ADF General discussion thread

gf0012-aust said:
the article is a bit "old"
Click to expand...

Cheers GF. Yer aware the article is a bit dated. I was researching the advantages of titanium hulls on submarines actually and came across it by chance. After reading it , it got me asking some of the questions above.

So I thought i'd raise them here, and see if some intellectual discussion regarding Ti as a potential growth industry for Australia could result.

I am mildly familiar with some of the amazing things CSIRO does, imagine what they could do if they got more funding.
 
Bluey 006 said:
Cheers GF. Yer aware the article is a bit dated. I was researching the advantages of titanium hulls on submarines actually and came across it by chance. After reading it , it got me asking some of the questions above.

So I thought i'd raise them here, and see if some intellectual discussion regarding Ti as a potential growth industry for Australia could result.

I am mildly familiar with some of the amazing things CSIRO does, imagine what they could do if they got more funding.
Click to expand...

thats the tragedy of it - they have enormous potential but the org is not structured to be commercial - and yet govt expects them to make a quid on anything they do - they have zero appreciation of their potential
 
gf0012-aust said:
thats the tragedy of it - they have enormous potential but the org is not structured to be commercial - and yet govt expects them to make a quid on anything they do - they have zero appreciation of their potential
Click to expand...

Yer it is a shame.

I think its fair to say some reforms and cultural changes are required across the board ( in the research organisations, within industry, the education system and government) in order for Australia to reach its potential when it comes to commercializing our ideas and capitalizing on our research.
 
I thought there was an ADF thread here but couldn't find one so I'll start this one.

The ADF is trialling a new Wide Band HF radio transfer system capable of taking colour video, colour photos, voice comms and messages over a secure system that is not dependent on satellites. This looks like an interesting system and would certainly help mitigate the reliance upon satellites. I wonder if its related to Link 16 / Link 22 or totally separate.

EDIT: My apology to mods for not looking hard enough.
 
Last edited:
So as far as I am aware, the new Defence White Paper is supposed to be released in mid-January. What sort of predictions does everyone have about what it might include? It will be interesting to see what we can predict and what comes as a surprise.
 
Raven22 said:
So as far as I am aware, the new Defence White Paper is supposed to be released in mid-January. What sort of predictions does everyone have about what it might include? It will be interesting to see what we can predict and what comes as a surprise.
Click to expand...

I imagine the language will be toned down for Turnbull, but I guess we will never know that. I can't say what we will get but I can say what we won't get.

I would like to see a firm commitment for a long term continues ship/submarine build plan along the US thirty year plan.

I'd also like to see more money pumped into supporting enabler's for such as thing engineers equipment and logistic's tail. I would also like to see more equipment for the combat elements than just the bare minimum, we need enough equipment that in times of need we can expanded in from minimum. We won't have the luxury of expanding the equipment base in times of conflict, but we can train the bodys need to fill the equipment in the medium term.

I would like to see us become more self reliant in Naval force projection as well as improving our martime power projection
 
Raven22 said:
So as far as I am aware, the new Defence White Paper is supposed to be released in mid-January. What sort of predictions does everyone have about what it might include? It will be interesting to see what we can predict and what comes as a surprise.
Click to expand...

Well a Deathstar wouldnt go a miss but we would need the US to help and Obama already ruled that out :)

Honestly I dont see much different from what has been discussed, We will be looking at

- 9 Frigates
- 12 OPV's with future options
- Get closer to a firm decision on the AOR's (My money is on the Korean option)
- 12 submarines
- More defined number on number of armored vehicles needed (ie: Not the reduced number that had been proposed due to the excessive cost of the future submarines that arent actually as expensive as they thought :rolleyes:)
- Possibly talk on future acquisitions on UAV's to operate from the frigates and OPV's

That just my 2cents.

Regards, Matthew.
 
Given what happened to the last 3 Deathstars I'm not sure that would be a great investment.

I'm looking as much for what gets left out or delayed extensively. That should be a better indicator of where the govt sees Defence heading. LCH replacements are a big one for me.

The other issue will be the White Paper's relationship to the state of the budget. After almost a decade the deficit is still there so if the Turnbull govt is serious about reducing it some cuts may be inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Goknub said:
Given what happened to the last 3 Deathstars I'm not sure that would be a great investment.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the problems were not so much the Death Stars themselves, but mistakes by the defenders. Given that weakenesses have been identified, they should be mitigation plans in place. You just don't tell Treasury everything - it's on a need to know basis and they don't need to know. Security and all that :D

The real indicator will be if the govt increase the defence budget and by how much. Then the timelines for any platforms. I do hope that there is a concrete plan and a definite timetable for the new frigates, OPVs and that the Army does get a 155mm SPG.
 
Well I. Wonder how important the WA Mafia are to Turnbull, we should be able to tell by how much is spent on recapitalising Sand Groper Political Airlines, I.e. The RAAF VIP fleet.
 
I would like to see some more money invested in army. It has seen significant deployment in recent years (and in history) and is regularly overstretched.

Ideally I would like to see two additional brigades, an additional Beersheba brigade and the current 2RAR ARE learning battalion expanded to a brigade capable of fielding a battalion based battle group at any time.

I would also like to see the number of Land 400 vehicles increased:
- for the requirements of the above
- Equip each cavalry regiment with 2 tank squadrons and enough IFVs to lift both battalions (i believe at the moment the requirement is to lift one battalion)
- also to give the army the ability to raise 2 additional brigades if necessary. If you do not have the equipment when you need it, you will not be able to expand the army when it is needed.

Finally, I am concerned that we are light in the army aviation department.

Sadly, I am not hopeful. Both RAN and RAAF are the priority and there will not be anywhere near enough left over for the above and associated required support units.
 
Only real white paper surprises for me, would be the re-inclusion of the Land 17 project for Army.

The RAAF seem to already have much of their needs sorted.

Although for the RAN, two pieces.
1. Select x4 SLV and finally close out Project 2048 (ph2)
2. Procure x8 MQ-8 Firescout UAV (MQ-4's and MQ-9's are expected in this WP).
 
The OPVs are a certainty but pretty much guaranteed to be MOTS, as such they will be unlikely to offer much in the way of modular / containerised capabilities unless they have already been design in for an existing customer, i.e. the second batch of BAMS are intended, as I understand it, use modular hydrographic survey, mine warfare and pollution control mission sets. I do believe the Meteoro class may be considered too large (read expensive) for the initial requirement and a smaller, (cheaper) less flexible design will be selected.

There has been discussion of OPV production moving from the large naval yards as the new frigates come on line, with specific mention being made of WA/Austal for follow on vessels. This is interesting as it suggests a new design may be in the mix for this second batch with Austals tradition of aluminium vessels, possibly their MRV. The other possibly is they convert their operations to steel fabrication which is probably not as big a problem as some may believe as they currently rely on importing aluminium welders on 457 visas for their naval and border protection work while WA in general has a surplus of boiler makers, structural and pipe welders due to the end of the mining construction boom.

The question I have I why duplicate a capability, steel ship building, that we already have in surplus? By all means make use of the excellent fabrication facilities and work force (not specifically Austal) in the west to fabricate blocks, major and minor assemblies, mission modules etc. for OPVs, future frigates and future submarines, awarding work on merit, but why duplicate (dilute) existing, hard won consolidation and integration capabilities elsewhere?

An outfitted block for a frigate, OPV, or submarine is a big deal, and can be done in the west, as well as in the eastern and southern states.
 
Raven22 said:
So as far as I am aware, the new Defence White Paper is supposed to be released in mid-January. What sort of predictions does everyone have about what it might include? It will be interesting to see what we can predict and what comes as a surprise.
Click to expand...

Given how proficient our current enemies are at manipulating the digital media space, one thing we might see is the establishment of a dedicated and specialised group to deal with psychological,information and civil affairs operations in both the digital and physical world,

1st Psychological, Information and Media Operations Group

A unit that merges or incorporates the existing capabilities of psychological operations, information operations, direct action, civil affairs and social media operations to influence values, beliefs, emotions, motives, reasoning, attitudes and ultimately the behaviour of target groups to support national and military objectives.

These capabilities exist, but the rapid pace that warfare is moving into the digital realm may well now justify a permanent integrated and specialist unit for operational tactical use. This unit could also be a development platform for 5th generation warfare doctrine, tactics and methods.

(Something akin to the UK's new 77th Brigade)

I doubt we'll see this in the upcoming white paper, but it is possible.... and may come as a surprise to some. Does seem to make sense though as both the digital and psychological battle space will play an ever increasing role in future warfare

Also, given Turnbull's support for innovation, we may see investment in defence science,industry and academia
 
Last edited:
Several people have mentioned the BAM OPV from Spain as a possible acquisition for our future OPV/OCV however at a discplacement of 2,600t compared to the max tonnage of 2,000 that the Government has mentioned time and time again what is the go? Is the BAM actually consideration by the government or has that just been a choice grown on here? Is the 2,000t max limit out the window?

If the 2,000t max limit is still in place, and we prefer a MOTS option with a permanent aviation capability in place (hanger) then to my knowledge the only class I can think of that fits the bill is the Protector class in use by NZ, Correct me if im wrong.
 
vonnoobie said:
Several people have mentioned the BAM OPV from Spain as a possible acquisition for our future OPV/OCV however at a discplacement of 2,600t compared to the max tonnage of 2,000 that the Government has mentioned time and time again what is the go? Is the BAM actually consideration by the government or has that just been a choice grown on here? Is the 2,000t max limit out the window?

If the 2,000t max limit is still in place, and we prefer a MOTS option with a permanent aviation capability in place (hanger) then to my knowledge the only class I can think of that fits the bill is the Protector class in use by NZ, Correct me if im wrong.
Click to expand...
There are quite a few OPVs on the market at 2,000 tonnes or thereabouts. Damien, BAE, TKS, and DCNS and Navantia all have MOTS options to name a few. Not all have hangers but most have flt decks.
 
There was an item on today's TV commentary that the govt is feeling the pain, suffering a political disadvantage from Labor announcing policy with nothing to offer in return.
It opined that the DWP would be released during the next fort nights parliamentary sittings with the number of submarines announced but not the result of the CEP.

Some other policy announcements as well but all designed to take the heat from the yet to be finalised tax policy and give the coalition some talking points.

I hope it's the case so we can have some new issues to discuss around Australian defence matters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top