Australian Defence Force

[Mercator]

I got this grab from another source. It has a few more details:



It seems the BAE proposal would retain the nine frigates, but insert extra destroyers after the first three frigates. So the fleet expands by three, although I don't know the life of the existing Navantia AWDs. This would all be well into the 2030s.

[Mercator]

If you think that sooner is better, then more Navantia AWDs is the better option, and not just because they float quicker. We already have all the training systems in place and we would have experienced sailors to man them. You can still do something with the type 26 as a future destroyer, you just have to do it later and slowly phase out the AWDs starting in the late 2040s.

[R686]

I got this grab from another source. It has a few more details:



It seems the BAE proposal would retain the nine frigates but insert extra destroyers after the first three frigates. So the fleet expands by three, although I don't know the life of the existing Navantia AWDs. This would all be well into the 2030s.

interesting

The screen grab you posted only shows nine ships in total, three ASW ships than build a AWD then repeat.

[R686]

If you think that sooner is better, then more Navantia AWDs is the better option, and not just because they float quicker. We already have all the training systems in place and we would have experienced sailors to man them. You can still do something with the type 26 as a future destroyer, you just have to do it later and slowly phase out the AWDs starting in the late 2040s.

If we have to build overseas I would rather they build 4-6 Sejong the Great-class in South Korea, reduce the number of cells to 96 if you have to but preferable not

[tomuk]

The plan by BAE Systems Australia would spark a major shake-up in the navy’s future fleet, where BAE would build both heavily armed destroyers as well as anti-submarine frigates at its Osborne facility near Adelaide.

The proposed new air warfare destroyers would carry between 100 and 150 missile cells, making them one of the world’s most heavily armed warships, with more than twice the firepower of Australia’s existing three air warfare destroyers.

Well that's the T83 sorted then just need to get on with the son of Sampson radar.

[R686]

The plan by BAE Systems Australia would spark a major shake-up in the navy’s future fleet, where BAE would build both heavily armed destroyers as well as anti-submarine frigates at its Osborne facility near Adelaide.

The proposed new air warfare destroyers would carry between 100 and 150 missile cells, making them one of the world’s most heavily armed warships, with more than twice the firepower of Australia’s existing three air warfare destroyers.

Well that's the T83 sorted then just need to get on with the son of Sampson radar.

Well, it's nice to think that AuSGov would approve of something like this, but it's also about having the capacity to be able to fill it out with missiles and any subsequent reloads for all the ships.

[SW1]

Well according to people on here it’s absolutely not possible to use a type 26 hull for an air defence ship…..

[Jake1992]

The plan by BAE Systems Australia would spark a major shake-up in the navy’s future fleet, where BAE would build both heavily armed destroyers as well as anti-submarine frigates at its Osborne facility near Adelaide.

The proposed new air warfare destroyers would carry between 100 and 150 missile cells, making them one of the world’s most heavily armed warships, with more than twice the firepower of Australia’s existing three air warfare destroyers.

Well that's the T83 sorted then just need to get on with the son of Sampson radar.

Well, it's nice to think that AuSGov would approve of something like this, but it's also about having the capacity to be able to fill it out with missiles and any subsequent reloads for all the ships.

Iv never really got the point of this argument against great VLS, the whole there’s no point in having them since we don’t have enough missiles to fill them.

It a lot easier and quicker to buy in more missile to fill them when needed than it is to say sh**t where under armed we need to refit the ships with extra VLS and then buy in more missiles.

Having a greater number whether filled or not also gives your enemy that unknown factor to worry about, they will always have to assume they are all full even if there not.

Looking around the world today it’s only really ourselve and other European countries that are sticking to the idea of lower number of VLS especially for AAW vessel. Just look at S.K, Japan, the US, China, Russia and now Australia ( I also belive India is going the same way )

[R686]

The plan by BAE Systems Australia would spark a major shake-up in the navy’s future fleet, where BAE would build both heavily armed destroyers as well as anti-submarine frigates at its Osborne facility near Adelaide.

The proposed new air warfare destroyers would carry between 100 and 150 missile cells, making them one of the world’s most heavily armed warships, with more than twice the firepower of Australia’s existing three air warfare destroyers.

Well that's the T83 sorted then just need to get on with the son of Sampson radar.

Well, it's nice to think that AuSGov would approve of something like this, but it's also about having the capacity to be able to fill it out with missiles and any subsequent reloads for all the ships.

Iv never really got the point of this argument against great VLS, the whole there’s no point in having them since we don’t have enough missiles to fill them.

It a lot easier and quicker to buy in more missile to fill them when needed than it is to say sh**t where under armed we need to refit the ships with extra VLS and then buy in more missiles.

Having a greater number whether filled or not also gives your enemy that unknown factor to worry about, they will always have to assume they are all full even if there not.

Looking around the world today it’s only really ourselve and other European countries that are sticking to the idea of lower number of VLS especially for AAW vessel. Just look at S.K, Japan, the US, China, Russia and now Australia ( I also belive India is going the same way )

Thats ok if you have the capacity to build them 100% in house. can't rely on others that might need them as well

I know that Nulka is assembled but just like everybody else parts come from overseas.

Even Russian armaments seem to have US made parts in them.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/05/ ... n-weapons/

[Jake1992]

The plan by BAE Systems Australia would spark a major shake-up in the navy’s future fleet, where BAE would build both heavily armed destroyers as well as anti-submarine frigates at its Osborne facility near Adelaide.

The proposed new air warfare destroyers would carry between 100 and 150 missile cells, making them one of the world’s most heavily armed warships, with more than twice the firepower of Australia’s existing three air warfare destroyers.

Well that's the T83 sorted then just need to get on with the son of Sampson radar.

Well, it's nice to think that AuSGov would approve of something like this, but it's also about having the capacity to be able to fill it out with missiles and any subsequent reloads for all the ships.

Iv never really got the point of this argument against great VLS, the whole there’s no point in having them since we don’t have enough missiles to fill them.

It a lot easier and quicker to buy in more missile to fill them when needed than it is to say sh**t where under armed we need to refit the ships with extra VLS and then buy in more missiles.

Having a greater number whether filled or not also gives your enemy that unknown factor to worry about, they will always have to assume they are all full even if there not.

Looking around the world today it’s only really ourselve and other European countries that are sticking to the idea of lower number of VLS especially for AAW vessel. Just look at S.K, Japan, the US, China, Russia and now Australia ( I also belive India is going the same way )

Thats ok if you have the capacity to build them 100% in house. can't rely on others that might need them as well

I know that Nulka is assembled but just like everybody else parts come from overseas.

Even Russian armaments seem to have US made parts in them.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/05/ ... n-weapons/

But that is not an argument to have less VLS just and argument to make sure what you use in them is made in country.

[SW1]

VLS numbers are the classic we must have X number to ensure we buy ship X cause that’s the one we really really want pretty please… usually followed by the well we’ve spent this much on it we should really maximise our investment spending even more to equip it yarn. When the budgets long since blown and other programs curtailed/delayed which results in running on older stuff which lead to billions wasted every year ect ect ect.

[Jake1992]

VLS numbers are the classic we must have X number to ensure we buy ship X cause that’s the one we really really want pretty please… usually followed by the well we’ve spent this much on it we should really maximise our investment spending even more to equip it yarn. When the budgets long since blown and other programs curtailed/delayed which results in running on older stuff which lead to billions wasted every year ect ect ect.

Can we really justify 64 odd VLS on our AAW vessel when every other major navy is now and has for a long time gone for 96 as the minimum and now Australia are thinking the same.

Other vessels I can get the argument to an extent but with AAW the whole purpuse is missile deffence and the smaller the number of missiles the weaker that is and the low the number of VLS the lower the number of missiles

[SW1]

VLS numbers are the classic we must have X number to ensure we buy ship X cause that’s the one we really really want pretty please… usually followed by the well we’ve spent this much on it we should really maximise our investment spending even more to equip it yarn. When the budgets long since blown and other programs curtailed/delayed which results in running on older stuff which lead to billions wasted every year ect ect ect.

Can we really justify 64 odd VLS on our AAW vessel when every other major navy is now and has for a long time gone for 96 as the minimum and now Australia are thinking the same.

Other vessels I can get the argument to an extent but with AAW the whole purpuse is missile deffence and the smaller the number of missiles the weaker that is and the low the number of VLS the lower the number of missiles

Yep we can, the French have even less. Nothing operates as an individual. 48 on a ship would mean near 200 in a task group min. I doubt we have ever launched even a 1/5th of that. That’s probably a billion quid of missiles in the group and that’s only the surface to air ones.

[Jake1992]

VLS numbers are the classic we must have X number to ensure we buy ship X cause that’s the one we really really want pretty please… usually followed by the well we’ve spent this much on it we should really maximise our investment spending even more to equip it yarn. When the budgets long since blown and other programs curtailed/delayed which results in running on older stuff which lead to billions wasted every year ect ect ect.

Can we really justify 64 odd VLS on our AAW vessel when every other major navy is now and has for a long time gone for 96 as the minimum and now Australia are thinking the same.

Other vessels I can get the argument to an extent but with AAW the whole purpuse is missile deffence and the smaller the number of missiles the weaker that is and the low the number of VLS the lower the number of missiles

Yep we can, the French have even less. Nothing operates as an individual. 48 on a ship would mean near 200 in a task group min. I doubt we have ever launched even a 1/5th of that. That’s probably a billion quid of missiles in the group and that’s only the surface to air ones.

And that is the point I made it is only hscc be and Europe who think this way. Your 200 odd in a European set up is 300-400 odd in a US or Japanese or S.K set up, none of those country operate a AAW vessel alone in the way you say we don’t do your argument falls apart as I am not comparing us to Europe I am comparing Europe and us to the rest of the world.

2 T45s in a CSG or 2 ABs as we know it’s not a 1 to 2 basis is it

[SW1]

VLS numbers are the classic we must have X number to ensure we buy ship X cause that’s the one we really really want pretty please… usually followed by the well we’ve spent this much on it we should really maximise our investment spending even more to equip it yarn. When the budgets long since blown and other programs curtailed/delayed which results in running on older stuff which lead to billions wasted every year ect ect ect.

Can we really justify 64 odd VLS on our AAW vessel when every other major navy is now and has for a long time gone for 96 as the minimum and now Australia are thinking the same.

Other vessels I can get the argument to an extent but with AAW the whole purpuse is missile deffence and the smaller the number of missiles the weaker that is and the low the number of VLS the lower the number of missiles

Yep we can, the French have even less. Nothing operates as an individual. 48 on a ship would mean near 200 in a task group min. I doubt we have ever launched even a 1/5th of that. That’s probably a billion quid of missiles in the group and that’s only the surface to air ones.

And that is the point I made it is only hscc be and Europe who think this way. Your 200 odd in a European set up is 300-400 odd in a US or Japanese or S.K set up, none of those country operate a AAW vessel alone in the way you say we don’t do your argument falls apart as I am not comparing us to Europe I am comparing Europe and us to the rest of the world.

2 T45s in a CSG or 2 ABs as we know it’s not a 1 to 2 basis is it

And we are the only ones that have been in a real shooting war at sea too. It’s not just 2 type 45 in a task group though is it? all our escorts are capable of shooting missiles and providing air defence.

It’s perfectly acceptable for our needs to have what we have. That’s a considerable sum of missiles for us who’s shooting that number of missiles purely at single uk naval task group?

Part of SK and japans rational for the numbers is that is there primary Anti ballistic missile defence of there homeland and they don’t have nuclear weapons to deter such activities.

[Jake1992]

VLS numbers are the classic we must have X number to ensure we buy ship X cause that’s the one we really really want pretty please… usually followed by the well we’ve spent this much on it we should really maximise our investment spending even more to equip it yarn. When the budgets long since blown and other programs curtailed/delayed which results in running on older stuff which lead to billions wasted every year ect ect ect.

Can we really justify 64 odd VLS on our AAW vessel when every other major navy is now and has for a long time gone for 96 as the minimum and now Australia are thinking the same.

Other vessels I can get the argument to an extent but with AAW the whole purpuse is missile deffence and the smaller the number of missiles the weaker that is and the low the number of VLS the lower the number of missiles

Yep we can, the French have even less. Nothing operates as an individual. 48 on a ship would mean near 200 in a task group min. I doubt we have ever launched even a 1/5th of that. That’s probably a billion quid of missiles in the group and that’s only the surface to air ones.

And that is the point I made it is only hscc be and Europe who think this way. Your 200 odd in a European set up is 300-400 odd in a US or Japanese or S.K set up, none of those country operate a AAW vessel alone in the way you say we don’t do your argument falls apart as I am not comparing us to Europe I am comparing Europe and us to the rest of the world.

2 T45s in a CSG or 2 ABs as we know it’s not a 1 to 2 basis is it

And we are the only ones that have been in a real shooting war at sea too. It’s not just 2 type 45 in a task group though is it? all our escorts are capable of shooting missiles and providing air defence.

It’s perfectly acceptable for our needs to have what we have. That’s a considerable sum of missiles for us who’s shooting that number of missiles purely at single uk naval task group?

Part of SK and japans rational for the numbers is that is there primary Anti ballistic missile defence of there homeland and they don’t have nuclear weapons to deter such activities.

And the other nations are not just 2 AAW vessels they are task groups as well yet they all out side of Europe seem to think there is a need for a greater number of VLS.

The US, China and Russia all have a nuclear deterrent yet all have a greater number of VLS of such vessels.

Why is having a greater number of VLS on AAW vessels ( closer to 96+ ) a problem ? Why is that you see European mind set as right and the rest as wrong ?

[SW1]

VLS numbers are the classic we must have X number to ensure we buy ship X cause that’s the one we really really want pretty please… usually followed by the well we’ve spent this much on it we should really maximise our investment spending even more to equip it yarn. When the budgets long since blown and other programs curtailed/delayed which results in running on older stuff which lead to billions wasted every year ect ect ect.

Can we really justify 64 odd VLS on our AAW vessel when every other major navy is now and has for a long time gone for 96 as the minimum and now Australia are thinking the same.

Other vessels I can get the argument to an extent but with AAW the whole purpuse is missile deffence and the smaller the number of missiles the weaker that is and the low the number of VLS the lower the number of missiles

Yep we can, the French have even less. Nothing operates as an individual. 48 on a ship would mean near 200 in a task group min. I doubt we have ever launched even a 1/5th of that. That’s probably a billion quid of missiles in the group and that’s only the surface to air ones.

And that is the point I made it is only hscc be and Europe who think this way. Your 200 odd in a European set up is 300-400 odd in a US or Japanese or S.K set up, none of those country operate a AAW vessel alone in the way you say we don’t do your argument falls apart as I am not comparing us to Europe I am comparing Europe and us to the rest of the world.

2 T45s in a CSG or 2 ABs as we know it’s not a 1 to 2 basis is it

And we are the only ones that have been in a real shooting war at sea too. It’s not just 2 type 45 in a task group though is it? all our escorts are capable of shooting missiles and providing air defence.

It’s perfectly acceptable for our needs to have what we have. That’s a considerable sum of missiles for us who’s shooting that number of missiles purely at single uk naval task group?

Part of SK and japans rational for the numbers is that is there primary Anti ballistic missile defence of there homeland and they don’t have nuclear weapons to deter such activities.

And the other nations are not just 2 AAW vessels they are task groups as well yet they all out side of Europe seem to think there is a need for a greater number of VLS.

The US, China and Russia all have a nuclear deterrent yet all have a greater number of VLS of such vessels.

Why is having a greater number of VLS on AAW vessels ( closer to 96+ ) a problem ? Why is that you see European mind set as right and the rest as wrong ?

Spend in one area you spend less less in another end of. We have more than enough in this area.

US is always the US. They send f22s to shoot down balloons. Russia well I bet they don’t have as many as they/you claim or that they work that well ditto the Chinese.

[Mercator]

interesting

The screen grab you posted only shows nine ships in total, three ASW ships than build a AWD then repeat.

Sorry. My bad. I misread that bit.

[R686]

interesting

The screen grab you posted only shows nine ships in total, three ASW ships than build a AWD then repeat.

Sorry. My bad. I misread that bit.

while I like the idea of a common hull don't think they could do what they suggest changing back and forth seems like a recipe for disaster to me

Would like to see them increase the yard to accommodate a build in parallel, once the build of 6 additional AWD then those workers move onto building Choules/Canberra replacements, then AOR even if we put them on the market early

[Zeno]

I don't know the details of the B.A.E proposal but is it possible to lengthen the hull of the t-26 with a plug holding such vls as required

[Mercator]

I think if we need them in a hurry – enough to delay parts of the frigate program – then we need them a lot sooner than three frigates later. That just looks like a delay long enough for them to come up with a design.

No, if we need them in a hurry, the Navantia option has to have high billing. Then again, we told ourselves we needed the nuclear submarines pretty done quick, yet we will easily be waiting more than a decade for that.

Hopefully the people who actually make the decisions are empowered enough (and perhaps scared enough) to resist the inevitable lobbying from commercial interests and greedy state governments. Our shipbuilding plan is politicised enough as it is.

[tomuk]

I don't know the details of the B.A.E proposal but is it possible to lengthen the hull of the t-26 with a plug holding such vls as required

Just put the VLS in the mission bay.

[R686]

I don't know the details of the B.A.E proposal but is it possible to lengthen the hull of the t-26 with a plug holding such vls as required

Just put the VLS in the mission bay.

Wonder how many would fit and what would that do to the CoG?

[Mercator]

I don't know the details of the B.A.E proposal but is it possible to lengthen the hull of the t-26 with a plug holding such vls as required

Just put the VLS in the mission bay.

Wonder how many would fit and what would that do to the CoG?

Yes they are already having problems with the reserve displacement of the vessel. They might have to do a wider or longer hull. Funnily enough, that might help them out with the Frigate version as well.

[tomuk]

Looks like your buying British.