Australian Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

Yes but UK government will always always go for the most golf plated affair and creates jobs ,so I quess we will end up with Italian helicopters even tho smart choice would be black Hawks also
These users liked the author inch for the post:
serge750

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

Gold plated , predictive text ffs

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Jake1992 »

inch wrote: 18 Jan 2023, 09:36 Yes but UK government will always always go for the most golf plated affair and creates jobs ,so I quess we will end up with Italian helicopters even tho smart choice would be black Hawks also
Why not jump on the US purchase of V-280, the economises of scale will be there to bring down the price, and the folding rota set up for the sea base variant would be spot on for the RM
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by abc123 »

inch wrote: 18 Jan 2023, 09:36 Yes but UK government will always always go for the most golf plated affair and creates jobs ,so I quess we will end up with Italian helicopters even tho smart choice would be black Hawks also
When you destroy your own helicopter industry, then everything it remains is either buy US or European/Italian product. :think:

Now, what's better for the UK, that's for the HMG to decide.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 17 Jan 2023, 22:40 This is also confirmed via the Defence Minister. There's a few questions about basing these aircraft (Townsville has been omitted in media dumps so far), and the numbers are a little low on a straight replacement basis. However, there could be other SF aircraft that turn up later on after the review – so that could be it. Speculation about the MH-60M etc. A few commentators think there will be a second batch. Hard to say. There's definitely a good chunk of the previous capability that's being replaced here.



Just think, you guys. For just over £1 billion, you too could have 40 Blackhawks. Think of the money you could save! ;)
it's a pity as on paper the Taipan seems to be the better helicopter, but if its not living up to the performance and the supposed flying cost considerable cheaper in the long run to be replaced with Blackhawk.

we have 47 Taipans with the original order being 6 for the RAN and 40 for Army we received 1 airframe extra at no cost for missing contract millstones so that's 47

Trying to remember if we ordered the 12 additional MH-60R that were announced by FMS October 2021 if we did that is 52 airframes 5 additional cabs. Pity the MH-60S is no longer in production.

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... ed-defense

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... mh-60r-buy
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Mercator

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Jake1992 wrote: 18 Jan 2023, 11:54
inch wrote: 18 Jan 2023, 09:36 Yes but UK government will always always go for the most golf plated affair and creates jobs ,so I quess we will end up with Italian helicopters even tho smart choice would be black Hawks also
Why not jump on the US purchase of V-280, the economises of scale will be there to bring down the price, and the folding rota set up for the sea base variant would be spot on for the RM
You'll be waiting 10 years, if you're lucky. Do the pumas have 10 years?
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
R686

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Appears we did order the extra aircraft

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... 60r-helos/

But I also forgot about the loss of a MH60R in 2021

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

New drop in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Australia buys ‘potent and powerful’ sea mines to deter China
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5ce1d.html

Defence industry sources said the federal government would soon announce it had signed a contract to purchase a substantial number of sea mines from a European weapons supplier.

The Defence Department, sources said, intends to procure a sophisticated form of multi-influence ground mines that react to acoustic, magnetic and pressure influences of passing vessels. They can be laid on the ocean floor by ship, submarine or from the air.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 06:16 New drop in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Australia buys ‘potent and powerful’ sea mines to deter China
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5ce1d.html

Defence industry sources said the federal government would soon announce it had signed a contract to purchase a substantial number of sea mines from a European weapons supplier.

The Defence Department, sources said, intends to procure a sophisticated form of multi-influence ground mines that react to acoustic, magnetic and pressure influences of passing vessels. They can be laid on the ocean floor by ship, submarine or from the air.
Is the Government making decisions before the DSR to be released in March?

Seems more like a PR announcement to make it look like they are doing something which they are not, robbing peter to pay Paul.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

So the latest Defence Technology Review (subscriber only sorry) has a bit more of the back story on Australia's Black Hawk purchase. The aircraft will be based at Oakey (training base just outside Toowoomba, an hour west of Brisbane) and Holsworthy Barracks (principally a special forces base in the southern outskirts of Sydney).

Apparently there will be two squadrons of Blackhawks at Holsworthy and it will become the principal operational base for Black Hawk operations. (The wives of the aircrew and maintainers will love that). Of the two squadrons, one will concentrate on being a ready SF Squadron and the other will become the standby Squadron for LHD operations (which is also conveniently based in Sydney).

Townsville will still have 14 Chinooks based there, but no other helicopters at this point. Honestly, they may have better retention in the Helo squadrons because of that. And who knows what may come next.

Read it here, if you subscribe: https://defencetechnologyreview.partica ... ipbook/14/
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
R686

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 23:20 So the latest Defence Technology Review (subscriber only sorry) has a bit more of the back story on Australia's Black Hawk purchase. The aircraft will be based at Oakey (training base just outside Toowoomba, an hour west of Brisbane) and Holsworthy Barracks (principally a special forces base in the southern outskirts of Sydney).

Apparently there will be two squadrons of Blackhawks at Holsworthy and it will become the principal operational base for Black Hawk operations. (The wives of the aircrew and maintainers will love that). Of the two squadrons, one will concentrate on being a ready SF Squadron and the other will become the standby Squadron for LHD operations (which is also conveniently based in Sydney).

Townsville will still have 14 Chinooks based there, but no other helicopters at this point. Honestly, they may have better retention in the Helo squadrons because of that. And who knows what may come next.

Read it here, if you subscribe: https://defencetechnologyreview.partica ... ipbook/14/

Pity we can’t refurbish the current airframes to the new build standards with enhanced marinisation for expanded 2RAR and move them back to Sydney as well

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by abc123 »

Mercator wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 06:16 New drop in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Australia buys ‘potent and powerful’ sea mines to deter China
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5ce1d.html

Defence industry sources said the federal government would soon announce it had signed a contract to purchase a substantial number of sea mines from a European weapons supplier.

The Defence Department, sources said, intends to procure a sophisticated form of multi-influence ground mines that react to acoustic, magnetic and pressure influences of passing vessels. They can be laid on the ocean floor by ship, submarine or from the air.
And then in a 10 years they will say that they are no good and that US-built mines are beter, cheaper etc. :lol:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

@Mercator you seem to have a bit of knowledge on FMS sales

I was having a bit of a look in the US House of Reps transcripts page, and I came across this strange transcript saying that the sale AGM-88E2 was prohibited on June 23, 2022
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Australia is prohibited:

(1) The sale of the following defense articles and services, described in Transmittal No. 22–27, submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1)), and published in the Congressional Record on June 21, 2022: Up to fifteen (15) AGM–88E2 Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) Guidance Sections; up to fifteen (15) AARGM Control Sections; up to fifteen (15) High Speed Anti Radiation Missiles (HARM) Rocket Motors; up to fifteen (15) HARM Warheads; and up to fifteen (15) HARM Control Sections. Also included are AGM–88E2 AARGM All Up Round (AUR) tactical missiles; AGM–88E2 AARGM Captive Air Training Missile (CATM); HARM G–Code AUR; HARM G–Code CATM; M–Code GPS receivers; containers; support and test equipment; EA–18G Growler test support; spare and repair parts; software (Classified and Unclassified); U.S. Government and contractor engineering support; and other related elements of logistical and program support.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... a%22%5D%7D


But the FMS notification say we were approved.
WASHINGTON, June 21, 2022 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of AGM-88E2 AARGM E2 Missiles and related equipment for an estimated cost of $94 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Australia has requested to buy up to fifteen (15) AGM-88E2 Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) Guidance Sections; up to fifteen (15) AARGM Control Sections; up to fifteen (15) High Speed Anti Radiation Missiles (HARM) Rocket Motors; up to fifteen (15) HARM Warheads; and up to fifteen (15) HARM Control Sections. Also included are AGM-88E2 AARGM All Up Round (AUR) tactical missiles; AGM-88E2 AARGM Captive Air Training Missile (CATM); HARM G-Code AUR; HARM G-Code CATM; M-Code GPS receivers; containers; support and test equipment; EA-18G Growler test support; spare and repair parts; software (Classified and Unclassified); U.S. Government and contractor engineering support; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total value is $94 million.
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... 2-missiles

I am a bit lost now can the RAAF get AGM 88E2 or not?

Is Congress stopping support for RAAF Growlers?

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Nope. Not seen any chatter about us being knocked back. The only thing I can add is that FMS sales often come off US production slots and it's possible Congress is turning down our "priority" in that queue of production slots.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
R686

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

ABC News Australia: [Australian Defence Minister] Richard Marles hints at three-way AUKUS submarine design as White House unveiling looms
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-04/ ... /101931608

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

A researcher did a deep dive on some AUKUS material:



Well shiiit!
These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 2):
R686wargame_insomniac

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

​ Sounds like the US congress is initiating a report on whether Australia is capable of operating a B21 in the future.

My interpretation is that Ausgov is investigating if it could participate in the B21 program and Congress looking at the feasibility of it
I could be wrong though.

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr77 ... 776enr.pdf

H. R. 7776—472 SEC. 1276. ASSESSMENT OF CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AMONG AUSTRALIA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and development center for the conduct of an independent assessment of resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the partnership among Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States (commonly known as the ‘‘AUKUS partnership’’) announced on September 21, 2021.

(b) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.—In conducting the assessment required by subsection (a), the federally funded research and development center shall consider the following with respect to each of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States:
(1) Potential resourcing and personnel shortfalls.​
(2) Information sharing, including foreign disclosure policy and processes.​
(3) Statutory, regulatory, and other policies and processes.​
(4) Intellectual property, including patents.​
(5) Export controls, including technology transfer and protection.​
(6) Security protocols and practices, including personnel, operational, physical, facility, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, marking and classifying information, and handling and transmission of classified material.​
(7) Industrial base implications specifically including options to expand the United States submarine and nuclear power industrial base to meet United States and Australia requirements.​
(8) Alternatives that would significantly accelerate Australia’s national security, including—​
(A) interim submarine options to include leasing or conveyance of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use; or​
(B) the conveyance of B-21 bombers.​
(9) Any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate.​

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The federally funded research and development center selected to conduct the assessment under this section shall include, as part of such assessment, recommendations for improvements to resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the AUKUS partnership.

(d) REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2024, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that includes an unaltered copy of such assessment, together with the views of the Secretary on the assessment and on the recommendations included in the assessment pursuant to subsection (c).​
(2) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.​




Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Yeah, they would have to consider the possibility and do due diligence even if they already knew it was very unlikely. Politically it always plays better if you say you looked and found reasons not to go ahead with something rather than not look at all.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

I might not be appreciative of the subtleties of the US constitution and the division of powers but in a Westminster style system none of the above would go anywhere near parliament. It would be a matter for the executive Cabinet, Ministers, Civil Servants etc.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

tomuk wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 01:39 I might not be appreciative of the subtleties of the US constitution and the division of powers but in a Westminster style system none of the above would go anywhere near parliament. It would be a matter for the executive Cabinet, Ministers, Civil Servants etc.
If either major party in the UK was in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, or the Greens, I think you'd find your government would need some sort of pro forma multi-party agreement to proceed with any major weapons sales (although perhaps without a specific resolution). It's just that, so far, Labour and the Tories have (mostly) managed to have majority governments, and your upper house is toothless. If either major party went back into coalition government, I'm pretty sure your committees would regain a little bit more power to obstruct. I could easily imagine the SNP wreaking havoc on defence procurement and exports.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
R686

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

A program of electronic warfare upgrades for the Australian Growler fleet has begun. They are starting with the electronic warfare ranges near Amberley (outside of Brisbane) and Delamere (a big weapons range in the Northern Territory).

Upgrades include:
  • Cooperative development of the Next-Generation Jammer weapon system with the United States Navy to gradually replace the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System
    Aircraft modifications including sensor upgrades
    Anti-radiation missile war stock.
    New longer-range and more advanced anti-radiation missiles.
    Upgrades to the electronic warfare training ranges capability
    Facility upgrades at Amberley near Brisbane and the Delamere Air Training Area near Katherine in the Northern Territory.
The project will ensure commonality with United States Navy aircraft. Australian radar company CEA Technologies has been awarded a $277 million contract to provide advanced capabilities for Australia’s electronic warfare ranges. The contract will include a number of fixed and portable emitters to support training exercises and strengthen capability across the joint force. It is the first contract to be awarded under Phase 6, which has an approved budget of over $2 billion.
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/ ... 4-52460361

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 22:02 A program of electronic warfare upgrades for the Australian Growler fleet has begun. They are starting with the electronic warfare ranges near Amberley (outside of Brisbane) and Delamere (a big weapons range in the Northern Territory).

Upgrades include:
  • Cooperative development of the Next-Generation Jammer weapon system with the United States Navy to gradually replace the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System
    Aircraft modifications including sensor upgrades
    Anti-radiation missile war stock.
    New longer-range and more advanced anti-radiation missiles.
    Upgrades to the electronic warfare training ranges capability
    Facility upgrades at Amberley near Brisbane and the Delamere Air Training Area near Katherine in the Northern Territory.
The project will ensure commonality with United States Navy aircraft. Australian radar company CEA Technologies has been awarded a $277 million contract to provide advanced capabilities for Australia’s electronic warfare ranges. The contract will include a number of fixed and portable emitters to support training exercises and strengthen capability across the joint force. It is the first contract to be awarded under Phase 6, which has an approved budget of over $2 billion.
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/ ... 4-52460361
Well, that puts to bed that strange congress prohibition on the RAAF Growlers support. maybe it was just a proposed amendment. It's hard enough trying to figure out our own process let alone the American process.
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Mercator

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

Mercator wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 04:55 . I could easily imagine the SNP wreaking havoc on defence procurement and exports.
Yes all RN vessels would be built in Turkey, Poland or Romania with two incomplete un-sailable hulks in perpetual build at Govan and Rosyth for appearances.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Had bit time today and I came across this.

Par Oneri - Australian
Army Transport Journal
The Official Journal of the Royal Australian
Corps of Transport - Collectors Edition No 8
Issue 53, 2021
http://www.ract.org.au/sites/default/fi ... ournal.pdf

It's been nearly 25years since I was in the ADF and RACT looking at how things have changed with the new equipment and so fourth.

I noticed boxer will be transported by dolly and low loader far cry from when I was moving 2x M113 with 6x6 Mack and P2 that will keep 26 TPT SQN busy. Even looks like they have a better yard than the one behind rear entrance to Holsworthy Barracks

I also noticed on page 26 Army watercraft with legacy fleet and possible next generation fleet one thing I notice the size difference between the old LCH and future Littoral Manoeuvre vessel heavy.

All and all it was quite interesting to read as I haven't read a RACT journal in a long time.
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Zeno

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

I can't get the whole article as I do not have a sub to the Australian, but it seems BAE is making a unsolicited bid to counter the Navantia unsolicited bid to build 3 new AWD in Spain.

It appears that BAE want to substitute 3 ASW frigates and change the to AWD which would not mean an increase to our fleet size just the role of the ships.

the Australian article is titled "Navy operation ship and awe to deliver lethal force"
The most lethal warship in Australia’s history would be built to greatly boost the navy’s firepower in response to a rising China, under a proposal being examined by the Albanese government.

The plan by BAE Systems Australia would spark a major shake-up in the navy’s future fleet, where BAE would build both heavily armed destroyers as well as anti-submarine frigates at its Osborne facility near Adelaide.

The proposed new air warfare destroyers would carry between 100 and 150 missile cells, making them one of the world’s most heavily armed warships, with more than twice the firepower of Australia’s existing three air warfare destroyers.

BAE has briefed senior navy officials and the government on its proposal, which is aimed at answering the government push for more firepower at a time of growing strategic tensions with China.


I think we should just build the 6 xadditional ships and no reduction to the ASW fleet and see if we can on sell the current AWD or place them on a hard stand in reserve incase the balloon goes up.

(No pun intended in relation to the events of the past week)


Its also on the MSN

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/a- ... r-AA17lzV4

Post Reply