Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[south]

I've been thinking, and this is dangerous...

LBMS is almost at decision time.

The logistics nightmare of getting an LBMS missile battery + the required air and ground defence and sensors/comms, + the (I'm totally guessing) 250 minimum personel, into position, in a relevant littoral location, without being detected
vs
a couple of missile corvettes each with 50 crew, sensors/ comms, 8 NSM, RAM, no need for slow LSTs or fat C17s with fighter escort.

Hmmm, just thinkin'.

Maybe - but it’s a risk decision.

Why MUST a ground combat element have air defence and ground defence? Why must it have sensors?

Reducing footprint reduces signature, reduces logistics, and reduces the the value of an opponent targeting. Friendly use of Offboard targeting (which such a concept almost certainly needs because of radar horizon) reduces reliance on easily detectable EM emissions.

Despite the constant assertions, even China does not have unlimited magazine depth - small footprint, highly mobile, reduced signature could easily be more survivable than a small TG.

If think about the reciprocal - would you rather be looking for a 250+ person footprint with NASAMs, Radars, an infantry company etc… or a much smaller footprint with a few trucks? Which one are you more likely to employ some of your long range fires against?

 

[Richo99]

Maybe - but it’s a risk decision.

Why MUST a ground combat element have air defence and ground defence? Why must it have sensors?

Reducing footprint reduces signature, reduces logistics, and reduces the the value of an opponent targeting. Friendly use of Offboard targeting (which such a concept almost certainly needs because of radar horizon) reduces reliance on easily detectable EM emissions.

Despite the constant assertions, even China does not have unlimited magazine depth - small footprint, highly mobile, reduced signature could easily be more survivable than a small TG.

If think about the reciprocal - would you rather be looking for a 250+ person footprint with NASAMs, Radars, an infantry company etc… or a much smaller footprint with a few trucks? Which one are you more likely to employ some of your long range fires against?

It would be very interesting to understand the CONOPS for LBMS, and a reduction in footprint would have both upside and down for risk. But I can't help picturing a very isolated troop of Strikemasters left to fend for themselves. This may be better discussed in the army thread ??

 

[south]

It would be very interesting to understand the CONOPS for LBMS, and a reduction in footprint would have both upside and down for risk. But I can't help picturing a very isolated troop of Strikemasters left to fend for themselves. This may be better discussed in the army thread ??

happy if you want to move it there - some pointers for reading include the USMC Stand In Force concept and the tUS Army Multi-Domain Operations

 

[jeffb]

Logistically, the current structure of the RAN & RAAF would struggle to sustain a platoon deployed remotely within Australia let alone offshore. Reducing the LBMS footprint to a level that can be supported makes them irrelevant at least until the boaties get their new ships in the water. I think integral air defence for Army is 100% nessecary as ground forces cannot rely on either of the other services to stand and fight, they will protect their platforms before Army personnel.

The ship is more important than the individual right? Whenever the Army is forward of the Australian mainland there's a chance they will just get left hanging so the other forces can defend Australia.

Current LBMS concept looks to deny sea lanes or project forward, yeah you could deploy systems remotely in ambush which has its own pros & cons, but it also seems like a 75% solution. The concept could evolve to include anti-sub capabilities through drones, deployable sensors and shore-based ASROC which would then give the other services freedom to pursue other missions.

Maybe I'm a little jaded.

 

[hauritz]

I've been thinking, and this is dangerous...

LBMS is almost at decision time.

The logistics nightmare of getting an LBMS missile battery + the required air and ground defence and sensors/comms, + the (I'm totally guessing) 250 minimum personel, into position, in a relevant littoral location, without being detected
vs
a couple of missile corvettes each with 50 crew, sensors/ comms, 8 NSM, RAM, no need for slow LSTs or fat C17s with fighter escort.

Hmmm, just thinkin'.

Good point. The logistics tail can be expensive and vulnerable. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. Missile armed aircraft, ships or submarines can be deployed, and if necessary withdrawn, quickly.

Just looking back at WW2 it was immensely difficult supporting a small garrisoned island. The Japanese failed to defend any of them, either being obliterated, or simply bypassed, and left to wither on the vine.

I can see the benefit of landbased systems on the mainland, or on islands that are well protected from attack, but the idea of island hopping with a missile battery in tow sounds to be a huge drain on resources with very little upside.

 

[Stampede]

Logistically, the current structure of the RAN & RAAF would struggle to sustain a platoon deployed remotely within Australia let alone offshore. Reducing the LBMS footprint to a level that can be supported makes them irrelevant at least until the boaties get their new ships in the water. I think integral air defence for Army is 100% nessecary as ground forces cannot rely on either of the other services to stand and fight, they will protect their platforms before Army personnel.

The ship is more important than the individual right? Whenever the Army is forward of the Australian mainland there's a chance they will just get left hanging so the other forces can defend Australia.

Current LBMS concept looks to deny sea lanes or project forward, yeah you could deploy systems remotely in ambush which has its own pros & cons, but it also seems like a 75% solution. The concept could evolve to include anti-sub capabilities through drones, deployable sensors and shore-based ASROC which would then give the other services freedom to pursue other missions.

Maybe I'm a little jaded.

Not jaded just questioning change
LBMS appears to be something the ADF have embraced in a big way.
I’m sure defence have asked all the questions and played out scenarios for its employment.
Right or wrong it’s happening.
What it actually looks like time will tell.
Platoon , company , battalion size ?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Interesting times

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Good point. The logistics tail can be expensive and vulnerable. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. Missile armed aircraft, ships or submarines can be deployed, and if necessary withdrawn, quickly.

Just looking back at WW2 it was immensely difficult supporting a small garrisoned island. The Japanese failed to defend any of them, either being obliterated, or simply bypassed, and left to wither on the vine.

I can see the benefit of landbased systems on the mainland, or on islands that are well protected from attack, but the idea of island hopping with a missile battery in tow sounds to be a huge drain on resources with very little upside.

Agree

Small anything looks problematic

cheers S