Australia's Defence Future.

[ThePuss]

We may keep the younger armidales to assist in that purpose. We might have some permanently based out at Christmas Isl, Cocos etc.

While 20 sounds impressive it is less hulls than we already have. And the whole purpose of this type is to have many hulls.

I don't know about the Cocos, but it is not possible to build a wharf at CI. It has one small pier for very, very small boats to pull up at (Not much bigger than RHIB size). It is at Flying Fish Cove which is on top of a shallow reef and besides a few other smaller inlets the entire island is surrounded my 30 odd meters sheer cliffs. In fact the commercial ships (small container traders going in and small phosphate bulk carriers going out) actually pull up alongside a cliff and pass four lines, two to the cliff and two to buoys to keep them stationed whilst unloading and loading. When on station massive cranes pivot out to the ships which are thirty to forty meters away from the ship. It is the same thing when we fuel there except it's around the corner from the town. So the ACPB's can not be home ported there, but there is not the need for it as they have the range to patrol off there anyway (thank god, I’m SO glad I don't have to do it anymore!

 

[StevoJH]

We may keep the younger armidales to assist in that purpose. We might have some permanently based out at Christmas Isl, Cocos etc.

While 20 sounds impressive it is less hulls than we already have. And the whole purpose of this type is to have many hulls.

Younger Armidales? Werent they all commissioned within a year or two of each other?

 

[recce.k1]

NSSM, The missile that ANZAC, ARUNTA, TE KAHA and TE MANA commissioned with and what TK and TM still have is very much a point defence weapon. ESSM (which really is not a evolution of NSSM but a all mostly entirely new weapon) IS a medium range naval SAM.

I have heard from my contacts in the RNZN that it is a given that they will have to upgrade to ESSM soon, due to NSSM becoming unsupportable in the near term.

ESSM is twenty times the missile NSSM is, so TK and TM will soon be vastly more capable in a war fighting environment.

I hope that the ANZAC ASMD upgrade is a success and the RNZN decides to jump onto the tail end of the project. As it is the Kiwi ANZAC's are currently undergoing a major platform (Engineering) upgrade so they are not going anywhere soon.

Cheers there, ThePuss! Yup that ASMD upgrade looks beaut! (and publically, assuming political will/funding being there, it appears here that's what the RNZN are possibly aiming for) ...

TK is supposed to come out of its engineering refit next month and TM is going in for its engineering refit next year, I read a few days ago....but also that there will be further engineering related upgrades again i.e. in the next scheduled maintenance periods, so maybe timing wise these upgrades you mention may happen then, rather than sooner, possibly, as the funding is yet to be approved etc?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Younger Armidales? Werent they all commissioned within a year or two of each other?

The last one was commissioned in feb 2008. The earlier ones I belive had a problem with onboard personel storage and ventilation that I believe was fixed on latter ones. Im not sure on that.

Cocos might be a better option, but I don't have any intel/facts of where its really needed.

 

[Marc 1]

The arguement to say that Australia or the Australian Government having no money to improveve Australia's defence capabilities and capacities is simply rubbish, just when the Labor Government has wasted so 300 plus Billion and landing this country in massive debt. .

Do you have a job? Have many of your family and friends lost their jobs?

One thing you can be sure of, even if John Howard was back in power he would have spent many billions of dollars on a stimulus package as well. Debatable whether it would have been as much or spent in the areas where Labor directed the money, but we would have had a large deficit regardless.

Not doing so could have seen a much deeper recession, higher unemployment (more unemployed means more benefits being paid, and less taxation revenue being taken plus a more protracted recovery). You call, personally the money could have been better spent (more infrastructure spend spread out over a longer period), but overall I'm happy it was spent.

I say this as somebody who has nearly always voted conservative, never labor, and as someone with a university education in economics.

I'll add to the recommendations to go look at the existing debates on the need for a carrier.

 

[rossfrb_1]

NSSM, The missile that ANZAC, ARUNTA, TE KAHA and TE MANA commissioned with and what TK and TM still have is very much a point defence weapon. ESSM (which really is not a evolution of NSSM but a all mostly entirely new weapon) IS a medium range naval SAM.

I have heard from my contacts in the RNZN that it is a given that they will have to upgrade to ESSM soon, due to NSSM becoming unsupportable in the near term.

ESSM is twenty times the missile NSSM is, so TK and TM will soon be vastly more capable in a war fighting environment.

I hope that the ANZAC ASMD upgrade is a success and the RNZN decides to jump onto the tail end of the project. As it is the Kiwi ANZAC's are currently undergoing a major platform (Engineering) upgrade so they are not going anywhere soon.

Re ASMD - I wish RAN would acquire the Rolling Airframe Missile system - even if only in SeaRAM config.
Block 2 should be available soon - would be perfect IMHO for the LHDs
& even ANZACs. In SeaRAM config I would imagine it could be swapped around the way RAN does with its Phalanx units
Raytheon's Rolling Airframe Missile Completes Key Flight Tests

rb

 

[icelord]

Re ASMD - I wish RAN would acquire the Rolling Airframe Missile system - even if only in SeaRAM config.
Block 2 should be available soon - would be perfect IMHO for the LHDs
& even ANZACs. In SeaRAM config I would imagine it could be swapped around the way RAN does with its Phalanx units
Raytheon's Rolling Airframe Missile Completes Key Flight Tests

rb

Highly unlikely on Anzacs, on there future replacement it may be possible. theres just too much crap on them now to add a 12.7 mount let alone a SeaRAM. Theres been minor talk of defence packages for LHD, possibly waiting till next year but a SeaRAM would do nicely, as would CIWS Block 2, Typhoons and sniper rifle for gunner of the watch, cause in case of Man Overboard Board, i just dont see them using a steyr from that height to hit a shark.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Searam mounts would be a good idea for the OCV even if they are never needed. If they ever need them its a bolt on job.

LHD is pretty well covered in mini typhoons. They need a missile system (ESSM and/or Searam). However Phalanx might be desireable against other threats.

ANZACs are at a evolutionary dead end. You can't make em any better (they are pretty good now). Best to start thinking about new hulls and saving your money.

I think the RAN should use a combined pool of SeaRAM and Phalanx for ships they both have advantages and are relatively ship/flexable. We proberly have enough Phalanx but a few Searam units would be a good idea.

 

[von_noobie]

Not much of a military expert, But, Before we even plan about getting another Canberra class, or even a 4th AWD, WOuldnt it be far morel ogical for Mr Kevin Dudd to supply the funds needed to actually put defensive weapons and radar systems on the Canberra's, Not garunteed that there will always be a AWD backing them up, all there doing is giving Terrorists a nice prime easy to hit target, Even if a light plan packed with explosives doesnt smash throught the deck, Which it wouldnt, Could still set off fires that can easily spread, There just risking over 55,000 tons in ships and thousands of lives and billions upon billions.... Idiots.

Curious as to the purchase of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's, Used by the USN, WOuld these not be suitable for use aboard the Canberras? Simple matter of fitting the needed gear for landing/taking off of carriers, As mock ups are only being placed upon them. And giving training to the pilots, Which im sure the USN would be happy to aid in.

Personnaly, I believe we need 3 Canberras, thoe would have been more happy if the Government went and tried to by 3 Tarawa class amphibious assault ships of the USN, Would have been cheaper, And had more capabilities.

And in my personnal opinion, Considering Australias need for complete sea control, 3-4 AWD is just not going to do it, Would be far more happy with 6 AWD, Thoe if had my way would have them 100% designed and Built in Australia.

 

[Bonza]

Not much of a military expert, But, Before we even plan about getting another Canberra class, or even a 4th AWD, WOuldnt it be far morel ogical for Mr Kevin Dudd to supply the funds needed to actually put defensive weapons and radar systems on the Canberra's, Not garunteed that there will always be a AWD backing them up, all there doing is giving Terrorists a nice prime easy to hit target, Even if a light plan packed with explosives doesnt smash throught the deck, Which it wouldnt, Could still set off fires that can easily spread, There just risking over 55,000 tons in ships and thousands of lives and billions upon billions.... Idiots.

Curious as to the purchase of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's, Used by the USN, WOuld these not be suitable for use aboard the Canberras? Simple matter of fitting the needed gear for landing/taking off of carriers, As mock ups are only being placed upon them. And giving training to the pilots, Which im sure the USN would be happy to aid in.

Personnaly, I believe we need 3 Canberras, thoe would have been more happy if the Government went and tried to by 3 Tarawa class amphibious assault ships of the USN, Would have been cheaper, And had more capabilities.

And in my personnal opinion, Considering Australias need for complete sea control, 3-4 AWD is just not going to do it, Would be far more happy with 6 AWD, Thoe if had my way would have them 100% designed and Built in Australia.

Read the RAN thread in the Navy section if you want to know why the Canberras aren't suitable for use as fixed-wing carriers. I realise it's a long thread but the issue has been done to death so best to read about it there, I think.

Canberras aren't going to be deployed in a high-threat environment without support assets, including air defence. And why do you advocate more destroyers in your final paragraph, but advocate arming the Canberras in place of getting a fourth destroyer in your first paragraph?

Also I'm confused as to how a blue water naval vessel is a "nice easy to hit target for terrorists". I'm aware of the Cole bombing but it's not as though these vessels sit in port if they're in a hostile location. They'd be as far out from the coast as was practical, and if a light plane comes near them I'm pretty certain the 25mm Typhoons will suffice for a slow moving target... the resources a non-state entity would have to expend in sinking a ship as large as an LHD would be monumental.

I don't mean to sound as though I'm ripping on your post or anything, but I reckon reading the RAN thread would be a good idea as a lot of your concerns have been covered there, by people far more knowledgeable than myself.

 

[von_noobie]

Bonza, Cheers for your points, Thoe as far as my understanding is, The 25mm Typhoons are used for defence against asymmetric threats, Such as small boats. So there got defence against boats packed with explosives, Still dont see any defence against aircraft.

And realistically, A light plane can still make a reasonable distance, And the Canberra class assault ship would have to operate with in reasonable range of the coast, Due to there LCM's.

I just find it highly irrispnsible of those in the power to fix the lack of defences on the Canberra's, These days plenty of misle boats that can hit targets 50-70km away, Mass firing of missiles, And the defensive weapons of a single AWD will have an impossible time of defending just its self, Let alone a Canberra.

And just to calrrify your second point, I advocate getting more destroyers, As in my personnal beliefe, The RAN needs them, But only after such times as the Canberras are fitted with proper defensive weapons and radar. Once thats done then go for getting more AWD's.

Now onto reading the RAN thread =) Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Bonza, Cheers for your points, Thoe as far as my understanding is, The 25mm Typhoons are used for defence against asymmetric threats, Such as small boats. So there got defence against boats packed with explosives, Still dont see any defence against aircraft.

And realistically, A light plane can still make a reasonable distance, And the Canberra class assault ship would have to operate with in reasonable range of the coast, Due to there LCM's.

I just find it highly irrispnsible of those in the power to fix the lack of defences on the Canberra's, These days plenty of misle boats that can hit targets 50-70km away, Mass firing of missiles, And the defensive weapons of a single AWD will have an impossible time of defending just its self, Let alone a Canberra.

And just to calrrify your second point, I advocate getting more destroyers, As in my personnal beliefe, The RAN needs them, But only after such times as the Canberras are fitted with proper defensive weapons and radar. Once thats done then go for getting more AWD's.

Now onto reading the RAN thread =) Cheers

I agree with Bonza that the RAN thread should really be read through, but just a few points I wished to either touch upon, or reinforce. The Canberra-class LHDs are currently planned to be fitted with 25mm Bushmasters in Typhoon mountings. In addition, some of the 20 mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWSs can be mounted, drawing upon the pool that the RAN maintains of these weapons. More importantly (from an air defence perspective) is that as Bonza said, the LHDs are/would not be operating in threat environments without escorts. It the responsibility (and role) of the escort to provide force protection for the LHD and that includes not only aerial threats, but against surface and sub-surface threats as well. While it would be nice, and there could be certain benefits to including a more capable air defence capability aboard the LHDs, in the grand scheme of things, there are other pieces of kit needed more urgently.

As for the RAN making a mistake in not choosing something like the Tarawa-class LHA or the Wasp-class LHD, IMO neither of those designs would be viable for the RAN. The RAN has a strength of ~14,000 personnel IIRC, spread throughout the shore establishments, diplomatic posts, etc as well as providing the officers and crew for ~54 vessesl of various types and classes. In USN service, a the Tarawa and Wasp classes have crew complements of ~964 and 1,108 respectively. In short, two such vessels in RAN service would require ~13-16% of all RAN personnel, while the Canberra-class has a more modest crew requirement, of ~200, plus support elements for any embarked helicopters IIRC.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

As for the RAN making a mistake in not choosing something like the Tarawa-class LHA or the Wasp-class LHD,

they were assessed and rejected

 

[Bonza]

Bonza, Cheers for your points, Thoe as far as my understanding is, The 25mm Typhoons are used for defence against asymmetric threats, Such as small boats. So there got defence against boats packed with explosives, Still dont see any defence against aircraft.

And realistically, A light plane can still make a reasonable distance, And the Canberra class assault ship would have to operate with in reasonable range of the coast, Due to there LCM's.

I just find it highly irrispnsible of those in the power to fix the lack of defences on the Canberra's, These days plenty of misle boats that can hit targets 50-70km away, Mass firing of missiles, And the defensive weapons of a single AWD will have an impossible time of defending just its self, Let alone a Canberra.

And just to calrrify your second point, I advocate getting more destroyers, As in my personnal beliefe, The RAN needs them, But only after such times as the Canberras are fitted with proper defensive weapons and radar. Once thats done then go for getting more AWD's.

Now onto reading the RAN thread =) Cheers

No worries mate, it's a good thread and if you check back through the Navy thread archives there's quite a few bits and pieces about the Canberras from the last few years. Very instructive to read what some of the professionals have to say!

As far as the Typhoons go, I think they'd do fine against a light plane. Granted it'd be pretty close-in defence - but I imagine a naval task force (and it's important to remember the LHDs aren't going to operate in a vacuum, and as such capability should be measured against an integrated force, not necessarily individual units) would have assigned a response to a light plane long before it got within ramming distance.

Anti-ship missiles are prolific, as you say, but in what constitutes a high threat environment (and I imagine the presence of AShMs would qualify) there would be quite a bit of "preparation" of the battlespace done before the LHD entered. What are the likely threat environments where an Australian LHD is going to face a massed firing of anti-ship missiles? And in that environment, is it likely an LHD is going to be committed without sufficient support to respond to such threats?

Remember to look at the whole picture, not just the ship itself and not just the capability of an escort by itself. Look at the threat environment, look at the likely response as an integrated force and then consider the capability as a whole. And consider it from the perspective of the ADF as a whole, not just the RAN (as in a high threat environment the other branches will absolutely be involved).

For example, how likely is it to face a massed firing of anti-ship missiles from the 50-70km range bracket when you have RAAF air support (Wedgetail, Super Hornet, etc), submarines on ISR, possibly inserted special forces providing additional observation of the enemy (which the SAS have done in the past and do very well), and so on.

Now I know the scenario above has a lot of "ifs" in it, and that the support granted by such a force would be situational and bound by limitations of platform range, circumstance and so on. But the question is, is the RAN going to commit an LHD to an environment where they can't provide the above support (or similar, it's just an example), or are they going to approach the situation with alternative strategies that will ensure the LHD is placed at minimum risk?

The threat environment must be considered, as you say, but what also must be considered is how the LHD is intended to be used and supported within that environment.

As I said the above is just an example so I welcome corrections on behalf of other posters, but I think in the context of an integrated force, a light plane isn't going to get close to an LHD. Nor do I think an LHD would be deployed within range of hostile anti-ship missiles without sufficient support to defeat those missiles. No one is going to be more aware of the Canberra's individual defence deficiencies more than the RAN. As such I believe they are confident in the overall capability afforded by their force mix to use the ships in the roles for which they're intended.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Bonza, Cheers for your points, Thoe as far as my understanding is, The 25mm Typhoons are used for defence against asymmetric threats, Such as small boats. So there got defence against boats packed with explosives, Still dont see any defence against aircraft.

And realistically, A light plane can still make a reasonable distance, And the Canberra class assault ship would have to operate with in reasonable range of the coast, Due to there LCM's.

I just find it highly irrispnsible of those in the power to fix the lack of defences on the Canberra's, These days plenty of misle boats that can hit targets 50-70km away, Mass firing of missiles, And the defensive weapons of a single AWD will have an impossible time of defending just its self, Let alone a Canberra.

And just to calrrify your second point, I advocate getting more destroyers, As in my personnal beliefe, The RAN needs them, But only after such times as the Canberras are fitted with proper defensive weapons and radar. Once thats done then go for getting more AWD's.

Now onto reading the RAN thread =) Cheers

If the Canberras were ever to be operationally deployed to a region where an anti-ship missile threat was present, the defences of the ship would be upgraded, just as HMAS Kanimbla was when it deployed to the Gulf in 2003.

Their defensive weapon systems include small arms, heavy machine guns, Typhoon 25mm cannons and for an operational deployment would include Phalanx CIWS and short-ranged SAM systems, just as HMAS Kanimbla did.

On top of which are EW systems and EW self protection systems that will help defend the ships from threats.

In addition of course is the force package that either of the Canberras would be integrated into, because they are not sent into harms way by themselves.

The Canberras could do with a more permanent missile based self defence system IMHO (a RIM-116 RAM launcher per ship would hardly break the budget - Korea ordered 3x systems for USD$25m back in 2004...) but at this time RAN doesn't see arming the LHD's as a priority.

Korean KDX-3 Destroyers to Get Rolling Airframe Missiles

Any planned deployment into a high threat theatre would change that, of course, but still...

 

[von_noobie]

Thanks for all the info so far guys, Due to crew compiment i do now relise the Canberra's are the only viable option, However i still disagree with leaving the placement of main defensive weapons until the last minute, We are ment to be a small but well trained and capable force, Only an idiot would leave out defensive weapons on a ship of that size, Been shown time and time again throught out history, Especialy in the last 100 years, If you wait for when you need it, People die, Better to do whats needed before you need it. It saves lives.

We are only a samll force, Sprad out over a vast area, We should be armed and fitted with the best in Offensive and Defensive weapons now, Not wait for the shooting to start.

But thtas just my opinion.

 

[t68]

Thanks for all the info so far guys, Due to crew compiment i do now relise the Canberra's are the only viable option, However i still disagree with leaving the placement of main defensive weapons until the last minute, We are ment to be a small but well trained and capable force, Only an idiot would leave out defensive weapons on a ship of that size, Been shown time and time again throught out history, Especialy in the last 100 years, If you wait for when you need it, People die, Better to do whats needed before you need it. It saves lives.

We are only a samll force, Sprad out over a vast area, We should be armed and fitted with the best in Offensive and Defensive weapons now, Not wait for the shooting to start.

But thtas just my opinion.

Yes the fitted for but not with policy i think is a bit of a joke, But the RAN only has a small budget to start with so it is practical to have the ships with a pool of weapons systems and fitted when needed if the RAN has long lead times.

But is there enough in the pool to equip all the main combat surface ships if thing’s really turned to custard and fit them out in short notice. The likely hood of the RAN to put all the ships to sea in support of a major war is remote but it still has to be looked at, ships as part of a coalition and still need to piquet the homeland, will need all the defensive and offence equipment we can muster.

I don’t think the US will have that many to spare if we need them in a hurry.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for all the info so far guys, Due to crew compiment i do now relise the Canberra's are the only viable option, However i still disagree with leaving the placement of main defensive weapons until the last minute, We are ment to be a small but well trained and capable force, Only an idiot would leave out defensive weapons on a ship of that size, Been shown time and time again throught out history, Especialy in the last 100 years, If you wait for when you need it, People die, Better to do whats needed before you need it. It saves lives.

We are only a samll force, Sprad out over a vast area, We should be armed and fitted with the best in Offensive and Defensive weapons now, Not wait for the shooting to start.

But thtas just my opinion.

The ships will have a minimum self-defence capacity at all times, comprising the 25mm Typhoons, small arms and whatever armament capacity any helos they carry have.

This may include Phalanx on a more regular basis, as it appears Kanimbla and Manoora routinely carry these weapons now, perhaps because of the increased threat environment since USS Cole and 9/11 and therefore the Canberra's will be better armed than any of our current Amphibs.

What they don't need is advanced air defence/anti-cruise missile defences unless they are going on operations into such an environment. No such threat is present in Australian waters and therefore, from Defence and Governments POV, such capabilities can be pushed back, until such time as they may be necessary.

It's all well and good to say that our boats should have the best of everything, but no-one I know wants to have to look after these things, when they are completely unnecessary. By carrying them ALL the time, there is a training burden, a logistic burden and the financial burden of purchasing these systems up front.

As I've shown, a RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile system for these 2 ships, would likely only cost about $25-$30m. That's pretty small change compared to the $2b price tag of these ships, but it's $25-$30m that won't be going somewhere else...

It's all a juggling act, but ADF won't be putting such valuable assets into an operational environment without equipping them adequately for the task at hand. If that requires a rapid upgrade of defences, well it's happened before and will happen again...

 

[t68]

I just had thought on how we could manage defence recruiting and keeping those who choose to stay in the ADF.

It’s a bit radical in terms of treasury dollars in there coffers, if we can not afford to give them a pay rise in general terms across the services how much of an impact would it have on the economy if there tax burden was reduced which from memory is a sliding scale from 15% thru to 45% of net pay, now if we were to reduce the amount of tax to say 5% this in effect gives them a pay rice of between 10-40% and make a general admission if given a length of service of 20t years your tax will be 0% for the remaining time of service. The other 5% in tax generated goes back into the ADF to boost funding level equipment levels and services to the member’s of the ADF.

It in effect gives the Member’s a pay rise within the direct budget allocation for defence with an additional funding from the small tax base that is still applicable to member’s who have not severed there 20,getting this past treasury will be the sticking point in my opinion .

Although i do like the old scheme of a pension after 20 years service the above only pay a reduced amount will still an ADF member with no ongoing commitment on leaving except for medical grounds .

Would you be tempted to join the ADF and stay the long haul if you tax burden was significantly reduced?

Do you think this is feasible or not?

 

[LancasterBomber]

Do you think this is feasible or not?

Its a bit drastic and very expensive.

In general I love where you are coming from because you are right to be proactive regarding the personnel drain we are about to suffer again (this will be much worse than last time IMO).

Right now there is a company in Brazil bending over backwards to move the iron ore contract price back to the spot market.

If they manage to achieve this (dragging the Chinese and Japanese steel yards kicking and screaming) then we are in serious trouble again in WA and FBW.

Look what we may have to do is just accept the mining boom and when it comes to diesel mechanics we just have to offer 'pay parity' during boom times to keep them in the ADF (and any other position that falls into this high risk category).

If someone has a letter of offer of employment for $200,000 for a 12 month contract with a mining company then ADF has the right to match that offer for that period of time.

We ride the boom in terms of company tax receipts (from the Federal Govt perspective) and it may just be that we have to suck it up and be more flexible with our pay scales during the mining boom times (i.e cant have our cake and eat it too).

Especially for the working class type positions that are critical to asset platforms like our subs.

I couldn't give two shits if im only earning $75k as a AWA while my mate down the dusty end of the boat is on $200k this year cos he is in high demand this year. Good luck to him. I'd just make him buy all the booze!

I would rather keep my group together - that is in the strategic national interest - the benefits of which are intangible.

Rather than lock in an unsustainable tax break for ADF I think we need to be more fluid in being able to match legitimate commercial contract offers if we so deem that individual to be fundamental to the sustainable operation of one of our platforms. Once the contract is up personnel revert back to traditional pay scales.

It's just going to have to be a case by case basis.