Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
"In addition, the Government will acquire a new large hulled multi‐purpose patrol vessel, the Australian Defence Vessel Ocean Protector for the Navy to support border protection and maritime resource security related tasks with the Australian Border Force."
http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/Air-Sea-Lift.pdf
The above would explain why the Ocean Protector was alongside Stirling with Ocean Shield a couple of weeks ago. She was being refitted with RHIB's, had her name changed from Skandi Protector & sailed with a Navy contingent onboard.
http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/Air-Sea-Lift.pdf
The above would explain why the Ocean Protector was alongside Stirling with Ocean Shield a couple of weeks ago. She was being refitted with RHIB's, had her name changed from Skandi Protector & sailed with a Navy contingent onboard.
Bluey 006
Active Member
This is one inclusion I find quite strange - anyone know anything about it? What threat are they intended to defeat?
Im with you on this one, I don, t understand the "need" for this capability.
I would rather sea the $ spent on capability stopping the ships from entering the range of land based anti ship missiles. ie, a few more aircraft with anti ship missiles, or even more artillary rockets.....
Where are they going to put them? Darwin? Christmas Island?
I see the LCM-8 and the LARC V are also down for replacements.
I thought we just acquired these? Are we looking at Captive air vehicles or hovercraft or what?
There was an idea of using an evolved half sized prototype of the UHAC as a LARC V replacement and the full sized UHAC as a replacement of all LCAC/LCM
Could it be that they are concerned about Chinese and possibly Russian ships venturing further south in the Indian Ocean? Secondly the possibility of Chinese and / or Russian naval bases in Port Moresby and / or Fiji, which would mean a lot more of their naval activity in South Pacific waters. Just a thought.
Last edited:
From mainland Australia, Not much of anything I'd imagine (Maybe an extra layer of defence around Darwin?) but they could be of use around Christmas and Coco's (Keeling) islands or maybe they are thinking an asset that is deployable with the LHD's that can provide some manner of defence from sea attack should it be needed?
Turnbull brought it up and was found to be incorrect, same thing happens when the opposition tries the misrepresent the facts. Besides if you look at the ADF around the turn of the millenium, things were not good, it was the middle of civilianisation and the gross incompetence of Moore and Reith, individuals every bit as bad as Smith or Johnston.
This was when DDGs were retired without replacement, Fremantle's were shagged and their replacement was years off because the mid 90s OPC /corvette program had been cancelled. Ready reserve had been disbanded and only one battalion had returned to regular establishment, 8/9 had been disbanded altogether. FFGUP, Seasprite, MU90, M-113AS4, Vigalaire were all behind schedule and over budget. ADF logistics and naval engineering in particular had been hollowed out by a succession of reviews and associated out sourcing. Defence suffered through a succession of second and third rate ministers and was pretty much seen as a departure lounge for dead wood.
I could go on but its pointless as history has now bee effectively reimagined thanks to Gillard's abilities not matching her ambitions and Smiths failure as minister to follow up the ground work laid by Fitzgibbon and Faulkner.
It strikes me that this paper looks like an update of Fitzgibbons, thankfully consigning Smiths to history.
If he had joined the LNP instead of ALP most of those knocking him would be praising him, always the same in politics yesterdays heros become villans and vice versa depending which side of politics they join. The sad thing is we should always be grateful when real people, with real achievements in real careers choose to enter politics, no matter which side, it helps avert the sort of student union political BS that started in the 80s but has really plagued this country since the late 90s with the Gillard, Abbott generation of political hacks.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Perhaps it is a clever ruse? Anti-ship missiles with secondary land attack capability..... or alternatively a deployable capability that can be placed in Middle East or South East Asia - even still it seems very strange for a nation like Australia
The land based anti-ship missiles are designed to be part of Australia's maritime strategy, not to defend mainland Australia.
As part of the maritime strategy, we have to be able to control the choke points in the archipelago to our North, as it is through there that any threat must come. So a deployable anti-ship missile system is designed to work with the land forces that will seize the land dominating these choke points, and be used to achieve sea denial and support sea control. It allows land forces to contribute to the 'joint' fight in the maritime domain.
It's the same as the new medium range GBAD capability. Our current GBAD capability is designed purely for force protection - to stop enemy aircraft from attacking our land forces. A replacement for this capability would just see a SHORAD system bought. The medium range GBAD capability is designed, not for force protection, but to contribute to the joint fight. It can be deployed alongside our land based anti-ship missiles to help deny those choke points to an enemy, instead of relying on aircraft and ships to do it.
Both purchases actually show a level of maturity to Defence planning, as they are not stand alone systems but designed to work as part of a network of capabilities to support Australia's national strategy.
Who knows what the anti-ship missiles will look like though. Can you fit an anti-ship missile into a HIMARs launcher?
Same here, being land based they will have less mobility and range than sea or air based options in that they will need to be flown, shipped or driven in to where they are needed, will take time to set up and will likely be seen going in with OPFOR drawing a range circle around their new location before a target gets anywhere near them. To use them to defend a specific location air or sea launch would be more flexible, so the only possible use I can see is for choke points.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
NSM perhaps, are a joint buy of NSM and JSM from Kongsberg on the cards, perhaps a manufacturing line setup in Australia for it and the Asian market?
I'm jumping to the extreme end here, but now is a good time for speculation.
Otherwise the UK-Franco Persus or the US AGM-158C LRASM are other the other contenders that spring to my mind.
LRASM for ground, surface and sub surface launches would have to be attractive, plus if a true Harpoon replacement also to be fitted to the P-8's.
I'm jumping to the extreme end here, but now is a good time for speculation.
Otherwise the UK-Franco Persus or the US AGM-158C LRASM are other the other contenders that spring to my mind.
LRASM for ground, surface and sub surface launches would have to be attractive, plus if a true Harpoon replacement also to be fitted to the P-8's.
i commented a few weeks back that BF were becoming a naval reserve and ships were getting retasked with new roles
Choke points was the thinking behind the 1990s OPC corvettes and their Harpoons and Penguin armed helicopters (along with ESSM and other defensive systems to keep the platform alive to launch its offensive weapons). Their peace time role would have been patrol and order protection providing OPV level capability to replace the Fremantles but unlike our PBs (in particular the atrocious Armidales) they would actually have a useful war fighting role.
This raises the question as to why we are looking to shore based ASvMs instead of spending the money on making the OPVs more survivable and fitting the missiles to them. It just doesn't seem to make sense investing in a single purpose system that needs to pre deployed to locations that will require permission of regional powers to even set up, that will then be a fixed position that will need to be defended against counter measures, verses buying corvettes or light frigates
rather than OPVs instead.
Even if HIMARs could be used, which would be good as they can also fire SLAMRAAM, there is still the issues with deployment and defence once deployed.
Who's asking permission? We bought an amphibious capability so we don't have to ask permission.
The problem with using armed OPVs is it doesn't throw anything new at the enemy - we've already got ASM armed surface ships. All arming OPVs would do is create more of them, but they can still be countered in the same way
The art of warfare is throwing multiple dilemmas at the enemy so he can't respond adequately. Land based ASMs are a very cheap way of adding a different dilemma at the enemy that would be extremely difficult to counter.
if valid for consideration, it broadens the scope of disruption, dislocation.... adds more risk to red team....
Yup. Peter Jennings said as much on News24 in an interview early this afternoon. They're not to protect manland Australia, but as part of an integrated and interoperable capacity to protect deployed troops either on our own or in coalition operations.
ABC journo looked suitably confused by the response but was in no position to gainsay a member of the expert panel.
oldsig127
jeebuz, Conroy is bloody hopeless - and it appears that Bill is trying to minimise the opportunity for him to pass comment on defence issues. Bill and Plibersek seem to be running cover for him
Poor Lab lost their brains team when Faulkner and Combet left. Faulkner was prepared to listen and Combet as an engineer could comprehend and cut through the fluff
You'd be better off talking to a fire hydrant than talking to Conroy. He makes Kevin Andrews look like Scipio Africanus
- Status