Royal Australian Naval Force Enhancements

[cherry]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Perhaps your solution to the lack of firepower for the M113 is the best way to solve the problem. This problem must be addressed though. The article from ADM makes such points as 12.7mm gun does not improve on the current Vietnam-vintage T50 turret does now, and would only be effective against soft skinned targets and some reinforced structures. We are virtually the only country left using this lower calibre weapon on a mechanised fighting vehicle, whereas all other countries have opted for at least a 20mm-30mm canon of some description. In addition to this, the baseline armour for most modern armoured vehicles can withstand a 12.7mm hit, reducing the effectiveness of this weapon on this platform to virtually zero. If Army are serious about increasing the firepower of their forces, then surely they will act on this issue and replace the 12.7mm with a larger weapon.

In regards to the "wishlist" I proposed, I was talking outside the 2014 timeframe that the current DCP addresses, say 2015 and beyond. Although some of that equipment may be affordable.

 

[cherry]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I forgot to ask, would the 40mm grenade launcher have the range and effectiveness of a 25mm bushmaster canon?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Perhaps your solution to the lack of firepower for the M113 is the best way to solve the problem. This problem must be addressed though. The article from ADM makes such points as 12.7mm gun does not improve on the current Vietnam-vintage T50 turret does now, and would only be effective against soft skinned targets and some reinforced structures. We are virtually the only country left using this lower calibre weapon on a mechanised fighting vehicle, whereas all other countries have opted for at least a 20mm-30mm canon of some description. In addition to this, the baseline armour for most modern armoured vehicles can withstand a 12.7mm hit, reducing the effectiveness of this weapon on this platform to virtually zero. If Army are serious about increasing the firepower of their forces, then surely they will act on this issue and replace the 12.7mm with a larger weapon.

In regards to the "wishlist" I proposed, I was talking outside the 2014 timeframe that the current DCP addresses, say 2015 and beyond. Although some of that equipment may be affordable.

I agree, though the new turret is stabilised and electrically driven and the 0.50cal gun has a day/night optical sighting system and a computerised fire control system which provides an excellent "first round hit" capability whereas the T50 only has the Mk 1 eyeball for sighting and ridiculous little wheels to turn the turret...

The quick change barrel 0.50cal HMG is currently already fitted to the Army's non-upgraded M113's, so as far as calibre goes they won't receive a firepower boost, but the gun will be more accurate and will hit the target more quickly.

I think the 0.50cal is still a reasonably viable option, (ADM is all about selling weapons to the Army and is not necessarily interested in the most cost effective solution for Army), the 0.50cal is an extremely powerful weapon system that still has a lot of utility. Bunkers for instance aren't getting any better protected than they ever have been (being of the same traditional design) and it's still an excellent anti-personnel weapon as well. The US Army for example is not rushing to replace the weapon having it fitted as the sole weapon system for it's Striker APC's...

A new range of ammunition is also being introduced into the ADF for the 0.50cal's that have much improved penetration characteristics and are likely to be more potent than most people will realise. but I tend to agree that only having 1 weapon system is ridiculous. At the least a 40mm grenade launcher should be fitted alongside it as no matter how powerful a weapon system, it can still have a stoppage (it can run out of ammo)...

 

[cherry]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

What priorities would you pursue post 2014 in terms of adding or enhancing capabilities to ADF?

 

[tatra]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Perhaps your solution to the lack of firepower for the M113 is the best way to solve the problem. This problem must be addressed though. The article from ADM makes such points as 12.7mm gun does not improve on the current Vietnam-vintage T50 turret does now, and would only be effective against soft skinned targets and some reinforced structures. We are virtually the only country left using this lower calibre weapon on a mechanised fighting vehicle, whereas all other countries have opted for at least a 20mm-30mm canon of some description. In addition to this, the baseline armour for most modern armoured vehicles can withstand a 12.7mm hit, reducing the effectiveness of this weapon on this platform to virtually zero. If Army are serious about increasing the firepower of their forces, then surely they will act on this issue and replace the 12.7mm with a larger weapon.

In regards to the "wishlist" I proposed, I was talking outside the 2014 timeframe that the current DCP addresses, say 2015 and beyond. Although some of that equipment may be affordable.

12,7 HMGs can easily be replaced by a 25mm or 30mm Automatic Selfpowered Cannon (a version of the Apache's M230) on a 1-for-1 basis on simple vehicle mounts.

Basically the ASP-30 can fit any mount that will take a .50 BHMG including the M3 ground tripod. Weapon weight is 52kg (114lb). Cyclic rate of the ASP is 400-450rpm. The ASP uses the same ADEN/DEFA 30x113B ammo as the M230 Chain Gun. In US service the most common rounds are the M789 HEDP (HEAT-Frag), M799 HEI and M788 TP. Muzzle velocity is 2,690fps (820m/s).

Online Powerpoint presentation on it here: http://www.geocities.com/strategicmaneuver/sld031.htm

Images here:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/M113ASP.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/hmmwvasp30mmautocannon.jpg

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

What priorities would you pursue post 2014 in terms of adding or enhancing capabilities to ADF?

For Army, a brand new fleet wide APC/IFV, an ASLAV armoured recon/Cav replacement vehicle. A new manpad SAM system, replacement of the Chinook aircraft with a replacement aircraft (should one exist)

For Navy, a replacement Frigate program and replacement submarine program, plus a replacement Oiler (HMAS Success will be "long in the tooth by then")

For Airforce, a replacement for C-130 Hercules (H series initially plus J series eventually). An acquisition of a strategic lift capability for airforce (C-17 etc). Plus continuing development and acquisition of AIR 6000.

 

[Supe]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

AD: Success is being replaced by the Delos, which will be commisioned as HMAS Sirius in RAN service. It should be in service next year.

 

[nz enthusiast]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I am suprised to see that for the size of the Australian navy they only have one tanker, yet for the size of the NZ navy, we have one also.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

AD: Success is being replaced by the Delos, which will be commisioned as HMAS Sirius in RAN service. It should be in service next year.

Supe, Delos is replacing HMAS Westralia. Even your own link shows that in the first paragraph...

NZ Enthusiast, the RAN operates 1 dedicated oiler AND an underway replenishment ship, whose fuel oil capability is basically the same as our dedicated oiler. In effect we operate 2 oilers. NZ doesn't operate an underway replenishment ship IIRC. A ship of this class is capable of re-equipping ships at sea with all their consumable requirements...

 

[Supe]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Supe, Delos is replacing HMAS Westralia. Even your own link shows that in the first paragraph...

.

Whoops! I have no excuse.

Tenix Defence Pty Ltd has been selected as the preferred tenderer to upgrade and refit the tanker Delos, bought by Defence for the Royal Australian Navy to replace HMAS Westralia.

 

[machina]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Just getting back to the 'mini-carrier' for a sec, why not have the RAN fit out the ships to carry fixed-wing aircraft, but have the RAAF aquire STOVL JSF's?

Instead of the RAAF getting something like 100 regular F-35s, they could get 80, and a dozen of the STOVL variants. That would be roughly within the existing budget. Ordinarily the F-35B's would be based at RAAF bases, but would train with the RAN on exercises, etc. That would maybe stop the RAAF kicking up as much of a fuss about losing their planes to the RAN. The RAAF also probably has a much better capability to deploy the F-35B overseas than the RAN.

 

[cherry]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

For Army, a brand new fleet wide APC/IFV, an ASLAV armoured recon/Cav replacement vehicle. A new manpad SAM system, replacement of the Chinook aircraft with a replacement aircraft (should one exist)

For Navy, a replacement Frigate program and replacement submarine program, plus a replacement Oiler (HMAS Success will be "long in the tooth by then")

For Airforce, a replacement for C-130 Hercules (H series initially plus J series eventually). An acquisition of a strategic lift capability for airforce (C-17 etc). Plus continuing development and acquisition of AIR 6000.

Isn't all this going to happen anyway after this period? What additional capabilities would you add to ADF instead of upgrades of existing capabilities?

 

[nz enthusiast]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

There is only three capbilities i would want to add to the ADF apart from those already coming.
The first would be for the air force to aquire some heavy transport planes, whether it be C-17s, A-400Ms or even Russian A-124.
Another would be precision strike for the army in the form of rocket artillery or even fire support vehicles.
and for the navy to get fixed wing aircraft again i.e. F-35Bs.

 

[cherry]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I couldn't agree more. I would push for more than this but these options would be great. I think HIMARS would be the way to go for the rocket system due to it's high mobility and light weight for ease of transport. The C-17 would be ideal as it has a greater range and payload than A400m and I don't think the Aussies would purchase Russian equipment. Around 4-6 C-17 would fill our needs. The F-35B should, in my opinion, be purchased to give us at least some sort of long range strike option (at least 20 required). They can't fly as far, pull as many G's, or carry the ordinance that the conventional aircraft can, but it would still make a huge leap ahead in capability for our Navy.

What should the Adelaide class frigates be replaced with around 2020 when they reach the end of their lives. Should their hull life be extended even further to coincide with the replacement of the ANZACS and a build of 12 frigates take place, or should it be replaced with a destroyer with land attack and anti-submarine being the main roles with anti-air a secondary role?? Perhaps a mini version of the new DD(X)? Or would we be wise to go down the track of building Littoral Combat Ships? What are your thoughts?:coffee

 

[nz enthusiast]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

They could always just retire them early and go for more ANZACs. I think the three air warfare destoryers will probably be enough destoyer type aircraft for the RAN.
What armament do the littoral combat class ships actually have?

 

[cherry]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Well I certainly hope that the new AWDs are fitted out with some sort of long range land attack missile, it would give them more bite and more value for money. I wouldn't buy more ANZAC frigates simply because they aren't armed enough. At least the FFG has SM-2 missiles. The LCS will have very little when it comes to armament. I don't think this issue has been decided but I know it won't have a huge amount of firepower.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Just getting back to the 'mini-carrier' for a sec, why not have the RAN fit out the ships to carry fixed-wing aircraft, but have the RAAF aquire STOVL JSF's?

Instead of the RAAF getting something like 100 regular F-35s, they could get 80, and a dozen of the STOVL variants. That would be roughly within the existing budget. Ordinarily the F-35B's would be based at RAAF bases, but would train with the RAN on exercises, etc. That would maybe stop the RAAF kicking up as much of a fuss about losing their planes to the RAN. The RAAF also probably has a much better capability to deploy the F-35B overseas than the RAN.

Unsubstantiated traffic out of Russell includes noise that JSF-B's are under consideration. They would remain RAAF rather than RAN-FAA assets.

 

[cherry]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

With the ability to operate F-35B from our amphib vessels complete with a either the JASSM or SLAM-ER the ADF choose, a long range strike missile capability from the AWD and tanker supported F-35 or UCAV, the strike capability lost with the retirement of the F-111 may well be met or even exceeded. I would still like to see a greater mix of aircraft though, not just two versions of the F-35. Either UCAVs or F-15, but ideally at least 20 F-22 would be desirable. This would strike a very well rounded combat aircraft mix I think.

 

[seantheaussie]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

There is only three capbilities i would want to add to the ADF apart from those already coming.
The first would be for the air force to aquire some heavy transport planes, whether it be C-17s, A-400Ms or even Russian A-124.

Deploying a SAS squadron doesn't require strategic airlift.( I can't find a smily that indicates bemused, resigned anger)
No strategic airlift gives Australia another excuse not to deploy which is a good thing.
Spending yet another billion dollars without the slightest relavence to Defence Of Australia would be treasonous. Expeditionary operations are already recieving a greater share of equipment expenditures than the average Australian would like. We should be using Defence Of Australia assets on expeditions not the opposite.

 

[Supe]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

The DOA by itself has become 'oldthink'. 'Newthink' now incorporates Australia participating in actions which affect Australian interests. It's a logical addition to the DOA. DOA while still fundamentally valid has expanded to incorporate the 'wider' view. Whether that's maintaining a closer alliance with the U.S or engaging in RAMSI / Timor Leste operations in which Australia takes a more pro-active role in the region and in the world at large.

Australia could stick its head in the sand and pretend the world around it hasn't changed. That won't enhance Australian security nor secure its interests.