Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

Australia to build biggest navy since World War II

29 Comments
By Andrew BEATTY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2024 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


29 Comments
Login to comment

the sleeping lion awakening! good job Australia !

9 ( +16 / -7 )

lol might have a couple completed by 2050...if china makes any type of move, things will be well over by 2050

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

lol might have a couple completed by 2050...if china makes any type of move, things will be well over by 2050

unfortunately, this is the reality

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

tokyo-starToday  01:10 pm JST

lol might have a couple completed by 2050...if china makes any type of move, things will be well over by 2050

End of the decade were the predictions made by the Navy spokesmen this morning, if not early 2030s. The earlier the better considering the current state of the world. Look to Australia to be a solid partner to its allies. You could do much worse in choosing mates to have your back.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

Australia is a strong and proud nation and an ally to democracy. Even when they have crappy PMs like turnbull, they are still strong allies to democracy. And the have proven their military might in past wars.

15 ( +17 / -2 )

If they could arm their weapons with some of the wildlife they’ve got going in Oz, they’d be a nightmare for any force to deal with.

All joking aside though… this is a welcome development. I know some will disagree, but let them.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

This is excellent news for Japan and the free world. Australia is a very capable and dependable partner, and will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us if/when the time comes.

The free world needs to be prepared for the worst. Ukraine unfortunately wasn't, and look what happened. We must not make the same mistake with China.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

The distance from Sydney to Shanghai is approximately 8,000 kilometers. That's a lot of ocean to patrol. Do be nice with your neighbors to your north in SE Asia.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Do be nice with your neighbors to your north in SE Asia.

Yep. There is zero need for the confrontational use of water cannons on friendly fishing boats.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

I'm sorry, I need to be explicitly clear with the JT crew. There was a time when Aussies refrained from excessive military spending and exercises or at a minimum had conversations with nearby SE Asian countries. Neighboring countries were not too happy about UK atmospheric nuclear tests in Australia for example.

Times have changed a bit. The obvious reaction by Indonesia will be more investment in their navy as well.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

This will no doubt be yet another Scrap Iron Flotilla.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Australia would be better served getting 11 general purpose corvettes rather than frigates, as they are cheaper to build and maintain, and also much faster to build and replace all while carrying the same deadly weapons systems but in smaller numbers. For the cost of 11 frigates they could get 20 or more corvettes.

Having said that, I am very happy to see the current government is making the right call for the future needs of the navy. Now if they can only see their way clear to have a decent sized army and an air force with more combat aircraft including long range bombers and air superiority fighters. A step in the right direction.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Good for Australia, AUKUS - and freedom-loving nations in the region.

This will no doubt be yet another Scrap Iron Flotilla.

The anti-democracy brigade being cynical about this. No shock there. One never hears a hint of protest from them at the military expansionism from Communist China, Fascist Russia or North Korea.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein (apocryphal).

We are all totally insane and probably deserve our fate.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Pig Iron Bob would be proud at the decision to make these ships overseas, undercutting the Aussie worker.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Warships are so 20th century. All that expensive floating junk can be sunk by relatively inexpensive missiles. There are better ways to spend people's taxes that can benefit hard-working Australians and improve the lives of the indigenous peoples.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

MoonrakerToday 04:31 pm JST

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein (apocryphal).

We are all totally insane and probably deserve our fate.

Ships are hardly world ending weapons. They might launch said weapons, but that is a different issue.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Yeh let’s let people starve and build more instruments of death and destruction! What a sad thing the people controlling the human race are. Imagine what could be done if we worked together and spent all the money currently spent on weapons on making a better world for all….imagine….

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Sanjinosebleed

Imagine what could be done if we worked together and spent all the money currently spent on weapons on making a better world for all….imagine….

If you're serious about this message, you should be typing it in Chinese.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

OK, so why are we building this?

To protect our strategic interests.

You mean out trade routes?

Yes.

Who’s our biggest trading partner?

China.

So we’re protecting our trade routes with China… from China?

Yes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

USNinJapan2

Feb. 20 11:42 pm JST

Sanjinosebleed

If you're serious about this message, you should be typing it in Chinese.

If it means my son doesn't have to fight a war for self interested corrupt poiliticians whose children will get a ball pass I'd happily do so. And after the US just Vetoed another UNSC resolution to stop the slaughter in Gaza ...with friends like them who needs enemies!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Australia would be better served getting 11 general purpose corvettes rather than frigates, as they are cheaper to build and maintain, and also much faster to build and replace all while carrying the same deadly weapons.

No, not true. You need frigate sized ships to have enough top speed to chase nuclear subs in blue water and not generate a lot of noise doing so. Even our frigates of the 1980s struggled to keep up with destroyers, aircraft carriers and modern nuclear subs. The longer the hull the greater the speed before the hull starts to plane. Increasing speeds of nuclear subs has driven a need for longer hulls for anti submarine work. You need a frigate sized ship to carry the submarine's most dangerous enemy two anti-sub helicopters with dipping sonar. You need a big hull to carry a large low frequency bow sonar. You also need a big hull to have enough fuel and stores for blue water operations. You need a big ship to have the power reserve for high powered sensors, both radars and sonars.

Corvettes are ok for near shore operations with land based air support. I can also tell you have never sailed the Pacific because it is badly mis labeled. It is often a very rough body of water and a small ship like a corvette struggles in a big Pacific swell, making flight operations impossible and life for the crew pure misery.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If the RAN achieves these goals they will have a larger force than the Royal Navy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Warships are so 20th century. All that expensive floating junk can be sunk by relatively inexpensive missiles. 

Plenty of warships have survived guided missile hits including a tanker recently in the Red Sea that continued its voyage after being hit by a Houthi missile, USS Stark that survived being hit by two Exocet and returned to the US under her own power or INS Hanit that survived a hit by a Chinese C802 and was back in service three weeks after being hit. If you look at some of the US Navy SINKEX's you see it often takes a lot of missile hits to sink a ship. Your can also find the Royal Board of Inquiry into the sinking of HMS Sheffield and discover what a complete cluster their damage control was. There was no excuse for losing Sheffield. Stark took two hits from the very same kind of missile, one was not a dud like the one that hit Sheffield and Stark sailed home under her own power. Oh yeah, and while Sheffield was all steel (something I confirmed by sticking a magnet to various parts of her sister ship HMS Southampton) Stark was aluminum from the main deck upwards.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Australia would be better served getting 11 general purpose corvettes rather than frigates, as they are cheaper to build and maintain, and also much faster to build and replace all while carrying the same deadly weapons.

If you recall the LCS were supposed to carry an ASW module and ASW helicopters. The US Navy abandoned the idea because their water jet propulsion, necessary to meet the strict high speed and shallow draft requirements for their anti surface warfare mission, made the ships much too noisy to conduct ASW operations from. Aside from broadcasting their position to an enemy sub the self generated noise made it difficult for the ship's sonar to detect anything. At least one Admiral described them as being as noisy as an aircraft carrier.

Modern destroyers and frigates have special bubbler systems called Prairie and Masker to prevent adversary subs from being able to acoustically classify surface ships. Masker forms a bubble curtain alongside the hull to prevent propagation of internal / machinery noises using the impedance mismatch between the bubble curtain and sea water. Sounds impinging on the bubble seawater boundary are reflected back into the bubbles and lost. Another system called Prairie expels bubbles along the leading edge of the propeller blades to prevent cavitation. Between the two a passing surface ship sounds like a rain shower on the surface to a submerged sub.

Some diesel subs also have these systems but because they rely on compressed air are only available to them while running with their snorkel above water, so while they can silence internal and propeller noises the snorkel is detectable on radar and their diesel exhaust and heat can be detected with other means. Being that close to the surface also makes them detectable on LIDAR carried by helicopters and patrol aircraft.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

They might launch said weapons, but that is a different issue.

Is it, TaiwanisnotChina? And that is not their purpose? Aren't arms races a positive feedback? Where does it end? But I get it. Lots of people like the toys and what to act tough and like others to do so on their behalf until we end up with WWIII. We are totally insane. No consciousness here, no free will, just blundering on witlessly to global war.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So we’re protecting our trade routes with China… from China?

Yes.

Obviously NO. In the event of hostilities with China, all our trade with China would immediately cease until the end of hostilities, at the very least. There is much trade that travels through that region that would still need protection, or be diverted away from hostile Chinese ships and take a long way around.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You need a frigate sized ship to carry the submarine's most dangerous enemy two anti-sub helicopters with dipping sonar.

All Australian surface combat ships carry only one helicopter each, as a corvette would.

Not all Australian ships would be used in a blue water capacity with a number reserved for convoy duty around Australia, up and down the east coast and across to Perth.

I can also tell you have never sailed the Pacific because it is badly mis labeled. It is often a very rough body of water and a small ship like a corvette struggles in a big Pacific swell

Correct, my service was mainly land based with a couple of trips on the HMAS Tobruk, a flat bottom amphibious heavy lift ship, as an army passenger.

Australia does much maritime trade and needs a corvette force that would indeed get air support from land as well as the on board helicopter. Frigates, Destroyers and other ships would be used for blue water missions and for use with allies in coalition fleets. We would never get into a situation where all of our active ships are sent away from Australia. A force of corvettes for local use makes good sense to me. Even sacrificing 3 of the 11 general purpose frigates could pay for eight or nine corvettes for local defense and convoy duties.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the RAN achieves these goals they will have a larger force than the Royal Navy.

But with no aircraft carriers. Australia needs one or two escort carriers or Wasp size flat tops.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites