I dont know if this is the appropriate title for this thread the way the discussion is now going, but anyway, how many frigate/destroyer type warships do you gentlemen belive the RAN requires?  My thoughts are that the three AWD's should be replacing the 3 CF Adams Destroyers, and I would like to see 4 to 6 general purpose destroyers, 6-8 general purpose frigates, and a similar number of well armed corvettes.  As it is we are likely to have 2 OH Perry frigates and the 8 Anzacs together with the 3 F-100's.  This is a totasl of 13 surface ships, which the smallest the RAN has been in recent years.  What are your thoughts gentlemen? 

I'd look at what we need to do with our surface combat units, before coming up with numbers. IMV the RAN surface combat unit's  most likely roles in the event of a major war are as follows:

1. Participating in Coalition operations to escort merchant vessels (Australian and otherwise) through contested waters in North East Asia, South East Asia or the Middle East. The type of conflict I am talking about would be the "Tanker War" between Iran and Iraq in the 1980's; or

 

2. Providing most or all of the escort capability for an Australian led, Coaltion amphibious operation in our direct region. The type of conflict that I am thinking about here is the way that East Timor might have gone had the Indonesian military decided to intervene; or

 

3. To participate in sea denial operations to prevent somebody else's amphibous landing. By this I'm thinking of a China/Tawian scenario in Coalition with the US, or a smaller scenario by ourselves more locally.

 

For us the second scenario would be the most challenging and I can't see us getting away with providing a bare minimum of a couple of AWDs, one to escort the amphibs and one to cover the beachhead, and 8 patrol frigates, 3 each for the beach head/fire support and escort and another couple for miscellanous tasks. I don't think we are ever going to be able to field a force that could do that at short notice as we can't keep that many ships ready to go at one time, but for this type of operation there is a lot of diplomatic manouvering and getting the other parts of the ADF ready, like was the case in the Falklands, so I think we could realistically field that sort of force with a couple of months work-up. 

 

My guess would be that that would require a minimum of 4 AWDs and 16 patrol frigates. Of course you we could substitute some AWD's for patrol frigates to give us some redundancy in the air warfare department, and we could also substitute some patrol frigates for corvettes, so those numbers come out pretty similar to yours. I don't think that there is really such a thing as a GP destroyer nowdays, if countries build a 6000tonne+ ship they inevitably stick a PAR and a bunch of VLS on it, which really makes it an AWD.

But the Cabinet, on the advice of ADF brass, are the ones who set those mission requirements. Given that the two platforms that we are talking about fulfill different mission requirements, i.e. one is an area air defence destroyer and the other is a general purpose frigate, that puts this decision outside the realm of expertise of these engineers who you are quoting. Getting more bang for your buck is all well and good, but it has to be the right type of bang.

The cabinet have made decisions that have ignored advice and bought in players not even selected (on some projects).  ANAO under normal circumstances would be able to hose any public servants who did that....

the issue on platforms is growth potential and flexibility - 3 years ago the ANZACs were crap - now, and even with the selection of the F100, they are regarded as being a better fleet management/AWD/PWD than the F100's.  thats not just an australian view.  granted the ANZACs have just about hit the development wall - but the F100's wall is not that far off anyway.  we're paying a bucket load of money for vessels that don't shift the curve much.

 

Its the navy engineers who design the ships around capability.  its well within their expertise, a lot of them have worked on other platform projects overseas, and have been bought in because of that expertise.  the builders maritime engineers are not designing, they're modifying extant designs.  in the case of ANZAC, westralia, manoora, kanimbla, adelaides (perry), it wasn't navy engineers that stuffed up the initial designs.

 

the bang for buck  could have been achieved if there had been early and tight control - and that is a fault on the other side. 

 

all IMHO

I dont know if this is the appropriate title for this thread the way the discussion is now going, but anyway, how many frigate/destroyer type warships do you gentlemen belive the RAN requires?  My thoughts are that the three AWD's should be replacing the 3 CF Adams Destroyers, and I would like to see 4 to 6 general purpose destroyers, 6-8 general purpose frigates, and a similar number of well armed corvettes.  As it is we are likely to have 2 OH Perry frigates and the 8 Anzacs together with the 3 F-100's.  This is a totasl of 13 surface ships, which the smallest the RAN has been in recent years.  What are your thoughts gentlemen? 

the AWD is a label.

the ships can do much more

 

its akin to us calling tigers recon platforms instead of gunships.  its political spin.

 

now that the ANZACs have been fixed there a numer that think that we should have more of them in the principle warfare role - ie replace the AWD's conceptually.

 

the future numbers are arse about for what we want to do.

just because somebody quotes an anonymous engineer on here who says otherwise.

i'm not in the habit of making things up just to carry an argument....

I'm not suggesting that you are, I just don't consider that your source has any credibility.

at an engineering level he does.  he's worked on the F100's for spain, and been a lead on the norwegian and sth korean aegis builds