 years? I think that's a little bit more of an open question, hence why the U.S. is SLOWLY shifting more focus towards Asia and the Pacific now.