Addendum: The Surface Combatant Force Requirement Study does not define any need for a single mission ship such as the frigate and there are no frigates planned in the Navy's five-year shipbuilding plan. The lead ship of the class, USS OLIVER HAZARD PERRY (FFG 7), and the following ships have been decommissioned: FFG 8 through 16, 19-34, 36-40, 42, 43, 45-47, 49, 52, 54 and 57. The rest will be decommissioned by 2019.
"Under the Jan. 5 MOU, the first dozen HV-22s would be taken from what would have been the Marine Corps share of V-22s built in fiscal 2018-20 under the prospective third multiyear contract. Those first Navy V-22s will be replaced in the Marine Corps inventory in fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023 with a dozen Ospreys “that would have been allocated to the Navy..”
Mid December the pentagon announced their choice of design for their Small Surface Combatant (SSC) - modified versions of the existing Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).
In January it was announced these modified LCS will also be designated Frigates - given their augmented capabilities. The original 32 LCSs will eventually be upgraded and re-designated Frigates also.
By endowing LCSs as Frigates, the traditional Frigate classification is now a blend of vessels in the USN line of battle.
Having declared the modfied LCS as the future SSC blueprint, traditionalists question the pentagon's belief that the incumbent Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate is adequately replaced by the new SSC profile as opposed to a more traditional vessel design like the Huntington Ingalls Industries Legend-Class Security Cutter.
US Navy will buy four tiltrotors annually from fiscal 2018 to 2020 as the next-generation COD aircraft to replace the 35 venerable Northrop Grumman C-2A turboprop aircraft that have delivered passengers and cargo to and from their aircraft carriers. The tilt rotors will not only be able to perform carrier delivery missions but has the added versatility to also transport people and equipment to amphibious assault ships, transport docks and other Navy ships in the fleet, as well as support in search and rescue and special forces missions.
Article found in Defense News ... which will see our Frigates go to the Seaspan shipyards in Victoria, B.C. for their upgrade.
" VICTORIA, British Columbia — Lockheed Martin is eyeing future sales in South America and Europe for the naval combat system it designed as part of the modernization program for Canada's frigates. Work is underway on the first export sale of the combat management system to the Royal New Zealand Navy, with installation in the first frigate to begin here in 2016, according to Lockheed Martin Canada officials. That CAN $180 million (US $165 million) contract was awarded in May for the modernization of two Anzac-class frigates. "
Always seems the air power capability come down to a debate about the sea platform (Canberra) and the aircraft being embarked (F35-B) from it, where the bigger costs to projecting this kind of capability is in the manpower, training, logistics, MRO and fleet elements to accompany these assets.
To field one of their super carriers, the USN Carrier Strike Group (CSG) typically includes: A Supercarrier and carrier air wing of up to 9 squadrons 1 or 2 Aegis guided missile cruisers (CG), of the Ticonderoga class 1 escort destroyer squadron (DESRON) of 2-6 guided missile destroyers (DDG) - the Arleigh Burke class - to serve as multi-mission surface combatant and anti-aircraft (AAW) or as anti-submarine (ASW) warfare 2x attack submarines, usually of the Los Angeles-class to screen the CSG 1x combined ammunition, oiler and supply ship (AOE/AOR), to provide logistic support
The Queen Elizabeth Battle Group will comprise at least: 2 Type 45 Destroyers (AWD) 2 Type 23 Frigates (ASW) 1 Astute Class Nuclear Attack Submarine 1 Wave Class Fast Fleet Tanker
So what will be needed to defend and supply the Canberra and Adelaide by 2018 for them to project this air capability? Will it be; 1 Hobart Class for AWD? (readiness: late - Project SEA 4000) 1 ANZAC Class for ASW and AAW? (readiness: available) 1 Adelaide Class as multi-mission? (readiness: due for upgrade - Project SEA 1390 Phase 2.1) 1 Collins Submarine for screening? (readiness: sub-par operating avaibility, upgrades Project SEA 1429 & 1639, 2020 replacement Project SEA 1000) 1 Replenishment Ship? (readiness: low, due for replacement Project SEA 1654 Phase 3)
Yep video shows " MRH-90 and an S-70B-2 on 26 November while the ship was alongside at the RAN's Fleet Base East in Sydney ...the purpose of this first embarkation was to conduct deck-handling trials including parking and lashing procedures, and did not involve flight operations. ...actual flight trials at sea will be conducted for about eight weeks from early March 2015" Source: www.janes.com/article/47018/ran-prepares-for-march-2015-flight-trials-on-first-of-class-lhd
Took this quick snapshot of Canberra when I was in Sydney this month. Just to the right is one of the ASMD upgraded ANZACs for size comparison
The RNZAF Hercs have delivered a distinguished service, advancing our airlift capability is well overdue.
3 Questions:
Qu1: For a $NZD1 billion is it better to invest in 2x C-17s or 4x A400Ms (€152.4m FY2013 >> $NZD240m)?
Qu2: Can NZ afford to shell out $1b FY2015-16? As Boeing is in the process of building its final white tails, presume any condition of sale to interested buyers will be expected to pay and get delivered in 2015 or 2016 ...least they pay storage costs to Boeing
Qu3: From a maintenance perspective is AU an MRO for C-17s? Only other non-european operator for A400M is Malaysia (4) I am not sure if they brokered themselves to be MRO in the region for the type?
Came across this interesting article written by Japanese journalist back in November on the defense entendre with Japan, US and Australia.
Could explain partly why the Abbott government is so keen on quickly buying Japanese subs perhaps? (but something you would not want widely recited least you antagonize relations with China)
" A Chinese nuclear submarine was spotted in the Indian Ocean for the first time last December. A conventional Chinese sub was also sighted there in September. This was a game changar for Japan, the U.S. and Australia [...] In response, the U.S. decided in February to station one more Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine at its naval base in Guam. The total number of the attack subs based there will stand at four. But budgetary issues limit how much the U.S. Navy can do in the Asia-Pacific region. It is also unfeasible for Japanese submarines to frequently monitor the Indian Ocean on behalf of the U.S. Australia, which directly faces the Indian Ocean, is also located conveniently for monitoring the South China Sea. With enhanced submarine capabilities, Australia will be able to keep a close eye on those waters."
Dec 18, 2014 atea wrote: " We seem to want to play with the Military 'big boys' again so I guess there is an expectation on their part that we put some extra money into defense and are able to deploy forces readily and improved airfift capacity seems to me to be a necessary part of this"
Agree. The latest data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies said the U.S. spent $US600 billion (3.7% of U.S. gross domestic product ) in 2013, China's $US112 billion (1.24% of China's GDP). Australia and Indonesia are increasing their military spending by more than most. Australia's boosted real spending by 6% for 2014 to 2015 (1.8% of GDP). Their commitment is to reach 2%. Indonesia raised their real spending by 10% for 2015 (0.8% of GDP).
So I guess NZ spending just over a 1 billion on 2 C-17s would represent a 35% increase in real spending on our defense budget and allow us to claim to have skin in the arms game?
Firstly - I'll be happy to see RNZAF get this kind of capability whether C-17 or A400Ms... However if wealthier countries in Europe are pooling their funding to pool-share in purchasing C-17s (i.e. NATO) and A330 MRT (see below) - how is NZ going to go-it alone and sustain 2-4 C-17s? Even if pool shared with AU, the "ANZAC" fleet would need a private consortium model (like UK does for its Voyagers and SAR) to fund it. I don't quite see ANZ or Qantas stepping up to do that down here. So anyone been talking to AirTanker or Bristow?
Well I will watch with interest this mooted ANZAC concept - who knows P-8s, new Frigates and a sub could be the next thing for NZDF if this proves to have substance.
Footnote: Canada is picking up a fifth C-17 because "Boeing requires all C-17s in the sustainment programme to receive a heavy maintenance check lasting up to five months every five years. As a result, all four C-17As delivered to Canada over two years would be required to undergo overlapping maintenance checks. Adding a fifth C-17 to the fleet could offset the loss of aircraft availability during the heavy maintenance period" www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-will-purchase-fifth-c-17-407340/
A nice article about the vessels armour and it has a nice link that profiles the Absalon-class support vessels upon which the Iver Huitfeldt are based. Still very partial to this design for our navy.
Came across this tour of the EUropean FREMM Frigate. CC, Bridge, Armaments, but no views of engine room, galley or ward areas. Still quite a bit more revealing than your usual videos.
Observation: Is it just my ignorance or has the tonnage profile for Frigates dramatically increased? FREMM, Type 26, SIGMA, F100 etc - all now easily in the 6000 class? Is there any longer a weight distinction for Frigate builds?
While testing the F35s on LHD USS Wasp, the US also trialed a new thermo-blast coating called Thermion. It apparently bonded well to harden their flightdeck and endured the thrust and blasts from the F35. It will now be applied to their LHDs for the F35Bs. (Fast forward to 1:38 to see F35B night landing and taking off from Wasp.)
If not so interested in that, then here is footage of the F35Cs being catapulted off the Nimitz recently
The RAN's replenishment ships HMAS Success & Sirius have been prioritised for replacement. Success was refitted with a double-hull in 2013 that's suppose to see her last until 2020. RAN were looking at Cantabria or Berlin class designs. In the 2013 Defence White Paper, the defense ministry stated that replacement would be brought forward with either build replacement or leasing. Guess they did not want to face a scenario afloat like Canada's Navy recently. Hopefully a decision is forthcoming on those vessels smartly in 2015. The RN chose the MARS design for their Carrier group needs.
Agree with Barnsey, it will take a lot of support and investment to leverage those LHDs properly but you have to be envious the RAN have them.
Interesting article published today by Jan Gleiman about the HMAS Canberra and challenges to getting it fully operational.
Among the observations, was the degree of of marinisation to the MRH-90s. ‘..have composite frame and blade brakes that makes them more conducive to operations at sea [however] has metal parts that corrode, ranging from rivets in the tail assembly to complex assemblies in the landing gear, engine and transmission’.