Defence White Paper: Australia joins Asia's arms race with spending on weaponry and military forces

[Aepsilons]

To be honest, China doesn't really represents any immediate threat to Australia. Though it could be a long term threat depending on how things play out in future and Australia alliance with U.S/NATO.

Indeed, China does not pose any immediate nor strategic threat to Australia, a major trading partner. That is why it is unfathomable why Canberra's recent defense posturation to instigate Beijing is being seen now; perhaps in time and as the election season dies down and with more foreign ministry exchanges , Australia will be influenced to take up a more cautionary tone , one that will be less instigative in nature.

 

[dyingtoknow]

understood. but nevertheless that is fcking crazy expensive. VN navy acquires 6 Russian subs with weapons, cruise missiles, training, naval base, simulator and everything. so we must have paid some $25 billion?

I'm not sure about what kind of subs Vietnam brought but Australia's subs would have different characteristics and be more expensive because of it.

For instance, Australia's subs would need greater range (they need to travel further to reach their operational zone), they would be larger.

In general also Western technology costs more than Russian tech.

The tech we choose has to be interoperable with the US/Japan and other other allies. Our subs must be able to fire cruise missiles and integrate the latest US hardware/weapon systems.

All this extra tech, capabilities and design choices all add to the cost.

Indeed, China does not pose any immediate nor strategic threat to Australia, a major trading partner. That is why it is unfathomable why Canberra's recent defense posturation to instigate Beijing is being seen now; perhaps in time and as the election season dies down and with more foreign ministry exchanges , Australia will be influenced to take up a more cautionary tone , one that will be less instigative in nature.

Any power as significant as China poses a strategic threat to Australia. It will be a decade or two before China has the power projection capabilities to threaten our land but at the same it's also in Australia's national interest to help maintain the balance of power in the region, including in areas now within China's force projection zone (the SCS for example).

Nice ships! Why not just call them...aircraft carriers?

Aircraft carriers are for power projection which has an aggressive tone to it. Since Australia has a defensive posture with its military for image reasons we downplay the capabilities of our ships.

For the same reason Japan calls its Izumo-class aircraft carriers "helicopter destroyers".

 

[911]

I hope China target Europe in war first. Destorying Australia is useless.

 

[Penguin]

Nice ships! Why not just call them...aircraft carriers?

Apparently, it would take quite a bit of extra money to make them capable of hosting and supporting F-35Bs.

Australia Abandons Proposal To Order F-35B
Jul 8, 2015

Australia has dropped consideration of buying the short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl) version of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning for its two largest assault ships, a defense source says. The decision was made during preparation of a defense white paper that may be published next month. Deploying Stovl fighters, proposed last year by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, would have required costly modifications to the two ships, says the Australian Financial Review newspaper

Australia Abandons Proposal To Order F35B | Defense content from Aviation Week

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35 Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones.

PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence | afr.com

The two assault ships, which are the largest in the Australian Navy, would need a massive amount of modifications in order to host the F-35B, the report said.

“The jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars,” The Australian Financial Review reported.

Australian Navy Backs Off From F-35B Joint Strike Fighter |

The two LHDs, the recently-commissioned HMAS Canberra and the soon-to-be delivered NUSHIP Adelaide, are based on Spain’s Juan Carlos I, which was designed to accommodate AV-8B Harrier STOVL ‘jump jets’, and as such feature a ski ramp. But the Canberra and Adelaide would still require extensive modifications to allow them to embark and operate F-35Bs at sea, including new heat resistant deck treatments, approach landing aids and modifications to the ships’ aviation fuel storage and weapons bunkerage.

No F-35Bs for RAN LHDs – report | Australian Aviation

Guess the money for 3 more Hobarts, 9 new 7000 ton frigates and 24 rather than 12 new subs has to come from somewhere ;-)

"the White Paper promises 12 submarines to be built at a cost of more than $50 billion between 2018-2057.
However, maintenance costs will push that $50 billion budget much higher."

$50 billion for 12 subs, $4.1 billion for 1. is every sub gold plated with all comforts for the captain and crew?

Well, Australia wants foreign designs (being designed as per Ozzie requirements) built in Australia. That has a price tag, aside from the basic cost of putting together and equipping a single unit.

understood. but nevertheless that is fcking crazy expensive. VN navy acquires 6 Russian subs with weapons, cruise missiles, training, naval base, simulator and everything. so we must have paid some $25 billion?

Compare:

n 2006 Israel signed a contract with ThyssenKrupp to purchase two additional submarines from its HDW subsidiary. The two new boats are an upgraded version displacing 28% heavier than the older Dolphins, featuring an air-independent propulsion system, similar to the one used on German Type 212 submarines. On 6 July 2006, the Government of Germany decided to finance an advance to start the construction, about €170 million, planned for delivery in 2012. The two submarines cost, overall, around €1.3 billion, of up to one-third was subsidized by Germany.

Dolphin-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In April 2011, Vietnam ordered six Kilo-class submarines worth about 1.8 billion dollars, said to be the entire defence budget of Vietnam in 2009

Kilo-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Improved Kilo (Kilo-636 KMV): off the shelf mature product (basic design 1980s fitted with more modern interior equipment, no development cost, no customer specified modifications, just the boats).

 

[jhungary]

I'm not sure about what kind of subs Vietnam brought but Australia's subs would have different characteristics and be more expensive because of it.

For instance, Australia's subs would need greater range (they need to travel further to reach their operational zone), they would be larger.

In general also Western technology costs more than Russian tech.

The tech we choose has to be interoperable with the US/Japan and other other allies. Our subs must be able to fire cruise missiles and integrate the latest US hardware/weapon systems.

All this extra tech, capabilities and design choices all add to the cost.



Any power as significant as China poses a strategic threat to Australia. It will be a decade or two before China has the power projection capabilities to threaten our land but at the same it's also in Australia's national interest to help maintain the balance of power in the region, including in areas now within China's force projection zone (the SCS for example).



Aircraft carriers are for power projection which has an aggressive tone to it. Since Australia has a defensive posture with its military for image reasons we downplay the capabilities of our ships.

For the same reason Japan calls its Izumo-class aircraft carriers "helicopter destroyers".

Actually, it does not quite make sense, if we just talk about the hull alone.....

Soryu have a price tag within JMSDF for 400 millions a ship, while Type 214 have a price tag of 550 mil a ship. Even if you intend to make 100% profits (That's quite a lot) it would not have been more than 1 billions per ship and 25 billions per project.

With R&D, you are talking about a bump of 300% to 500% of the original price, which does not actually quite make sense, as country can research from scrap for less (A lot less) than that.

I have read all communication regarding the SEA 1000 deal, it mentioned something about ensuring Australia future Submarine construction capability, maybe that is the difference there. I don't know.

 

[Penguin]

Interestingly enough, the planned amphibious assault ship of the Turkish navy (L-408 TCG Anadolu) uses the same Navantia design as that of the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I and the Australian two-ship Canberra class and will get:

https://defence.pk/threads/turkish-lhd-program-news-discusions.293000/page-32#post-8241678

Yes, that says 6 F-35B to complement 4 ATAK combat helicopters, a flight of 8 utility helicopters, 2 ASW Seahawks and 2 light helicopters .