In reply to Scooter, yes, I think the F124 would have been adequate. At about 1.4bn each, instead of 2.2bn each, I think they may have been better value.
Silva, the RAAF is getting 5, not 4, tankers. I personally think we should be getting 7 or 8.
Bager1968
Rank 4 Registered User Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 509
“So, Australia is only going to have three AWD’s in exchange for both the Adams Class of DDG’s and Perry Class of FFG’s!”
In terms of “hulls in the water”, 3 of the Anzacs “replaced” the 3 “Adams family” DDGs… not in mission, of course… the AAW mission was defaulted to the FFGs.
But yes, it looks like there will be 3 AWDs and 8 ASW/ASuW frigates (11 ships) in the late 2010s, where there were 3 DDGs, 4 FFGs, and 5 ASW FFs (12 ships) in the last half of the 1980s!
The two FFG’s built in Williamstown Vic, are to be kept in service into the 2020’s. They are quite a bit younger than the American built ships. I believe that additional AWD’s will be ordered down the line. Also replacements for the OHP’s will also be ordered down the line. We will have a minimum of 13 ships with the two youngest OHP’s (FFG’s) in service.
Personally, I cannot see the need for such large ships. I would have thought off the shelf F124’s would have suited us perfectly, and we could probably have built 5 for what we are going to pay for the AWD’s.
On another point, nobody has mentioned that HMAS Tobruk has to be replaced as well. There some talk of a 20’000 roll-n roll-off ship some time back, but I dont know what the current thinking is.
Rhino doesnt do it for you! The nearest we have would be the Wombat!
I presume this purchase (if it is in fact official) has come about as the result of the unsolicitored offer made by Boing to the Australian Government several months ago. I wonder if any other aircraft have been considered? Rafale for one would do well in a comparison with these two relatively slow modern fighters, also the F15K or whatever is the latest model.
On the first page of this thread, I asked, and MP703 asked the same question on this page, but no one has given us an answer yet.
Repeat…. How does the F-18F compare for range and payload with the F35?
I supect that it would be superior to the F35, in which case why would we want to replace them with F35’s?
P.S. The Rafale may have been a better buy still.
Start of the article in Financial Review….
.
{{Australian Financial Review
16/12/06
G. Barker
Australia’s surprise move to buy a squadron of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets will cause a blow-out of close to $4 billion in the defence budget over the next five years.
Some experts questioned how the purchase would affect the $51 billion defence capabilty plan, but others praised the decision as a pragmatic move to ensure Australia avoided an air-combat capability gap in that time.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson moved to buy the Super Hornets because of concerns about the safety of the ageing fleet of F-111 fighter bombers after 2010.
In doing so he rejected what has been called the RAAF’s”conspircacy of optimism”about the need for an interim air combat capability pending the arrival of the country’s first F-35 Joint Strike Fighters after 2012.
Dr Nelson has pitched the Boeing Super Hornets as replacements for the F-111’s, but they would also provide an interim capability in the event of delayed delivery of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighters now having their first test flights in the US.
Start of the article in Financial Review….
.
{{Australian Financial Review
16/12/06
G. Barker
Australia’s surprise move to buy a squadron of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets will cause a blow-out of close to $4 billion in the defence budget over the next five years.
Some experts questioned how the purchase would affect the $51 billion defence capabilty plan, but others praised the decision as a pragmatic move to ensure Australia avoided an air-combat capability gap in that time.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson moved to buy the Super Hornets because of concerns about the safety of the ageing fleet of F-111 fighter bombers after 2010.
In doing so he rejected what has been called the RAAF’s”conspircacy of optimism”about the need for an interim air combat capability pending the arrival of the country’s first F-35 Joint Strike Fighters after 2012.
Dr Nelson has pitched the Boeing Super Hornets as replacements for the F-111’s, but they would also provide an interim capability in the event of delayed delivery of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighters now having their first test flights in the US.
I too always thought that the Su-34 was the nearest thing to the F111 that we could replace it with. Now that we are to get F-18F’s, it is a whole new ballgame.
The SH are supposed to be costing $90m each (AU or US?) You would not buy F15E’s for that.
I would like to know how the F-18F compares with the F35. I know they both are Mach 1.8, I believe that the F-18F has superior range and warload, but I am not sure. The F35 will be stealthier, but I dont place too much importance on that, as by they tiime they are in production, no doubt there will be radars capable of detecting them.
I made a post everal pages back in which I suggested (though poorly worded) that Australia should build three smaller LPD (or LHD whichever is correct) instead of the 21’000 or 27’000 tonne monsters under consideration. I was thinking of large catamarans built by Incat or similar, and 3, to replace HMAS Kanimbla, Manoora, and Tobruk, which is also due for replacement. The idea with these type of vessels is that they are fast, and would be ideal for disaster relief work, getting to the scene hours before conventinal ships. I then said Astralia should get two smaller aircraft carriers, again poor wording, as I meant smaller than the ships under consideration by Britain and France. If Australia should return to Aircraft Carriers, they should be capable of handling conventional aircraft, such as F18E/F, Rafale, F35C, and should not be limited just to F35B. As to cost, well money appears to be no object here. We just paid $2bil. for 4 aircraft, we intend paying $2bil each for AWD. I reckon that if we built them in co-operation with another country, such as South Korea, we could have reasonable ACC for that sort of money.
What are the different roles of the single seater and double seater? Single Air-Defence and double Strike?
JA, I noticed that there was one part of Tiddles original question that you have avoided. Have you managed to tie the knot yet?
Anyway I would prefer for Australia to cancel these large LPD’s and get 3 of about 16 – 18’000 tonnes. with only helicopter capacity, and get 2 smaller Aircraft Carriers. We could do this as a joint venture with South korea or Japan, they could build the hulls, and Australia could fit them out.
Could someone please point out why any country without seperated islands actually needs a carrier?
How about a country that is the worlds largest island or smallest continent, with the most coastline of any country, much of it uninhabited. It also has one large island and many smaller.