Australian Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

The French would have probably offered the RAN the Barracuda SSN , fewer though, on the spot, to try to keep the deal. :)

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote:The French would have probably offered the RAN the Barracuda SSN , fewer though, on the spot, to try to keep the deal. :)
Of course the French would have offered there own SSN, and it would have been knocked back for the very reason that it needs to be refueled every 10 years from memory. And that is something the ALP would not have agreed too as we do not have the industry to do those things here and is the only reason why that we have bipartisan political support is the reactor is fueled for the life of the boat.

It will also come down to sovereignty issues as well and the need to rely on a foreign power to refuel the boat in its maintenance periods at any time that support could be taken away and that money going offshore when it could be done in-house

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:... does it look that US presence in Darwin is changing from rotational to include also permanent elements?
Yes and no. Mostly no.

The USN will likely add infrastructure over time. Some fuel tanks have been added, and there is now landing craft facilities. There was also an ambitious project to build a purely military port on the other side of the peninsula near Darwin. The area was surveyed, I believe. But I'm not aware of any major developments yet. There is a parliamentary enquiry into the ownership of the Darwin commercial port area. They are examining whether they wish to buy out the Chinese company that owns the lease on the port. Personally I don't think that's a big deal, but it's a political issue and they may go ahead and force the Chinese company to give up their lease. It won't increase naval capacity at the commercial part of port either way.

The USMC may also start stockpiling some equipment in Darwin. There's a little bit of that now, apparently, to support the annual exercises, but you wouldn't call it a pre-positioned battalion/brigade worth of equipment. There is some very modest (extra) barracks being built for the rotational forces and some upgrades to the training ranges. Apart from that, there is nothing official at all going on in that space. Nothing to make it a permanent arrangement, and that would require significant upgrades.

There is work at RAAF Darwin to put in some extra hard stand areas, including (extra) inground refuelling. I don't believe you would call it suitable for heavy strategic bombers except in a very rudimentary sense. But it would be suitable for supporting tankers, EW aircraft, etc. the existing facilities are pretty reasonable for fighter sized aircraft, given the existing size of the Pitch Black Exercises. The USAF already rotate their bombers through Darwin, but I don't believe they have a formal area for rearming (or the armaments on hand). It's more to change crew, refuel, and get going again. The RAAF is already building a hangar and ops area for the P-8A Poseidon at Darwin, so the USN VP squadrons do have a place to stay and probably some stores to support them. The biggest issue with major aircraft movements in Darwin is simply the fuel situation. They just don't have ridiculous amounts of fuel on hand, beyond civilian needs. Darwin is a small town with fairly limited civilian aircraft movements. When there is a big exercise coming, they build up the reserves for that, but they don't let it sit around and go off six months later. If there was a permanent fighter/bomber detachment in Darwin, they might build up the fuel reserves permanently, but at the moment there there isn't, so they don't.

RAAF Tindal, a couple of hundred kms south, is building a modest hard stand area and refuelling facilities for US strategic bombers and tankers. The last plans I saw before the Parliamentary Works Committee only had about half a dozen spots though. Previously Tindal was more of a fighter base and was sized accordingly, so these are only fairly minor extra spaces. It would be easy to max out with tankers, etc, but does have reasonable armaments areas. I would say these facilities are suitable for rotational forces, rather than a permanent detachment. Again, it would require a lot of political and financial support to go further.

The big issue with a major USMC presence in Darwin/Northern Australia is simply that the wet season makes exercises in the area impossible. At the moment, exercises in the North only take place in the dry season. If they went ahead and based anyone there, they would have to deploy into the region or elsewhere in Australia to actually train for about six months of the year. It's doable I suppose. But it would take a big commitment and they would need to base some USN amphibious assets there as well. But anyway – none of that is being spoken of publicly, and it would take a bit of commitment on the part of the Australian Government to actually allow full-time basing of troops in Darwin. It would be political because the left-wing elements of the Australian political system would be very unhappy (and even Darwin locals themselves might be a bit reticent given the reputation of the Marines in Japan). Previously it would probably have been a bit too hard to do, but as with the nuclear submarine situation, China is making the political impossible, possible. So who knows?

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:... does it look that US presence in Darwin is changing from rotational to include also permanent elements?
Yes and no. Mostly no.

The USN will likely add infrastructure over time. Some fuel tanks have been added, and there is now landing craft facilities. There was also an ambitious project to build a purely military port on the other side of the peninsula near Darwin. The area was surveyed, I believe. But I'm not aware of any major developments yet. There is a parliamentary enquiry into the ownership of the Darwin commercial port area. They are examining whether they wish to buy out the Chinese company that owns the lease on the port. Personally I don't think that's a big deal, but it's a political issue and they may go ahead and force the Chinese company to give up their lease. It won't increase naval capacity at the commercial part of port either way.

The USMC may also start stockpiling some equipment in Darwin. There's a little bit of that now, apparently, to support the annual exercises, but you wouldn't call it a pre-positioned battalion/brigade worth of equipment. There is some very modest (extra) barracks being built for the rotational forces and some upgrades to the training ranges. Apart from that, there is nothing official at all going on in that space. Nothing to make it a permanent arrangement, and that would require significant upgrades.

There is work at RAAF Darwin to put in some extra hard stand areas, including (extra) inground refuelling. I don't believe you would call it suitable for heavy strategic bombers except in a very rudimentary sense. But it would be suitable for supporting tankers, EW aircraft, etc. the existing facilities are pretty reasonable for fighter sized aircraft, given the existing size of the Pitch Black Exercises. The USAF already rotate their bombers through Darwin, but I don't believe they have a formal area for rearming (or the armaments on hand). It's more to change crew, refuel, and get going again. The RAAF is already building a hangar and ops area for the P-8A Poseidon at Darwin, so the USN VP squadrons do have a place to stay and probably some stores to support them. The biggest issue with major aircraft movements in Darwin is simply the fuel situation. They just don't have ridiculous amounts of fuel on hand, beyond civilian needs. Darwin is a small town with fairly limited civilian aircraft movements. When there is a big exercise coming, they build up the reserves for that, but they don't let it sit around and go off six months later. If there was a permanent fighter/bomber detachment in Darwin, they might build up the fuel reserves permanently, but at the moment there there isn't, so they don't.

RAAF Tindal, a couple of hundred kms south, is building a modest hard stand area and refuelling facilities for US strategic bombers and tankers. The last plans I saw before the Parliamentary Works Committee only had about half a dozen spots though. Previously Tindal was more of a fighter base and was sized accordingly, so these are only fairly minor extra spaces. It would be easy to max out with tankers, etc, but does have reasonable armaments areas. I would say these facilities are suitable for rotational forces, rather than a permanent detachment. Again, it would require a lot of political and financial support to go further.

The big issue with a major USMC presence in Darwin/Northern Australia is simply that the wet season makes exercises in the area impossible. At the moment, exercises in the North only take place in the dry season. If they went ahead and based anyone there, they would have to deploy into the region or elsewhere in Australia to actually train for about six months of the year. It's doable I suppose. But it would take a big commitment and they would need to base some USN amphibious assets there as well. But anyway – none of that is being spoken of publicly, and it would take a bit of commitment on the part of the Australian Government to actually allow full-time basing of troops in Darwin. It would be political because the left-wing elements of the Australian political system would be very unhappy (and even Darwin locals themselves might be a bit reticent given the reputation of the Marines in Japan). Previously it would probably have been a bit too hard to do, but as with the nuclear submarine situation, China is making the political impossible, possible. So who knows?
Regarding the wet season was one of the reason moving them back down south, I remember a proposed expansion years ago of the Cultana Training Area in SA which would be accessible via North-South rail link no idea if it happened or not

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Yes, 1 Brigade was split up and half the unit was sent to Adelaide because of this and other (mostly lifestyle) reasons.

Cultana Training Area is now also up and running and quite active, as far as I can tell. 7 RAR (Mech) is in Adelaide with some supporting units (including artillery, I think, and some cavalry elements). I think with the new redistribution of armour, some of the tanks might've ended up in Adelaide as well. Either way, they do turn up at Cultana together reasonably frequently from what I can see online. That said, I'm not sure the training area could handle a whole other Brigade of Marines making use of it in the wet season as well. It certainly would be in the mix, but Marines would have to retain enough mobility via other assets to go other places as well. And you know, Cultana is a bit boring, terrain wise.

Image

While rail is an option to get from Darwin to Port Augusta (where you'd offload for Cultana), or elsewhere, there is limited rolling stock and a lot of it is in use in civilian hands much of the time. Certainly 5 RAR has made use of this option (see below), but again I wouldn't be sure it's up to handling a Marine Brigade on a regular basis. Major investments would need to be made. But doable.
Image

If US Marines brought their own amphibious asset, or a car carrier, they could certainly run around and do a circuit of some of the major training areas in Australia to get different climatic experiences and, at the same time, reduce the wear and tear on individual ranges. It would also allow them to exercise in the region and increase the interoperability and diplomatic favourability of the Marines – which is probably the biggest selling point on that idea. And, you know, what's the point of a Marine Brigade that can't deploy. So I figure it's probably pretty likely that if they did become a permanent presence, permanent amphibious assets would also be attached.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

I found this info graphic on the training ranges that are being upgraded in the NT. Nothing too significant, but nevertheless an indication that the Marines intend to stay for a while and use these things:
Image

Image

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

The driver training area at Robertson Barracks is kind of funny. A street layout with a couple of roundabouts to freak out the poor old American kids while they try to stay on the left side of the road.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote:The driver training area at Robertson Barracks is kind of funny. A street layout with a couple of roundabouts to freak out the poor old American kids while they try to stay on the left side of the road.

Don’t they have donuts in the states?

I looked up the train that you pictured, quite impressive especially when they have there own train crew carriages and iso fuel tanks,goes to show the distance covered


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote:It will also come down to sovereignty issues as well and the need to rely on a foreign power to refuel the boat
+
R686 wrote:for the very reason that it needs to be refueled every 10 years from memory.
The French, long ago, decided to unify the fuel cycle between military uses and nuclear power generation
... obviously of no benefit to Oz, but the 'downsides' would still be present
R686 wrote:for the very reason that it needs to be refueled every 10 years from memory.
Mercator wrote:The big issue with a major USMC presence in Darwin/Northern Australia is simply that the wet season makes exercises in the area impossible.
I know, been there
- but it is still a good sound bite that 'it is too wet for the Marines' :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Lord Jim wrote:The French would have probably offered the RAN the Barracuda SSN , fewer though, on the spot, to try to keep the deal. :)
The French Ambassador was given an hour and a half to speak at the National Press Club today and given many opportunities to say just that, and didn't. Indeed at any point in the last few weeks the French could have, officially, said they will offer the nuclear version of the submarine, or would have, but they have not done so. Seems an easy thing to say if it was a possibility.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

A quick story on the manufacturing process of the new Loyal Wingman aircraft and the further production of the prototypes.

Australian Aviation (magazine):
Fifth Loyal Wingman under development at Melbourne facility
https://australianaviation.com.au/2021/ ... 52342f8062

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SKB »

ImageImageImage

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »


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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote:
Obviously the armour protections will have been increased over the M113 armoured logistics vehicle, and it has a couple of extra attachments with the front blade andcwhat appears to be a winch system, it might just be the odd angles from the video but it does not appear to have the same bulk load carrying capacity, just seems like a smaller cargo bed. Would be interesting to see each load carrying capacity side by side

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

R686 wrote:
Mercator wrote:
Obviously the armour protections will have been increased over the M113 armoured logistics vehicle, and it has a couple of extra attachments with the front blade andcwhat appears to be a winch system, it might just be the odd angles from the video but it does not appear to have the same bulk load carrying capacity, just seems like a smaller cargo bed. Would be interesting to see each load carrying capacity side by side
If you have access to the latest DTR magazine (subscriber only now), there is an article that came out of a couple of days ago that goes into great detail on the new vehicle. A three-page spread.

To answer your specific queries though, the flatbed area is 3.6 x 3.7 m, an expected load capacity of nine tons, and the crane at maximum extension has a five ton capacity.

Interestingly enough, it has a thousand litre fuel tank tucked under there somewhere and an electric pump so, along with any fuel it can carry on the flatbed, it's going to have the capacity to be quite a useful tanker – as well as a modest recovery vehicle, logistics and engineering vehicle.

Anyway really article if you can. DTR is good value.

More at https://defencetechnologyreview.partica ... 4wv3U-VJ9c

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by seaspear »

This article by Asian military review provides an interesting analysis of the Hunter class in its capability of defence against missile attacks
https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/202 ... e-hunters/


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A very good article. The hump-back shape of the Astutes is a visible difference to all the other designs (future & present).

H-core for PWR2s is only mentioned in the tabular data layout, but this mention elsewhere is interesting, for 'shape' comparisons, bearing in mind that silhouettes are not 3D:
"

The latest design of the PWR2 is the "Core H", which removes the need for refuelling, allowing a submarine to avoid two reactor refits in its service life. HMS Vanguard will be fitted with the new core during its refit, followed by her three sister boats. The Astute -class submarines will have this full-life core installed. As they were developed for SSBNs, the reactors are considerably larger than those of current British fleet submarines. The diameter of Astute -class hulls have therefore been increased to accommodate the PWR2. "

I've added the bolding, to underline :) the Herculean effort it is taking to keep both the Astute prgrm and the 4-strong SSBN capability 'on track'
... with direct implications for the assistance that can be offered to the friends 'downunder' and also more broadly highlighted in the Navy Lookout article.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

Well the Australians sure have their work cut out for them. Good job they are extending the life of the Collins class as they will not be getting any of their own SSNs for quite a while. They are dependant really on the timescales of both the UK and the USA as to boat production and they will not want to purchase any hulls that contain systems that are or soon will be outdated such as the PWR2.

Until their own boats can be built, I would suggest that a percentage of the RANs submariners are transferred to both the USN and RN to serve on their SSNs, especially whilst the Collins life extension is underway. In addition staff from the Australian boat builders need to be imbedded initially in both the UK's SSN(R) and the USN (SSN(X) programme offices, along with RAN personnel. These two actions will provide very important information to the Australian Government, helping them decide which option would be best for teh RAN and for Australian industry. In addition, if the infrastructure for operating SSNs could be built at an accelerated pace, both RN and USN SSNs could use these whilst operating in the region. This would make the posting of RAN personnel to these boats easier and these boats could supplement the Collins class, with the RAN possibly also having a say on the duties of these particular boats. For the RN in particular having an Astute permanently based in Australia would be an advantage, leaving the remaining six to cover the CSG and other roles. An SSN would be a real forward presence in the Indo Pacific region.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

When I first looked at the bottom right picture before magnifying it I though it was a POL "Land Train", which I thought was very apt for the Australian Army! :D

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote:When I first looked at the bottom right picture before magnifying it I though it was a POL "Land Train", which I thought was very apt for the Australian Army! :D
Ahh you mean "Road Train" And yes the Army does make use of them.




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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

First agreement on the technology to be publicly signed since the three countries announced in September the formation of a defence alliance, AUKUS

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 ... b-alliance

I could not resist getting it from a French media outlet






but the Daily Fail version as well

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-102286 ... rines.html

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by seaspear »

More ruffled Macron feathers than a turkey on a trampoline

Post Reply