Naval questions arising from the DCR

I had posted this in the Navy thread but GarryB and I have been discussing this privately and now we’re curious as to others insight on this subject!
———————————————————————-

After the DCR came out I have spent the past few months picking it to bits and have now come up with some questions.

1. The Two Adelaide class FFG’s that are to be paid off, will they be sold off and if so to whom and at what price? I see New Zealand could use these in their attempt to gain a more common navy with ours which is their plan to also help them reduce their costs in maintainence.

2. The two Huon class MHC’s which are to be mothballed in Sydney, why not lease them out to either New Zealand or Papua New Guinea (both of whom have need of such ships). Surely the monies generated in such a venture who be welcome. And if the government should need the ships an clause could be entered into such a contract in which both said navies would willingly honer at any calling.

HMAS Huon MHC 82

3. The four FFG’s left in the fleet are to be upgraded with a Mk-42 VLS forward of the current Mk-13 Rail launcher. the Mk-42’s are to house SM-2’s under current plans and not ESSM’s as reported originally. Given this error, is there to be an increase in SM-2 capacity onboard said ships or are the reporters correct in what they account and the DCR was a misprint regarding missiles? If it is to be SM-2’s, then why not invest in the more capable SM-3’s which are better suited for the very publicly mentioned Ballistic Missile Defence Shield program?

4. The two LHD’s that are to be aquired to enter service between 2010 and 2015 are said to be of 20K Tonnes, having this in mind, and also noting that they must also have 6 landing spots oin each deck to handle aircraft upto CH-47 size. One if forced to note that HMS Ocean is in this catagory, is this what the DoD has in mind for our RAN? it all fits into place and Ocean has been designed to accomadate Harriers on occasion, another pre-requsite for our new ships (jet operations and capability)!

HMS Ocean, note the six landing spots for Helo ops!

5. The DCR also acknowlodges the AAW difiency and it’s importance. With Three such ships being of need, why are we still waiting for an answer on which ship we are to get? Of the three contending designs:

Gibbs and Cox International Frigate has never been built and thus can not be seriously counted as a contender, especially since it is coming from a design company with no experience at all and that not one of the G&C ships is in service in any navy let alone it’s home countries!

MEKO F-124 is a serious contender mainly for it’s commonality with our other MEKO products, namely the MEKO 200’s or Anzac class. The only draw back on this design would be intergration of AEGIS radar which the government has said is primary to it’s naval needs, and thus leaves us to our last contender.

MEKO F-124, FGS Sachsen (F219)

IZAR F-100, this class of ship is the first to be built outside the US with the US AGEIS radar, it has very strong performance figures and very low maning (another requirement factor), Spain has a similar climate condition to that of Australia and as such hardly any work would be needed to convert these ships toward RAN use. It has all the weaponry the RAN is current with and uses the same engine system that our current fleet has thus intergration of such ships can not be a problem, Spain and IZAR have offered very reasonable prices of the ships with full building options in Australian yards, something the American’s aren’t willing to give and of the german firm they are requiring that they build part of the ship with final fitout to take place in Australia.

IZAR’s F-100, Alvaro de Bazan (F101)

If Australia is to make a stance against foregin influence on it’s defence issues then surely the Spainish deal presents the best solution!