All I would say is that all infantry is light when they dismount. How they arrive at a fight depends on the circumstances. If they have the kit and don’t use it all well and good but they will be useless in a fight versus landed light mechanised forces.
Just on this I will quote the article.
This reads as turning 3 of the hunters into a DDG with 128 missiles per ship. Given governments lack of action on the Navantia extra Hobart offer I would think that is the direction they are going. But this isn't gospel, this is media whispers.
Sejong the Great-class destroyer - Wikipedia
Pre WWII the RAN was envisaged as a cruiser and sloop navy, destroyers were very much a second thought. The cruisers and sloops were modern capable ships the DDs were surplus RN WWI build.
Light and heavy relates to their support equipment and whether they can get it to the fight. Light infantry have more deployable support equipment that they are trained and proficient in the use of.
The amount of variables are ridiculous. Light infantry tactics dictate that they fight on ground of their own choosing, so you would want to use that to make mech forces less effective. Many ways to skin a cat. I remember an exercise where my OC Maj M Evans, had us in a reverse slope defence. It really made it difficult for the enemy to attack us. He was a great leader, and later made Maj General.
In two words NO NO. They're problematic vessels that would cost heaps to sort out.
Pure speculation here.
I can see where you are coming from but the Defmin dropped a clear hint that he is looking at larger numbers of smaller ships. Hopefully this will only be to boost firepower in the short term, with proper DDGs ordered later to follow however many Hunter class are finally built. These could be a new design or a Hunter class evolution. What seems imperative to me is that nothing should be allowed to slow down the construction of the first batch of Hunters.
I know - hence why I hope I’m right!
You could have a line of tier 2 frigates shared by Adelaide and Perth. Perth would be able to start in the mid to late 2020s by swapping out the Arafuras and Adelaide would join in the 2030s after building a reduced number of Hunters
Yes, but it was a bit vague about that. Not about more smaller ships, but on how that would be facilitated exactly. At least from what I got from the press conference.
It is certainly possible that a dedicated air defence/land strike ship, of around 11,000t can fit 128 VLS. Sejong is an off the shelf design, but requires burke levels of crewing, ~300-350.. However the Batch II ships only seem to have 88 VLS. The Japanese have some very large ships designs based off the burke, but do not fit more than 96 VLS. But again, crew intensive ships. I believe the Maya class are the largest Aegis ships now.
At Osborne south, The first Hunter begins construction next month and isn’t due till 2031, and then follow on Hunters are approx every 2 years, 2033, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47 for all nine. Cutting 3 from the order, you’ll have 6 by 2041 with likely a hobart replacement following, The type 83 fits nicely with the timeline as it would enter service post 2043, about 4-5 years after the first of class enters service in the u.k in the late 2030s(much like ssn aukus dates). This path would likely involve getting 3 extra hobarts in the next 8 years built in spain or less likely civmec. A spanish hobart build leaves room for civmec to build smaller tier 2 ships, a civmec Hobart build possibly means tier 2 ships built overseas. A GP frigate instead of the hobarts also a possibility, less capability but much less cost, reduced construction time and less crew.
Reptilla I don't want to be the resident whisperer of doom, but I'll bet my car that you are not going to see 9 hunters. The wording of Marles stating that the worlds navies are procuring large numbers of smaller warships that anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows to be total BS, indicates that this government has absolutely zero interest in defence. If you are looking for type 31 frigates or mogami type vessels you are going to be very letdown. What I believe your going to get is a reduced Hunter build and some claytons warships known as corvettes. This DSR has in reality introduced nothing new, nada, zilch. Full of vague references, a stepdown in the language about China, the problem now evidently is the competition between the US and China destabilising the region. Nothing for the RAAF an emasculated army and by all appearances a denuded Navy. This particular government has raised the white flag I'm afraid.
No one is saying we shouldn't have armour, or that it is not useful in our region. It's not a choice between no armoured support and armoured battlegroups that would be at home on the battlefields of Europe. And our adversary will be just as limited as we are. There are few places you can fight a battle of armed maneuver in South-East Asia / the South Pacific.
…. that’s an awful lot of bold statements with a high degree of certainty without a lot of support.
My apologies these are my views and mine alone. And therefore am entitled to express them. Do I have proof no I don't. But I'll be more than happy to have this conversation with you in 6 months. Spending heading to levels not seen since the cold war? Please show me some figures because I cant find them. If you mean the spending that the last administration put in place well as far as I know it may sit at 2.2% of GDP but what I do know is that there will be no increases for the next four years so much for strategic urgency. As far as I see it, this DSR has gone backwards its a nothing document written by a couple of hacks whose claim to fame happen to be the worst defence minister in 50 years assisted by the worst CDF in 50 years.
Not much, I'd say. But JC1 was designed with F-35B in mind.