ADF General discussion thread

[Volkodav]

Aust Defender provided an interesting insight into the proposed shore based anti-ship missile requirement, apparently it is seen as a counter for China's DF21 anti ship tactical ballistic missile capability. A land based system would also be vulnerable to tactical missile attack so would need to be protected by an IADS including an ABM capability to be viable.

This makes more sense but I can see the capability, especially once the ABM capable IADS, ground defence and logistics overheads come into play, costing more and being less flexible and survivable than buying additional, improved AWDs, as well as spec'ing CEAFAR missile corvettes (ESSM and maybe even a couple of SM6 inadditon to the anti ship missiles) instead of OPVs.

 

[ADMk2]

Aust Defender provided an interesting insight into the proposed shore based anti-ship missile requirement, apparently it is seen as a counter for China's DF21 anti ship tactical ballistic missile capability. A land based system would also be vulnerable to tactical missile attack so would need to be protected by an IADS including an ABM capability to be viable.

This makes more sense but I can see the capability, especially once the ABM capable IADS, ground defence and logistics overheads come into play, costing more and being less flexible and survivable than buying additional, improved AWDs, as well as spec'ing CEAFAR missile corvettes (ESSM and maybe even a couple of SM6 inadditon to the anti ship missiles) instead of OPVs.

I don't think it an 'either / or' situation... I think we will see spec'd up FF vessels in RAN service and AWD's that move towards ABM capability in years to come (the integration difficulties on-board our Hobart Class vessels, notwithstanding) regardless of any LBASM system entering service. The ballistic missile threat continues to grow not subside and is a problem a serious 'defence' force cannot simply ignore indefinitely.

I doubt we'll be seeing THAAD batteries in ADF service, but an independent SM-3 capability from the AWD's? I think it highly likely.

I certainly don't think the cost benefit is with the RAN options either. $9b for 3 AWD's and $20 odd billion for the Future Frigates doesn't equate well on the finance argument, compared to the $4b (top end) this system is budgetted for.

I'm not sure I agree this is truly a counter for the DF-21 or similar systems either. If anything it seems intended to mimic via assymetric warfare options the sea denial capability China has deployed against 'us' to give them a taste of their own medicine, so to speak...

 

[t68]

If I remember correctly the Bushmaster is set to be replaced as part of land 400 program, but I can't find a definite timeline and what it would actually be replaced with or when.

Just curious as Thales has tendered bushmaster for the French VBMR Ligh" (for vehicule blindé multi-role léger or light multirole armored vehicle) program, and is for 350 units beginning 2021



http://www.armyrecognition.com/june...y_vbmr_light_rfi_with_its_bushmaster_apc.html

 

[ADMk2]

If I remember correctly the Bushmaster is set to be replaced as part of land 400 program, but I can't find a definite timeline and what it would actually be replaced with or when.

Just curious as Thales has tendered bushmaster for the French VBMR Ligh" (for vehicule blindé multi-role léger or light multirole armored vehicle) program, and is for 350 units beginning 2021



http://www.armyrecognition.com/june...y_vbmr_light_rfi_with_its_bushmaster_apc.html

I'm not sure there even is a plan to replace Bushmaster? The currently projected phases of LAND 400 cover the ASLAV / M113 replacement and the M1A1 upgrade / additions and the maneuvre support vehicle requirement.

Not sure it is yet projected to do anything else?

 

[vonnoobie]

I'm not sure there even is a plan to replace Bushmaster? The currently projected phases of LAND 400 cover the ASLAV / M113 replacement and the M1A1 upgrade / additions and the maneuvre support vehicle requirement.

Not sure it is yet projected to do anything else?

The Bushmaster is actually planned to be replaced according to the DWP starting from around 2025.

Beyond making sure it is compatible with the Canberra's and time frame nothing has been worked out.

Considering the time frame between then and now leaves a lot of room to change in ground combat so I dont expect to see anything mentioned on it any time soon but rather around 2020 give or take.

Could be something similar to the Bushmaster tough that seem's unlikely as I have heard mentions of it and other MRAP type vehicles not being ideal for the perceived future conflict's. Might be something similar to the M1117 which Canada is getting a variant of, Or the Bushmaster number's could be used to increase the acquisition of Land 400 vehicles.

Either way it will happen (barring any political 'profit savings' idea) but so far it is all just guess work as to what the requirements will be, and how many areto be acquired.

 

[Volkodav]

Bushmaster was originally meant to be replaced under a phase of LAND 400 but was removed from that project as it was defined prior to (or following?) RFI. I believe Bushmaster is now considered, or is transitioning to, an A Echelon vehicle rather than F i.e. the latest vehicles were acquired under LAND 121 vs LAND 400 and are being grouped with the Hawkei.

This makes sense and a 2025 planned replacement also makes sense as the initial vehicles will be a quarter of a century old be then and in need of refurbishment just to remain operational in the required numbers, while changing threats and needs will make an upgrade or replacement desirable as well. At this point, depending on determined requirements the replacement could be anything from refurbished and upgraded Bushmasters, new build improved Bushies (perhaps incorporating tech/components from LAND 121 trucks), a completely new design or even a derivative of the selected LAND 400 cavalry vehicle.

 

[Raven22]

As Volk said, the initial scoping of LAND400 included replacing the vehicles in two cavalry regiments, two mech infantry battalion and two motorised (in PMV) battalions. Hence, the Bushmasters in 6 and 8/9 RAR were going to be replaced by LAND400 (likely by an 8x8 vehicle). With Plan BEERSHEEBA and the relegation of PMV to support roles only, replacement of Bushmaster was removed from the LAND400 scope (and hence why the program went from procuring 1100 vehicles to 700 vehicles).

Who knows what will replace Bushmaster, but one thing is for certain - it will be built by Thales to keep the Bendigo like in operation once Hawkei ordered have been filled. As it is, all the current Bushmasters are being upgraded and digitised to the latest standard, incorporating lessons from the Middle East.

 

[t68]

The shape of things to come for RAN / ADF?

Canberra Class / Osprey at RIMPAC 2016.

Moved from the RAN thread,

Whilst undoubtably the V22 Osprey is turning into a fine machine from its troubled humble beginnings and I do feel it has several applications that may suit the ADF, but unless the price comes down dramatically I doubt ADF will see any.

When you look at the history of the CH-47 in ADF service it's a machine that serves in its intended role but also one that is easy to drop on cost grounds as we have seen in years gone past. Way back in 1969 when RAAF sent a second team to the states to evaluate the heavy rotary lift program it was a competition between CH-53 and CH-47 with RAAF recommending CH-53 but was eventually rejected by the then Air Board in favour of CH-47.

I tend to think that V22 would only serve in a niche role for the ADF asit would have to sit between CH-47F and C27J with the V22 as a package not excelling over either aircraft in lift or range with the price per aircraft competing with C27J or 2 airframes of CH-47 is its ultimate downfall

 

[ADMk2]

Moved from the RAN thread,

Whilst undoubtably the V22 Osprey is turning into a fine machine from its troubled humble beginnings and I do feel it has several applications that may suit the ADF, but unless the price comes down dramatically I doubt ADF will see any.

When you look at the history of the CH-47 in ADF service it's a machine that serves in its intended role but also one that is easy to drop on cost grounds as we have seen in years gone past. Way back in 1969 when RAAF sent a second team to the states to evaluate the heavy rotary lift program it was a competition between CH-53 and CH-47 with RAAF recommending CH-53 but was eventually rejected by the then Air Board in favour of CH-47.

I tend to think that V22 would only serve in a niche role for the ADF asit would have to sit between CH-47F and C27J with the V22 as a package not excelling over either aircraft in lift or range with the price per aircraft competing with C27J or 2 airframes of CH-47 is its ultimate downfall

Firstly I agree partially, I too only see a limited place for V-22 in ADF service, but that service I believe will be the RAAF, which secondly, is why I think we will get it. RAAF rarely seems to miss out on what it wants and with SOCOMD backing, this will be a fait accompli I think.

ADF has been without a genuine search and rescue / tactical aeromedical evacuation capability forever and as a new project under WP16, I think the potential for it to become a priority is very high.

With tactical fighters and SOCOMD being the 'go to' capability an ability to support them at extended range for recovery for pilots and insertion / recovery for SOCOMD, as well as the extended range / fast aeromedical capability for HADR, I can see a small force of these becoming a very 'sure thing' in a reasonably rapid space of time.

I envisage something along the lines of a squadon minus capability affording a sustainable and deployable cability of 3-4 aircraft.

 

[Raven22]

There is no requirement for a true search and rescue aircraft. The ADF just isn't big enough to maintain a CSAR capability. The amount of assets needed to do CSAR is huge - if you maintained that capability you'd have no assets leftover to get in trouble in the first place. There is a requirement for a JPL/TRAP capability, but pretty much any availabl aircraft can do that.

Realistically, the only requirement that would see V22 getting purchased is the need for a strategic aeromedical evacuation capability for the amphib force, but personally I don't think that would happen. That is a huge investment of resources and opportunity cost for a rarely used, niche capability. Realistically, how often will the amphibs take casualties outside of the flight range of a Chinook/MRH from an intermediate staging base or friendly vessel able to evacuate the casualties?

Far better to simply invest in more Chinooks, or wait until 6 Avn is equipped with new Blackhawks and use the MRHs originally destined for there as dedicated AME birds.

 

[ADMk2]

There is no requirement for a true search and rescue aircraft. The ADF just isn't big enough to maintain a CSAR capability. The amount of assets needed to do CSAR is huge - if you maintained that capability you'd have no assets leftover to get in trouble in the first place. There is a requirement for a JPL/TRAP capability, but pretty much any availabl aircraft can do that.

Realistically, the only requirement that would see V22 getting purchased is the need for a strategic aeromedical evacuation capability for the amphib force, but personally I don't think that would happen. That is a huge investment of resources and opportunity cost for a rarely used, niche capability. Realistically, how often will the amphibs take casualties outside of the flight range of a Chinook/MRH from an intermediate staging base or friendly vessel able to evacuate the casualties?

Far better to simply invest in more Chinooks, or wait until 6 Avn is equipped with new Blackhawks and use the MRHs originally destined for there as dedicated AME birds.

And yet AME / SAR capabilities are confirmed in the WP 2016 as 'commencing with Chinook upgrades' to provide these roles (AME initially) and in the longer term investigating options to provide 'combat search and rescue capabilities more speedily and at longer ranges...'

WP - 4.94. Doesn't specifically mention any platform other than Chinook upgrades for AME in the short term, but it's a pretty fair hint...

Particularly in light of recent cross-decking Ops with HMAS Canberra... Does anyone honestly think we'll see a USMC F-35B cross-decking on Canberra any time soon?

I don't and that will be purely for political reasons...

 

[ASSAIL]

Particularly in light of recent cross-decking Ops with HMAS Canberra... Does anyone honestly think we'll see a USMC F-35B cross-decking on Canberra any time soon?
.

I do and it would be stupid not to familiarise the ship with F35 procedures even if it's simply for emergency/lily pad purposes.

If the stated CONOPS for our LHDs is to provide a contribution to a major amphibious operation, the ability to interoperate all USN gaitor ship aircraft is essential.

 

[ADMk2]

I do and it would be stupid not to familiarise the ship with F35 procedures even if it's simply for emergency/lily pad purposes.

If the stated CONOPS for our LHDs is to provide a contribution to a major amphibious operation, the ability to interoperate all USN gaitor ship aircraft is essential.

I don't as I think there is and will always be a political imperative for it 'not' to happen...

I agree with the operational sense of the idea, but I just don't think that is the highest priority for that particular capability from a political POV, especially after the Abbott 'Captains call' nonsense.

We all know exactly what will happen the second an F-35 is snapped on the deck of a Canberra Class LHD...

 

[rjtjrt]

Shadow Defence Minister in Australian Labor Party - Conroy out, Richard Marles replaces him.

 

[ASSAIL]

Shadow Defence Minister in Australian Labor Party - Conroy out, Richard Marles replaces him.

Thank goodness for that, Marles is intelligent and coherent and it seems the WA mafia has been replaced on both sides with the SA mafia, hang on, we've had that before, thats how we got Adelaide in the first place thanks to the Libs and Hill

 

[hairyman]

With Donald Trump the newly elected president of the United States, how will he effect our defence forces? Hopefully he might cause our government to spend more on defence.

 

[cdxbow]

With Donald Trump the newly elected president of the United States, how will he effect our defence forces? Hopefully he might cause our government to spend more on defence.

Depends on what he does, he's a pretty unpredictable guy. It could range from nothing very much changes, all the way through to the end of the American Imperium, with everything in between possible. We may have to be a fairly agile ally over the next few years. Unfortunately he has a particular beef with China, which could play out in all sorts of ways.

 

[ADMk2]

I think at an absolute minimum he will expect NATO and firm allies such as us, to meet minimum spending levels, in order to guarantee US military support.

The 'peace dividend' is well and truly over I believe and I fully expect Trump will demand no less than 2% of GDP (ie: the expected NATO standard) spending immediately before you even come to the table and ask him for anything military related...

He wants to boost US industry and I have no doubt he eyes the large military orders that will come for US defence industry as a major jobs creation opportunity if 2% spending levels were achieved by EVERY US ally...

 

[King Wally]

With Donald Trump the newly elected president of the United States, how will he effect our defence forces? Hopefully he might cause our government to spend more on defence.

We're certainly not going to reduce spending that's for sure. That said of all America's allys we likely are toward the top of the pile for spending levels as a % of GDP so perhaps nothing major needs to change here for us anyway.

We've made a number of smart/forward thinking investments in recent years (Air force for example... Super Hornets/Growlers/tankers/Wedgetails/C-17's/P8's... F35's are coming etc) if anyone is set up it's us. Canada, New Zealand, EU zone, some of these other players however have a LOT of work to do in Trumps eye's. There are a number of countries out there that should be very nervous.

 

[Bluey 006]

With Donald Trump the newly elected president of the United States, how will he effect our defence forces? Hopefully he might cause our government to spend more on defence.

While it won't effect the alliance much I do expect that we will see an increase in independent strategic thinking. Like you, i think there will be greater urgency to enhance our capabilities and achieve spending goals.

My real concern in the Foreign Policy realm and is not what he does so to speak - the US system has checks and balances ( i.e he won't be able to nuke Iran without congress approval) etc but the new potential enemies and sources of conflict he creates through rhetoric and unexpected consequences of his actions or words - commonly down as blow back (the US has a poor record on analyzing this and predicting it )

Lets say he really does "carpet bomb" the Middle East in a manner of speaking. For example with reduced ROE, less considerations of civilian impact or more destructive weapons than we have now - unlikely but it was one of his statements. Then a future leader in the region that is even more erratic seizes on to the hate and discontent he has created to unify groups to rally against the west or they alienate nations that were previously friendly, upset an entire ethnic or regional minority etc etc etc