Deadliest warship in Australia's history

Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

10 Feb 2023, 8:57 pm

Quote:
A defence contractor pitches to build the deadliest warship in Australia's history
Sky News Australia
3.08M subscribers
5,682 views Feb 11, 2023
A defence contractor has a new pitch to build the deadliest warship in Australia's history amid concerns about the strength of China.

BAE Systems Australia seeks to overhaul its current plans to build nine Hunter class frigates and instead replace three of the nine warships with warfare destroyers.

The new air warfare destroyers would have two times the power of the navy's current models.

Vice Admiral Shackleton reported last week the navy's firepower has dropped by 43 percent since 1995.

Defence Minister Richard Marles will analyse the proposal against a rival Spanish company.




Why the hell are they doing this?
The CCP is no threat to us. <sarcasm> :mrgreen:



Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

11 Feb 2023, 4:42 am

Quote:
The new air warfare destroyers would have two times the power of the navy's current models.


That's interesting. BAE Systems Australia were the primary builders of the Royal Australian Navy's 3 current Hobart-class destroyers, and they're building the 9 new Hunter-class frigates as well.

Are they proposing build another 3 even more powerful destroyers? Maybe the Type 45 destroyers that BAE Systems built for the UK's Royal Navy, or their upcoming Type 83? Surely it'd make more sense just to build 3 more Hobart-class destroyers, right?

In any case, it'd give the navy 6 destroyers for air defence and 6 heavy frigates for submarine hunting (with both capable of ship-to-ship combat). Not a bad capability, if the navy can afford the upgrade.


_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.


– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

11 Feb 2023, 5:35 am

Murihiku wrote:
Quote:
The new air warfare destroyers would have two times the power of the navy's current models.


That's interesting. BAE Systems Australia were the primary builders of the Royal Australian Navy's 3 current Hobart-class destroyers, and they're building the 9 new Hunter-class frigates as well.

Are they proposing build another 3 even more powerful destroyers? Maybe the Type 45 destroyers that BAE Systems built for the UK's Royal Navy, or their upcoming Type 83? Surely it'd make more sense just to build 3 more Hobart-class destroyers, right?

In any case, it'd give the navy 6 destroyers for air defence and 6 heavy frigates for submarine hunting (with both capable of ship-to-ship combat). Not a bad capability, if the navy can afford the upgrade.


My understanding is the company had a contract for building 9 of the same type.
They are suggesting they still build 6 but the other 3 would be the upgrade.



r00tb33r
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,778

11 Feb 2023, 5:59 am

It's deadliest when it transforms into a submarine? :wink: :lol: :lmao:


_________________
Enjoy the silence.


Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

11 Feb 2023, 6:07 am

^ Australia might be getting nuclear subs too. We might find out more next month.

Pepe wrote:
My understanding is the company had a contract for building 9 of the same type.
They are suggesting they still build 6 but the other 3 would be the upgrade.

Yeah, the initial (and still current for now) plan is to build 9 frigates, which are usually smaller, less powerful overall and more focused on submarine hunting. What they seem to be proposing is to replace 3 of those frigates with 3 new destroyers, which are typically larger and focused more on air warfare.

I was just wondering which destroyers they might build. In my mind, it would make sense to build 3 more of the current Hobart-class destroyers, to maintain commonality. But the article seems to suggest that they're proposing to build a different, even more powerful class of destroyer. Maybe a Type 45 or a Type 83? Who knows.


_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.


– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

11 Feb 2023, 7:26 am

Murihiku wrote:
^ Australia might be getting nuclear subs too. We might find out more next month.

Pepe wrote:
My understanding is the company had a contract for building 9 of the same type.
They are suggesting they still build 6 but the other 3 would be the upgrade.

Yeah, the initial (and still current for now) plan is to build 9 frigates, which are usually smaller, less powerful overall and more focused on submarine hunting. What they seem to be proposing is to replace 3 of those frigates with 3 new destroyers, which are typically larger and focused more on air warfare.

I was just wondering which destroyers they might build. In my mind, it would make sense to build 3 more of the current Hobart-class destroyers, to maintain commonality. But the article seems to suggest that they're proposing to build a different, even more powerful class of destroyer. Maybe a Type 45 or a Type 83? Who knows.


You know more about this than I do, my friend. :wink:



Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

11 Feb 2023, 8:37 am

^ Strangely enough, I've become interested in military vehicles and equipment since the war in Ukraine started. Especially with how Australia and New Zealand are planning to replace and upgrade their military equipment. And since neither country produces much of their more expensive equipment, it's handy to look at what's available in different parts of the world too.


_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.


– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,143
Location: temperate zone

11 Feb 2023, 2:05 pm

I am still trying to keep that whole submarine soap opera straight in my head.

Lessee...

Australia HAD nuclear subs. But then they ripped the nuclear powerplants out, and replaced them with diesel electric engines for the same subs? Or they were going to do that?

And they were gonna pay France to do it?

But then they got scared of China, and changed their minds, and bought new nuclear powered subs from the US? Or from Britain? Or from somewhere? And canceled the contract with France. And got France angry at them?

Have I got it all straight?

And whats happened with that since?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

11 Feb 2023, 4:02 pm

Murihiku wrote:
^ Strangely enough, I've become interested in military vehicles and equipment since the war in Ukraine started. Especially with how Australia and New Zealand are planning to replace and upgrade their military equipment. And since neither country produces much of their more expensive equipment, it's handy to look at what's available in different parts of the world too.


How is New Zealand contributing to military defence?
I am not being provocative.
Just information gathering.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

11 Feb 2023, 4:22 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
I am still trying to keep that whole submarine soap opera straight in my head.

Lessee...

Australia HAD nuclear subs. But then they ripped the nuclear powerplants out, and replaced them with diesel electric engines for the same subs? Or they were going to do that?

And they were gonna pay France to do it?


Yes.
The original French submarines were nuclear but because of insane left-wing politics in Australia, the conservative government at the time had to demote the subs to diesel.

Ridiculous left-wing politics is still plaguing Australia.
Nuclear power is carbon-free, yet moronic ideology is still getting in the way.
Politics and politicians. :eew:


naturalplastic wrote:
But then they got scared of China, and changed their minds, and bought new nuclear powered subs from the US? Or from Britain? Or from somewhere? And canceled the contract with France. And got France angry at them?

Have I got it all straight?


Nope.
We don't have any nuclear subs yet. It may take more than a decade to train personnel and have them built.
We may be able to buy already built subs or have allied subs stationed in Australia, but no one really knows atm.

The CCP was a thread for quite a few years, but most ppl didn't want to talk about it.
Thankfully, the Australian government finally got their finger out of its arse and is doing something.
It was the conservative government that got the ball rolling in massive defence spending.
Thankfully, the new "progressive" government is continuing the measures of deterrents.

Many ppl weren't expecting that and thought the Labor Party was going to kowtow to all of the CCP's demands.
It didn't.
It acted responsibly and is continuing its efforts to secure Australia's safety from a jingoistic superpower.
Kudos. :thumright:

The Labor Party isn't perfect, but I am very plzed with its degree of integrity when it comes to national defence.
Tossing out Morrison's government with his aggressive stance against China has allowed relationships with China to once again be established.
This is great news but "we" can't foolishly believe anything has changed in regard to the CCP's desire for imperialistic expansionism.



Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

12 Feb 2023, 1:05 am

Pepe wrote:
How is New Zealand contributing to military defence?
I am not being provocative.
Just information gathering.

New Zealand's Defence Force conducts maritime patrols and surveillance missions across the South Pacific and in the Southern Ocean. They occasionally conduct combat and military support operations alongside allied forces further afield, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus training Ukrainian volunteer troops in the UK. They also perform humanitarian and disaster relief missions in New Zealand and the Pacific.

It's tempting to imagine NZ having a significant expeditionary military capability. But the reality is that, being such a small and remote country, NZ has neither the budget nor the personnel to conduct large offensive operations abroad. It's primarily a defence force, charged with defending NZ's sovereign territory and conducting support operations in nearby countries. NZ are a member of the Five Eyes network, so any information they gather in the South Pacific can be passed on to the other nations as well.

However, rising tensions with China and the war in Ukraine have increased pressure on the NZ government to consider expanding its defence force and their capabilities. Even so, budget and personnel constraints will limit what they can do abroad. They'll never be the equivalent of the US, UK or Australia. So they have to be selective about what capabilities to aim for. For starters, the NZDF has a lot of obsolete equipment that they're planning to upgrade and replace over the next 10–20 years. Some of them could even allow for greater military capability overseas. I'll leave a summary of some of the more interesting plans below.

The NZ Army is replacing their infantry mobility vehicles with Australian-made Bushmasters. Soon they'll have to replace their Canadian-made NZLAV III light armoured vehicles too, maybe with LAV 6s like the Canadian army's doing or with German-made Boxers like the Australian army's doing. We'll see.

The Royal NZ Air Force has no combat capability, not least because attacking fighter jets can't realistically reach NZ from anywhere except Australia. NZ also can't afford even a light aircraft carrier, let alone fighter planes for them, to conduct air combat operations overseas. So the RNZAF focuses mainly on transport and surveillance, primarily covering an area from the South Pacific all the way to Antarctica. They've already upgraded their C130H Hercules transport helicopters to the more modern C130J Super Hercules, and they're replacing their old P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft with the more modern and capable P-8 Poseidons (which Australia, the UK and the US are already using). The last thing they'll need to replace are their aging Boeing 757 cargo and VIP transport planes. The new planes will have to be capable of round travel to both the South Pacific and Antarctica (since the US relies partially on NZ to support its Antarctic operations) while fully loaded and ideally without refuelling. Maybe something like the KC-46 Pegasus, or dare I hope the KC-30s that the Royal Australian Air Force are currently using, could fill the role. Then again, they might end up going with a smaller Boeing 737 instead (please not a second-hand one, like the Australian ones that keep breaking down). Shame they never got any Globemasters while they were available.

Where I think there is the most room for increasing capability is the Royal New Zealand Navy. They're already planning to replace their Anzac-class frigates in the mid-2030s, perhaps with up-specced Type 31 general frigates. I'd love to say they'd go for a larger class of ship, like the Type 26 frigates that are being ordered and modified for Canada and Australia, or even a destroyer. But with NZ's military budget they might be better off going for a larger number of mid-sized ships, than say one or two huge ones. Interestingly, the RNZN are already planning to order two new landing platform docks by then as well. These will greatly increase their capability in conducting humanitarian aid missions, and with deploying army personnel and equipment overseas. They'll also need to replace their offshore patrol vessels by then, and at least one will need to have ice strengthening added to perform patrols in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica.


_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.


– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

12 Feb 2023, 1:27 am

Murihiku wrote:
However, rising tensions with China and the war in Ukraine have increased pressure on the NZ government to consider expanding its defence force and their capabilities.


Presumably, NZ will be "in like Flynn" if Australia was attacked. 8)



Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

12 Feb 2023, 2:40 am

^ Presumably, especially if the NZDF can increase their capabilities more quickly.

Pepe wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
I am still trying to keep that whole submarine soap opera straight in my head.

Lessee...

Australia HAD nuclear subs. But then they ripped the nuclear powerplants out, and replaced them with diesel electric engines for the same subs? Or they were going to do that?

And they were gonna pay France to do it?


Yes.
The original French submarines were nuclear but because of insane left-wing politics in Australia, the conservative government at the time had to demote the subs to diesel.

Ridiculous left-wing politics is still plaguing Australia.
Nuclear power is carbon-free, yet moronic ideology is still getting in the way.
Politics and politicians. :eew:

It's less an issue of politics and more an issue of capability and price. Australia currently operates conventional diesel-electric submarines (SSKs). They're smaller, slower, much cheaper and usually quieter than nuclear subs (SSNs or SSBNs). But most SSKs tend to lack the range and endurance that the Royal Australian Navy requires.

One solution to this problem is to take an existing SSK design and make it larger, to accommodate increases in its range and endurance – that's what they did with their current Collins-class submarines. Or they can take an already larger design like an SSN and replace the nuclear reactor with a diesel-electric engine – which is what they tried to do with the French design, until it ran into problems.

OTOH, nuclear subs already have the necessary speed, range and endurance that the RAN requires. They'd also provide much greater stealth, surveillance and power projection capabilities, which in the current geopolitical climate Australia now seems keen to acquire. The downside of course is that Australia has no experience with building or operating nuclear submarines, plus they're a lot more expensive and harder to come by (only six countries currently operate them).

But apparently the Australian government seems willing to take the risk and put in the extra investment. Let's see what they can come up with.


_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.


– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)