Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sea Toby

New Member
Well, many of these (especially the Collins and F/A-18s) are already on planning during the 70s and delivered on the 80s/90s. But the economic situation during the 80s and 90s do affects the military procurement plannings of ADF during the late 90s and 2000 periods. Just see how much technology edge we have loss from 1970 as one of the most advanced forces in the region, to becomes a "johnny comes lately" in the region on many equipments (such as AEGIS system, AWACS, Gunship helicopter...etc) can tell you how much impact the economic and change in political atmosphere at that 80s and 90s affected the ADF. Personally I feels lucky that ADF doesn't ended up like NZDF...........

Also, during that period, we have 2 very close and very big near miss too: The Kidd class DDG and (most importantly) the HMS Invincible, which ends up become the HMAS "Invisible" and HMAS "Kidding" due to international affairs and internal politics........If they are really becomes a reality, the ADF nowadays may be totally different.
If the army is prepared to overcome tanks, what chance does a Toyota Hilux have?

Why keep the ski jump on the LHD? The ski jump may be used for UAVs, and can be used by other allied F-35B aircraft in the future. If not in wartime lilly pad operations, I can see the ski jump being used in training exercises with our allies. But probably the largest reason is it will cost too much to remove the ski jump.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I believe the offical reason it would add additional cost and risk the the project. Shifting a few hundread tons around from a top of a ship would have required a major redesign.

7 Spots wouldn't have really gained us much anyway (further away from lifts, long way to haul aircraft, lifts can only supply so much, the LHD can only hanger so much etc) in real terms 6 is fine. Plus its conceiveable that UAV's and allied aircraft may make use of the skijump.

Training exercises alone would make it worth it. Im sure the UK and US would be interested in working with us in amphibious operations. In a war time situation with the UK or US we can offer one or two extra land/take off strips thus always allowing a deck to be free during most operations.
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Thank you for the last messages.

My apreciation from the lhd data is that a few jets dont compromise space, nor of parking or munition or spare parts or jp5, neither people because canberras are 1400+ persons capacity, as i say compromises with respect an amphibious-lhd function. it compromises like 6 or 7 mill euros of salaries (25 especialized workers) and taxes for 10 years, which i think is nothing compared with the total amount for the entire army, air force and navy of australia for 10 years.


I add some ranges i did not put and summarize: harrier: one way range 3300 kms, altitude 15000 mts, load 6000 kgs, speed 1100 km/h, plus other interesting characteristics (ejection seat (for risky or "kamikaze" missions), stationary in air and landing everywhere capacity (guerrilla or one way flight))... to shot some tigers a harrier just needs to be at an superior altitude (easy, 74m/s of ascension), even withoout the sidewinders or amraams.

Other movible platform from where to launch missiles-bombs surface/land/air rather than to depend and run out awd or anzacs or to complement it (mavericks, harpoons, jadm, taurus possible).

Awd give a shield, but to be offensive, o counteroffensive, to have some threat against the enemy in their shield (out of your shield) you can have an jet in the play, with an aircraft (helicopter i see it less useful) you stop being passive under your umbrella.

Cheers.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Thank you for the last messages.

My apreciation from the lhd data is that a few jets dont compromise space, nor of parking or munition or spare parts or jp5, neither people because canberras are 1400+ persons capacity, as i say compromises with respect an amphibious-lhd function. it compromises like 6 or 7 mill euros of salaries (25 especialized workers) and taxes for 10 years, which i think is nothing compared with the total amount for the entire army, air force and navy of australia for 10 years.


I add some ranges i did not put and summarize: harrier: one way range 3300 kms, altitude 15000 mts, load 6000 kgs, speed 1100 km/h, plus other interesting characteristics (ejection seat (for risky or "kamikaze" missions), stationary in air and landing everywhere capacity (guerrilla or one way flight))... to shot some tigers a harrier just needs to be at an superior altitude (easy, 74m/s of ascension), even withoout the sidewinders or amraams.

Other movible platform from where to launch missiles-bombs surface/land/air rather than to depend and run out awd or anzacs or to complement it (mavericks, harpoons, jadm, taurus possible).

Awd give a shield, but to be offensive, o counteroffensive, to have some threat against the enemy in their shield (out of your shield) you can have an jet in the play, with an aircraft (helicopter i see it less useful) you stop being passive under your umbrella.

Cheers.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but if you think a Harrier's going to go nearly 3.5 thousand kays on anything but a ferry mission, you're very mistaken. Your kamikaze comment also confuses me as to how seriously you are taking the discussion.

Also what makes you think that a lack of jets on an LHD necessitates a passive footing? You're looking at them from a platform-centric perspective. If jets are necessary, where's the RAAF during this fictional scenario in which the LHD finds itself?

Consider the capability that fast jets give you, then place that capability in the broader context of the ADF's needs. Don't just think about it as the LHD (or for that matter, the RAN) out doing a job all on its own. If we're talking expeditionary warfare, we're talking large scale force integration, and that means top cover from the RAAF.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I don't know where you're getting your information, but if you think a Harrier's going to go nearly 3.5 thousand kays on anything but a ferry mission, you're very mistaken. Your kamikaze comment also confuses me as to how seriously you are taking the discussion.

Also what makes you think that a lack of jets on an LHD necessitates a passive footing? You're looking at them from a platform-centric perspective. If jets are necessary, where's the RAAF during this fictional scenario in which the LHD finds itself?

Consider the capability that fast jets give you, then place that capability in the broader context of the ADF's needs. Don't just think about it as the LHD (or for that matter, the RAN) out doing a job all on its own. If we're talking expeditionary warfare, we're talking large scale force integration, and that means top cover from the RAAF.
If not the RAAF, surely a coalition of air forces. When the US intervened in Grenada, the US had the full support of the other Caribbean island nations as well. The same should and most likely will occur in the South Pacific. In fact, it was the other Caribbean island nations that begged the US to intervene... Nobody likes a rogue state in their neighborhood. See Somalia currently....
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Well, from the engine out-put of a S-70, it seems to me that it can really carry 2 Harpoon.....
Engine thrust has nothing to do with it, whatsoever. Go and look at a few RAN S-70B2 Seahawk photographs and see WHY they will NOT be able to fit 2x 627kg Harpoon missiles, that are 4.7m long each on the helo.

As a hint, RAN looked at fitting the Seasprite Penguin anti-ship missiles to our Seahawk's when the Seasprite was cancelled. The Penguin missile is only 3m's long and only weighs 385kgs and the RAN Seahawks could only carry ONE of them...

By the way, does a SH-70R +Hellfire-II able to detect and engage targets overland?
Definitely. The MH-60R is equipped with an air to surface radar system, an electro-optical FLIR system and electronic support measures and electronic warfare self protection systems (missile approach warning, laser warning, radar warning etc).

Detecting land targets will be no problem whatsoever for the MH-60R...

Imagine when RAN's SH-70R is hunting Somalian privates near the coast, and suddenly a Toyota Hilux "technical" shown up, and firing their heavy machine gun (or even SA-7) to our bird, will the HellFireII able to kill that?
RAN hasn't ordered the MH-60R yet. But if it did, I feel pretty confident that the MH-60R and Hellfire missile which possesses an 8 kilometer standoff range will be able to defeat a heavy machine gun which at best will have an effective range of about 2k's and an altitude of about 2k's and the SA-7 which has a range of about 5k's and an altitude of about 5k's...



-
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Well, many of these (especially the Collins and F/A-18s) are already on planning during the 70s and delivered on the 80s/90s. But the economic situation during the 80s and 90s do affects the military procurement plannings of ADF during the late 90s and 2000 periods. Just see how much technology edge we have loss from 1970 as one of the most advanced forces in the region, to becomes a "johnny comes lately" in the region on many equipments (such as AEGIS system, AWACS, Gunship helicopter...etc) can tell you how much impact the economic and change in political atmosphere at that 80s and 90s affected the ADF. Personally I feels lucky that ADF doesn't ended up like NZDF...........
Planning is one thing. Contract signature and delivery is another. The very first Hornet was not delivered to RAAF until 1984.

From that POV, the JSF planning commenced in the 1990's too...

Most of the projects you see delivered today or in the near future were listed in the 2000 Defence White Paper. The planning work was done, you guessed it, in the 1990's...

The Canberra Ships, AWD's, Armidale Class patrols boats, all worked up through Defence's Capability Development Group as projects of high priority in the 1990's...

Also, during that period, we have 2 very close and very big near miss too: The Kidd class DDG and (most importantly) the HMS Invincible, which ends up become the HMAS "Invisible" and HMAS "Kidding" due to international affairs and internal politics........If they are really becomes a reality, the ADF nowadays may be totally different.
RAN was never going to get Kidd's. Too big, too expensive. Any such acquisition was nothing more than somebodies personal wish list.

As was Invincible IMHO.

They were never Government priorities.
 

the road runner

Active Member
I don't know where you're getting your information, but if you think a Harrier's going to go nearly 3.5 thousand kays on anything but a ferry mission, you're very mistaken. Your kamikaze comment also confuses me as to how seriously you are taking the discussion.
Mate i have to agree....


agc33e Australia dose not need a an Aircraft carrier,as alot of senior members have stated.
For a great reply as to why we dont need an Aircraft carrier(and how 1 Aircraft carrier is a waste)Read Ozzy Blizards POST Number 3137 on PAGE 210,very informative.


Regards..
 
Last edited:

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Thank you for the last messages.

My apreciation from the lhd data is that a few jets dont compromise space, nor of parking or munition or spare parts or jp5, neither people because canberras are 1400+ persons capacity, as i say compromises with respect an amphibious-lhd function. it compromises like 6 or 7 mill euros of salaries (25 especialized workers) and taxes for 10 years, which i think is nothing compared with the total amount for the entire army, air force and navy of australia for 10 years.


I add some ranges i did not put and summarize: harrier: one way range 3300 kms, altitude 15000 mts, load 6000 kgs, speed 1100 km/h, plus other interesting characteristics (ejection seat (for risky or "kamikaze" missions), stationary in air and landing everywhere capacity (guerrilla or one way flight))... to shot some tigers a harrier just needs to be at an superior altitude (easy, 74m/s of ascension), even withoout the sidewinders or amraams.

Other movible platform from where to launch missiles-bombs surface/land/air rather than to depend and run out awd or anzacs or to complement it (mavericks, harpoons, jadm, taurus possible).

Awd give a shield, but to be offensive, o counteroffensive, to have some threat against the enemy in their shield (out of your shield) you can have an jet in the play, with an aircraft (helicopter i see it less useful) you stop being passive under your umbrella.

Cheers.
Mate, I love your enthusiasm, but please take note of the following:

1. There is absolutely no way when loaded for operations are you going to have a harrier go 3,300km (assumedly) 1650km radius from the carrier. You should read 'Sharkey' Wards book on the combat employment of the Harriers during the Falklands War and how limited they were in terms of what could be carried and how far. Falklands War was 1982 - I'm assuming that's maybe twice as long ago as you have been on the planet.

2. Speaking of 1982 - we are talking about a design that dates from the late 1950's (prototype flew in 1960). It's heyday has come and gone for its extremely limited mission and capabilities. There is a reason why it wasn't operated as frontline CAS/Interdiction/Airsuperiority roles by any other forces that didn't need the unique VTOL characteristics of the machine - that was that it wasn't that brilliant an aircraft in the first place. You are advocating purchasing a design that goes back 50 years, - clapped out airframes with many hours and putting a pilots butt into them to face many more capable machines? I'm glad they have a Martin Baker onboard - I'd be using it as soon as I saw anything more capable than a PC-9 coming after me!

3. Even if you were able to get them for $10M each (too much but lets run with that) the cost of support, spares (a whole new inventory) training, simulators, deeper level maintenance facilities etc is going to be ten times that cost per year at a minimum. For only 5 airframes to be costing a half a billion dollars is a massive expense for bugger all return. That cost would buy a couple more A330 tankers to provide a whole shedload more support from our existing fixed wing assets.

4. Two for training/attrition replacements (you'd need way more than that given the age of the machines and their complexity, and the way they alarmingly seem to fall from the sky fairly regularly - they are a demanding beast to fly apparently). 3 Harriers deployed is bugger all. You'd need 3 birds minimum to fly a CAP on the carrier just for starters. What provides air support? How about a bird goes down due to a need for maintenance/battle damage, what effect will 2 x Harriers have?

5. The space required and the redesign to accomodate the munitions and increased bunkerage will add massively to the cost of these vessels and reduce their utility (the original design intent).

6. The PR effect of having them zoom over the crowd's heads can be accomplished by F/A-18's, Super Hornets, F-35's (in future) etc already in the inventory. The most impressive aircraft from a crowd demo perspective was the F111 doing its 'dump and burn' routine - if PR was that important we'd retain a few of them - it isn't and we're not.

7. Finally, as you have been reminded a few times, this topic isn't to be discussed as it isn't going to happen. Unless you can show us documents showing this option is being seriously considered by the higher eschelons of the ADF or the minister, please drop it.

Cheers,
 

agc33e

Banned Member
I don't know where you're getting your information, but if you think a Harrier's going to go nearly 3.5 thousand kays on anything but a ferry mission, you're very mistaken. Your kamikaze comment also confuses me as to how seriously you are taking the discussion.
-----3300 kms ferry range, but it can carry something, froom the wiki, at least in spanish, 1100 combat range, but i dont know if those data include the exterior tanks addittional, i suppose yes.
Kamikaze is the jet entering in zone of missiles etc enemies to launchh a taurus with a nuclear warhead, but saving the life of the pilot
.

Also what makes you think that a lack of jets on an LHD necessitates a passive footing? You're looking at them from a platform-centric perspective. If jets are necessary, where's the RAAF during this fictional scenario in which the LHD finds itself?
Consider the capability that fast jets give you, then place that capability in the broader context of the ADF's needs. Don't just think about it as the LHD (or for that matter, the RAN) out doing a job all on its own. If we're talking expeditionary warfare, we're talking large scale force integration, and that means top cover from the RAAF.
----the lhd can be 4000 kms away from australia, and the jet can help to the raaf also, the lhd can remain in the hot zone, raaf maybe can do it but at a high cost and less flexibility. There are no only small regional conflicts with the need of intervention of allies or raaf, you might need to intervene yourself the ran i mean, you might want to acquire more capacities in afganistan, jets are iinstateneous alternative platforms. To resume: you never know when you will need it.

thanks.
 

rockitten

Member
RAN was never going to get Kidd's. Too big, too expensive. Any such acquisition was nothing more than somebodies personal wish list.

As was Invincible IMHO.

They were never Government priorities.
Well, from what I read on Wiki, our navy actually did placed the order for the HMS Invincible but the order was canceled due to the Falkland war, and the offer of the Kidds (US$30M) is not taken uo because the bad experiences of the 2 Newport LST.......:confused:
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
That might be a tad harsh...

F/A-18's, Seahawks, Blackhawks, PC-9A's, ASLAV, B-707, M-198, L-118/9, RBS-70, C-130J-30, Hawk Mk 127, HMAS Kanimbla/Manoora, ANZAC Class frigates and Collins Class submarines, Harpoon ASM, Paveway laser guided bombs are just the big names...
But how much of that stuff equated to new capability AD? I'm pretty sure most of that stuff was replacement of outdated kit. In contemporary terms the ADF of 1990 carried less weight than the ADF of 1970, but still the strategic environment was significantly less hazardous.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Kamikaze is the jet entering in zone of missiles etc enemies to launchh a taurus with a nuclear warhead, but saving the life of the pilot.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but there is no way I can take anything you're saying seriously with comments like this.

I'm sorry if that offends you but what you've written above is utterly ridiculous. It's a hollywood scenario that's in no way relevant to real world issues of Australian procurement or capability.

----the lhd can be 4000 kms away from australia, and the jet can help to the raaf also, the lhd can remain in the hot zone, raaf maybe can do it but at a high cost and less flexibility. There are no only small regional conflicts with the need of intervention of allies or raaf, you might need to intervene yourself the ran i mean, you might want to acquire more capacities in afganistan, jets are iinstateneous alternative platforms. To resume: you never know when you will need it.
High cost and less flexibility for the RAAF to provide air cover, as opposed to jury-rigging an amphibious assault ship to do a limited version of the same job? They're the RAAF, it's their job to do things like this exactly, why is is less flexible for them to do the jobs for which they're specialised and for the RAN to do the same?

And how exactly is giving the LHDs a limited fixed wing capability going to help in Afghanistan when the country is LANDLOCKED?
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Just a slight disagreement, but a CVH (helicopter carrier) has some ability for power projection, while also the ability to contribute greatly to the defence of a task force.
That’s true to some extent; a CVH really becomes valuable if you are facing a significant SSK/SSN threat. Obviously the North Atlantic possessed a pretty nasty SSN/SSK threat in the 80’s; however that level of ASW requirement is historically quite rare. I cant see the RAN facing anything even remotely comparable to that sort of an SSN/K threat, unless they decide to park smack bang in the middle of the Taiwan straight.

The Canberra-class LHD with hangar space for ~12 helicopters can, in that respect at least, act as a helicopter carrier. What I am not certain of is whether there is sufficient space for maintenance and parts, as well as munitions storage and fuel bunkerage aboard the Canberras to allow them to act as helicopter carriers. That and whether 12 helicopters would be sufficient.

What I have in mind would be for the CVH to be able to have at least two and preferably three or four helicopters aloft at all times. Of the helicopters which are in the air at any given moment, one would be tasked with AEW like the Italian Merlin Mk 112 or the RN Sea King ASaC.7 while the other one (or two or three) would provide an airborne ASW/ASuW screen.

Properly fitted, such an arrangement could significantly extend the sensor footprint of a RAN task force, allowing more options (and time) for a response.

Again, I do not know if such an arrangement could reasonably done with the LHDs on order, it is just something to consider. Particularly when considering the Future Naval Helicopter programme. From what I am aware of with respect to the MH-60R 'Romeo' the radar (APS-147 IIRC) does provide some air traffic tracking capability. If the RAN choses that helicopter, or an Australian variant of the NFH-90 with similar functionality, it might be worthwhile to expand the number required for the Future Naval Helicopter beyond the 24 currently desired to support the surface fleet.

It would be interesting to hear whether or no such an arrangement would overtax the helicopter capabilities of the LHD, or the FAA for that matter.

-Cheers
I can see the value of full time AEW, especially in combination with SM-6. However I'm not sure if the RAN FAA has anywhere near that sort of capability at the moment, we have just enough to equip or surface fleet. Securing funding for the helo's necessary may prove difficult.

As for the LHD, I think extended Helo deployment should be within its capabilities. The biggest issue I can think of is fuel stowage and handling although the vessels are designed with this in mind, though on a smaller scale.
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Colloquial mood, the issue about raaf and flexibility and cost i cannot deep on it, it is a comment to think about. i understand you.:hippie
Cheers.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
----the lhd can be 4000 kms away from australia, and the jet can help to the raaf also, the lhd can remain in the hot zone, raaf maybe can do it but at a high cost and less flexibility. There are no only small regional conflicts with the need of intervention of allies or raaf, you might need to intervene yourself the ran i mean, you might want to acquire more capacities in afganistan, jets are iinstateneous alternative platforms. To resume: you never know when you will need it.

thanks.
That’s the thing though, the RAN is not realistically going to deploy extra-regionally on such a scale without allied involvement. Realistically these things are intended to be used in the south pacific and South East Asia, and there are enough friendly states and Australian possessions around to allow the RAAF to provide top cover. In any case no south pacific military is heavy enough or sophisticated enough to require F-35 level CAS. TACTOM and ARH would be more than enough for such a threat environment.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
But how much of that stuff equated to new capability AD? I'm pretty sure most of that stuff was replacement of outdated kit. In contemporary terms the ADF of 1990 carried less weight than the ADF of 1970, but still the strategic environment was significantly less hazardous.
This is probably a discussion more suited elsewhere but the combat weight of ADF improved remarkably in the early 80's.

F-111 went from being a "dumb bomb" only striker to being a precision striker with Pavetack, Paveway II/III LGB's and Harpoon anti-ship missile capability.

F/A-18 introduced the same precision strike and standoff maritime attack capabilities plus a much improved air defence capability into the tactical fighter force. Mirage III of course having little to no strike capability whatsoever and a more limited A2A capability than the Hornet.

Australia re-introduced a medium artillery capability and for the first time, a weapons locating radar capability, in the 70's it was lightweight towed guns and whatever intell recon troops could provide only.

Australia acquired the Jindalee over the horizon radar system.

Australia invested in a new generation ground based air defence capability - RBS-70.

Australia introduced a comparatively large Blackhawk helo fleet. A substantial improvement over the aging Iroquois fleet and the list goes on - Steyr rifles, Minimi light support weapons, ASLAV-25 vehicles etc, etc.

However this is a RAN thread, so getting back to naval matters:

P-3C Orions actually gained a standoff anti-ship missile capability with the introduction of Harpoon.

Harpoon was introduced into the Oberon Class submarines.

FFG's were introduced and for the first time we had an air defence capable frigate with modern SAM and ASM and CIWS - Phalanx capabilities.

Collins Class submarines were ordered and introduced, with admittedly numerous fixes required down the track, but they WERE designed and manufactured in the 80's to replace the legacy Oberons and offered a marked improvement in operational capability.

A modern Seahawk fleet was acquired and introduced into service. In it's day it was the most modern ASW helo in the world and still provides outstanding capability today, that is barely IF matched within our region.

ANZAC class frigates were designed and ordered to replace our old Destroyer Escorts which were completely obsolete. The ANZAC's were admittedly light on for weapons at the introduction to service, but RAN always intended to upgrade them and in the next few years will turn into truly excellent light frigates, once their ASMD upgrades are completed.

The 90's were a bit less impressive I admit, but there is a time for ordering kit and a time for bedding it down and developing a true operational capability.

As we've seen simply purchasing kit in of itself provides nothing. It takes time to develop a true professional mastery of the kit on order and develop a capability with it. I suspect we are somewhat in this cycle now.

Most of ADF's major combat assets have been replaced or have a replacement authorised in the DCP. I suspect over the next 10 years, we will see more effort on gaining operational capability for our ordered platforms than we will shiny new orders for kit, with a couple of large exceptions (JSF, P-8A etc).
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Well, from what I read on Wiki, our navy actually did placed the order for the HMS Invincible but the order was canceled due to the Falkland war, and the offer of the Kidds (US$30M) is not taken uo because the bad experiences of the 2 Newport LST.......:confused:
Far be it from me to disagree with Wiki, but even if we had ordered the platform and it hadn't been needed for the Falklands, I suspect the order would have been cancelled anyway.

The Kidds were never a starter. Even if the USA gave them to us for free, RAN could not have manned the ships properly anyway.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
This is probably a discussion more suited elsewhere but the combat weight of ADF improved remarkably in the early 80's.

F-111 went from being a "dumb bomb" only striker to being a precision striker with Pavetack, Paveway II/III LGB's and Harpoon anti-ship missile capability.

F/A-18 introduced the same precision strike and standoff maritime attack capabilities plus a much improved air defence capability into the tactical fighter force. Mirage III of course having little to no strike capability whatsoever and a more limited A2A capability than the Hornet.

Australia re-introduced a medium artillery capability and for the first time, a weapons locating radar capability, in the 70's it was lightweight towed guns and whatever intell recon troops could provide only.

Australia acquired the Jindalee over the horizon radar system.

Australia invested in a new generation ground based air defence capability - RBS-70.

Australia introduced a comparatively large Blackhawk helo fleet. A substantial improvement over the aging Iroquois fleet and the list goes on - Steyr rifles, Minimi light support weapons, ASLAV-25 vehicles etc, etc.

However this is a RAN thread, so getting back to naval matters:

P-3C Orions actually gained a standoff anti-ship missile capability with the introduction of Harpoon.

Harpoon was introduced into the Oberon Class submarines.

FFG's were introduced and for the first time we had an air defence capable frigate with modern SAM and ASM and CIWS - Phalanx capabilities.

Collins Class submarines were ordered and introduced, with admittedly numerous fixes required down the track, but they WERE designed and manufactured in the 80's to replace the legacy Oberons and offered a marked improvement in operational capability.

A modern Seahawk fleet was acquired and introduced into service. In it's day it was the most modern ASW helo in the world and still provides outstanding capability today, that is barely IF matched within our region.

ANZAC class frigates were designed and ordered to replace our old Destroyer Escorts which were completely obsolete. The ANZAC's were admittedly light on for weapons at the introduction to service, but RAN always intended to upgrade them and in the next few years will turn into truly excellent light frigates, once their ASMD upgrades are completed.

The 90's were a bit less impressive I admit, but there is a time for ordering kit and a time for bedding it down and developing a true operational capability.

As we've seen simply purchasing kit in of itself provides nothing. It takes time to develop a true professional mastery of the kit on order and develop a capability with it. I suspect we are somewhat in this cycle now.

Most of ADF's major combat assets have been replaced or have a replacement authorised in the DCP. I suspect over the next 10 years, we will see more effort on gaining operational capability for our ordered platforms than we will shiny new orders for kit, with a couple of large exceptions (JSF, P-8A etc).
Again AD, most of that stuff is just evolutionary upgrade or generational replacement of existing capabilities. Hornets were a replacement of the Mirage 5's, Collins were a replacement for the Oberon’s, FFG's were a (poor, in contemporary terms) replacement for the DDG's. Most of these purchases were just intended to maintain the capability in contemporary terms. JORN was a significant new capability.

During the period the RAN lost its carrier and fixed wing FAA, reduced significantly in weight, the size of the army was reduced and % of GDP reduced. There were perfectly good reasons for this but in reality the 60's and 70's were kinder to the ADF than the 80's or 90's. I'm sure Vietnam and a realistic communist threat in South East and East Asia had something to do with it.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Again AD, most of that stuff is just evolutionary upgrade or generational replacement of existing capabilities. Hornets were a replacement of the Mirage 5's, Collins were a replacement for the Oberon’s, FFG's were a (poor, in contemporary terms) replacement for the DDG's. Most of these purchases were just intended to maintain the capability in contemporary terms. JORN was a significant new capability.

During the period the RAN lost its carrier and fixed wing FAA, reduced significantly in weight, the size of the army was reduced and % of GDP reduced. There were perfectly good reasons for this but in reality the 60's and 70's were kinder to the ADF than the 80's or 90's. I'm sure Vietnam and a realistic communist threat in South East and East Asia had something to do with it.
Well I disagree, but I think we're talking semantics here. If you think the Hornet capability was evolutionary over the Mirage III's for example than we will have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid.

Cheers.

AD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top