Who'd you vote for? The major party that prefer to bar people of my color out is One Nation. Isn't that kind of not fit to your style? I thought Labor supports immigration.

Yes but in having fewer AD ships we have fewer task groups, which is what I meant.  With only 3 AWD's we can only have a maximum of one mutually supporting task group most of the time and two some of the time, having all three ships available would be so rare as to be almost never.  The ideal the RAN was moving towards in the 90's was to have 8 air defence ships (ended up being 4 upgraded FFG's to be replaced with 3 AWD's) and 8 general purpose escorts (ANZACs).  These numbers would have permitted the RAN to deploy a minimum of one group outside our region and two groups within our region all of the time and an additional two groups some of the time.  Add to this the OPV / corvettes proposed at the time, that were intended to have decent self defence capabilities, and an offensive helicopter capability and the scope of the original ANZAC WIP, you can see we would have been well equipped to, simultaneously, provide meaningful contributions to any action against Iran, off Somalia, North Korea and Taiwan.

Sea Dart Sea Wolf was a great combination, the trouble was they weren't on the same platform, infact HMS Coventry was lost because while taking evasive action she passed infront of Broadsword screening the attacking Skyhawks from a Sea Wolf missile shot.  Had Coventry her own Sea Wolfs, CWIS, or even radar directed 30mm + calibre automatic guns she likely would not have been hit.  Post Falklands, the Type 42's were retrofitted with a Phalanx port and starboard the funnel and Light Weight Sea Wolf (cancelled before deployment) was specifically designed to be retro fitted to the Type 42's and carriers, to provide a three tiered air defence system, in the light of Falklands experience.

The FFG, with their Standard, Harpoon, 76mm DP gun, Phalanx and two helicopters would have been a very potent addition to the RN taskforce in 1982 and with a smaller crew than either of the types in the 42-22 combo (which still did not have a CIWS between them).  An upgraded FFG with SM-2 and ESSM is an even more potent proposition, as would have been Tromp, Audace or even Australias cancelled DDL.  What the RN needed to do was upgrade their Counties with Sea Wolf and Sea Dart or have built an evolved Type 82 with Sea Wolf and helicopter facilities worked into the design instead of the Type 42's and Type 22's.

Yes but remember the FFG's are far better at ASW than the ANZAC's and the AWD's will be better still.  Post upgrade the the ANZACs will have far more effective air and missile defence systems, but they will still be weak in ASW and still don't have a CIWS or VSRAD.  Now if you look at my suggestion of six each AWD and FF(G? if equiped with SM-6 and CEC) supported by say six to twelve of the proposed Offshore Combatants (upgraded systems for required mission, inc PAR, ESSM, ASM, etc.) we will be able to support two deployed task groups most of the time and 4 some of the time.

 You need 4 ships to keep one at sea on a sustained basis, deploy, maintain, work up, train is the model. 4 AWD's would allow us to do this and would always allow two to be at sea during a shorter deployment (which is more likely for us). We

Who'd you vote for? The major party that prefer to bar people of my color out is One Nation. Isn't that kind of not fit to your style? I thought Labor supports immigration.

Nah, labor support illegal immigration, slight difference.

 

Do one nation even still exist? Last I heard "please explain" Hanson was moving to the UK....assuming they let her in....

As a general rule:

3 ships - one in extended refit, one in minor refit / self or assisted maintenance / working up, one deployed

4 ships - one in extended refit, two in minor refit / self or assisted maintenance / working up, one deployed

Fair enough, that looks fairly comprehensive. I was just reflecting back on what one of the ex RAN types (SC I think) said on here a few years ago about how many you need to keep deployed.

I actually do see merit in buying up to six of these ships, as it would substantially improve the flexiblitiy of any taskforce that we deployed with one to escort the AWD's and one to cover any forces doing landings/shore bombardment etc.. I don't like the idea of reducing the F-35 order to do it as it is too important an asset, but I'd rather see it replace a couple of submarines (if they even order 12, I think it will be more likely to be 10) and two of the ANZAC replacements (the AWD's can do a lot of what they are intended to do anyway).

 

It depends on the type of ship as well, some require a much higher level of maintenance than others due to their complexity, increasing the probability that one or more would be unavailable due to technical requirements. For example, before LM decided to set up a facility in SA, it was likely that all but the most minor work on AEGIS would have to be done in the US.

 

The biggest cost factor is not the purchase price but the through life support costs including maintenance and crewing (including training), ironically the more ships you have in a class the lower the unit cost for the overheads of maintenance and training.  So basically an AWD will cost roughly the same to man as an ANZAC, ANZAC replacement, or FFG, and also roughly the same to maintain. 

 

It could be expected that an AEGIS based combat system would be more expensive to support than that fitted to the ANZAC's or FFG's but on the other hand it is open architecture and we have bought into the USN program so it may not cost that much more at all.

 

As I see it buying additional AWD's would be good value for money, especially if you factor in the options SM-3 (for BMD), and TLAM.  It would cost more but the increase in capability the extra hulls would provide would be well worth it.

Why not simply trade off two Future Submarines for two additional AWD? This provides greater balance for the RAN.
We are always going to struggle maintaining two fleets, however 5 AWD allows for 1.5 Fleets (so to speak) : the ability to sustain one fleet and escort the replacements unarmed logistics ships in transit. It would also have provisions for a smaller mini fleet for regional emergency situations.
However one must consider if our strategic needs out way our maritime combat and power projection needs because after all, the future submarines and their LACM will form an essential component of our strategic deterrent.

2 LHD
1 LSSS [large strategic sea lift ship]

The number of subs is a political decision. If the current Government is still in power around the time the decisions are due, we will most likely get 12 and nothing would be "traded" for them.

 

If not, well perhaps some other arrangements might be possible. 

 

Personally I doubt we'll ever actually see more than 8 at the most, no matter what ADF "requirements" might be. Sticker shock will simply be too great...