RN/RAN capabilities + RAN procurement

[ADMk2]

:haha Don't forget the lasers.

Never afterall they are going to replace the Collins with these from what I hear...

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/06/15/1226075/614115-laser-sharks-.jpg

THAT's how our below surface attack force is going to maintain our air defence, as someone asked earlier...

 

[the road runner]

Never afterall they are going to replace the Collins with these from what I hear...

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/06/15/1226075/614115-laser-sharks-.jpg

THAT's how our below surface attack force is going to maintain our air defence, as someone asked earlier...

I hear the US Navy has "Top Secret" Dolphins ,but i didnt know Australia was this high tech nfloorl:

 

[Bonza]

I hear the US Navy has "Top Secret" Dolphins ,but i didnt know Australia was this high tech nfloorl:

It's a spending disaster, you know how much money it takes to Australianise a dolphin?! I hear the Ian McPhedran expose is hitting news stands soon.

EDIT: Oh wait, I see we're locally producing sharks. Well, that's clearly doomed to failure and we should have bought European dolphins off the shelf and Australianised them then. Much more sensible.

 

[Systems Adict]

Look, I'm not going to intrude on this discussion but.. could you do me a favour and send me a credible link that mentions the RAN as a potential buyer? Thanks.

Take THIS to the BANK !

I work in the Industry in the UK & UK Govt PLC is NOT about to sell a carrier that

A. It hasn't built yet.

B. Has STATED will become a Helicopter carrier, or will be mothballed.

C. If it was sold WOULDN'T make UK Govt PLC any money, as NO-ONE has £3 - 4 Billion to buy it, apart from the Chinese.

So waltzing Matilda, can ya go & boil ur billy, make a brew, drink it & have a long hard think....

LoL

SA

 

[StevoJH]

It's a spending disaster, you know how much money it takes to Australianise a dolphin?! I hear the Ian McPhedran expose is hitting news stands soon.

EDIT: Oh wait, I see we're locally producing sharks. Well, that's clearly doomed to failure and we should have bought European dolphins off the shelf and Australianised them then. Much more sensible.

Sharks? I thought they were going to use Blue Whales. So they are big enough to hang a habitat module off the back.

Isnt that why the Government is sending an observer south with the Japanese? My understanding was that the Japanese have the contract to capture the whales for use in the project.

 

[Volkodav]

Sharks? I thought they were going to use Blue Whales. So they are big enough to hang a habitat module off the back.

Isnt that why the Government is sending an observer south with the Japanese? My understanding was that the Japanese have the contract to capture the whales for use in the project.

The head lazers are actually Sea Shepherds secret weapon against the whalers this comming season, they have been catching, fitting out with lazers and releasing whales for three months now.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

If you really want to be a part of this community then stop twisting peoples words to try and make some inane argument.

That's quite funny, considering I never claimed the RAN intended to buy the carrier, simply that a sale had been mooted, and Australia had been mentioned as a buyer. The response is that no one ever said that, and the RAN doesn't want to buy. I point out that it *was* said, and restate the point about Australia being mentioned as a buyer, not that the RAN intended to buy (and that this said far more about the relative perceptions of the two navies than about Australia's procurement plans...)

So, if you want to talk about twisting words and inane arguments, why don't you go back and reread the thread, and take a look at who is arguing their point in good faith and who is talking about sharks and lasers and nonsense like that (which is usually a fairly good sign that the tank is empty in terms of what you can offer in debate).

Regarding being a part of this community, no thanks. It's fairly obvious that while there are a few interesting, intelligent individuals, there are countless more who find anyone challenging the groupthink as threatening and confusing, and start babbling incoherently about conspiracies and what not. It's totally Pavlovian and funny as hell.

Luckily, the other defence forum I began posting on is far friendlier, the people are better informed and less up themselves.

(Btw, it should probably be renamed Australian defence portal, considering what small a proportion of posters from another origin post here... probably put off by the huge circle jerk going on)
Bye

 

[overlander]

No, we can't be sure at all. France has been cancelling or postponing PA2 projects one after another for over ten years, has cut planned Horizon numbers from 4 to 2 (vs the UK cutting T45 numbers to 6), cut planned FREMM numbers from 17 to 11, & redesignated the light La Fayette patrol frigates as full frigates to pretend it will still have 18 first rank escorts. Which would you rather have? 2 Horizon, 11 FREMM & 5 La Fayette, or 6 Type 45 & 13 Type 26/upgraded Type 23? Pretty obvious, isn't it?

Yes, three Mistrals is nice - but the MN has retired Jeanne d'Arc & agreed to sell Foudre while building Dixmude, & Siroco is expected to be sold before long. Overall, that's a reduction in tonnage, & probably capacity. France started & ends with fewer amphibious ships than the UK, less tonnage, & less carrying capacity - and dependent on commercial leases for ro-ro capacity. Did you know France has leased a British Point class at least once?



Your hatred of the UK, & your obsession with proving that everyone else in Europe has better armed forces, is extraordinary. Have you noticed what Mariano Rajoy has said about the Spanish defence budget, for example? It isn't enough to pay for the equipment that's currently being delivered. The MoD has a large debt for equipment and supplies delivered but not paid for, & that debt is increasing fast because of penalties for late payment & interest charges. The MoD is frantically trying to pay the biggest bills before the dates which trigger new penalties, robbing one supplier to pay another. The MoD is collapsing. That's not rumour, it's what's been officially stated by the government. Yet you have claimed that everything's fine in Spain, much better than in the UK.

I have not reduced the royal navy capability to unacceptable levels, your politicians have made it, don,t forget.
I hate nothing, but if you still believe that these cuts are logical and reasonable ok it,s your opinion.
When I open this forum I was writing here that if things follow that way maybe the U.K. would lost the carrier capability and be reduced to less than 20 escorts, you wrote that I was running down the royal navy.
And now the royal navy has 19 escorts and and no operational strike carrier.
Who is running down the R.N. ?? maybe you will discover soon that I am not but maybe your politicians they are,
Are you happy with the current situation of the navy ??, ok but remember I am not who have reduced the navy to the current levels, your politicians have made it not me.
And believe me as I have told here before I have been a fan of the R.N. many years ago and for me it,s very sad this situation, I don, understand how you being british are so conformist with the situation arguing economic problems.
Concerning to Spain you will see how the carriers will remain operational, maybe some cuts have to be made but nothing comparable to what has been made in the U.K.
Italy have aproved a few days ago a heavy cut of 30000 milion euros in the budget but they have not touched the carrier capability, the 2 carriers will follow operational and they have not reduced the marina militare at all, the italian air force will lost only a few transport aircraft however the fighters will remain the same just to compare with the massive british cuts.

 

[StevoJH]

That's quite funny, considering I never claimed the RAN intended to buy the carrier, simply that a sale had been mooted, and Australia had been mentioned as a buyer. The response is that no one ever said that, and the RAN doesn't want to buy. I point out that it *was* said, and restate the point about Australia being mentioned as a buyer, not that the RAN intended to buy (and that this said far more about the relative perceptions of the two navies than about Australia's procurement plans...)

And we asked you for a reference for your statements with regards to this. You have not provided any reference, hence our skepticism.

So, if you want to talk about twisting words and inane arguments, why don't you go back and reread the thread, and take a look at who is arguing their point in good faith and who is talking about sharks and lasers and nonsense like that (which is usually a fairly good sign that the tank is empty in terms of what you can offer in debate).

Actually, I believe that was a response to you not processing a single word we were all writting.

Regarding being a part of this community, no thanks. It's fairly obvious that while there are a few interesting, intelligent individuals, there are countless more who find anyone challenging the groupthink as threatening and confusing, and start babbling incoherently about conspiracies and what not. It's totally Pavlovian and funny as hell.

I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

Luckily, the other defence forum I began posting on is far friendlier, the people are better informed and less up themselves.

Lucky them.

(Btw, it should probably be renamed Australian defence portal, considering what small a proportion of posters from another origin post here... probably put off by the huge circle jerk going on)
Bye

Strange you should mention that.....

Bye, and talk to you next time.

 

[ADMk2]

Regarding being a part of this community, no thanks. It's fairly obvious that while there are a few interesting, intelligent individuals, there are countless more who find anyone challenging the groupthink as threatening and confusing, and start babbling incoherently about conspiracies and what not. It's totally Pavlovian and funny as hell.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Now, back to our harmonious collective...

:el

Anyone else trying this new technique to stop the government from reading our minds?

 

[Common man]

Can you name the other blog please?
I too have been watching this site for a while now and have had a gutful of the arrogance.... seemingly all from the Aussies.
That and all the pro Labour, Howard hating, anti Murdoch, anti "any and all correspondents" BS gives me the irits, so I'm looking for some other more user friendly sites.
to I might add

That's quite funny, considering I never claimed the RAN intended to buy the carrier, simply that a sale had been mooted, and Australia had been mentioned as a buyer. The response is that no one ever said that, and the RAN doesn't want to buy. I point out that it *was* said, and restate the point about Australia being mentioned as a buyer, not that the RAN intended to buy (and that this said far more about the relative perceptions of the two navies than about Australia's procurement plans...)

So, if you want to talk about twisting words and inane arguments, why don't you go back and reread the thread, and take a look at who is arguing their point in good faith and who is talking about sharks and lasers and nonsense like that (which is usually a fairly good sign that the tank is empty in terms of what you can offer in debate).

Regarding being a part of this community, no thanks. It's fairly obvious that while there are a few interesting, intelligent individuals, there are countless more who find anyone challenging the groupthink as threatening and confusing, and start babbling incoherently about conspiracies and what not. It's totally Pavlovian and funny as hell.

Luckily, the other defence forum I began posting on is far friendlier, the people are better informed and less up themselves.

(Btw, it should probably be renamed Australian defence portal, considering what small a proportion of posters from another origin post here... probably put off by the huge circle jerk going on)
Bye

 

[wildcolonialboy]

Can you name the other blog please?
I too have been watching this site for a while now and have had a gutful of the arrogance.... seemingly all from the Aussies.
That and all the pro Labour, Howard hating, anti Murdoch, anti "any and all correspondents" BS gives me the irits, so I'm looking for some other more user friendly sites.
to I might add

I'm sorry, with respect, I wouldn't want to inflict you on them/us. I don't like your politics either.

The only people on here who have made it political are the ones who are complaing about "Rudd's subs" and other creatively named platforms.

Interestingly, those who don't make it political still hold the same bizarre views; that submarines lack versatility, carriers are not vulnerable at all, that you can trust every platform will work as advertised, and considering logistical issues like how much fuel and ammunition they can carry is "crazy" (direct quote).

I await our glorious future of the ADF where we don't need to worry about logistical issue, force generation rates, and so on; just think about tactics, platforms and manufacturer's specs it will all be okay.

 

[swerve]

Concerning to Spain you will see how the carriers will remain operational, maybe some cuts have to be made but nothing comparable to what has been made in the U.K.
Italy have aproved a few days ago a heavy cut of 30000 milion euros in the budget but they have not touched the carrier capability, the 2 carriers will follow operational and they have not reduced the marina militare at all, the italian air force will lost only a few transport aircraft however the fighters will remain the same just to compare with the massive british cuts.

Delusional.

Spain doesn't have two operational carriers. It doesn't even have ambitions to have two operational carriers. It has one carrier, plus an LHD which can function (with minor modifications, for which it has to go into port) as an auxiliary carrier.

Without money, both these ships are in danger of being unable to operate. The Spanish prime minister & defence minister are on record as saying that the situation is catastrophic, that the defence ministry is collapsing, that the debts of the MoD are unsustainable, that the military budget isn't enough to pay for spending which is already committed, let alone pay the debts - and you say that all is well & everything will remain operational. What universe are you living in?

Italy has already made cuts to the procurement plans for the MM. How many Horizons were originally planned? The number of FREMMs is still up in the air. The Atlantiques (AMI operated, but under MM command) were retired & replaced by half the number of less capable ATR-72ASW.

Ditto for the other forces. The chance of Eurofighter Tranche 3B being ordered is looking increasingly unlikely (there have been numerous public statements about it), unless some T1s can be sold. Etc.

And yet you say that the only cut is a few transport aircraft!

 

[StevoJH]

Interestingly, those who don't make it political still hold the same bizarre views; that submarines lack versatility, carriers are not vulnerable at all, that you can trust every platform will work as advertised, and considering logistical issues like how much fuel and ammunition they can carry is "crazy" (direct quote).

Can a Submarine perform 'visibility' tasks? Can a submarine launch amphibious assaults? Can a submarine aid in disaster relief? Can a submarine evacuate civilians from a warzone?

A submarine can do three main tasks. It can deny a seazone to the enemy, it can be used in intelligence gathering (and i'll include supporting Spec Ops in this) and it can (in some cases) be used to perform strategic strikes on land targets with cruise missiles.

I await our glorious future of the ADF where we don't need to worry about logistical issue, force generation rates, and so on; just think about tactics, platforms and manufacturer's specs it will all be okay.

I don't remember anyone saying logistics and force generation was not important. Personally i'm of the belief that each fleet base should have a pair of Replenishment ships based there, or at least that there is one at each fleet base plus a spare so that one can be in refit at all times.

 

[ADMk2]

I await our glorious future of the ADF where we don't need to worry about logistical issue, force generation rates, and so on; just think about tactics, platforms and manufacturer's specs it will all be okay.

No you're spot on there. Expanding our submarine fleet to 12 boats has nothing to do with "force generation rates"...

Ditto with the steadfast commitment to 100x JSF's, 6x C-17's, enhanced land force and so on.

Honestly, do you even read the crap you are writing or are you just trolling? I don't care what it is but you're on a VERY short leash buddy.

Read the rules of the forum, abide by them or you might as well leave as you won't be posting here.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

No you're spot on there. Expanding our submarine fleet to 12 boats has nothing to do with "force generation rates"...

I haven't criticised that decision; I think it's one of the best acquisitions Australia could make. My comment about logistics and force generation was alluding to the fact that the F-35 issue was brought up again, and previously when it was discussed I was told (almost paraphrasing) "nobody cares about that crazy stuff" in relation to range, fuel capacity and internal weapons space.

And I hasten to add, I do not see posters on here and the RAN as in institution as one and the same. I'm fairly sure the ADF is quite familiar with issues like internal weapons space (and would see trends inj weapon miniaturization, the SDB, and things like that as offsetting the limitation, not simply saying that carrying a smaller payload is irrelevant).

Honestly, do you even read the crap you are writing or are you just trolling? I don't care what it is but you're on a VERY short leash buddy.

That suits me as I have worked out that this forum is probably not for me. All my questions and intial posts were fairly respectful, and the response is to rubbish my views, fail to respond to many arguments and issues I raised (while insisting on posting anyway just to throw in that I'm wrong) and hijack threads with nonsense, as if I'd denied the holocaust instead of responded to an argument or expressed an opinion.

It is possible that even after your best effort to persuade someone of an argument that they will not be convinced. It doesn't mean they're obstructive or stubborn, it simply means they didn't find your arguments persuasive enough for them to change their mind at that time.

Read the rules of the forum, abide by them or you might as well leave as you won't be posting here.

Yes, I think they require people to be respectful of each other; many people seem to read that as deference, and that a newly hatched poster should bloody well accept what he's told, and if he doesn't he must be an idiot or a troll.

I usually welcome the oppportunity to debate and defend my arguments, because it forces me to constantly reevaluate them to see if my positions are still valid. I know that many others do not, and are emotionally attached to what they see as "the facts" (usually their personal opinion, some more valid and with more substance than others), in the same way many individuals and groups seem to conflate personal and sectional intererst with national interest, and anyone questioning the former is threatening the latter.

But I've concluded that it's probably best to go anyway. I can't see it working, and so it's probably the best way to proceed.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Take THIS to the BANK !

I work in the Industry in the UK & UK Govt PLC is NOT about to sell a carrier that

A. It hasn't built yet.

B. Has STATED will become a Helicopter carrier, or will be mothballed.

C. If it was sold WOULDN'T make UK Govt PLC any money, as NO-ONE has £3 - 4 Billion to buy it, apart from the Chinese.

So waltzing Matilda, can ya go & boil ur billy, make a brew, drink it & have a long hard think....

LoL

SA

If you saw my later comment you would have seen I was being sarcastic and didn't expect a link. Although it's just a misunderstanding so don't worry.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

Can a Submarine perform 'visibility' tasks? Can a submarine launch amphibious assaults? Can a submarine aid in disaster relief? Can a submarine evacuate civilians from a warzone?

Certainly it cannot do those things, but it can do things that surface vessels cannot (like sail up to an enemy coast without being detected and gather intelligence, deposit special forces, and so on). However, clearly they're complementary, and I think that LHD type vessels are quite good; I question the ongoing viability and need of supercarriers.

A submarine can do three main tasks. It can deny a seazone to the enemy, it can be used in intelligence gathering (and i'll include supporting Spec Ops in this) and it can (in some cases) be used to perform strategic strikes on land targets with cruise missiles.

It also has a deterrent and "fleet-in-being" effect; they require their adversaries to deploy forces to find and sink the sub out of proportion to the costs of the vessel. And in versatility, I was alluding to how many different types of mission a submarine can carry out, and how much havoc they can cause.

I would think that in a war with a resaonably sized opponent, a single Astute or Virginia class sub deployed in a busy sea lane could run amok torpedoing merchant vessels, launching missiles at escorts, and possibly close the whole thing with mining and due to the fact that even if they got it, they wouldn't know if there were more still out there.

With surface vessels. they can just check the satellite images to see where it went,, or at least confirm that it has left the area.

I don't remember anyone saying logistics and force generation was not important. Personally i'm of the belief that each fleet base should have a pair of Replenishment ships based there, or at least that there is one at each fleet base plus a spare so that one can be in refit at all times

I agree with you entirely. My comment was aimed more at the dismissal of range, payload and speed as relevant issues in assessing in aircraft on another thread, and the tendency of some to see the electronics and weapons systems as the only thing worth considering, while ignoring the less glamorous but equally important logistical issues that have always and will always be important.

 

[jeffb]

I agree with you entirely. My comment was aimed more at the dismissal of range, payload and speed as relevant issues in assessing in aircraft on another thread, and the tendency of some to see the electronics and weapons systems as the only thing worth considering, while ignoring the less glamorous but equally important logistical issues that have always and will always be important.

With regards to range and payload, if you aren't taking the weapons the aircraft will employ into account then you aren't being honest. Weapons are more accurate, have longer range and are more reliable than in the past, modern weapons essentially take some of the performance burden off the aircraft.

Its easy to just take some numbers and try to compare them broadly against various aircraft, it will not give you an accurate picture though. By looking at only the aircraft you're looking at half the equation.

We know so much about how aircraft perform in combat these days that we know roughly what performance margins a modern airframe needs to meet and which characteristics are most important. Its not merely about being the fastest or flying the highest, its not about looking pretty but doing what needs to be done.

I'm not sure what logistical issues you think people are ignoring, perhaps fuel prices? Fuel is going to go up in price no matter which aircraft you operate, what exactly do you expect people to say?

Versatility does not equal effectiveness. Surely you can see why a submarine is not as flexible as other naval platforms, its capabilities are largely locked in place when it is launched where as other platforms can take on various weapon systems, uavs, helicopters when needed.

Everyone here would understand just how important submarines are and how effective they are at their intended purpose. That doesn't make them versatile though.

Finally, I'm not quite sure what questions you think people have avoided answering. Virtually all of your questions that I have seen were answered earlier in their relevant threads, sometimes in the exact same thread you posted. Some of the post you quote being so old the answers to your questions are right in front of your questions, you just seem to ignore them because you want to make a point. The problems facing the Australian shipbuilding industry, for instance, have been discussed at length in the RAN thread.

Its no ones job here to continually go back through old posts to answer your questions every time someone new rocks up, if you want those answers they're there for you to find yourself.

 

[AegisFC]

. I mentioned the RAN had been mentioned as a possible buyer; it has, in several publications.

List those publications or be banned for a month.

Considering that missiles are fairly simple to manufacture, you could mass produce very basic decoy missiles with a cheap intertial guidance system and no warhead, as long as it can fly towards the carrier, or close enough that the escorts can't be sure if it's not terminally guided or is simply flying by waypoint or hasn't yet switched on terminal guidance. Until navies acquire technology that would allow them to determine what's inside the missile, they would almost certainly shoot at or shoot down every decoy launched against them.

The cheaper and simpler the missile the less advanced and the more easily spoofed it will be.
How will this mythical attack by large numbers of long range, effective, spoof proof yet cheap missile going to be targeted at the Carrier or other high value ship? In a shooting war what assets will be allowed to get close enough to target and fire at the carrier?
Getting quality data on the position of a carrier in the middle of a group will be tough for anyone, the Soviets at their height had doubts they could do it in a shooting war without massive losses and technology of the defender has moved on by leaps and bounds since the height of the Soviet Navy.

I am sure that Western ECM is quite sophisticated, but personally, I wouldn't put my faith in a single technology. The West seems remarkably good at understimating its adversaries since WW2.

"Western ECM" is not a singular technology nor is there a singular type of EW countermeasures, to suggest so is idiotic.
Do a search on the topic it was discussed in depth several years ago.
Your average escort will have Nulka, SLQ-32, and the various goodies launched out of SRBOC type launchers and off ship platforms like Prowlers or Growlers to help in the EW mission area.
Between active defenses (AAW missiles), active and passive EW, LO escorts, various links and CEC an alert battlegroup has a lot of tricks up its sleeve to underestimate them is a mistake and to assume a college student can do something on the cheap that one of the super powers at it height had doubts about doing is moronic.