RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
True, but they seem mostly to be referring to inservice dates as opposed to approval dates. The OPV's for example see first steel? cut 2018, which does not leave much time. Even the additional P-8's which for the mid-20's would still have to be purchased sooner as the USN buy is mooted to be made by 2020.
there are also the acquisitions which don't appear in the public domain......
white papers are about visible widgets.....
and there are multiple white papers......
t68
Well-Known Member
Right I see how you make that assumption, the wording looks tailor made for Osprey, can't think of anything else that fits that description unless we have fleet carriers where a C130 can land aboard.
ope"In the longer-term, Defence will explore options for a long-range, aero-medical evacuation and combat search and rescue aircraft to provide enhanced support to ADF operations, including operating with the amphibious ships."
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
China's responds, in generally exactly the way one would expect.
China Dissatisfied with DWP Comments
My favourite part is "We have noticed Australia has released its white paper," Ms Hua said. Make's me think of something like a Blackadder skit "It has come to our attention."
It does make me think about the list of countries that would have had input to and had distribution of it, prior to the DWP pre-release date.
China Dissatisfied with DWP Comments
My favourite part is "We have noticed Australia has released its white paper," Ms Hua said. Make's me think of something like a Blackadder skit "It has come to our attention."
It does make me think about the list of countries that would have had input to and had distribution of it, prior to the DWP pre-release date.
That was reasonable for them. They made their dissatisfaction known, but didn't appear to carry their usual line of the SCS being sovereign Chinese territory. Mind you that could be the way the story has been written too.
from a political perspective, the tone of their response is regarded as predictable and like being slapped with a wet tram ticket
the fact that they've geared their response in that tone rather than some of their prev rhetoric levels is actually regarded as polite acceptance rather than having a stand up hissy fit
Indonesia and China on speed dial within the region
then a few others.....
t68
Well-Known Member
Is the deployable light helicopter in reference to ARH?
Is Hellfire defined as light armament?
And looks like SOCOMD is going to have to learn to like MRH
Deployable light helicopters
5 .29 In addition to the CH-47F Chinook and MRH-90 Troop lift helicopters (which are used primarily for air lift), a new fleet of light reconnaissance and attack helicopters will be acquired from around 2025 to provide air mobility support optimised for special operations missions . The new helicopters will likely feature some light armament and modern intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and communications capabilities for integration with the joint force . They will be able to be deployed rapidly as a small force element of three to four aircraft and personnel by the Globemaster . Current plans also include a requirement for role-specific upgrades to the MRH-90 Troop lift helicopter to replace the S-70A Blackhawk in support of domestic counter-terrorism operations .
Is Hellfire defined as light armament?
And looks like SOCOMD is going to have to learn to like MRH
Deployable light helicopters
5 .29 In addition to the CH-47F Chinook and MRH-90 Troop lift helicopters (which are used primarily for air lift), a new fleet of light reconnaissance and attack helicopters will be acquired from around 2025 to provide air mobility support optimised for special operations missions . The new helicopters will likely feature some light armament and modern intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and communications capabilities for integration with the joint force . They will be able to be deployed rapidly as a small force element of three to four aircraft and personnel by the Globemaster . Current plans also include a requirement for role-specific upgrades to the MRH-90 Troop lift helicopter to replace the S-70A Blackhawk in support of domestic counter-terrorism operations .
Definitely not a reference to the ARH, Ignoring the fact that have said they will be replaced (Thus making any thought to there operational use pointless) when you look at there requirement of a Globemaster to carry 3 - 4 then quite simply that rules our the ARH.
Internal cargo space for the Globemaster is 26.82 by 5.49 meters, While the ARH fuselage is 15m long and 4.52m wide, At best with a partial disassemble you could carry 2 but no more thus it is not under consideration nor would I imagine any possible replacement for it.
I'm confident they are thinking something along the lines of the MH-6 Little bird as the fuselage for that is 7.5m by 1.4m allowing enough space in the Globemaster to have them lined up 3 deep and if needed 2 wide.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Could this also mean Australia is looking at the MH-47G or at least giving the CH-47F a air refueling capability with a conversion of some C-130J to KC-130J standard.
Of course this is not going to make the CH-47s any faster just longer legged. I still like the idea of Ospreys with Kangaroo roundels and they could provide a COD capability for the Canberras but so would an enhanced CH-47.
Hi all, I am new to this forum. Exciting times with the release of the new white paper, hope it is all achieved. I can't see anything in relation to a land attack missile capability for navy. I was under the impression that the AWD, new subs and potentially even the new frigates would have the capability and capacity to deliver a TLAM i.e. tomahawk as a strategic deterrent . Have I missed something, is this already being sourced under the guise of another project, or is this something that is not being considered anymore?
Australian DWP and Defence Intergrated Investment
Now the dust has settled and I've had time to read and digest the above docs I can make some comment.
First and foremost I think the strategic balance outlined is about correct IMHO.
It's good to see that the plans are sounding like a real combined ADF and not a competitive auction between the three services (although I'm sure there's a fair amount of competition under the surface)
I like that they have divided capability into functions and not the three individual services eg combining Air and Sealift and Land and Amphibious.
Turning to individual naval capability and platforms, (I don't have enough expertise to comment on the others); it's so good to see that at last our navy will have the capability to return to Task Group operations and have that enunciated in the paper. This posture has been lost to the RAN for far too long,
Submarines - the capability has been written to almost mandate Option J by stressing the strategic and tactical interoperability with the US. Off course this can be achieved to some degree with the other two suppliers but at what cost both financial and strategic.
Frigates - nice to see 9 units, it gives credence to the TG CONOPS where anything less would be short. No doubt they will come in tranches.
P8 Poseidon - an excellent win for maritime ops. The result ensures a large increase over current capability.
AORs - as expected with a bonus of a third unit once the fleet size grows. It will be interesting to see how they choose between the either or of a third tanker or another LSL. I suspect they may need both circa 2030.
Choules - any thought that she will be disposed of after 10 years is dead and buried and the $300 m upgrade to bring her combat data and self defence up to fleet levels is welcomed.
OPVs - nice to see 12, I was expecting somewhere around 6 but maybe they won't be as ambitious as I'd anticipated however, they will have an aviation capability and in some of their roles they will carry UAV for ISR
It's also good to see they will be capable of deploying throughout maritime SE Asia
Finally, there will be timely upgrades to the enablers/fleet bases and to Coonawarra in Darwin amongst many others.
My big disappointment is the level of reporting by the fourth estate. So ignorant, this am I listened to Richardson, Wreith and Hewson comment that defence is something that has no voter or commentator interest that it may be in the headlines for one day and disappear and was of no import. This coupled with the ABCs Jennet and Greene who are simply ill informed and marginally stupid when reporting defence. Oh well, we should be used to it.
Now the dust has settled and I've had time to read and digest the above docs I can make some comment.
First and foremost I think the strategic balance outlined is about correct IMHO.
It's good to see that the plans are sounding like a real combined ADF and not a competitive auction between the three services (although I'm sure there's a fair amount of competition under the surface)
I like that they have divided capability into functions and not the three individual services eg combining Air and Sealift and Land and Amphibious.
Turning to individual naval capability and platforms, (I don't have enough expertise to comment on the others); it's so good to see that at last our navy will have the capability to return to Task Group operations and have that enunciated in the paper. This posture has been lost to the RAN for far too long,
Submarines - the capability has been written to almost mandate Option J by stressing the strategic and tactical interoperability with the US. Off course this can be achieved to some degree with the other two suppliers but at what cost both financial and strategic.
Frigates - nice to see 9 units, it gives credence to the TG CONOPS where anything less would be short. No doubt they will come in tranches.
P8 Poseidon - an excellent win for maritime ops. The result ensures a large increase over current capability.
AORs - as expected with a bonus of a third unit once the fleet size grows. It will be interesting to see how they choose between the either or of a third tanker or another LSL. I suspect they may need both circa 2030.
Choules - any thought that she will be disposed of after 10 years is dead and buried and the $300 m upgrade to bring her combat data and self defence up to fleet levels is welcomed.
OPVs - nice to see 12, I was expecting somewhere around 6 but maybe they won't be as ambitious as I'd anticipated however, they will have an aviation capability and in some of their roles they will carry UAV for ISR
It's also good to see they will be capable of deploying throughout maritime SE Asia
Finally, there will be timely upgrades to the enablers/fleet bases and to Coonawarra in Darwin amongst many others.
My big disappointment is the level of reporting by the fourth estate. So ignorant, this am I listened to Richardson, Wreith and Hewson comment that defence is something that has no voter or commentator interest that it may be in the headlines for one day and disappear and was of no import. This coupled with the ABCs Jennet and Greene who are simply ill informed and marginally stupid when reporting defence. Oh well, we should be used to it.
Yep, the ability to operate 'with' ie: land on, makes it pretty clear...Right I see how you make that assumption, the wording looks tailor made for Osprey, can't think of anything else that fits that description unless we have fleet carriers where a C130 can land aboard.
"In the longer-term, Defence will explore options for a long-range, aero-medical evacuation and combat search and rescue aircraft to provide enhanced support to ADF operations, including operating with the amphibious ships."
IMHO, it will come down to a question of 'more chooks' or Ospreys...
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Assail, as usual, a very well thought out, intelligent and especially, a spot on post!!! (and unlike you I haven't had time yet to read, re read and digest all the docs, hopefully over the weekend).
On your last point first, 'the fourth estate', yes have been listening to all that crap too the last two days (and all the other days the fourth estate start crapping on too), fortunately I think the mood of the general population in relation to Defence has changed too, not so vocal and reactionary to what the media says.
To me the reaction they get is probably no more than the wankers from APA get these days too, minimal, who cares basically!!
A balanced DWP? Would agree, there are probably a few things around the 'fringes' that concern me, but overall, probably the best and well thought out DWP's for a long long time.
The various points made about 'combined' ADF capabilities is a pretty good move too, demonstrates that a combined approach is often best when it comes to certain things, on the surface not appearing to say this is a Navy, Army or RAAF core responsibility, but an ADF responsibility.
Without listing all of the specific capabilities (as you did), still pretty well balanced, doesn't appear that there are too many losers, not a case that the RAN had to pay for the RAAF's capabilities, etc, as you would normally see when a DWP is released.
There is obviously a lot more to say and comment on in the days and weeks ahead, but not until I've had a real good read of the DWP and IIP (still getting my head around IIP rather than DCP)!!!
Cheers,
Can people please check the layout of their posts before moving on....
"quotes" are a bit of a lottery in some cases and it means that Mods are following up and having to clean up the threads
doing one or two is ok, doing a bakers dozen across the forums in 12 hrs can challenge the disposition
"quotes" are a bit of a lottery in some cases and it means that Mods are following up and having to clean up the threads
doing one or two is ok, doing a bakers dozen across the forums in 12 hrs can challenge the disposition
While the Ospreys would be a great additional capability, i'm not sure that I see the benefit of them over expanding the existing Chinook capability. Cost of Osprey capability does not to me seem to offset the additional cost of and logistics required to support an entirely new and expensive platform.