Disagree: Clearly SM-1 is reaching the end and ESSM is capable yet not supporting SM1 would leave allied navies (Bahrain, Chili, Egypt, Italy, Japan, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, all with 1-8 SM1 equipped ships) hanging. Future OHP recipients may receive the ships without functional Mk13 and may be encouraged to take the Mk41/ESSM route. Some navies (Italy, Japan) operate domestic destroyers with SM1 which, in relativel short term, are likely replaced. However, for other navies (often operating ex-USN OHPs) this is not likely in the near term (e.g. Chili, Egypt, Poland, Taiwan). They will have to soldier on with their ships. Now, they may opt for addition of Mk41 and ESSM, and/or could switch to SM2. But for reasons of budget as well as politics/diplomacy not in any hurry.

It’ll be far from inexpensive to set up the capability to rebuild/remanufacture SM-1 and key components. I suspect countries like Chile and Poland will simply buy up whatever stocks they can, and then just run them down. That might even mean reducing the loadout on ships, on the premise that if ships are used for operations in the future, its unlikely they’ll use a full magazine of SM-1s (around 40 rounds all up for the Mk13)

The missile is still supported as it is still in foreign services (Egypt, Poland, Turkey, among others)

Maybe not for too much longer. This Aus DoD document from the 2000s (p27) discusses SM-1 impending life of type.

http://www.defence.gov.au/ADC/docs/Publications/Monograph%20Series/RMcMillan.pdf

ESSM is a more than capable replacement for SM-1.

In the Australian context the significance of the F-111 was in its range, not its specific modus operandi. It represented a class of aircraft that is no longer extant in the world today.

Not sure I agree with that 100%. Once the F-111’s ability to avoid detection by flying “under the radar” was eroded, so was its useful range. Threat’s had to be flown around, and in the latter part of its career its effective range would have been that of the escorting F-18s.

Last of the F-111s. Su-24s etc still operating doesn’t do anything to make keeping a handful of F-111s around easier.

The proliferation of fighters with look down, shoot down capability pretty much blunted the effectiveness of the F-111/Tornado/Su-24 genre. The advent of missiles like the JASSM pretty much made them redundant.

And the RAN is keeping the FFG’s for how much longer though ? It was always a short term gap fill

That’s right, a short term gap filler until ships that are far, far more capable than the original FFG-7s enter service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart_class_destroyer

I must admit the PF4921 light frigate looks bang on for the kind of affordable frigate replacement of the venerable Perry Class.

Perhaps, but most navies that have retained the FFG-7 have upgraded them into ships that are far more capable than when delivered.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Countries/Australia/Documents/FFG_Upgrade/

(SM-2 has since been acquired.)

Canada and Australia are F-35 Level 3 Partners and both are cutting their respective defense budget.

In the case of Australia that’s not really correct. Have a look at the Aus DoD 2012-13 budget papers; yes, defence expenditure has plateaued for 2012-13 and 2013-14, but it is planned to resume expenditure growth in real terms after that. The reason for the plateau in the current two years is more about program schedule delays and the wind-down of operations. For example:

– NH-90 deliveries are way, way behind schedule
– KC-30 deliveries are behind schedule due to ongoing issues with the boom
– the US DoD has rescheduled the F-35 program effecting all participants
– operations in Afghanistan have started winding down, with the bulk of troops withdrawing in early 2013
– the shipbuilding industry has bitten off more than it can chew with the ANZAC upgrade, AWD and LHD projects, resulting in some rebaselining

Neither of the two major parties have signalled any intention to slash defence spending, in the case of the currently in opposition Liberal party the reverse is the case. More importantly, there is no imperative for them to do so as Aus isn’t facing a Euro style financial crisis, nor is it facing the longer term structural financial issues that many EU countries are grappling with.

I don’t think he’ll need to pay to advertise cruises for a long, long time…