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 »

As I have suggested else where, it should be relatively easy to increase the number of Mk41 VLS on the Hunter design if there is a will together with funding to do so.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
Mercatorwargame_insomniac

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 01:35
R686 wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 00:18 If that were to be the case I think we would have better luck with buy hot off the US DDG line, sell the Kiwis the 3x Hobarts cheap to keep them close 9x Hunters & 4/6x DDG FLGT III

But we then run into manning problems and i imagine it would still be the same of a Spanish build
Would it make more sense to go for AB Flight III's or for future DDG(X)?

Would be a newer design with more room for future growth whilst the AB Flight III;s are near the limit as to what can be crammed into them, not just space but also weight and power supply. I would assume that DDG(X) will have more automation, which might help with RAN staffing?

If he RAN did sell the Kiwis 3*Hobart cheaply, that would make a big boost for their navy. Might even be too much for them to staff.
That would come down to how fast they want them in the water, if theoretically they went down that route id dsay they want them PDQ

If they were only looking at cell count the proposed 32 cell on x9 Hunters =288 +48cells x 3 Hobarts =144
288+144=432cells

By selling off Hobarts early and replacing with 4x Flight III gives us 384cells combined with the Hunters x9 288cells would give the RAN 672 VLS cells or if only replaced 1 for 1 576cells for the same amount of ships

It certainly would be interesting to see if the kiwis would go that route, knowing them the third would be used as a source for spare parts and only man two of them :o

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 02:09 As I have suggested else where, it should be relatively easy to increase the number of Mk41 VLS on the Hunter design if there is a will together with funding to do so.
Yes agree, don't think there would have to be many change to bring it up to 48cell.

I have seen suggestions of deleting the mission bay and substituting for more VLS in that area. I think someone worked out that they could in theory fit 64 cell there alone not sure how that works weight wise

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Lord Jim wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 02:09 As I have suggested else where, it should be relatively easy to increase the number of Mk41 VLS on the Hunter design if there is a will together with funding to do so.
Yes this is the glaringly obvious option before the Australian strategic planners. What we are building right now is simply the first batch of three T26. It's at least six years before they start on the next three, and they can incorporate any number of fixes including reducing weight in some of the systems that are clearly overweight at this point (that's mostly what the leaked report was whingeing about). And then yes, the design reportedly has lots of options for more VLS provided you're prepared to give up a few things. There is even time to add an extension to the hull if that's what's really necessary. It will make for a slower boat, but it would be more powerful overall. Lots of compromises but also lots of fixes they could incorporate. Heck, a destroyer version of the T26 can deemphasise the helos and ASW gear if necessary. The strategic planners just have to decide. Once they build the first few boats, the rhythm can quicken even if they are variations on the first vessels.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
leonard

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by leonard »

Your right on everything but the problem and that is wat Navantia and their industry supporters are mostly underlying is time and money. The offer for 4 Billion € for 3 new Hobart class ships and the fast time frame for their construction is very interesting on pure economic grounds.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Sure, but the bid can only be made to the Labor Party, currently in opposition but possibly weeks away from winning an election. The coalition isn't going to embrace an idea that declares their current shipbuilding plan a failure – in fact, I'm pretty sure they feel like they're being shafted by Navantia to even suggest the idea in the middle of an election campaign. Navantia probably made a similar bid months or even years ago, privately, and were knocked back by the coalition. (There was also a bit of strategic discussion about the idea of the fourth DDG about two years ago. Which was rejected.)

So, will the Labor Party embrace the idea of more DDGs? Well, they can't offer the work to the existing workforce working on the T26 and that's not really Navantia's plan either. I'm sure that price would be for a Spanish build, or at best, a partial build (the radar work could reasonably be done in Australia without too many workforce impacts). It's a really tough sell for Australian politicians to embrace an overseas build, especially the Labor Party, because the worker unions and shipbuilding state governments will bleat furiously. Indeed, the Labor Party made a big deal out of the overseas purchase of the Pacific support vessel just a few weeks ago. As they did when we bought the AORs from Navantia under a Spanish build a few years earlier. So I don't see the Labor Party embracing a Spanish build and I don't see them particularly worried about advancing the frigate project any faster. They gain enough political currency by criticising the setbacks, but they don't gain anything except trouble for themselves if they overturned the whole project and timetable by messing around with things that don't even exist in the production plans at the moment.

Then there's the small matter of the money. It's unbudgeted and the Labor Party is already heavily committed to all sorts of social measures that are the true bread-and-butter of their election campaign. I just can't see them opening themselves up to more questions about where the money comes from. And as I said, cancelling the existing frigate program creates more drama than it would really solve, not to mention that the vessels themselves will come slower than the existing delay (and that delay and any other problems would be laid directly at the feet of the Labor Party).

Nope. The Labor Party gets maximum political benefit through criticising the delays, but gains nothing but a bag of risks and uncertainty if they go any further.

I don't see it, myself.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 3):
Lord JimR686leonard

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Understanding the price of military equipment

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/under ... 800a4a01cb


https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazo ... 8uEnhtajky


I am currently reading so no comment at the moment

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 3):
SW1Lord Jimleonard

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Very interesting a/c. I believe one of the systems they are integrating is the osprey 50 radar.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Mercator

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Interesting. I've not heard of any active sensors yet, but that's not really surprising at this point. In the article below, GPCAPT Jason Lind says “This is a new capability, not an evolution,”...“This will be airborne ISR done in a different way.” I'm sure it's mostly still SIGINT, with a tactical focus. And not jamming or AEW. But the tactical element will require good SA and previous platforms have had the old P3/C130 on-board radars to help with that. This one is coming with an electro-optical turret as well, so they definitely thought about how to help build the surface and air picture independently of the EW side of it. Still, mostly RJ in the new Compass Call body, I think.

https://adbr.com.au/feature-peregrine/

Update: Well with a little googling, I found a Leonardo press release confirming the Osprey 50 sale for the MC-55A. Excellent. Quite right – definitely new capability to go with the big safari bits.
https://uk.leonardocompany.com/en/news- ... helicopter
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
leonard

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Another country going for NSM:

These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Mercator

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Jdam »

So the Aussie's will have the NSM and LRASM and there is also talk of Tomahawk, I would not like to be an enemy ship near Australia :shock:

Oi UK MOD, see how its done!!!!
These users liked the author Jdam for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacLord Jimserge750

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »


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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

Jdam wrote: 19 May 2022, 16:40 So the Aussie's will have the NSM and LRASM and there is also talk of Tomahawk, I would not like to be an enemy ship near Australia :shock:

Oi UK MOD, see how its done!!!!
Give up on MOD ,a dead loss tbh can't organise a program to save their lives or ours
These users liked the author inch for the post:
serge750

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 21 May 2022, 13:53 All change down under

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-a ... a-61532469
I wonder what Anthony Albanese's views are on Defence and Australia's relationship with US vs China. I am nervous that he is a republican but pleased he will do more on climate change. I gather he supports AUKUS so that is a relief!

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 May 2022, 16:45
SW1 wrote: 21 May 2022, 13:53 All change down under

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-a ... a-61532469
I wonder what Anthony Albanese's views are on Defence and Australia's relationship with US vs China. I am nervous that he is a republican but pleased he will do more on climate change. I gather he supports AUKUS so that is a relief!
Australia has since the early 00s reduced co2 levels more than New Zealand, Canada and most of the EU. So if that is important to you maybe others should be looked at more closely..

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 21 May 2022, 16:52
wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 May 2022, 16:45
SW1 wrote: 21 May 2022, 13:53 All change down under

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-a ... a-61532469
I wonder what Anthony Albanese's views are on Defence and Australia's relationship with US vs China. I am nervous that he is a republican but pleased he will do more on climate change. I gather he supports AUKUS so that is a relief!
Australia has since the early 00s reduced co2 levels more than New Zealand, Canada and most of the EU. So if that is important to you maybe others should be looked at more closely..
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61432462

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 May 2022, 17:06
SW1 wrote: 21 May 2022, 16:52
wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 May 2022, 16:45
SW1 wrote: 21 May 2022, 13:53 All change down under

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-a ... a-61532469
I wonder what Anthony Albanese's views are on Defence and Australia's relationship with US vs China. I am nervous that he is a republican but pleased he will do more on climate change. I gather he supports AUKUS so that is a relief!
Australia has since the early 00s reduced co2 levels more than New Zealand, Canada and most of the EU. So if that is important to you maybe others should be looked at more closely..
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61432462
And? If you build houses in areas historically prone to floods and and hurricanes your going to have houses damaged by floods and hurricanes.

https://www.slq.qld.gov.au/blog/overvie ... ver-floods

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Codifying Night One Integration; Coalition Black Flag introduces RAAF E-7, long-range kill-chains solutions, and first-ever mobile C2 element
https://www.53rdwing.af.mil/News/Articl ... -7-long-r/

Air Force’s Black Flag Test Exercise Goes International With Focus On China
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a ... s-on-china
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

It' a shame that UK, although invited, could nt take part. It would have been good pratice for our F35B's and E7's to have joined the USAF and RAAF. Maybe we did nt have enough of either available to participate given other deployments.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Lord Jim

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Little J »

Well our E-7's have a good excuse, none have entered service yet ;) :wave:

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

Little J wrote: 23 May 2022, 00:12 Well our E-7's have a good excuse, non have entered service yet ;) :wave:
Could they not have done a zoom call from the hangar at Birmingham Airport :D
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Little J

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

And the Air Force is working with its Australian counterparts in several areas to ease the transition period for adopting the Wedgetail. For example, Australia has volunteered to train American airmen on the E-7 early so they can start flying it as soon as possible upon delivery.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/05 ... efensenews

Good article.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Don't know how much water this holds but it seems like there was a preference for the US boats and if the plan came off we would have 10 boats and not 8 eventually

Its behind a paywall

Peter Dutton’s secret plan to fast track nuclear submarines
BEN PACKHAM
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT
Defence was working on a plan before the election to purchase two Virginia-class nuclear-­powered submarines from the US by 2030 – at least a decade before their scheduled arrival if they were built in Australia.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, who was defence minister three weeks ago, says he came to the view that the American submarine was the best option for Australia, and believes the US government would sell Australia the boats off its Connecticut production line.

The disclosure is the first ­concrete insight into the work of Defence’s high-level nuclear submarine taskforce, led by navy Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead.

It’s understood preliminary discussions on the option were held with the US government, which would also have to supply submariners to serve on the vessels to train Australian personnel.

The plan would, if successful, eliminate a feared capability gap following the retirement of the Collins-class submarines from 2038. Writing in the The Australian, Mr Dutton says the option is “laid out” for new Defence Minister Richard Marles, and makes an interim “Son of Collins” submarine “unfeasible”.

If it went ahead with the option, the Coalition would have pledged to build a further eight boats in Adelaide, as originally envisaged, lifting the planned acquisition to a total of 10 nuclear-powered submarines.

Mr Dutton, who hinted before the election of a plan to fast-track the nuclear-powered submarine program, says it “became obvious” to him that Australia should opt for the US Virginia-class boats under the trilateral AUKUS partnership with the US and UK.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=54243c89 ... wMmU&ntb=1

Time will tell if the ALP comes to the same conclusion

Post Reply