ADF General discussion thread

[Redlands18]

So what is the intended mission of this Pacific hospital ship? Does it just cruise around the S Pacific and do a spot of medical treatment here and there, or is it intended to turn up after a natural disaster and provide aid? If the later, expect available infrastructure to be damaged. After the Tsunami hit Ache, there was no infrastructure left, for example. So it would need across the beach capabilities.

What mission scope is appropriate?

Infrastructure projects maybe? Build Roads. Hospitals, Schools as well as some Medical, Dental work, maybe some Trg on the more remote Islands as well as responding to Disasters.
Its not just about HADR or we would need 2 Ships to ensure 1 is available at all times. The RAN will still have to be able to provide a large Amphib to cover for any down time with the Pacific Ship.

 

[Massive]

Is it? Can you guarantee that? By definition it's a multi role vessel and if you actually look at the video it shows vehicles including tanks transferring from the ship to mexiflote AT SEA, not alongside. So maybe rethink your statement.

In Dili Harbour or Falkland Sound perhaps.

I stand by my previous post.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

In Dili Harbour or Falkland Sound perhaps.

I stand by my previous post.

Regards,

Massive

Cool, prove your hypothesis then.

 

[oldsig127]

So what is the intended mission of this Pacific hospital ship?

I'd like to see some actual primary source documentation from a government body calling this a "Hospital Ship" at all.

My recollection is that it was promoted as a large vessel providing support to our Pacific Island neighbours, The notion that it was going to be a hospital ship was raised by suggestions that the PRC would use *their* hospital ship to gain influence, and suddenly everyone is assuming that the Pacific nations are disease ridden hellholes requiring repeat visits by a hospital ship provided by Australia. The notion that medical assistance might be just one, and maybe minor role, seems to have gone.

I've tried to search back through the thread without success so far. Anyone with a primary source? Or just speculation from News Ltd, the ABC, or members of this forum?

oldsig

 

[MickB]

In Dili Harbour or Falkland Sound perhaps.

I stand by my previous post.

Regards,

Massive

It is my understanding that the Mexeflote not only acts as a landing vessel but can also be used as a causeway, thus replacing a damaged pier.
This may allow such a ship to use the stern ramp.
Over the beach may be possable in this manner if depth of water allows. Perhaps 2 Mexeflotes strung together.

As for usefulness is HADR the Mexeflote was used to deliver supplies in Haiti 2010 by the then RFA Largs Bay. I don't know if it was flooded down or not for this operation..

I understand the sea conditions would come into play, and that a vessel equipped with a well deck is more versatile but such a vessel is also more expensive to purchase and operate. Sometimes you just have to go with what you can afford.

 

[t68]

Obviously a LARC-Vs could embark/disembark from Choules or the Canberra’s when flooded down, but I’m wondering if they could drop off the stern gate depending on how low it sat in the water. Are there any plans to replace them with something similar?

How did army transport them and deploy them, I never worked with the LARC-Vs but did a couple of tasks with LCM-8 back in the day

 

[Massive]

Cool, prove your hypothesis then.

I will look to disprove it.

When the ship is built and a mexeflote is used in a situation other than an exercise I will know conclusively that I am wrong.

Until that point I remain comfortable with my hypothesis.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

Mods
Can I suggest a thread dedicated to the concept of introducing fixed wing aircraft back to the RAN.
I know this is a controversial subject and for some it's being done to death but the reality is this subject will still keep coming up, if not in DT then other public domains such as ASPI..
So as not to pollute existing threads related to this subject can we have one dedicated to it.
For those not interested in the subject, give it a miss; but for those who wish to discus the pros and cons of the subject we would have the appropriate thread.

Example

The F-35 at sea—not quite déjà vu | The Strategist
Should Australia follow Japan and take the F-35 to sea? | The Strategist

Thanks and Regards S

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Mods
Can I suggest a thread dedicated to the concept of introducing fixed wing aircraft back to the RAN.
I know this is a controversial subject and for some it's being done to death but the reality is this subject will still keep coming up, if not in DT then other public domains such as ASPI..
So as not to pollute existing threads related to this subject can we have one dedicated to it.
For those not interested in the subject, give it a miss; but for those who wish to discus the pros and cons of the subject we would have the appropriate thread.

Example

The F-35 at sea—not quite déjà vu | The Strategist
Should Australia follow Japan and take the F-35 to sea? | The Strategist

Thanks and Regards S

Stampede,

STOVL capability is of interest to more than the RAN. They can just also be deployed ashore, and allow operations both where long runways are not available and also can be deployed forward with the land forces (I am dreaming of the RAF Harriers deployed with BAOR).

To accommodate a broader capability, the proposed new topic could be phrased as Introducing an STOVL Capability to the ADF. Thoughts?

Cheers, FR

 

[Massive]

It is my understanding that the Mexeflote not only acts as a landing vessel but can also be used as a causeway, thus replacing a damaged pier.
This may allow such a ship to use the stern ramp.
Over the beach may be possable in this manner if depth of water allows. Perhaps 2 Mexeflotes strung together.

I understand the sea conditions would come into play, and that a vessel equipped with a well deck is more versatile but such a vessel is also more expensive to purchase and operate. Sometimes you just have to go with what you can afford.

Yes - I like the concept for sealift.

I believe that 4 of these ships operated with a similar operating model to that proposed for the RN would go a long way make the ARG concept real.

A pretty effective way to fill a capability gap.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

Stampede,

STOVL capability is of interest to more than the RAN. They can just also be deployed ashore, and allow operations both where long runways are not available and also can be deployed forward with the land forces (I am dreaming of the RAF Harriers deployed with BAOR).

To accommodate a broader capability, the proposed new topic could be phrased as Introducing an STOVL Capability to the ADF. Thoughts?

Cheers, FR

Thanks for the reply.
Very true in that it is of interest to more than just the RAN.
This particular article mirrors a lot of my views on the subject but expressed much better than I can put words to paper.
Worthy of a read and shares many of my frustrations on the level of debate on this subject.


The F-35 at sea—not quite déjà vu | The Strategist

Regards S

PS
"To accommodate a broader capability, the proposed new topic could be phrased as Introducing an STOVL Capability to the ADF."
Open to any description other than to label it a fantasy thread.

 

[John Fedup]

Stampede,

STOVL capability is of interest to more than the RAN. They can just also be deployed ashore, and allow operations both where long runways are not available and also can be deployed forward with the land forces (I am dreaming of the RAF Harriers deployed with BAOR).

To accommodate a broader capability, the proposed new topic could be phrased as Introducing an STOVL Capability to the ADF. Thoughts?

Cheers, FR

Absolutely, there are many applications for the “B’s” . The USMC likes this version which is why it got developed. IMO, this version may be the most important as it offers a ton of flexibility. The A and C versions will eventually have competition to a varying degree but I don’t see an alternative to the “B” any time soon. Nations desiring naval aviation but lacking the funds to build large carriers now have the option of building smaller carriers combined with the F-35B. No arresting gear, no catapults, and probably less intensive aviator training (certainly less stressful).

 

[aussienscale]

Looks like things are moving along nicely for the NASAMS II purchase, info has been hard to come by and little said by Defence

Australia – AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Cheers

 

[Massive]

The budget keeps the ADF on track for existing projects by the look.

Good news IMHO.

Boring is the new black: Defence budget 2019–20 | The Strategist

Regards,

Massive

 

[oldsig127]

The budget keeps the ADF on track for existing projects by the look.

Good news IMHO.

Boring is the new black: Defence budget 2019–20 | The Strategist

Regards,

Massive

Beware the post election mini budget which will be inevitable in the likely case of a change of government. Especially if the Greens hold the balance of power. A bipartisan agreement on what needs to be done can easily fall victim to "short term" delays to use the funds for more politically popular purposes.

oldsig

 

[t68]

An interesting piece from defence news on how the US Army will or may reduce the need for JALTV and Chinook helicopters sighting that they are fighting the past in Afghanistan and Iraq. In a sign that the US see's asymmetric warfare on the decline and needs to reorganise into a more conventional Army again that see the need to stand off at long ranges in the Indo-Pacific with China. I actually disagree to an extent that JALTV and Chinook are for a different theatre of operations as long range fires are only part of the equation no conventional conflict can be won on airpower or long range artily on there own troops in the field will still need to happen and small to large protected vehicles will still be needed irrespective if your facing IED or short or long range fires.

The Army has a plan for China, and it’s bad news for JLTV and the Chinook


In the ADF context as we have such a small defence force and have Project Land 19 and SHORAD is it time to revaluate the need of protected long range indirect fire support in the shape of M270 MLRS or the M142 HIMARS or even SPG, in know the US has been working on Extended Range Cannon Artillery program with first using M777 then hoping to follow using the Paladin howitzer XM1113 or is it something that should be left in the domain of the RAN/RAAF

 

[Redlands18]

Mainly for our friends outside of Australia, the Morrison Government has been re-elected so we should see a continuation of the current Defence planning as laid down in the 2016 DWP and IIP. The only change we have seen to that so far is this weeks announcement of the SPH.

 

[vonnoobie]

Mainly for our friends outside of Australia, the Morrison Government has been re-elected so we should see a continuation of the current Defence planning as laid down in the 2016 DWP and IIP. The only change we have seen to that so far is this weeks announcement of the SPH.

Correction. Morrison has not been reelected. While Labor has conceded defeat based on current numbers no seat has yet been called (Only done when all counting is completed) and only around 3/4 of the total votes made as of yet have been counted. One of the reasons for this is a delay with the much larger use of postal voting this year. We will not know with 100% certainty on the government until I imagine Tuesday eveningonce they get through some of he postal votes and start calling the seats.

Should also note to the non Australian members based on current numbers it isn't a major change from last year. We have 151 seats in the House of representatives. Winning party is to provide the speaker. While they would technically be the winner with 76 seats they would still only have 75 voters on the floor not giving them an advantage in numbers. Based on last count 76.1% of votes counter with current government leading in 74 seats vs opposition of 65 seats and 6 others (Parties ranging from left to right leaning and in between).

Apologies to admins in the political talk, Was careful not to give any preference to either party but rather just a quick run down on the current situation as it stands. Hope thats alright.

Cheers.

 

[ASSAIL]

Correction. Morrison has not been reelected. While Labor has conceded defeat based on current numbers no seat has yet been called (Only done when all counting is completed) and only around 3/4 of the total votes made as of yet have been counted. One of the reasons for this is a delay with the much larger use of postal voting this year. We will not know with 100% certainty on the government until I imagine Tuesday eveningonce they get through some of he postal votes and start calling the seats.

Should also note to the non Australian members based on current numbers it isn't a major change from last year. We have 151 seats in the House of representatives. Winning party is to provide the speaker. While they would technically be the winner with 76 seats they would still only have 75 voters on the floor not giving them an advantage in numbers. Based on last count 76.1% of votes counter with current government leading in 74 seats vs opposition of 65 seats and 6 others (Parties ranging from left to right leaning and in between).

Apologies to admins in the political talk, Was careful not to give any preference to either party but rather just a quick run down on the current situation as it stands. Hope thats alright.

Cheers.

However, Labor has conceded defeat it had no chance of forming a government.

 

[Redlands18]

Correction. Morrison has not been reelected. While Labor has conceded defeat based on current numbers no seat has yet been called (Only done when all counting is completed) and only around 3/4 of the total votes made as of yet have been counted. One of the reasons for this is a delay with the much larger use of postal voting this year. We will not know with 100% certainty on the government until I imagine Tuesday eveningonce they get through some of he postal votes and start calling the seats.

Should also note to the non Australian members based on current numbers it isn't a major change from last year. We have 151 seats in the House of representatives. Winning party is to provide the speaker. While they would technically be the winner with 76 seats they would still only have 75 voters on the floor not giving them an advantage in numbers. Based on last count 76.1% of votes counter with current government leading in 74 seats vs opposition of 65 seats and 6 others (Parties ranging from left to right leaning and in between).

Apologies to admins in the political talk, Was careful not to give any preference to either party but rather just a quick run down on the current situation as it stands. Hope thats alright.

Cheers.

Technically by the book you are correct but the opposition Leader has conceded defeat and has stood down. The Morrison Camp are the only ones who can form a Government either as a majority or Minority Government.