The ANZACS exist because of Paul Dibbs Defence of Australia Doctrine with its concept of a three tiered surface combatant force.  The Adams class DDG's and OHP class FFG's formed the first tier, the 8 ANZAC's the second tier as patrol frigates and the Fremantles forming the third.

 

My personal belief is that a wealthy nation like Australia can and should be buying the best we can afford to send our sailors to sea in, therefore if considering that the ANZAC's have a similar sized crew to AWD's they should be replaced by evolved AWD's effectively merging the first and second tiers.

 

There is already talk of developing an OPV to replace the Customs Bay Class Patrol Boats, it only follows that a similar design will eventually supplement and then replace the ACPB's.

 

A possible future fleet could consist of three batches, each of three AWD's, each batch being an evolution and improvement over the last.  If there is money available a fourth batch could be built for a total of either nine or twelve AWD's.   The patrol role currently conducted by the ANZAC's , ACPB's and Bay's would be carried out by by a family of modular patrol vessels sharing many common features for the sake of economy but differing in propulsion, sensors and armament, covering OPV, Corvette and Frigate / Sloop roles.

 

If each batch of AWD's is evolved from the experience gained on the previous batches the design will keep pace with technology.  i.e. batch 2 would have a larger hull, all electric ship systems and a further improved combat system, batch 3 would likely use a completely new hull and evolved electric ship systems etc.  The ongoing build would introduce economies of scale and would ensure the RAN always has capable modern ships available without having to resort to expensive and risky mid life upgrades and change our current cycle of replacement which seems to always result in block obsolescense driven force reductions.

thats a brave statement coming from someone "in the game".

 

no two ships of any class are identical, the theory of batch building dies as soon as No:2 gets built......

 

/pedant mode off

 

I do agree with the sentiment though!

Tell me about it....someone actually told me 4 and 5 are identical to 6.  The Fast track program should have been called the Configeration Randomisation program!

 

However you have a greater chance of maintaining class configuration within a batch of three hulls with planned upgrades for a future batch than building one homoginous class that is intened to remain state of the art for 30 to 40 years with stagered upgrades.

 

Reality has a way of ruining all good concept though.

 

yeah, it's a bitch... :)  btw, saw some nice 3m sized schematics of
the pretend carriers yesterday.... i'd love to have them laminated on
my wall at home - it would be a nice conversation piece. :)

The LHD's? ;)

 

Ok, they arent carriers, but "theoretically" they can pretend to be for a while. Isnt the spanish ship supposed to operate as a carrier while PdA is in refit?

...however I wonder if we would be better off taking the lessons learnt and the experience gained on the first three and tailor an improved F-100 specifically to our evolving needs.

Given the relative lack of MK41 VLS I would suggest a better close-in ASMDS - read RAM  (2 x 21 Round Box Launchers) - would be a good start. No all singing/all dancing, but an improvement none-the-less.

 

Brett.

Top of my list would be to go all electric, that is get rid of the gearing and shafts and have the GT's and Diesels functioning solely as generators with propulsion from electric motors.  The Darings use it and the DDX (both of them) as well as the CVF will use it.

 

A stretch providing space and weight for an increase in the size of the VLS, possibly a 155mm inplace of the Mk45, definitely a second helo.  Maybe a phased array director to replace the legacy mechanical variety.

 

Facility to operate a variety of autominous unmanned vehicles, definitely to extend their sensor range but possibly to increase their strike range and / or to provide operational protection in port or close waters.

 

Reprofiling the superstructure for greater stealth.

 

Basically look to incorporate currently evolving technology once it has been proven and derisked by others.  Remember I am talking about putting this stuff on a ship to be commissioned in 2020 not 2014. 

 

What we are currently looking at doing is building 3 ships, all to be commissioned next decade, and then keeping them in service until the 2050's.  Believe me they will be obsolete, no matter how much we spend on upgrades, by the mid 2030's.  Far better to build a batch of 3 evolved ships every 6 to ten years retiring the old ships at 24 to 30 years of age without blowing money on extensive, expensive and often ineffective upgrades.

Okay (though could have sworn this had been done before - unless this is just a prompt to allow you to shoot these ideas down with your arguments that you have been secretly been preparing for months just for this moment! :p):

 

1) ABMD,

 

2) SLAM/TLAM,

 

3) The ability to do both 1 and 2 whilst maintaining missile numbers for the AAW role,

 

4) Embark 2 Helicopters (somewhat mitigated if the design can carry a UAV and a Helo at same time)

 

5) Provide for the Close-in defence of the ship in the higher end of spectrum AAW operations (Multiple simultaneous threats from supersonic, sea skimming and potentially stealthy Russian designed ASMs). Hence the RAM suggestion.

 

Brett.

 It seems to me that almost everyone has failed to see the full picture here. Apart from one or two comments, no one has really said what is lacking in the Rudd Governments White Paper. But let's not forget that Australia's defence needs have been neglected badly by successive governments over the last 34 years, essentially since the end of the Veitnam War. The first major blunder was  to not replace HMAS Melbourne when she was decommissioned, yes the opportunity was there to purchase one of the British ships, but the Falklands campaign ended that. The list of mistakes goes on and on, Seasprites, inadequate numbers of F18's and so on. But now there is a window of opportunity to balance out those past errors and protect Australia's future. Three AWD's will not suffice; four is the needed requirement at the very least, but six would be ideal. As we are getting two LPH's, the four AWD number is critical. A ro-ro platform is a good idea in essence, but strategically, one could be leased commercially at any time. More importantly for the Australian fleet, is a dedicated fixed wing carrier, of at least 35,000 tonne class; carrying F35b's, Hawkeye's and S70's. The twelve subs is a good number, but the propulsion system needs to be from this century, not the last. Lastly, personel numbers have to raised to at least 16,000 full time members, to reflect an effeciant fleet status, and Australia should have it's own force of Marines as part of the Navy, a minimum requirement would be around five to eight thousand.

 The Army seems to have been given a reasonable deal, but I believe another order of Abrams tank should be placed, as well as additional Tiger choppers.

 The Air Force though is another matter. The extra Herc's and a replacement for the old Caribou is sound, but another four C17's should be ordered to increase battlefield lift capability. The hundred F35's will be, just alright, but as everyone has said, they are not a replacement for the 'Pig'. At the very least, pressure should applied on the U.S to release for foreign sale the F22 Raptor, thirty or so of those would go a reasonable way as a F111 replacement.

 I welcome further comment.

 

Ray. Ex RAN

-Before this boorish American responds, let me preface this by saying I served on Aegis ships.

 

Top of my list would be to go all electric, that is get rid of the gearing and shafts and have the GT's and Diesels functioning solely as generators with propulsion from electric motors.  The Darings use it and the DDX (both of them) as well as the CVF will use it.

-I think you'd be better off fitting a bulbous bow. The purpose behind the all electric is to power energy-based weapons. I think it is over-hyped, IMO. You have a good design with CODAG; we, the US should have such a frigate. Don't mess with it. I certainly wouldn't base my decisions on what DDG-1000 is or has done.

A stretch providing space and weight for an increase in the size of the VLS, possibly a 155mm inplace of the Mk45, definitely a second helo.  Maybe a phased array director to replace the legacy mechanical variety.

-This is a must, IMO. Leave the strike capability to the missiles carried, but extend your sensor range. Surface ships are prisoners of the horizon. They always have been. The best way to "break out" of prison is by airborne sensors.

 

Reprofiling the superstructure for greater stealth.

-The question becomes, how much do you have now, and how much more is needed? Are you using stealth to prevent targeting or are you using it to spoof seekers? Or are you using it to help out NULKA? I think your design does the first and the third very well already. I'm not sure you'll get to the point where you can effectively do the second without going radical, like DDG-1000, again not necessarily the example you want to follow.

With the focus on Maritime Operations and all the indicators suggesting the ADF strategists foresee Amphibious landing operations (quite justifiable).It is interesting a Marine infantry component, has been completely over looked.

 

 A RAM( Royal Australian Marines) battalion (500-2000) to complement the existing amphibious operations capabilities. These Maritime forces would be first on the scene in any Future Pacific related scenario. A supplemented capability in this Area would challenge concerns over "not enough boots on the ground".

 

I tend to agree that a forth AWD will be inevatable, however the Future Frigates (8-10) are a slight concern to me; while the concept is fantastic (7000tons, towed and hull sonar , BMD, geared for Land strike), one wonders how they can do all that! without becoming a DDX type super ship ( and super expensive too).

If they have radar and missiles capable of BMD ( then surely the radar could fill in; in the AAW role?)

 

One assumes that they would need at least 64 cells ?

 

Starting to look impressive... ( However we probably could trade off 2 subs for two Major surface combatants)

 

4 AWD

8 Future Frigate

2 LHD

1 LSD ( landing ship dock)

12 Future SUB's

20+ MRV

1500 Naval Infantry

 

 

 

I'd be happy to have SDSS Mk 2 launchers with ESSM fitted aft on the boats we have on order, to be added to the existing 48x VLS launchers, plus Phalanx 1B, Nulka and "other" electronic and counter-measure dispenser systems. 

 

This would provide -

 

Nulka / active radar jamming /Directed infra-red / Chaff / Flares (as fitted. Not sure each of these will be fitted, ALL the time, but most will).

 

Mini-Typhoon 12.7mm. 

 

Typhoon 25mm.

 

Phalanx 1B 20mm.

 

64x ESSM SAM.

 

32x SM-2/6 SAM.

 

16x SM-2/3/6 / TLAM. 

 

That's a helluva defensive arsenal, IMHO.