Australia is not ready for war

[FutureTank]

He's actually absolutely correct. You're advocating developing

1) Tactical lift.
2) Naval production.
3) Artillery.
4) Light armor.

The price tag for all of that development and integration is huge. And if you're thinking about exports, think again. The export market is a very harsh place. Look at Sweden, who has a long time history of independent development. They're currently being forced to cut back on development, and instead are working closer with other European countries, and in particular with the US. Mainly because they can no longer offset the development costs with domestic purchases, and can't win enough export orders to make it worth while.

And the bottom line is that it's just cheaper to get it abroad. Now you talk about mismanagement. Can you point out specific instances? Or is that your general opinion without anything to support it?

Lets see....
Spain has about the same sized armed forces as Australia, and about the same defence budget
It had developed capability for building own
1) tactical lift
2) naval production
3) no artillery
4) light armour

Three out of four is not bad.

The price tag for all of that development and integration IS huge, but what about the added value to the national economy and security?

So if Sweden is going out of business, Australia should not even consider being entrepreneurial? But Sweden does provide for itself ok.

Examples of mismanagement...where do you want me to start?! Almost every platform and system in the ADF inventory over the last 50 years has been stuffed up to some degree.

However, this thread is not about mismanagement of ADF projects, but its readiness for war.
At what point in the last 60 years had Australian forces been able to say they are fully capable of engaging in a conventional conflict with another state in defence of Australian interests?

Lets say that Indonesia has a change of government, and that new administration decides to reinvade Timor-Leste. Is Australia prepared to engage in full blown war in Timor? I seriously doubt it. There is no capability to lift and deploy even a whole brigade, never mind a reinforced one. Can the Australian, and I presume NZ, navies regain control of the Timorese waters? Can we handle loosing a frigate or a submarine? Will the Super Hornets offer required support when operating at the extreme of the combat range? Can the RAN/RNZN sustain combat effort in Timor? Can the ADF take to the offensive and occupy the Sawu island?

 

[Marc 1]

Lets see....
Spain has about the same sized armed forces as Australia, and about the same defence budget
It had developed capability for building own
1) tactical lift
2) naval production
3) no artillery
4) light armour

Three out of four is not bad.

The price tag for all of that development and integration IS huge, but what about the added value to the national economy and security?

So if Sweden is going out of business, Australia should not even consider being entrepreneurial? But Sweden does provide for itself ok.

Examples of mismanagement...where do you want me to start?! Almost every platform and system in the ADF inventory over the last 50 years has been stuffed up to some degree.

However, this thread is not about mismanagement of ADF projects, but its readiness for war.
At what point in the last 60 years had Australian forces been able to say they are fully capable of engaging in a conventional conflict with another state in defence of Australian interests?

Lets say that Indonesia has a change of government, and that new administration decides to reinvade Timor-Leste. Is Australia prepared to engage in full blown war in Timor? I seriously doubt it. There is no capability to lift and deploy even a whole brigade, never mind a reinforced one. Can the Australian, and I presume NZ, navies regain control of the Timorese waters? Can we handle loosing a frigate or a submarine? Will the Super Hornets offer required support when operating at the extreme of the combat range? Can the RAN/RNZN sustain combat effort in Timor? Can the ADF take to the offensive and occupy the Sawu island?

Future Tank, mate I recant. You are absolutely right we should produce everything ourselves. Bugger it, why not an F-35 competitor too! I just wonder how we'd go as a nation with defence spending being at what 10% of GDP?

Have you ever thought that there are reasons why the countries that have their own military industries have them for a reason other than cost effectiveness?

Sweden. A very near neighbour of the then Soviet Russia didn't want to be seen as taking sides with Nato or the Warpac countries (neutral). Also blessed with fairly unique weather and geography so much of the off the shelf gear didn't fit their requirements EG Hagglunds bv206. So they went it alone with many projects not because it was cheaper, but it was politically expedient and the gear was designed to suit their requirements.

South Africa. Faced sanctions due to their stance on Apharteid (SP?) - they were fighting a conflict in Angola and no bugger would sell them armaments. SO they built their own. And despite the buckets of dollars, they haven't been that successful either - how many Rooivalks have been sold? How much do you think that cost to develop and market? The G6 (despite what I thought would have been a shoe in for Aussie conditions in the early 90's) hasn't exactly set the world on fire either.

Spain. An industry that has been largely supported by its own government. Here is the list of aircraft that CASA built before it integrated with EADS and produced the Cn235 and 295: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CASA_aircraft

Note which nations operate the aircraft. These airframes were clearly sold on the basis of cost or to areas that were on some sort of blackban list for US equipment. The few that were bought by the US are not even listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft

They were not bought in any numbers by western airforces because they were not good enough. Is this what you want for our aircrew and the diggers in the back?

Brazil. Again political considerations etc.


Look at it another way, the UK used to manufacture nearly all of their own transport aircraft and had a thriving aviation industry. Manufacturers like Blackburn, Armstrong Whitworth, Avro etc. Why aren't they still producing aircraft for britain? Because they made some poor decisions about what to produce and they couldn't sell their goods. What's to say we wouldn't make the same blunders - and we are virtually starting from scratch. If you want to encourage local manufacturers give Gippsland Aeronatics a bit of encouragement to design something larger than the GA-8. Start small, and look for progress in a decade. Believe it or not they have acquired the rights to build Nomads from scratch. Unless there have been modifications I don't think they'll set the world on fire either - then again, maybe they will litterally set parts of the world on fire if they start falling out of the sky sans tails (be happy to be proven wrong though).

I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of work that goes into designing a state of the art military transport. The A400 is a state of the art turboprop transport that is massively late and as has recently been revealed is not even making its design parameters. This is a company that has the aeronautical experience to produce thousands of airliners, backed by 6 governments and 200 firm orders that has just revealed that the design was significantly overweight and that the payload instead of being 40 tonnes will be more like 32 tonnes. Oops! And no, I don't think it's right to simply send our pilots and diggers in the back to war in something like a Nomad.

And no, Australians don't make their own cars (as disingenuous as you consider it) they tend to modify already existing vehicles - much the same way we tried to modify the M113's. There is nothing ground breaking in lengthening and updating M113's, many countries around the world have done exactly that. Yet, rather than take an existing off the shelf solution, we had to go down the path of reinventing the wheel again. Compared with designing an producing a brand new AFV or tactical transport aircraft, this is simple stuff, yet the project is years late and millions over budget. And you want us to produce a Caribou replacement?

@Stingray OZ, Fords I6 donk whilst one of the most efficient I6 engines due to its continual development over the past 40 years, has an iron block. Alloy head arrived in the early 1980's.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Kevin Rudd to announce Australia's biggest military build-up since World War II



- Defence white paper to be released
- Will be biggest boost to military since WWII
- Multi-billion-dollar investment in defence

KEVIN Rudd is set to announce Australia's biggest military build-up since World War II, led by a multi-billion-dollar investment in maritime defence, including 100 new F-35 fighters, a doubling of the submarine fleet, and powerful new surface warships.

The new defence white paper will outline plans for a fundamental shake-up of Australia's defence organisation to ensure that the nation can meet what the Prime Minister sees as a far more challenging and uncertain security outlook in Asia over the next two decades.

China's steadily growing military might and the prospect of sharper strategic competition among Asia's great powers are driving the maritime build-up, which will see new-generation submarines and warships equipped with cruise missiles, and a big new investment in anti-submarine warfare and electronic warfare platforms, including new naval helicopters.

The white paper will consider the emerging non-traditional threats to Australia, including cyber security, climate change and its associated risk of large uncontrolled people movements, The Australian reports.

Senior government sources say Mr Rudd has insisted that defence spending remain largely insulated from the Government's budget difficulties, but the Defence Department will still have to find at least $15 billion of internal savings over the next decade to help pay for the $100 billion-plus long-term equipment plan.

Mr Rudd said yesterday the delivery of the white paper was proving "acutely challenging as we work to defend ourselves from the global economic storm".

"It is the most difficult environment to frame the Australian budget in modern economic history. It is also the most difficult environment to frame our long-term defence planning in modern economic history as well," he told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce.

"Nevertheless the Government will not resile even in the difficult times from the requirement for long-term coherence of our defence planning for the long-term security of our nation. This is core business for government.

"That is why we have forged ahead in our preparation of the defence white paper because national security needs do not disappear because of the global recession. If anything, those needs become more acute."

Funding pressures will mean the navy will not get a fourth air warfare destroyer, and the delivery of the first batch of the RAAF's F-35 joint strike fighters will slip by at least one year to 2014-15.

The huge cost of paying for the next-generation defence force, due to be detailed in the white paper and the forthcoming 10-year defence capability plan, will have little impact on the defence budget over the the next four years.

Apart from the air warfare destroyers and the F-35 fighters, most of the planned defence purchases will not have to be paid for until well into the next decade and beyond.

Mr Rudd and Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon are expected to release the long-awaited white paper as early as next week, with the more detailed 10-year defence capability plan due to published by mid-year.

The naval build-up will be led by a planned 12-strong submarine fleet expected to replace the Collins-class boats from 2025.

It will enable the RAN to deploy up to seven boats to protect Australia's northern approaches, including key maritime straits running through the Indonesian archipelago, at times of high threat.

The white paper will outline the requirement for a new class of eight 7000-tonne warships equipped with ballistic missile defence systems similar to the three air warfare destroyers already on order that will eventually replace the Anzac frigates.

A new class of 1500-tonne corvette-size patrol boats able to take a helicopter is slated to replace the Armidale-class vessels from the mid-2020s.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...16-421,00.html

 

[swerve]

Lets see....
Spain has about the same sized armed forces as Australia, and about the same defence budget
It had developed capability for building own
1) tactical lift
2) naval production
3) no artillery
4) light armour
...

1) With heavy government (including Indonesian) support, had some success in the basic low-cost market. Imports engines complete. Greatest success (with one major problem, at present) has been since being folded into EADS, which turned it into the assembler of tactical lift supplier for much of Europe, as part of a multi-national firm, with component suppliers spread across a continent Your Australian solution can't work like that.

2) A success - but built on a civil shipbuilding industry many times the size of Australias.

3) Spain has built its own artillery. It builds its own 155mm L/52 gun - but I've not heard of orders other than by the Spanish army. Same firm as the AFVs.

4) Spains builder of armoured vehicles had to be rescued. It's now a subsidiary of a US firm, building one tank under licence (with strict demarcation to ensure the technology does not spill over to the rest of the firm, as it's designed by a competitor of the current owners), & (in collaboration with another subsidiary of the firm, in another country), an IFV which is part of the parent firms overall product line. Other vehicles are out of production, & Spain now imports other AFVs.

What does this tell us? That the example you put forward is dependent for its successes either on a pre-existing national industrial specialism, or on merging into a large, transnational, system. i.e. in the latter case, abandoning the autarky you seek. Australia has the first, to some extent, in vehicles - hence Bushmaster. Fine, a niche Australia can do well in. It also has the possibility of similar success in naval radars, & maybe some other niches. But the sort of general, across the board indigenous design, development & production you advocate has never come remotely near success in any country with similar resources or spending.

 

[kato]

3) Spain has built its own artillery. It builds its own 155mm L/52 gun - but I've not heard of orders other than by the Spanish army. Same firm as the AFVs.

Colombia bought 13 units in 2007.

Spains builder of armoured vehicles had to be rescued. It's now a subsidiary of a US firm

Actually, the AFV-developing part of INI/SEPI, Enesa (Pegaso brand, specifically the BMR-600 series) was bought by Iveco.
Santa Barbara only ran one of the production plants and apparently took over the BMR designs with the sale of Enesa (although i'm not sure whether Iveco didn't take over the BMR design as well, since they bought the full company and the full Pegaso brand!) before it was bought by GDLS 10 years later.

an IFV which is part of the parent firms overall product line

ASCOD was developed a decade before GDLS bought Santa Barbara in 2001, and started production 5 years before the buy. The Austrian producer was bought by GDLS in 2003. Afaik, the design is still co-owned by the two subsidiaries, not the parent company (which does make a difference).

 

[Aussie Digger]

"New threats, new tactics and new technologies will continue to evolve and we as a defence organisation need to use gatherings such as this to stay ahead of the game and ensure that the forces we field to meet the threats of the 21st century are the best trained, best equipped and best motivated troops on the modern battlefield."

New threats?

New tactics?

New technologies?

In the region we face, there certainly are new threats:

1. Introduction of new fighters jets (modern SU-27/30 variants, advanced F-16 variants, advanced F-15 variants, J-10 and evolving Chinese designed fighters).

2. Surface warfare vessels (Singapore's La Fayette based designs, Malaysia has a new class of frigate recently introduced into service and Pakistan, India, China, South Korea and Japan are all building new designs on top of their existing powerful fleets),

3. submarines( Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea, China, Pakistan and India are all introducing new submarine fleets).

4. Main battle tanks (Pakistan, India, China, Singapore, Malayasia, South Korean, Japan, Taiwan all have advanced MBT capabilities with new or near new fleets)

5. Infantry fighting vehicles (an enormous range, most of which dwarf the capability of our M113AS3/4),

6. Anti-tank guided weapons (an enormous range, headlined by Javelin which we possess, but available in types and quantities that weren't even 10 years ago)

7. Artillery, most nations in SEA and wider Asia possess a significantly enhanced artillery capability to us. Singapore, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, India, Japan and Pakistan all possess towed and self-propelled 155mm (and similiar) artillery systems and multiple launch rocket systems.

8. Air defence systems. Most nations in SEA and wider Asia possess an air defence system substantially more capable than ours. Our C4ISR capability might be sound, but the GBAD systems we possess are a very limited capability in the scheme of things...

Need I go on?

Does the Minister know what he is talking about?

Not really in my opinion...

To my best knowledge there has not been any evidence of new threats for the past decade since the operation in East Timor. Indonesia is now a potential threat to Timor Leste, and Australia underwrites its security.

Military threat is increasingly constantly. Try a bit of research into the matter, you might be surprised...

The tactics used on land, at sea and in the air remain at those of Cold War or earlier. Certainly the operations in Afghanistan continue in the same way they had as far back as the Soviet period, the refugees take the same routes to reach Australia, and nothing much changed in the air.
The only new technologies that might pose a threat to Australia has been the development of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan, mostly Pakistan. If Pakistan turns an Islamic state, the anti-ballistic capability of the ships to be purchased by the RAN will come in handy since Australian infidels are busy in Afghanistan now. However, this is a capability Australia should have had a long time ago because China is still a communist state, and so no different to the Soviet Union of the Cold War days.

God you are lacking into insight. Tell you what, go and research Afghanistan and Iraq and LEARN what our troops are actually doing there.

You clearly have no clue whatsoever.

As a prime example of changing tactics, here is one little acronym. It's called IED...

Best trained troops? Well, if we only had enough of them. Even most regular battalions are under strength, and the Navy can't effectively crew all its ships now, while the RAAF is always looking for more aircraft support personnel. Probably Australian troops are best trained because many are also overworked.

And what deployment have we been unable to meet? We possess 7 operational infantry battalions now, with the 8th - 8/9RAR still building up. Approximately 1.5 infantry battalions in total out of the regular force is actually deployed on operations now.

Significant numbers are available for deployment and though it's quite fashionable to point out how "stretched" we are and argue about our force being unable to complete even a "Timor style" mission, I would point out that at NO point did we ever have MORE than 3 infantry battalions, plus supporting elements deployed to Timor, even in late 1999 / early 2000.

2 RAR, 3 RAR and 5/7 RAR were the battalions in the "first wave" of Interfet. 1 RAR, 4 RAR and 6 RAR stayed at home and built up for replacement of these battalions, which they did in 2000.

We now have an additional full strength battalion available over and above what we had then and if you think availability of infantry within the battalions is a current problem, you might ask yourself why battalions are having to run infantry IET courses within their own units, in addition to those run at Singleton...

Best equipped, but for what? He has now approved what amounts to a complete replacement of the old M113 fleet with the Bushmasters that are only good for internal security duties in a low intensity conflict scenario.

Rubbish. Northern Ireland was a low intensity conflict. Afghanistan and Iraq are MASSIVELY different in intensity and the Bushmaster has proven outstanding in these operations.

In addition, the Bushmaster has NOT replaced the M113 (except within B Squadron 3/4 Cav) but rather is a SUPPLEMENT to it.

You might have noticed that Defmin FITZGIBBIN announced an order for an additional 81x M113AS3/4's a few months back? Primarily a result of the additional battalions under ELF/HNA. That brings the order book for M113AS3/4 to 431 vehicles in total.

The order book for Bushmasters is now about 720 vehicles and we have 257 ASLAV vehicles (of all variants).

That's a light armoured vehicle fleet of about 1400 light armoured vehicles, when all delivered.

Compare this to the pre-Bushmaster days of about 550 in-service M113's and 112 ASLAV variants.

A significant difference no? And a completely different force to the one you seem to think exists...

The refurbished M113s are still representing the thinking of 1960s in terms of employing infantry, which is the most numerous and important part of the Army.

If you think carrying infantry in armoured vehicles is obsolete, I'm glad YOU are not the Defmin. We'd have had hundreds of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan otherwise...

As to the refurbished M113 idea. Apparently not everyone thinks upgrading old vehicles is such a bad idea.

Australia is doing it, America has done it (M113A3), Israel has done it and the UK are doing a similar upgrade with their Bulldog upgrades of FV432 "boxed" armoured vehicles...

While another navy of RAN size and disposing of same budged can put to sea two task forces with each having a small F-35B equipped aircraft carrier and an LPD, both with troops trained to dedicated operations from these vessels, Australia will have only the LHD in its TF and no fixed wing element. It will use the regular infantry who will cross-train for land and amphibious operations.

And? The concept is proven on a regular basis. It's called exercise Sea Lion...

When they go ashore in their modified M113s and escorted by the new Abrams tanks, they will have no air cover or air defence because the RBS70 the Army has can not be fired on the move from atop the M113.

Apparently the Air Warfare Destroyers and ANZAC class frigates won't have air defence capabilities, eh?

Apparently RAAF doesn't possess air defence capabilities eh?

The RBS-70's aren't fired from the top of M113's, that is true. They are fired from their own Perentie 6x6 wheeled vehicles and in future the Land Rover replacement under LAND 125, or possibly Bushmaster.

Again, research helps here....

With the elimination of the F-111s Australia, located at the edge of the Indian-Pacific region, will not have a long range strike element either.

Aha.. The old F-111 range issue. This is the weakest argument you've delivered yet. What is the useful strike range of the F-111 anyway, off hand?

Best motivated by what, denying combat service to the infantry, or giving the gunners 120mm mortars?

WTF?

There are no 120mm mortars in-service in the ADF.

From May 2005 to December 2007 the Army accepted for service ten Tiger helicopters, but the Dutch still provide aviation fire support for Australian troops in Afghanistan. I would have though that the Army could train eight pilots and their support crews in three years.

The French have more than 10x Tigers in-service, how many have they got operating, on deployment?

It is a brand new aircraft that has not even reached INITIAL OPERATING CAPABILITY in any Country (Germany, Spain, France or Australia yet).

Of course we cannot deploy it. We have more than 8 pilots and battle captains trained, but that is not enough, yet.

The RAAF could also help out, if only by deploying the Hawks in light attack role that can also be used to train Afghani pilots, but nope, no RAAF for combat duties. Maybe a RAN patrol boat or two to operate from Kenya (a Commonwealth country) in counter-pirate role? Nope, stretched with the boat people as it is.

Yes RAAF could help out, but why on Earth would you deploy Hawks? No PGMs, no targetting capability beyond a gun sight and the Mk 1 eyeball and no EWSP capability because they are a TRAINER...

As to training Afghan pilots, are you for real? What the hell do they need training on a lead in fighter designed to train F/A-18 pilots for?

Why not F/A-18 Hornets?

The Minister also thinks that "We must pay attention to providing the best protection possible to the soldiers we put into harm's way by ensuring our vehicles take advantage of the most up-to-date protective technologies to ensure their survivability against modern-day threats,".
What up-to-date protective technologies does he think can be added to the Bushmaster to counter 12.7mm or larger calibre fire, or some of the more modern Russian RPGs? Maybe he is talking about the LAND 121 vehicles, but the United States' Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program is unlikely to be delivered inside 3 years, and the Obama Administration really hope to be out of Afghanistan by then.

Applique armour, just as the Dutch have done woiuld be a start...

Reactive armour packages exist...

Active protection systems exist...

As for US being out of Afghanistan in 3 years. Show me a link that says so, because I call utter BS and only your lack of insight to claim this.

They are in fact in the process of significantly ramping up their deployed forces in the Ghan.

 

[StingrayOZ]

@Stingray OZ, Fords I6 donk whilst one of the most efficient I6 engines due to its continual development over the past 40 years, has an iron block. Alloy head arrived in the early 1980's.

What I was actually refering to is the next generation I6 engine that will be an aluminium block. http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/21/ford-australia-saves-jobs-and-inline-6-with-big-investment/

Machines that can quickly machine (or hydroform) and manufacture complicated items out of aluminium and other metals (like blocks and heads) are extremely valuable during war time. Combined with carbon fiber ovens, and high technology suppliers (silicon chip fabrication plants). Not just the machines, but the ability to maintain and operate them.

During war time it, factories like Ford and Holden could easily be adapted to manufacture other items. More importantly the people that work at them have strong understanding of manufacturing, design, logistics, and can train others or assist in setting up other operations etc.

Have you ever visted Australian manufacturing sites? Most utilise WWII era methology and technology.

The Auto industry in Australia almost single handedly drives Australian manufacturing in all areas forward due to its competiveness.

 

[Marc 1]

What I was actually refering to is the next generation I6 engine that will be an aluminium block. http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/21/ford-australia-saves-jobs-and-inline-6-with-big-investment/

What next generation engine? That's just marketing spin to disguise the fact that this iron blocked engine dates back to the 1960's. It's the original Grandfather's axe - 5 different handles, 3 heads and all. I'm not knocking the design, it is incredibly well regarded due to years of careful honing, upgrading and development - the I6 turbo is a world beater, but I6 doesn't work so well from a modern day packaging point of view which is why this great engine will remain a small niche product in Ford's down under outpost.

That press release was the spin that Ford's marketing department put on the news that Ford would no longer be importing the 3.7 V6. The majority of the money was spent on getting the old donk to meet the tougher emissions standards - if it wasn't for the GFC the Aussie I6 would be a gonner.

Where does it say in your link that the new engine will have an aluminium block? You may have been duped by the fact the block has been painted to match the aluminium head - marketing at it's best- allude to one thing, but not confirm it with words.

Proof is in the spec sheet: http://www.alto.com.au/alto-ford/new-vehicles-detail/ford-falcon-g6e-turbo-fg/1876

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is not for the FG. This is post Euro IV emissions.

http://www.countrycars.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=41772

While the current motor has all the necessary hardware in its cylinder heads - twin overhead cams, four valves a cylinder and variable valve timing - to be competitive, the cast-iron engine block takes that bit longer to reach operating temperature.

Any engine runs below its optimum while warming up and that extra time it takes for the Barra engine to warm up is believed to make the difference in emissions tests.


I have heard from other sources it is going to be aluminium, but again, it hasn't happend so anything is possible. Graphite grey iron is also another option...

 

[swerve]

Colombia bought 13 units in 2007.

Ta. I missed that.

Actually, the AFV-developing part of INI/SEPI, Enesa (Pegaso brand, specifically the BMR-600 series) was bought by Iveco.
Santa Barbara only ran one of the production plants and apparently took over the BMR designs with the sale of Enesa (although i'm not sure whether Iveco didn't take over the BMR design as well, since they bought the full company and the full Pegaso brand!) before it was bought by GDLS 10 years later.

ASCOD was developed a decade before GDLS bought Santa Barbara in 2001, and started production 5 years before the buy. The Austrian producer was bought by GDLS in 2003. Afaik, the design is still co-owned by the two subsidiaries, not the parent company (which does make a difference).

Ah, that explains the Spanish army fondness for IVECO designs nowadays. Doesn't affect the principle, though. Spain does not have an independent armoured vehicle industry. Its producers are integrated into multi-national firms, & building under licence, or joint products. There is no hint of the autarky that has been put forward as an aim for Australia.

 

[FutureTank]

Future Tank, mate I recant. You are absolutely right we should produce everything ourselves. Bugger it, why not an F-35 competitor too! I just wonder how we'd go as a nation with defence spending being at what 10% of GDP?

Did I say to make an F-35? Mind you, the RAAF could be flying the Typhoon by now.

Spain GDP (PPP) 2008 $1,397 trillion Defence budget US$18,974 (1.36%)
Australia GDP (PPP) 2008 $795.305 billion Defence budget US$15,744 (1.98%)

Now go and compare the force structures between Australia and Spain.

Have you ever thought that there are reasons why the countries that have their own military industries have them for a reason other than cost effectiveness?

Self-sufficiency? Technological advancement? Cooperation with allies?

Sweden. A very near neighbour of the then Soviet Russia didn't want to be seen as taking sides with Nato or the Warpac countries (neutral). Also blessed with fairly unique weather and geography so much of the off the shelf gear didn't fit their requirements EG Hagglunds bv206. So they went it alone with many projects not because it was cheaper, but it was politically expedient and the gear was designed to suit their requirements.

And? Lets see. Australia. Its very near neighbour is Indonesia that buys equipment from France (non-NATO) and former USSR. Further to the north is Communist China with an ever increasing defence budget. Its blessed with fairly unique weather and geography, so much of the off the shelf gear didn't fit their requirements. So rather then designing own equipment, the ADF bought some from other states like the M113s that had to be modified, but are not suitable for amphibious operations in the tropics, and LAVs that had to be modified, and are only somewhat suitable for amphibious operations, and Bushmasters which are unsuitable for amphibious operations (so can't follow the LAVs), but are suitable for the weather, and M1 Abrams, which are suitable for amphibious operations, but we need the USMC for that. But hey, its not like the ADF actually considered amphibious operations as a significant doctrinal concern despite the region to the north being all islands and coastlines. No, unlike Sweden that thought about its weather and geography in the 1950s, the ADF started developing its amphibious operations as a doctrine in 2007 when the planned capability first became a promise.

South Africa. Faced sanctions due to their stance on Apartheid (SP?) - they were fighting a conflict in Angola and no bugger would sell them armaments. SO they built their own. And despite the buckets of dollars, they haven't been that successful either - how many Rooivalks have been sold? How much do you think that cost to develop and market? The G6 (despite what I thought would have been a shoe in for Aussie conditions in the early 90's) hasn't exactly set the world on fire either.

And? Maybe they have not sold the equipment, but they have self propelled artillery in the park, and they have the capability to sell it...to the ADF.

Spain. An industry that has been largely supported by its own government. Here is the list of aircraft that CASA built before it integrated with EADS and produced the Cn235 and 295: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CASA_aircraft
But the Australian Government has been saying it supports Defence Industry for at least 30 years! It is only because of the experience and success of CASA that EADS integration became possible.

Note which nations operate the aircraft. These airframes were clearly sold on the basis of cost or to areas that were on some sort of blackban list for US equipment. The few that were bought by the US are not even listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft

They were not bought in any numbers by western airforces because they were not good enough. Is this what you want for our aircrew and the diggers in the back?

And the ADF doesn't buy on the consideration of cost? However, it is now so committed to integration into the US forces structure that we are becoming tied to US systems and therefore expenditures made based on entirely different budgetary considerations. The ADF is not the US Army, US Navy or the US Air Force. It is, by its mode of operation, structure, past history and its regional 'terrain' more of a national equivalent of the USMC. Wherever the Australian defence forces go, they go by ship, the exception being Afghanistan. Where as the operation of small integrated amphibious task forces should have been the modus operandi for the ADF since the Second World War, as it stands now we can't even make a decent flat bottomed landing craft!
In any case, there is no law that says we have to make cheap and bad tactical lift aircraft. We could do worse than an Osprey, which are expensive and bad.

Brazil. Again political considerations etc.

Ok, and? There are always political considerations. Check out F-22 no-sale.

Look at it another way, the UK used to manufacture nearly all of their own transport aircraft and had a thriving aviation industry. Manufacturers like Blackburn, Armstrong Whitworth, Avro etc. Why aren't they still producing aircraft for britain? Because they made some poor decisions about what to produce and they couldn't sell their goods. What's to say we wouldn't make the same blunders - and we are virtually starting from scratch. If you want to encourage local manufacturers give Gippsland Aeronatics a bit of encouragement to design something larger than the GA-8. Start small, and look for progress in a decade. Believe it or not they have acquired the rights to build Nomads from scratch. Unless there have been modifications I don't think they'll set the world on fire either - then again, maybe they will litterally set parts of the world on fire if they start falling out of the sky sans tails (be happy to be proven wrong though).

If you never never go, you never never know? Sounds familiar? What's to say that if the UK manufacturers made bad decisions, Australian manufacturers would also? Got to start somewhere though, right?

I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of work that goes into designing a state of the art military transport. The A400 is a state of the art turboprop transport that is massively late and as has recently been revealed is not even making its design parameters. This is a company that has the aeronautical experience to produce thousands of airliners, backed by 6 governments and 200 firm orders that has just revealed that the design was significantly overweight and that the payload instead of being 40 tonnes will be more like 32 tonnes. Oops! And no, I don't think it's right to simply send our pilots and diggers in the back to war in something like a Nomad.

And? Did you consider that being a massive organisation backed by six governments is not always of a benefit to an engineering project? Until recently Australians were servicing and still are all Qantas aircraft. Are you saying that a C-17 is more complex than a 747? If it is, its not by much. I am not underestimating anything, though I am sceptical about how an aircraft can be built after years of design that is 32t overweight also.

And no, Australians don't make their own cars (as disingenuous as you consider it) they tend to modify already existing vehicles - much the same way we tried to modify the M113's. There is nothing ground breaking in lengthening and updating M113's, many countries around the world have done exactly that. Yet, rather than take an existing off the shelf solution, we had to go down the path of reinventing the wheel again. Compared with designing an producing a brand new AFV or tactical transport aircraft, this is simple stuff, yet the project is years late and millions over budget. And you want us to produce a Caribou replacement?

And this is what I'm saying. The spending should be on developing skills that would eliminate this waste of time and money. What did we actually gain as a benefit from refurbished 1960s M113 hulls? Some aluminium at 1960s prices? As I understand it the hulls were completely stripped back. So we could attempt to make everything else, but just could not put a chassis and hull together? Tenix could have been commissioned to do a parallel prototyping project while they are at it for the LAND400 to see what they could put together using as much of the materials and parts being used in refurbishing the M113s.

Why can't we do the simple stuff? Simple stuff is what a defence force needs in war. On the one hand we have DSTO which government assures us is at cutting edge of research and development, and on the other hand we cant get the breaks to work on the M113AS4?

 

[Marc 1]

This is not for the FG. This is post Euro IV emissions.

http://www.countrycars.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=41772

While the current motor has all the necessary hardware in its cylinder heads - twin overhead cams, four valves a cylinder and variable valve timing - to be competitive, the cast-iron engine block takes that bit longer to reach operating temperature.

Any engine runs below its optimum while warming up and that extra time it takes for the Barra engine to warm up is believed to make the difference in emissions tests.


I have heard from other sources it is going to be aluminium, but again, it hasn't happend so anything is possible. Graphite grey iron is also another option...

In that same article you cite a bit further down the page:

Although Ford casts aluminium cylinder heads at Geelong, it seems the company is unwilling to extend that competence to cylinder blocks. Perhaps head office has ruled out the prospects of investing any money in an inline engine

Note the date of this article: July 07. Economic reality set in, no V6 from North America, so Ford spent the bare minimum (21 million) on yet another overhaul for the next 4 years until Euro V. Given that this was just a 'life extension' program they were not going to invest the dollars to develop an aluminium block, not when parent company is like the rest of the detroit carmakers, a basket case albeit in better shape than GM and Chrysler.

I've searched - but can't find any evidence that Ford will be switching to an aluminium block.

 

[FutureTank]

In the region we face, there certainly are new threats:

1. Introduction of new fighters jets (modern SU-27/30 variants, advanced F-16 variants, advanced F-15 variants, J-10 and evolving Chinese designed fighters).

2. Surface warfare vessels (Singapore's La Fayette based designs, Malaysia has a new class of frigate recently introduced into service and Pakistan, India, China, South Korea and Japan are all building new designs on top of their existing powerful fleets),

3. submarines( Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea, China, Pakistan and India are all introducing new submarine fleets).

4. Main battle tanks (Pakistan, India, China, Singapore, Malayasia, South Korean, Japan, Taiwan all have advanced MBT capabilities with new or near new fleets)

5. Infantry fighting vehicles (an enormous range, most of which dwarf the capability of our M113AS3/4),

6. Anti-tank guided weapons (an enormous range, headlined by Javelin which we possess, but available in types and quantities that weren't even 10 years ago)

7. Artillery, most nations in SEA and wider Asia possess a significantly enhanced artillery capability to us. Singapore, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, India, Japan and Pakistan all possess towed and self-propelled 155mm (and similiar) artillery systems and multiple launch rocket systems.

8. Air defence systems. Most nations in SEA and wider Asia possess an air defence system substantially more capable than ours. Our C4ISR capability might be sound, but the GBAD systems we possess are a very limited capability in the scheme of things...

Need I go on?

Do go on, but about threats. All of the above are capabilities, and I'm sure the Minister was referring to threats that need to be considered by Australia.

God you are lacking into insight. Tell you what, go and research Afghanistan and Iraq and LEARN what our troops are actually doing there.

You clearly have no clue whatsoever.

As a prime example of changing tactics, here is one little acronym. It's called IED...

Improvised Explosive Devices...you mean like the booby traps that the Japanese used t set up during World War Two that were different to those the Australian troops got used to Germans setting up in North Africa? Are we talking new tactics or new acronyms?
What are Australian troops doing in Afghanistan? Hmm, that would be base security, area patrolling, setting up ambushes, pursuit and clearance ops. I can go on, and that's just the infantry. What the SASR do is classified as always, and had been since the Malaya Emergency.

And what deployment have we been unable to meet? We possess 7 operational infantry battalions now, with the 8th - 8/9RAR still building up. Approximately 1.5 infantry battalions in total out of the regular force is actually deployed on operations now.

Significant numbers are available for deployment and though it's quite fashionable to point out how "stretched" we are and argue about our force being unable to complete even a "Timor style" mission, I would point out that at NO point did we ever have MORE than 3 infantry battalions, plus supporting elements deployed to Timor, even in late 1999 / early 2000.

2 RAR, 3 RAR and 5/7 RAR were the battalions in the "first wave" of Interfet. 1 RAR, 4 RAR and 6 RAR stayed at home and built up for replacement of these battalions, which they did in 2000.

Oh, 1.5 is it? That's as in six INFANTRY COMPANIES?
Catalyst - 1st Squadron Group, Australian Special Air Service Regiment (equivalent to about two platoons), Platoon (+) from 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (Commando), D Troop, Incident Response Regiment (four platoons)
Astute - B and C Companies, 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and one attached battery as infantry
Anode - company in Australia committed to deployment
Slipper - one infantry company and three SOTG platoons (+)

Even counting Anode, and the SOTG troops as 'infantry', that gives five companies of infantry. Its only six if one counts the company of reserves usually sent to Solomons for Anode as needed. In reality there are three infantry companies deployed overseas as we speak, not even a complete battalion.

Btw, I think one of the 1 RAR companies was also in the "first wave" of Interfet, AKA Operations Spitfire, Warden and Stabilise. There were also gunners deployed as infantry, but who's counting, right?

We now have an additional full strength battalion available over and above what we had then and if you think availability of infantry within the battalions is a current problem, you might ask yourself why battalions are having to run infantry IET courses within their own units, in addition to those run at Singleton...

Available for what? The RAN/RAAF combined could not lift one extra battalion above those available now, and certainly not with their complement of Bushmasters without leasing a civilian Ro-Ro vessel.
They are running the in-battalion IET courses because of the reduction in the Singleton course length, what two years ago? (I forget)

Rubbish. Northern Ireland was a low intensity conflict. Afghanistan and Iraq are MASSIVELY different in intensity and the Bushmaster has proven outstanding in these operations.

Oh, low intensity? Its always low intensity unless you are one of the 719 casualties that got killed by the 'old tactics'
murder 157
booby-trap devices 97
gun-fire and attack on foot patrol 51
sniper fire 40
abduction and murder 19
ambush of foot patrol 14
foot patrol under machine-gun fire 7
attack on a border post 5
undercover intelligence operations 5
mortar attack 3
helicopter under fire 1
bomb attacks 140
mobile patrol was shot at 63
land-mines 49
sniper engaging a foot patrol 28
detonation of explosive device 15
'friendly fire' (includes 2 shot by RUC). 8
soldiers on guard duty shot by snipers 6
para-military Loyalist attacks 5
rocket attack 3
civilian attack on foot patrol 2
APC crushed soldier 1

What if East Timor turned into an Australian Northern Ireland? Would Bushmaster still be an outstanding vehicle? And lets face it, Australians were only involved in protecting their own training and local activities and not so much combat in Iraq. In Afghanistan the ADF has just been lucky. However, the intensity is really only just now starting to pick up there.

In addition, the Bushmaster has NOT replaced the M113 (except within B Squadron 3/4 Cav) but rather is a SUPPLEMENT to it.

Oh I don't know. With the new order there will be as many Bushmasters in the Army and the RAAF as the total M113 fleet, including storage, the best of which were used for the AS3/4 upgrade. What do you reckon is supplementing what?

You might have noticed that Defmin FITZGIBBIN announced an order for an additional 81x M113AS3/4's a few months back? Primarily a result of the additional battalions under ELF/HNA. That brings the order book for M113AS3/4 to 431 vehicles in total.

Yes, was wondering about those. I think that probably they are only to allow expansion of the unit parks (including Reserves) to what they should have been if they had a 'normal' force structure budgeted in the 90s! My other thought was that maybe they are intended to transform the 1 and 2RAR into mechanised infantry since both trained in Sea Lion, but...they are useless in a surf

The order book for Bushmasters is now about 720 vehicles and we have 257 ASLAV vehicles (of all variants).

That's a light armoured vehicle fleet of about 1400 light armoured vehicles, when all delivered.

But ASLAVs are not infantry vehicles and the so equipped squadrons are not really intended to fight as infantry.

Compare this to the pre-Bushmaster days of about 550 in-service M113's and 112 ASLAV variants.

A significant difference no? And a completely different force to the one you seem to think exists...

Makes not an ounce of difference. No Bushmaster could go where an ASLAV could go in the wet season, and neither could follow an M113 in every type of terrain in the region, while the later could not keep up with the M1. Numbers don't always tell the whole story.

If you think carrying infantry in armoured vehicles is obsolete, I'm glad YOU are not the Defmin. We'd have had hundreds of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan otherwise...

I think you just put your words into my mouth. What I said is that we should not put infantry into a vehicle for which "The original concept was that the vehicle would be used solely for transportation, bringing the troops forward under armor and then having them dismount for combat; the M113 would then retreat to the rear."

As to the refurbished M113 idea. Apparently not everyone thinks upgrading old vehicles is such a bad idea.

Australia is doing it, America has done it (M113A3), Israel has done it and the UK are doing a similar upgrade with their Bulldog upgrades of FV432 "boxed" armoured vehicles...

This is disingenuous. In bot the US and British armies the upgraded APCs serve in solely support roles not frontline infantry combat vehicles. AFAIK the Australian AS3/4 upgrade has not received anything like the armour package of the Israeli version.

And? The concept is proven on a regular basis. It's called exercise Sea Lion...

Ah, so you think that all those countries with infantry trained for dedicated operations from amphibious ships are wasting their time?

Apparently the Air Warfare Destroyers and ANZAC class frigates won't have air defence capabilities, eh?

And the East Timor border is 172km long. That leaves a 72km gap in air defence...

Apparently RAAF doesn't possess air defence capabilities eh?

They do...just not very good swimmers

The RBS-70's aren't fired from the top of M113's, that is true. They are fired from their own Perentie 6x6 wheeled vehicles and in future the Land Rover replacement under LAND 125, or possibly Bushmaster.

Again, research helps here....

Have you ever seen the air defence version? I have not, but knew the Rapiers were the trailer part. In any case, its off-road capability does not compare with the rest of the fleet of vehicles, and neither does its survivability in a conventional conflict that may call for AD. I said they are not fired from M113, because that is not, as far as I know, the practice in the ADF, although it is elsewhere. It should really be fired from an M113/Bushmaster turret if it is to fit into the Army's doctrine and force structure of the mechanised/motorised infantry battalion. Currently its a toss up which is the weakest link in the Army, the AD or the towed artillery.

Aha.. The old F-111 range issue. This is the weakest argument you've delivered yet. What is the useful strike range of the F-111 anyway, off hand?

Who cares?!

WTF?

There are no 120mm mortars in-service in the ADF.

Most of the combat operations are performed by the SO troops, not the infantry.
Obviously you have not heard proposals on acquiring 120mm mortars and where to get personnel to serve them....

The French have more than 10x Tigers in-service, how many have they got operating, on deployment?

How is this relevant to the ADF?

It is a brand new aircraft that has not even reached INITIAL OPERATING CAPABILITY in any Country (Germany, Spain, France or Australia yet).

I'm assuming they did not start training pilots and crew from scratch using school leavers That will teach me for making assumptions Fair go....three years!

Of course we cannot deploy it. We have more than 8 pilots and battle captains trained, but that is not enough, yet.

Well, if I'm impatient to see them in action, I can only imagine how the serving personnel must feel....

Yes RAAF could help out, but why on Earth would you deploy Hawks? No PGMs, no targetting capability beyond a gun sight and the Mk 1 eyeball and no EWSP capability because they are a TRAINER...

Trainer shmainer, its an air force jet aircraft. Isn't that why they are painted in low vis scheme and not some gaudy RAAF red? They are low maintenance and shorter take off aircraft, and there are no targets that need advance targeting capability (though can be fitted), and even some rocket and gun pods will do...good fun Easier to ship to Afghanistan also. Not sure how the F-18 fits into a C-17. Americans used a C-5 Galaxy to deliver the initial batch F/A-18s.
Anyway, RAAF thinks its a two-seat advanced trainer/light attack fighter, and is armed with 30 mm Aden cannon, Sidewinder missiles, and light bombs. I bet it can also fire rockets. Love those 2.75" rockets

As to training Afghan pilots, are you for real? What the hell do they need training on a lead in fighter designed to train F/A-18 pilots for?

The Hawks are not designed to train F/A-18 pilots, but pilots that will LATER train on F/A-18 after their initial flight training. The idea is that after Hawk they can say they can fly a jet. By that stage maybe Australia can sell Afghanistan some of its F/A-18 Hornets as it starts to receive F-35s? Mind you there will be so many F-16s and F-18s for sale soon that I think I will be able to afford one to fly to the corner store for milk and eggs

Applique armour, just as the Dutch have done woiuld be a start...

Reactive armour packages exist...

Active protection systems exist...

Yep, I'm all for it...lets go.... Oh, er, hmmmm, wait....not sure that's going to be in the White Paper...but we can hope

As for US being out of Afghanistan in 3 years. Show me a link that says so, because I call utter BS and only your lack of insight to claim this.

What link? I do not live by the Internet alone. That's when the next US election is due, and Democrats are known as much for getting into wars as for getting out of them. The "significant ramping up" is, at a guess, so that in three years time Obama can declare a significant withdrawal (see Bush's preparation for the last US election with Iraq), hopefully after he has declared Bin Ladin dead by any means short of nuclear weapons. Either that, or he will announce general conscription and a campaign to occupy Pakistan (just kidding ), because short of that Afghanistan's security can not be ensured for all the money in China, and everyone knows it.

 

[Marc 1]

Did I say to make an F-35? Mind you, the RAAF could be flying the Typhoon by now.

Sarcasm, Future Tank, that's why I suggested we make an F35 competitor. Why not? you advocate we make everything else. On the Typhoon, why would we want to replace our 4th generation F/A 18's with 4.5 gen Typhoons that will have to be in service for at least the next 20 years? In 15 years time I would expect at least China of our neighbours to be fielding full 5th generation airframes - are you advocating that it would have been smarter to deliberately equip our airforce with something that would be overmatched by a competitor? Nice of you to think that its OK for our pilots to take a knife to a gun fight. The F-35 will ensure we maintain a technological edge in our region for the next 15 years then be at least comparable for the 10 years after that I'm guessing.

Spain GDP (PPP) 2008 $1,397 trillion Defence budget US$18,974 (1.36%)
Australia GDP (PPP) 2008 $795.305 billion Defence budget US$15,744 (1.98%)

Now go and compare the force structures between Australia and Spain.

Why do we have the same goals, needs, allies? We certainly don't have the same budget from the bald figures.

Self-sufficiency? Technological advancement? Cooperation with allies?

How is co-operation with our allies going to be furthered by having a different equipment to our allies? Perhaps you'd like to explain that.

And? Lets see. Australia. Its very near neighbour is Indonesia that buys equipment from France (non-NATO) and former USSR. Further to the north is Communist China with an ever increasing defence budget. Its blessed with fairly unique weather and geography, so much of the off the shelf gear didn't fit their requirements. So rather then designing own equipment, the ADF bought some from other states like the M113s that had to be modified, but are not suitable for amphibious operations in the tropics, and LAVs that had to be modified, and are only somewhat suitable for amphibious operations, and Bushmasters which are unsuitable for amphibious operations (so can't follow the LAVs), but are suitable for the weather, and M1 Abrams, which are suitable for amphibious operations, but we need the USMC for that. But hey, its not like the ADF actually considered amphibious operations as a significant doctrinal concern despite the region to the north being all islands and coastlines. No, unlike Sweden that thought about its weather and geography in the 1950s,

OK, lots of rubbish here. M113's have never been suitable for true amphibious ops anywhere regardless of whether its the tropics or not. Besides, how is the latitude relevant to how well a vehicle will do in amphibous ops? The M113A1's ability to 'swim' itself is very limited. Trust me when I say that even swimming the M113's in the Georges River gave me the willies big time the few times I did it.

Can you explain to me why you consider the Abrams to be suitable for ampibious ops, yet the Bushmaster is not? All of the vehicles we operate cannot be swum ashore across a beach head - all are landed by landing craft, if their wheel loadings are too high for a soft sandy surface Engineers, lay a form of matting to enable vehicles to traverse the beach.

the ADF started developing its amphibious operations as a doctrine in 2007 when the planned capability first became a promise.

Really? Tthe ADF developed only developed doctrine on Amphibious ops in 2007? In the late 80's early 90's 6 RAR was tasked with maintaining the skillsets required in the ADF for amphibious operations. Whilst we were no Royal Marines, the battalion used to deploy on exercise off the Tobruk fairly regularly. I still have strong recollections of surfing large waves in a 23 tonne USMC AAV7A1 during a practice landing at Big Sur in California in preparation for an amphibious landing from the USS Fort McHenry.

And? Maybe they have not sold the equipment, but they have self propelled artillery in the park, and they have the capability to sell it...to the ADF.

And, we are not going to buy it. Given that before Apharteid, the South Africans did pretty much as everone else did - bought equipment off the shelf , the only reason they developed their own is because no bugger would sell to them. Worse, their return on this massive investment in their arms industry has been bugger all. How can you guarantee if we went down the same path investing heavily in developing weaponry and aircraft that they would sell overseas? You are asking an awful lot of faith of the Australian public. You saw how badly the previous government fared over a failed $1.1 billion dollar contract for the Seasprites - do you think they want to stick their necks out to build from scratch a multi billion dollar C130 competitor?

Spain. An industry that has been largely supported by its own government. Here is the list of aircraft that CASA built before it integrated with EADS and produced the Cn235 and 295: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CASA_aircraft
But the Australian Government has been saying it supports Defence Industry for at least 30 years! It is only because of the experience and success of CASA that EADS integration became possible.

And the ADF doesn't buy on the consideration of cost?

In nearly all cases through life cost is a far more important consideration than the off the shelf price. With the exception of GP boots generally our equipment has been purchased on ability and capability. The Leopards were a more expensive choice than the competing M-60's, the Collins class cost a stack more than purchasing Off the shelf from a european shipyard etc.

However, it is now so committed to integration into the US forces structure that we are becoming tied to US systems and therefore expenditures made based on entirely different budgetary considerations. The ADF is not the US Army, US Navy or the US Air Force. It is, by its mode of operation, structure, past history and its regional 'terrain' more of a national equivalent of the USMC. Wherever the Australian defence forces go, they go by ship, the exception being Afghanistan. Where as the operation of small integrated amphibious task forces should have been the modus operandi for the ADF since the Second World War, as it stands now we can't even make a decent flat bottomed landing craft!

What's your point here? Can you tell me why it is wrong to purchase quality equipment from an ally that we know will be interoperable? Why do you believe we need to emulate the USMC closely? As far as I can tell the USMC lacks AWACS, has bugger all fixed wing airlift just for starters. The USMC makes up its deficiencies by being able to integrate with the USN, USAF and Army. If the USMC made up the sole defence capability of the USA it would look very different. Why should our forces be configured for amphibious assault? That doesn't sit well with the political aims of governments various over the past 50 years - way too agressive and quite limited in capabilty.

In any case, there is no law that says we have to make cheap and bad tactical lift aircraft. We could do worse than an Osprey, which are expensive and bad.

Name one single competing airframe that will do what the osprey does. The US is large enough that it can fund these niche capabilites - incidentally, the USMC (remember the mob you worship) will be the biggest users of these "expenxive and bad" machines. You are correct, we could make an expensive and capable tactical airlift aircraft. Problem is that is no guarantee it would sell. Arguably our Bushmaster offers as much protection as the much vaunted MRAP's, yet whereas the MRAP's are considered top heavy and ill suited to Afghanistan (necessitating the development of the MRAP lite), the Bushmaster is right at home there as well as on the streets of Iraq. Despite the Bushie being what looked like a shoe in for the MRAP contract, the US chose parochially, and on the basis of cost (which has probably proven to be more expensive as they have had to order the lIte too). So despite making a state of the art vehicle, the Bushmaster is despite a few Pommy and Dutch orders not as yet an export success. So much for your theory of make a world beater and the orders will roll in. They may, but there are no guarantees.

I

f you never never go, you never never know? Sounds familiar? What's to say that if the UK manufacturers made bad decisions, Australian manufacturers would also? Got to start somewhere though, right?

Refer my point about the Bushmaster above.

And? Did you consider that being a massive organisation backed by six governments is not always of a benefit to an engineering project? Until recently Australians were servicing and still are all Qantas aircraft. Are you saying that a C-17 is more complex than a 747? If it is, its not by much. I am not underestimating anything, though I am sceptical about how an aircraft can be built after years of design that is 32t overweight also.

Wrong. Qantas outsource deep maintenance on some airframes overseas. No, I've never said the C-17 is more complex than a 747 - in fact I've never mentioned either aircraft. There is a massive difference between doing deeper level maintenance and building our own aircraft. Even I can service and change the clutch on a car. Buggered If I have the knowledge or the skill to make a car from scratch though.

I am not underestimating anything, though I am sceptical about how an aircraft can be built after years of design that is 32t overweight also.

Err, pot calling the kettle black here. Read more carefully what I said - the payload has dropped from 40 tonnes to 32 tonnes due to the airframe being overweight. This is very significant because quite a few of the nations planning on purchasing A400's have armoured vehicles in design to take advantage of the 40 tonne payload capability - that has suddenly been reduced by 8 tonnes!

And this is what I'm saying. The spending should be on developing skills that would eliminate this waste of time and money. What did we actually gain as a benefit from refurbished 1960s M113 hulls? Some aluminium at 1960s prices? As I understand it the hulls were completely stripped back. So we could attempt to make everything else, but just could not put a chassis and hull together? Tenix could have been commissioned to do a parallel prototyping project while they are at it for the LAND400 to see what they could put together using as much of the materials and parts being used in refurbishing the M113s.

I don't understand what point you are making here. Did you realise that for the past 30 years M113A1's have been being stripped down to the bare shell and the vehicle goes through a rebuild process that basically 'zero times' the machine at Bandiana. This deep rebuild process happens at set intervals on all hulls. Despite this experience we have with the M113 and variants, and the collective experience of countries around the world upgrading their M113's we had enough problems just with a basic upgrade of the propulsion system and turret. And you want us to make a MICV from scratch ( using second hand bits from M113's) err, yeah that sounds cheap.

Why can't we do the simple stuff?

Because it's not so simple, and therefore not cheap. With the Collins class there was no existing design that satisfied our need for near nuclear boat size and endurance, in a conventional hull. So we didn't have much choice but to take the risk to extensively modify an existing design. Whereas to replace the Caribou, the only real exact replacement is only another Caribou (Viking aircraft in Canada can produce newies), but do we need an exact copy? Have our needs changed? Are ther not existing aircraft out there where someone else has taken the risk and worn the development cost that would satidfy the requirements? Yep, CN 295, CN235, C27J, possibly even V-22 Osprey etc. Why build our own?

Simple stuff is what a defence force needs in war.

No. As we have a small defence force and speaking as an ex servie, we need the best that's available. We cannot aford to lose equipment or personnel - something that the diggers I'm sure would be grateful to know. There are some pieces of equipment that are in my mind 'stopgap' measures, M113AS3 for exampleis ok to deploy in the SP region on peacekeeping tasks, and to keep the necessary skillsets in driving/operating/maintaining tracked battle taxi's whilst Land 400 gets us a proper MICV. I'm sure the heads of army would prefer CV90's but we only have a finite budget, something you fail to understand.

On the one hand we have DSTO which government assures us is at cutting edge of research and development, and on the other hand we cant get the breaks to work on the M113AS4?

And yet you still advocate we make far more complicated and technical equipment from scratch?

 

[Marc 1]

Oh, low intensity? Its always low intensity unless you are one of the 719 casualties that got killed by the 'old tactics'

Err.... good one. Do you even understand that warfare is divided into different clasifications depending on the type of conflict expected. There is a world of difference between forces configured to fight a high intensity conflict such as the classical Russian forces streaming through the Fulda gap into Germany, and a few paddies taking pot shots with semi or even full automativc weapons and the odd explosive device.

What if East Timor turned into an Australian Northern Ireland? Would Bushmaster still be an outstanding vehicle? And lets face it, Australians were only involved in protecting their own training and local activities and not so much combat in Iraq. In Afghanistan the ADF has just been lucky. However, the intensity is really only just now starting to pick up there.

The Bushmaster has had IED's detonated underneath them on many occasions in Afghanistan and Iraq yet I believe not one occupant has lost their life in one. Given the level of threat, what more do you want?

 

[swerve]

... With the Collins class there was no existing design that satisfied our need for near nuclear boat size and endurance, in a conventional hull. ....

A quibble: IIRC there was one, but the Japanese won't export submarines.

 

[FutureTank]

It seems to me that it would be productive to stay on the subject of the thread, that is ADF's capabilities and readiness for a war, and not get off on a tangent here and there, so I will just ignore those points which are not relevant.

Sarcasm, Future Tank, that's why I suggested we make an F35 competitor. Why not? you advocate we make everything else. On the Typhoon, why would we want to replace our 4th generation F/A 18's with 4.5 gen Typhoons that will have to be in service for at least the next 20 years? In 15 years time I would expect at least China of our neighbours to be fielding full 5th generation airframes - are you advocating that it would have been smarter to deliberately equip our airforce with something that would be overmatched by a competitor? Nice of you to think that its OK for our pilots to take a knife to a gun fight. The F-35 will ensure we maintain a technological edge in our region for the next 15 years then be at least comparable for the 10 years after that I'm guessing.

Marc 1, we may differ in this because I doubt very much that China will be fielding even a 4th generation fighter in 20 years time. I do expect the Chinese to field a far larger air force in 20 years time that will seek to apply mass where quality is lacking. The Chinese are very poor on innovation. Anything they field will likely be 'borrowed' technology.
Having said that, the discussion of F-35 is unproductive because the decision has been made. Maybe I should not have suggested that RAAF be flying Typhoons, though the capability would be unaffected and readiness brought forward by years (the point I was making).

Why do we have the same goals, needs, allies? We certainly don't have the same budget from the bald figures.

But we don't have the same goals, needs and allies.
We don't have the same budget because of Spain's larger number of aircraft, two aircraft carriers and much larger armoured vehicle park, including hundreds of tanks, IFVs and SP artillery. Given the ADF does not have same Land component needs as Spain (due to NATO's Cold War commitments) the ADF should have been able, all other things being equal, to manage a similar Naval component structure which we DO need.
One glaing problem in the ADF is the lack of a viable F-111 replacement. No one except the Russians makes long range maritime strike jet any more because Europeans have much smaller areas to control, and Americans operate from mobile platforms we don't have. This RAAF requirement is a unique one, restricted to just a few global powers, none of which produce this type of aircraft.

How is co-operation with our allies going to be furthered by having a different equipment to our allies? Perhaps you'd like to explain that.

But I think we are talking in different terms. You are talking in singular, ally, the USA, and I am talking in plural, regional allies, of which at least five can be relied on in the long term. Its not wise to place all your eggs in one basket (old English saying).

OK, lots of rubbish here. M113's have never been suitable for true amphibious ops anywhere regardless of whether its the tropics or not. Besides, how is the latitude relevant to how well a vehicle will do in amphibous ops? The M113A1's ability to 'swim' itself is very limited. Trust me when I say that even swimming the M113's in the Georges River gave me the willies big time the few times I did it.

That was my point. Despite recent 'dry' deployments, much of our immediate region is very watery, including on land, but we lack a true amphibious infantry vehicle with a combat potential comparable to several potential opponents in combat. Certainly it seems to me it would make sense to have such vehicles for the two infantry battalions likely to deploy by this mode. Instead we are getting two more battalion's worth of M113s.

Can you explain to me why you consider the Abrams to be suitable for ampibious ops, yet the Bushmaster is not? All of the vehicles we operate cannot be swum ashore across a beach head - all are landed by landing craft, if their wheel loadings are too high for a soft sandy surface Engineers, lay a form of matting to enable vehicles to traverse the beach.

I don't consider the M1 suitable for amphibious operations, but the USMC does. I don't consider Bushmasters suitable for amphibious operations because these, if opposed, even after they get a bit inland, are not true infantry combat vehicles and can not be committed to what are likely to be high intensity situations.

Really? Tthe ADF developed only developed doctrine on Amphibious ops in 2007? In the late 80's early 90's 6 RAR was tasked with maintaining the skillsets required in the ADF for amphibious operations. Whilst we were no Royal Marines, the battalion used to deploy on exercise off the Tobruk fairly regularly. I still have strong recollections of surfing large waves in a 23 tonne USMC AAV7A1 during a practice landing at Big Sur in California in preparation for an amphibious landing from the USS Fort McHenry.

My tern fir sarcasm...I must have missed seeing AAV7A1 in the 6 RAR's park In any case, what the Australian Army does with its few old flat-bottoms is not amphibious operations but ship-to-shore delivery. Having participated in them, you will know that coming ashore is tricky, and such places are not as widely available as one would hope. There is a huge difference in operating amphibious APCs/IFVs and LCHs.

And, we are not going to buy it. Given that before Apharteid, the South Africans did pretty much as everone else did - bought equipment off the shelf , the only reason they developed their own is because no bugger would sell to them. Worse, their return on this massive investment in their arms industry has been bugger all. How can you guarantee if we went down the same path investing heavily in developing weaponry and aircraft that they would sell overseas? You are asking an awful lot of faith of the Australian public. You saw how badly the previous government fared over a failed $1.1 billion dollar contract for the Seasprites - do you think they want to stick their necks out to build from scratch a multi billion dollar C130 competitor?

It seems to me that the Australian public has the wide held belief that they are members of one of the advanced economies in the World. As I said, someone should go to jail for the Super Seasprite fiasco. However, failure in one project does not necessarily predicate a failure in another. In fact I would suggest it fosters learning from mistakes and succeeding.

In nearly all cases through life cost is a far more important consideration than the off the shelf price. With the exception of GP boots generally our equipment has been purchased on ability and capability. The Leopards were a more expensive choice than the competing M-60's, the Collins class cost a stack more than purchasing Off the shelf from a european shipyard etc.

Yes, and what better way to reduce life costs by having the support capability in-country? There are still engineering firms in Australia, and in aggregate they are capable of producing, or expanding capability to produce virtually every piece of equipment and spare part ADF needs...if they had some sense of the long-term government support for such participation. However, that support just has not been there, the talk of which originally got me started in deeper understanding of the defence issues in Australia back in the 1970s. Lots of nice policy, ministerial speeches at conferences and conventions, an obligatory White Paper Defence Industry participation chapter, but no real support that a company could rely on past the next election. Politicians work on 3-4 year terms, business on at least 7 years, the forces on 20-30 years. Can you see a problem?

What's your point here? Can you tell me why it is wrong to purchase quality equipment from an ally that we know will be interoperable? Why do you believe we need to emulate the USMC closely? As far as I can tell the USMC lacks AWACS, has bugger all fixed wing airlift just for starters. The USMC makes up its deficiencies by being able to integrate with the USN, USAF and Army. If the USMC made up the sole defence capability of the USA it would look very different. Why should our forces be configured for amphibious assault? That doesn't sit well with the political aims of governments various over the past 50 years - way too agressive and quite limited in capabilty.

Marc 1, anywhere, ANYWHERE the ADF goes for deployment is going to be aggressive! We are a continental nation. Whatever our limited capability, it will always be better used in the offensive operations rather than waiting on the beaches of Northern Territory or Queensland. This means offensive naval operations, and invariably they will include a need to conduct land operations also.
My point is that the USMC is a part of the US Navy. This may irritate Army and RAAF services, but the reality is that Australia by virtue of its geography is a maritime nation, and its primary method of defence, and influence in the region, until some spectacular technological breakthrough in power systems, is going to be naval, and that is the RAN. We do not need 13 reserve infantry battalions because these can not be effectively deployed overseas, and if it comes to them being required to fight on Australian soil, it will have been too late to fight at all. Better coastal surveillance and mobile anti-shipping missile platforms would probably do far more damage than any Army troops. Australia, from a military strategy point of view, is doubly cursed with a long shoreline and a small population. In this position it has no other option but to be aggressive by taking the initiative in any conflict that may affect its sovereignty.

Name one single competing airframe that will do what the osprey does. The US is large enough that it can fund these niche capabilites - incidentally, the USMC (remember the mob you worship) will be the biggest users of these "expenxive and bad" machines. You are correct, we could make an expensive and capable tactical airlift aircraft. Problem is that is no guarantee it would sell. Arguably our Bushmaster offers as much protection as the much vaunted MRAP's, yet whereas the MRAP's are considered top heavy and ill suited to Afghanistan (necessitating the development of the MRAP lite), the Bushmaster is right at home there as well as on the streets of Iraq. Despite the Bushie being what looked like a shoe in for the MRAP contract, the US chose parochially, and on the basis of cost (which has probably proven to be more expensive as they have had to order the lIte too). So despite making a state of the art vehicle, the Bushmaster is despite a few Pommy and Dutch orders not as yet an export success. So much for your theory of make a world beater and the orders will roll in. They may, but there are no guarantees.

I don't worship the USMC, but simply use it as a model. I can just as well use the Spanish Navy, but as you mention there are elements of the overall US forces structure outside of the USMC capability which the ADF would need, and the Spanish do not offer either. One of these is the naval AEW platform. Wedgetail will fill that niche, or rather close the gap.
Yes, well, there is not much I can add to what you said, but the ultimate aim of domestic defence production capability is to provide a support base to the ADF and not to make it big in the global defence markets. Ultimately its an investment in Australia's secure future, and not a proof that defence markets are competitive (a given).

Wrong. Qantas outsource deep maintenance on some airframes overseas. No, I've never said the C-17 is more complex than a 747 - in fact I've never mentioned either aircraft. There is a massive difference between doing deeper level maintenance and building our own aircraft. Even I can service and change the clutch on a car. Buggered If I have the knowledge or the skill to make a car from scratch though.

Ok, fair point, but deeper maintenance is hopefully not a constant feature of sustaining combat operations capability.
So tour suggestion is to keep growing wheat, cattle and mining? There are Australians who do like to put cars together from scratch, and I think the Government should assist them in every way because every other government in the region does. Ultimately this is highly beneficial to Australia and its capability to defend itself and its interests.

Err, pot calling the kettle black here. Read more carefully what I said - the payload has dropped from 40 tonnes to 32 tonnes due to the airframe being overweight. This is very significant because quite a few of the nations planning on purchasing A400's have armoured vehicles in design to take advantage of the 40 tonne payload capability - that has suddenly been reduced by 8 tonnes!

Ok, but this does not concern ADF's warfighting capability.

I don't understand what point you are making here. Did you realise that for the past 30 years M113A1's have been being stripped down to the bare shell and the vehicle goes through a rebuild process that basically 'zero times' the machine at Bandiana. This deep rebuild process happens at set intervals on all hulls. Despite this experience we have with the M113 and variants, and the collective experience of countries around the world upgrading their M113's we had enough problems just with a basic upgrade of the propulsion system and turret. And you want us to make a MICV from scratch ( using second hand bits from M113's) err, yeah that sounds cheap.

I do know about the periodic rebuilds, but that's easier in engineering terms except where parts no longer available from manufacturer have to be reverse-engineered. However, this is how one learns, but doing something different. So what if the prototype MICV would have had other greater problems? If nothing else, it would give ADF personnel a far greater ability to evaluate the eventual M113 replacements. The opportunity though is to design and develop a vehicle that uniquely suits the needs of ADF tactically, operationally and strategically in terms of force structure, logistic sustainment, training integration, etc. All engineering problems have solutions, and they are only encountered when the projects are attempted.

Because it's not so simple, and therefore not cheap. With the Collins class there was no existing design that satisfied our need for near nuclear boat size and endurance, in a conventional hull. So we didn't have much choice but to take the risk to extensively modify an existing design. Whereas to replace the Caribou, the only real exact replacement is only another Caribou (Viking aircraft in Canada can produce newies), but do we need an exact copy? Have our needs changed? Are ther not existing aircraft out there where someone else has taken the risk and worn the development cost that would satidfy the requirements? Yep, CN 295, CN235, C27J, possibly even V-22 Osprey etc. Why build our own?

Do you want cheap, or Australian? What would be the increase in cost of making a competitor to the C27J in Australia? Cheap means that eventually you are looking for an ADF with everything made in China? Is that what you want?
AFAIC Ospreys need to fly a bit more before I would consider getting into one.

No. As we have a small defence force and speaking as an ex servie, we need the best that's available. We cannot aford to lose equipment or personnel - something that the diggers I'm sure would be grateful to know. There are some pieces of equipment that are in my mind 'stopgap' measures, M113AS3 for exampleis ok to deploy in the SP region on peacekeeping tasks, and to keep the necessary skillsets in driving/operating/maintaining tracked battle taxi's whilst Land 400 gets us a proper MICV. I'm sure the heads of army would prefer CV90's but we only have a finite budget, something you fail to understand.

I know we have a finite budget. My problem is how it is being spent...or mis-spent. The same Spanish I mentioned before have had the Pizarro ICV (Austrian Ulan) since the early 1990s. Between the two countries they are only manufacturing 900 vehicles, and since the LAND 400 is intended (as I understand) to replace the M113s, ASLAVs and some Bushmasters, we are talking about at lest 600 vehicles for Australia alone. Surely not a small production run by any measure of today. I note that the Spanish started small making wheeled APCs in the 1980s, but proved capable enough to be bought by IVECO.

And yet you still advocate we make far more complicated and technical equipment from scratch?

No, I suggest we use existing engineering knowledge and innovate based on that. That's not "from scratch". A group of final year uni students from engineering departments can make prototypes given budgets, but I'm sure experienced commercial engineers will do better.

 

[Ananda]

Lets say that Indonesia has a change of government, and that new administration decides to reinvade Timor-Leste.

The same ex Kopassus Commander at time of East Timor Crisis Prabowo (ex Soeharto Son In Law)..Now considered as one of best challangers to the current populars incumbent president. Such so that many of political adversaries of current president (SBY) are wiling to bury their own hatches to each other and backing Prabowo..just to have a chances in rivalling the popular incumbent.

All poll still show SBY still the most popular ones..and he's the president that many international community hopping Indonesian would retain in the office for next 5 years.
However Prabowo runnning on very nationalistic paltform, including getting much higher deffence budgets. Just show pottential flares in this regions still there.

 

[Feanor]

Marc 1, we may differ in this because I doubt very much that China will be fielding even a 4th generation fighter in 20 years time. I do expect the Chinese to field a far larger air force in 20 years time that will seek to apply mass where quality is lacking. The Chinese are very poor on innovation. Anything they field will likely be 'borrowed' technology.

Rubbish. China already fields early 4th gen fighters. J-10, Su-27SK, Su-30MKK?

One glaing problem in the ADF is the lack of a viable F-111 replacement. No one except the Russians makes long range maritime strike jet any more because Europeans have much smaller areas to control, and Americans operate from mobile platforms we don't have. This RAAF requirement is a unique one, restricted to just a few global powers, none of which produce this type of aircraft.

Actually, the Backfire is out of production, as is the Tu-142, and the maritime Su-34 variant is likely to be quiet a whiles away. So literally nobody makes the plane you're asking for. Are you suggesting that Australia develop a long range maritime strike fighter from scratch?

The same Spanish I mentioned before have had the Pizarro ICV (Austrian Ulan) since the early 1990s. Between the two countries they are only manufacturing 900 vehicles, and since the LAND 400 is intended (as I understand) to replace the M113s, ASLAVs and some Bushmasters, we are talking about at lest 600 vehicles for Australia alone. Surely not a small production run by any measure of today. I note that the Spanish started small making wheeled APCs in the 1980s, but proved capable enough to be bought by IVECO.

Actually 600 and 900 are tiny production runs. The BMP-3 for example (which has yet to see induction in large numbers for our armed forces) has already well over a thousand orders (close 1500) and is nowhere near the end of the production run. They're only now starting to receive some major domestic orders.

The production run for the Bradley is in the thousands. You're envisioning a project for a full IFV with a production run of arond 600? Why not just buy an existing platform, which will cost less per unit, and cost nothing in development costs?

EDIT: Just a heads up, from what I found the Bushmaster currently has 737 delivered to the ADF, 15 Fire King firefighting variants, 58 ordered by the Netherlands and 24 for the UK. That makes for a total of 834 with potential additional orders from Spain. I.e. even with some modest export success, the Bushmaster has not managed to make it big time in the international market. You propose a larger and riskier investment, in something radically new and unlikely to receive a domestic order even as large as the Bushmasters?

 

[Marc 1]

Future Tank, there is nothing I would like to see more than a decent weapons manufacturing industry, designing and building world class designs for our own forces and exported to the world.

Two things conspire against that though, the fact that programs not one tenth as complicated as the ones you propose are running behind schedule, massively over budget or even cancelled at massive cost. Remember we exist in a democracy where the government has to be accountable for the decisions it makes. Given recent procurement disasters, the press would be all over any government that announced something this ambitious - particularly these days in an era of ballooning deficits (although, ironically a decision to bolster our defence force by building indigenously could maybe be seen as a viable stimulus project).

The second reason is simply cost and our defence budget. If 11 Seasprites were to cost over a billion dollars (and that was an existing airframe), what would the from scratch development of a state of the art airlifter cost?