I think the anzac replacements will sit atop the same displacement hull as the AWD and be more akin to cut down AWD's with a lighter missile load (freeing some space up and reducing costs). May not even a full Aegis setup either (could be expanded at a later date).

 

 Given the LHD's I don't think we will need a huge amount of air facilities on ships. Well not more than they already have. Operating two helos and a small UAV will be fine given the extensive assets Australia already has.

 Given the LHD's I don't think we will need a huge amount of air facilities on ships. Well not more than they already have. Operating two helos and a small UAV will be fine given the extensive assets Australia already has.

This guy (www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/working1.htm) had similar thoughts to you 9 years ago, though he wanted to cram the bigger hulls full of cruise missiles rather han boosting the number of helecopters and UAV's that we could load up. Personally I think that there is great merit in prioritising an expansion in our surface fleet and boosting our navy's organic air capabilities. We are as much a maritime nation as we ever were, making the convoy escort mission one of our most important (but under-rated). With advanced DE subs, stealthy FAC's and ASM's being likely to proliferate over the timeframe under discussion, it seems to me that we will need to boost our ability to detect and destroy those threats if we are to adequately protect our commercial sea routes and amphibous forces. I see less need to equip the navy with a land-attack missile capability beyond the ability to wallop unfriendly land-based coastal ASM sites located in choke points with our Harpoon 2's and providing fire support with extended range guns. If we were to get a sea-based land attack capability, I'd rather see UCAV's or F-35B's for the flexibility.

 

A

Instead of the RAN getting additional F100 AWD.s I would rather we get a couple of DDG 1000 Zumwalts. These 14'000 ton ships are certainly larger hulls.    They will each have 2 x 155mm guns, 80 VLS in 20 x 4 sets scattered over the ship, two helicopter landing sites, and built for stealth.  The US Navy are to get 7 at this stage, with the first two ordered.  They are expected to cost US$3.3m each for the first two, and by ship 5 expected to cost US$2.3, much the same as our F100 AWD's. 

That is BILLION not million.

Would you pay $7 BILLION  Australian for two ships?

For that kind of money you can buy a good FLEET.

Frank
 

Franky, my dear, I don't give a damn! (sorry, had too :P )

 

On a more serious note:

 

I think the point that was being made was that if three AWDs are going to cost us 8 Billion Australian Dollars (unless we get to > $1AUS = $1US) then what is the difference with 2.5 Billion dollar DDG1000s? Obviously the crewing requirements etc are different and would probably knock it out of the realms of reality, but the money scenario doesn't seem much different. I am not fully convinced that those figures are correct (they probably are more expensive than that) - its just that those are the types of figures justifying the above logic. Personally, I'd like 5 F100s (still wondering if there is anywhere left to cram extra VLS).

 

Brett.

Sorry everyone.  Cant tell the difference between Million and Billion, both out of my range.  Anyway, the point was they are comparably priced at this stage.  Dont know if they will be in reality.

2. Numbers still count.
3. Its a BIG ocean.
4. Reiterate 2 in light of 3.

 

Herald, it's not me you need to convince - as I said, my preference is for 5F100s (5 if we could ever find the crew -some extra VLS cramned somewhere would be cool too).  

Brett.