Royal Australian Naval Force Enhancements

[nz enthusiast]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Seantheaussie, you appear to be miss informed, both Australia and NZ have had to use C-17s and antonovs for startegic airlift. We needed startegic airlift from USAF C-17s so we could get all our vehicles over to Afghanistan to help our SAS. Your ideas seem to be like those of the US at the beginning of the 20th century and with the US not acting, one of he stongest war machines ever seen came knocking on their doorstep i.e Japan.

Also if Australia used the excuse of not having strategic airlift to deploy, you know what the US does, it tells you screw ANZUS like they have done ever more to us since we didn't participate in Iraq fully. In the mind of the americans, the more you help us, the more of our defence tech you are allowed.

You considered how big Australia is, how much logisitics problems they have when trying to move stuff around your huge land mass. This shows large transport planes offer at home benefits to with them beginning capable of moving large amounts of gear around.

and what do you when some invades you, you slam down their offensive, and you go hunting them to their home, you realise your really screwed becuase you can't move much of your stuff.

Nz and Aust only have c-130s which when you look at can move hardly anything, even we have been looking at something like a C-17 or the A-400M to help us with our peace keeping deployments. You can't have litle old NZ with better tranpost capability then you now can you.

Get your head out of lala land.

 

[knightrider4]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Well I,m all for capability thats for sure and I agree half a dozen C-17'S would be great. It intrigues me somewhat that those who continually preach the DOA mantra generally opt for the lesser capability funny that and yet they speak of treason hehehe.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Sean, EVERY single major deployment of the ADF since (and including) Somalia has been conducted using either C-17's or chartered Antonov's. NOT RAAF C-130's, because they lack range and payload. I've even posted photo's in the gallery of the SASR LRPV's getting loaded onto Antonov's prior to their Op Bastille deployment to Iraq in 2003...

What are these so-called DOA assets you are referring too? I can't think of a single military capability operated by the ADF that can't (or hasn't) been used in Expeditionary operations. Just as I can't think of a capability possessed by the ADF that DOESN'T have utility in DOA operations, and we don't have a strategic airlift capability NOW. When has that ever been a factor in whether to deploy?

The only thing NOT having a strategic airlift capability achieves (besides spending extra $$$) is to limit our ability to deploy IF we ever need to and our allies CAN'T provide the lift for us. Do you think the best option to defend Australia should it be required is to simply wait and defend HERE or take the fight to the enemy and try and stop them wherever they come from?

To do that you need strategic lift. The chartered CIVILIAN Antonov's have been fine to date, but they will NOT deploy into a "hot" zone. Hoping it will never be required is taking the Ostrich approach to problem solving...

AS to my "wishlist" for defence acquisitions, I prefer to take a pragmatic approach and choose between options I see as realistic, hence my earlier response.

However, my top 10 acquisitions for defence I'd like to see that are not currently in the defence capability plan, but DO have a realistic chance of occuring are (in no particular order of importance) :

1. A long range land attack weapon system for the RAN's AWD's. (to help replace long range strike capability of F-111).

2. Additional A2A refuelling aircraft for RAAF. (To help long range strike/air defence capabilities of RAAF AND improve airlift capacity).

3. A strategic airlift capability for RAAF (C-17's or A400M).

4. An Anti-Radiation missile system (ie: HARM) and appropriate targetting system for RAAF. (This acquisition WAS scheduled for RAAF as part of a "family" of missiles including thr FOSOW and a "littoral" support weapon, but seems to have disappeared lately).

5. A MANPAD air defence system for RAAF. (So that Army MANPAD systems can protect Army instead of RAAF. Army doesn't possess sufficient assets to protect BOTH).

6. An additional battalion for Army. (As we've basically lost one of our White Paper promised 6 Battalions [4RAR] to Special Operations Command. It can't be both a specwarop unit AND an Infantry Battalion. It's one or the other).

7. Additional M113AS3/4 APC's for Army, plus a firepower boost for the M113 fleet. (To equip said additional battalion AND another Brigade).

8. Additional M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks for Army. (To fully equip our current Armoured Regiment AND another one).

9. A motorised mine clearance capability for Army. (The current sole mine clearance capability for Army comprises a handheld plastic prod)...

10. A medium/long ranged ground based air defence system for RAAF/Army. (To stop bad guys raining death upon our Diggers and RAAFIES from MORE than 7 kay's away, in case our 71 strong F/A-18's are just a "bit" busy providing our sole air strike, maritime strike, manned tactical recce, vital asset protection etc, etc capabilities...)

 

[Stryker001]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

1. A long range land attack weapon system for the RAN's AWD's. (to help replace long range strike capability of F-111).

2. Additional A2A refuelling aircraft for RAAF. (To help long range strike/air defence capabilities of RAAF AND improve airlift capacity).)

If Australia got the 200 airframes mothballed in the US, if still there and changes are made to the analogue cockpits, replace the radar, and the Pave Track components this would lower OP costs.

The old F-111 can fly 450 Nautical miles with a payload of around 24,000 pounds, 1000 nautical miles which is an issue to Australian security with 8,000 pounds payload without the need to refuel by a tanker, which would further limit OP costs. If people remember back to the Red Flag deployment even though the F-111 was the oldest type of aircraft it delivered the best uptime of any aircraft used.

If funding is given and the right options are applied the F-111 could be in use well past 2020.

 

[Supe]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

If funding is given and the right options are applied the F-111 could be in use well past 2020.

I had something like that in mind when reading the B-52 thread. The Americans don't consider their B-52 fleet to be obsolescent. B-52's are still performing a vital role. Likewise, if it is determined that the F-111's can carry out tasks the JSF cannot, then the case could be made that they are worthwhile retaining.

Does a JSF only acquisition mean a capability gap for the ADF? Anyone know what is the RAAF attitude to maintaining an F-111 fleet?

 

[Stryker001]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Thats exactly right the B-52H could also operate past 2020 and it should be noted that it is the most cost affective of the 3 US heavy bombers.

The JSF in block 2 form can not meet all the requirements of Australia and the gap would have to be filled by other means other than aircraft. As Australia cannot afford the F-22 even if allowed to purchase by the US, I think to be total reliant on the JSF is a bad idea anyhow.

 

[Supe]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

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

After some Defencetalk thread digging I stumbled on Kurt Plummer. I've seen the light. Forget carrier based JSF's go UCAV. If my wee brain can recall the gist of the advantages of UCAV (as it applies to a SPS) goes:

• Higher sortie rates
• cheaper than equivalent manned aircraft (cost savings)
• ADF would be able to afford more platforms (yes. numbers at last!)
• Higher availability (No issues with crew fatigue, lower maintenance)
• Defence dollars saved by not having to train and retain pilots

There were other 'metrics' to performance and justifications for a UCAV vs manned aircraft but I really don't have the language to express it as cogently Kurt does.

After reading a 'PAF strategy thread' Kurt participated in, I have a sneaking suspicion he plays Civ on Sid level.

 

[Stryker001]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

If/when they get back in power I can see Labor cutting Defence back to the bone if they can't see the validity of the current Gov's argument.

My personal view is the DOA doctrine is simply used as a reason to justify not giving funding or increasing funding for defence. Once Australia gets away from a DOA to DOAAI doctrine it should be some what happier days for the ADF.

I can't see Labor getting back in power anyway and thus not having the option of a second go at ruining the ADF. Other than terrorism the greatest threat to national security is Labor policy on defence matters in my opinion.

 

[cherry]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

8. Additional M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks for Army. (To fully equip our current Armoured Regiment AND another one).

How many additional Abrams would it take to achieve this?

I suppose we can only hope. I seriously believe that ADF and the Government will start to realise that if they want to play with the big boys in overseas deployments then they are going to have to supply our forces with some additional equipment and capabilities. Some of the things we have mentioned are not planned for aquisition at this stage but I really believe that over the next few years we will start to see some of these things creep into revised DCPs.

 

[seantheaussie]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

You considered how big Australia is, how much logisitics problems they have when trying to move stuff around your huge land mass. This shows large transport planes offer at home benefits to with them beginning capable of moving large amounts of gear around.

Okay. You move stuff around Australia with Strategic transport & I will move stuff with 1/10 the value of trucks which when not in army use are leased to civilians. I will move more stuff than you.
I believe any strategic transport will come out of the current budget & there are other more important priorities.

Well I,m all for capability thats for sure and I agree half a dozen C-17'S would be great. It intrigues me somewhat that those who continually preach the DOA mantra generally opt for the lesser capability funny that and yet they speak of treason hehehe.

Give me an unlimited budget & I will take unlimited capability. With the current budget I don't want strategic airlift
Everybody who thinks I am insane for not wanting strategic lift must be able to nominate a current capability of comparable cost which they are willing to sacrifice to pay for it.
I don't seem so stupid now do I?

What are these so-called DOA assets you are referring too? I can't think of a single military capability operated by the ADF that can't (or hasn't) been used in Expeditionary operations.

The vast majority of our armed forces are from or concieved in the DOA era & can therefore be considered DOA assets. I thought I said that it is better to use DOA forces on expeditions than create expeditionary forces which will be less effective per dollar if, God forbid, we ever have to defend Australia alone.

Do you think the best option to defend Australia should it be required is to simply wait and defend HERE or take the fight to the enemy and try and stop them wherever they come from?

We have to deny terrorists sanctuaries & bleed/spend beside the US to maintain the alliance. We have hundreds of vehicles more heavily armoured than up armored hummers so we are currently perfectly capable of doing this.

My personal view is the DOA doctrine is simply used as a reason to justify not giving funding or increasing funding for defence. Once Australia gets away from a DOA to DOAAI doctrine it should be some what happier days for the ADF.

I believe the budget doesn't care what the doctrine is. We will have the same amount of money to pay for DOA or DOAAI but we will be less capable of self defence if too much capital acquisitions & force structure is devoted to expeditionary operations. Devote as much operations money to expeditionary operations as you like.

 

[machina]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I feel the most likely threat to the sovereignty of the nation is not a singular invasion, but rather an invasion as part of a broader strategy in an existing war in which we are already involved with our allies. This is partly why I feel 'expeditionary' and DoA assets are one and the same thing. We are likely to have to fight an expeditionary war in order to defeat a country invading us. Even in a singular invasion that is likely to be the case.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I think the C-130H upgrade program is a waste. All it will give us is an aircraft that can carry the same payload as the one now, is easier to maintain and possesses slightly more advanced avionics. It will not provide us the capability that our existing C-130J's provide or that the A400M would.

I think the current C-130H upgrade money should be invested into new build A400M's, plus the C-130H fleet sold while it still has some value left in it. A 24 strong C-130J-30/A400M fleet would provide much greater airlift capacity and hopefully not cost too much. In addition each A400M is to be plumbed from the outset as a tanker aircraft. A relatively small investment in A2A equipment (for which the development cost will be payed for by others) is all that would be required to provide an excellent enhancement to our currently planned A2A capbility...

In addition I'd sacrifice a near term Global Hawk (or equivalent) purchase for RAAF in favour of additional airlift capacity. That'd free up $1 Billion, add that to the funding for AIR 5416 (C-130H upgrade) and that funds gained from the slae of C-130H and you'd have nearly $2 Billion to fund an A400M or C-17 purchase. That would probably be sufficient to acquire a fleet of 12 A400M's, plus the necessary support, training, logisitics etc...

 

[nz enthusiast]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Is the c-130H program Australia is using, the same as the NZ one. I think aircraft upgrading is good as like a mid-life thing such as what you are doing to your missile frigates and find of like your hornets. BUT life extentions which is essentially what us kiwis are doing with our C-130Hs and what it seems you are doing with yours is, in my view, just plan stupid. Whats the point in having advaced weaponary if you can't move it anywhere. Why doesn't Australia and New Zealand show they do actually have close defence relations and go do a joint investment in the A-400M project or even manufacture their own C-130Js.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Australia is currently undertaking yet another review of it's defence acquisition requirements. This one is due to be published around Christmas this year. The tip is the RAAF will be the big winners with a re-arranged AIR 8000 (Tactical Battlefield airlifter project) being turned into an overall airlift project and expanded to include a strategic airlift capability in it's acquisition plans. Plans for an extra battalion for army etc will also be announced.

As to the M1A1 question, 1 Armoured Regt normally operates 3 squadrons of roughly 20 tanks per squadron, plus a few tanks for RHQ. The 59 M1A1's on order will be sufficient to establish 2 Squadrons only, thus leaving 1 Armd Regt below strength. An additional 20 would therefore be required to bring 1 Armd up to full strength and probably another 70 to equip another Regt the same as the "new" 1 Armd Regt. Additional combat support vehicles would also be required...

 

[seantheaussie]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

In addition each A400M is to be plumbed from the outset as a tanker aircraft. A relatively small investment in A2A equipment (for which the development cost will be payed for by others) is all that would be required to provide an excellent enhancement to our currently planned A2A capbility...

I would dearly love all our transports to be cheaply convertable to tankers, a core DOA capability.

I think the current C-130H upgrade money should be invested into new build A400M's, plus the C-130H fleet sold while it still has some value left in it. A 24 strong C-130J-30/A400M fleet would provide much greater airlift capacity and hopefully not cost too much. In addition each A400M is to be plumbed from the outset as a tanker aircraft. A relatively small investment in A2A equipment (for which the development cost will be payed for by others) is all that would be required to provide an excellent enhancement to our currently planned A2A capbility...

In addition I'd sacrifice a near term Global Hawk (or equivalent) purchase for RAAF in favour of additional airlift capacity. That'd free up $1 Billion, add that to the funding for AIR 5416 (C-130H upgrade) and that funds gained from the slae of C-130H and you'd have nearly $2 Billion to fund an A400M or C-17 purchase. That would probably be sufficient to acquire a fleet of 12 A400M's, plus the necessary support, training, logisitics etc...

I am sorry you have confused me. Are you advocating 12 OR 24 A400M within the current budget?I can't see the money for 24 but that is what the last paragraph might be indicating. I wouldn't buy Global Hawk/Mariner until their accident rate can match manned aircraft.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I'd prefer a fleet of 12 A400M's unless a "magic funding wand" appears from nowhere in which case you could name your preferred quantity... The transport fleet would however be 24 strong comprising the 12 current C-130J-30's and the 12 A400M's...

As to a Global Hawk/Mariner purchase, I think it is an important acquisition that is worthy of the ADF's consideration. I don't think at THIS time of heightened operational deployments and major natural disasters it's the most important capabilty for the ADF to be pursuing though... Relieving some of the pressure on the airlift group is a much more pressing issue IMHO...

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

What would NZ's replacement for the C-130's be?

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Wrong thread Jason, however, it depends on government in power at the time the decision is made, doctrine, costs, ability to pay, likely role, etc.
The military currently uses civilian sea transport for heavy transport to overseas operations, but it has also leased US C-17's, 2 just recently, to ship equipment overseas. If this becomes a regular occurence, even after the MRV is available, then there is a chance A400's may be looked at. Whether they would go a mix, when we are talking of 5 to 6 A/C in total is a mute point (say 4 H-130J and 2 A400) The A400 is obviously going to be overkill in some transport roles. It dawfs the Herc though smaller than the C-17.
As we are due a government change and most last 2 terms, then we are looking at Labour / Green perhaps at the time the decision is due, both prefer transports to fighters, the Greens on their site argue for increased transport ability, so this is a plus for the A400 perhaps.
Basically the Herc is too small for some of the roles required of it, and the A400 may be too big for a one type buy. I'd like to think a 4/2 mix of both types. Or if only 1 type, then 5 A400's.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/fla.htm
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/home.html

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Oops's sorry. I just saw people talking about it so I tried to kindly join in.

 

[nz enthusiast]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

As long as the A-400M can land on Antartica, i reckon we should go for them along (no hurcleus), we will have that problem of having to many aircraft in a to smaller force, like the NZ navy is worried about having to many diffrent types of ships.
The C-130 is still passed around a 1950s airframe, time for the RNZAF to step into the 21st century and get something that was fully designed for it form the start.