t68
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression as part of the deal to buy new build "E's" they where going back into the US pool aircraft for up grades then staying in the US system after conversion.
If your OCVs have VLS and canister launched missiles while your future LPDs and possibly even your AORs also have as many strategic length cells as will fit without compromising their core roles the light carriers and big deck amphibs can probably get away with a minimal number of cells for defensive missiles only. With distributed lethality any networked ship, sub, aircraft, offshore facility, onshore facility or suitable army capability can contribute missiles' to the offensive and defensive power of a naval task force.
Looking at the cost of the LHDs with their comprehensive combat, command, control and communications facilities, plus the costs of the ANZAC ASMD upgrades verses the cost of the AWDs with their AEGIS systems it is clear that platform size and volume, even power generation and sensors are not as important in platform costs as the type of integrated combat system selected. A big ship with a lot of volume, power generation and cooling, permitting the installation of required weapons, sensors and data links can be much cheaper than an AWD / DDG, or even future cruiser .
So long as you have your command and coordination capabilities within the task group it doesn't (or rather shouldn't) matter if your weapons and sensors are distributed to other ships and aircraft or not. In fact having say your ABMs and land attack missiles on an LPD may be advantageous as this is the ship most likely to be operating in close vicinity to the deployed ARG. Having the LPD and supporting OCVs networked with the ARGs air defence, land and maritime attack missiles only makes more sense. You could have a Camcopter or Firescout from an OCV designate a hostile surface combatant that is then engaged by a missile fired from a HIMARs onshore. You could have incoming tactical missiles aimed at the beach head targeted and engaged by ESSM Block II fired by an OCV just offshore, or by an SM-6 from an LPD, frigate or destroyer.
If everything else can fire tactical and strategic length missiles the flat decks can concentrate on keeping F-35Bs, tiltrotors, helicopters and various UAV /UCAV in the air, not just by launching, recovering and maintaining their own assigned platforms, but by providing deeper level maintenance, support and repairs to the platforms distributed through the task force and ARG. They could even provide a pool of aviation platforms and personnel to be distributed through the taskforce and ARG as required. For example a squadron of Sierras could deploy on the carrier but then individual aircraft could be seconded to OCVs in place of their usual UAV for specific missions. Damaged assets could be returned to the carrier, as slung loads by heavy lift helicopters if required, for repair and return to service that would be impossible any other time. The flat deck could even make use of workshops using state of the art 3D printers and machining centers to manufacture require components for repairs, while their large decks would permit COD flights by tiltrotors carrying other required items and equipment.
Further more the LPDs and LHDs could be configured to swing to carry out similar functions to varying degrees by deploying containerised systems transferred to them after the initial landing / deployment. Alternatively the ADF could investigate if an expeditionary support ship could be a more economical way of conducting this type of support.
The RAN, or more to the point, the commonwealth government, needs its version of Plan Beersheba or Plan Jericho, it needs to move away from the like for like replacements and start looking at the desired effects. OCV was a start but pretty soon sidelined by Smiths lack of vision, then their is the political rejection of carriers (and nuclear power for that matter) where the arguments against and the work arounds required instead of the politically unflavoured option, actually take longer and cost more than doing a proper analysis and then adequately funding the most suitable option would have in the first place.
If the RAN were permitted to embrace distributed lethality and deploy VLS and modular missile systems on OCVs (or better still corvettes or light frigates) then there would be no loss in lethality if some frigates were replaced by carriers'. Once available the carriers could then become a force multiplier through their support of multiple types of air assets including UAV and UCAV, as well as supporting, maintaining, repairing and even replacing helicopters and UAVs throughout the taskforce.
I agree, however I am a strong believer that distributed lethality extends to flat tops and support ships not just combat ships. I have very strong reservations about high value maritime assets being sans VLS for defensive weapons especially. Some lessons from the likes of WW2 appear to have been forgotten and even though the technology and weapons are far more advanced, the concepts and strategies are not that dissimilar.
Defence Minister Payne is reported as co-owning a racehorse with a lobbyist who represents company with defence contracts.
Nocookies | The Australian
This seems to me to be a surprising lack of good judgement by Minister Payne. Whilst she does not want to make the personal sacrifice of missing out on the pleasure she gets from being a racehorse owner attending race meetings, it is a poor decision on her part to continue this arrangement, even if she has excused herself from government decisions on which the lobbyist has an interest.
There is too much room for subtle or inadvertent influence, and/or the perception of influence.
Nocookies | The Australian
This seems to me to be a surprising lack of good judgement by Minister Payne. Whilst she does not want to make the personal sacrifice of missing out on the pleasure she gets from being a racehorse owner attending race meetings, it is a poor decision on her part to continue this arrangement, even if she has excused herself from government decisions on which the lobbyist has an interest.
There is too much room for subtle or inadvertent influence, and/or the perception of influence.
I find it more of an issue that 96% of federal pollies have got investment properties - no wonder they don't like decisions on modifying capital gains tax
Also, for same reason, they seem reluctant to stop the use of family trusts for taxation purposes that seem to me to not be in the national interest give the budget position.I find it more of an issue that 96% of federal pollies have got investment properties - no wonder they don't like decisions on modifying capital gains tax
I can see this going OT real quick, so might be prudent to start a different thread in general discussion
t68
Well-Known Member
An interesting little snipet in today's daily tele under " A Pence for Trumps thoughts"
Could be a prelude to discussion of a possabile request by Trump to Turnbull about moving US troops out of Okinawa to a permanent base of upto 12500, what are people thought on a permanent troop base in Australia. Just hope Trump doesn't think we should pay for it aswell.
Could be a prelude to discussion of a possabile request by Trump to Turnbull about moving US troops out of Okinawa to a permanent base of upto 12500, what are people thought on a permanent troop base in Australia. Just hope Trump doesn't think we should pay for it aswell.
Me too. The idea that we are going to operate 1500t - 1800t warships without a basic defence from air defence is almost as idiotic as the thought that we may operate 27,000t amphibious ships without a basic air defence capability, oh, wait...
This to me is nothing different to the late 80's - 90's attitude where we operated 'advanced' platforms on paper, but when you take a close look at those 'advanced' platforms, you start noticing a few things...
We flew 'advanced' fighter and strike jets. But before we could actually send those on operations, even in low-medium level threat scenarios they had to be upgraded with things including radar-warning receivers, precision targetting pods, electronic warfare self protection systems and precision weapons that would actually work when it started raining...
We operated 'armoured' vehicles, that would be flat out stopping a belt fed 7.62mm machine gun and our vehicles (if they were lucky) had thin armoured turrets or turret rings. Most weapons were flex mounted and offered zero protection for the troops called upon to operate them.
Now we have warships with no ability to operate in the face of air, surface or sub-surface attack. Sure, we have other ships designed to provide them protection, but plans often go out the window when the range becomes a two way street and the continual flurry of activity to make our platforms ready for operations through UOR procurement is a disgrace.
IMHO anything operated by the Navy should at an absolute minimum have soft and hard kill self-protection from air, sea and land based threats.
Anything that doesn't should be operated by Border Force.
yep, distributed lethality refers to everything eared up and geared up that is contributing to the combat and common operating picture of the group.
Agree..........ALL ships sent into harms way should have some form of close in hard and soft kill protection.
On our Destroyers and Frigates this would be a given. ( Sorry ANZAC's no CIWS ). For the Canberra class, Choules and the new Cantabria class they should all have there own inner defence.When an incoming hostile missile or torpedo has penetrated the outer layers and is down to the last KM or two you want as much last ditch hard and soft kill insurance as possible.If the ships have the real estate and the engineering is good spend the money, install the protective systems or don't call them warships as realistically you would be reluctant to send them into harms way.
As to the OPV well this debate has gone in circles so harms way for them will at most be hard end constabulary duties........ A shame the DWP did not request a true OCV instead of an OPV..
Regards S
My argument wasn't that flat tops shouldn't have strategic length VLS, let alone no point defence or close in defence, but rather if we embraced distributed lethality and had large numbers of VLS fitted to LPDs and possibly AORs (two strategically vital to protect platforms'), as well as our destroyers and frigates, we could get away with not having them equipped with SM-3/6, Tomahawk etc.
Taking this further, if your minor combatants and even support roled minor ships on a common hull (MCM, hydro, oceanography, even dare I suggest APD / assault transports), are designed with sufficient magin, then fitting an 8 or16 cell strategic length VLS should not be an issue. These little ships could then use SM-6, ESSM, even VLASROC, Tomahawk etc. (as well as LRASM but this could also be fitted on slant launchers like Harpoon and NSM, similar applies to Sea Ceptor, RAM Block II and Nulka which can use ExLS units in VLS or other options that don't take up VLS cells). Fit CEC and/or other data links and they could conceivably add to the task forces SM-3 load out, as well as being able to employ their other weapons to far greater effect.
As to strategic length VLS on flat decks, why not? Bear in mind they would need to be located well away from flight operations to permit their use at any time, i.e. peripheral VLS installed outboard of the island or even in the starboard side of the island so that structure masks flight operations from the missile launch.
Taking this further, if your minor combatants and even support roled minor ships on a common hull (MCM, hydro, oceanography, even dare I suggest APD / assault transports), are designed with sufficient magin, then fitting an 8 or16 cell strategic length VLS should not be an issue. These little ships could then use SM-6, ESSM, even VLASROC, Tomahawk etc. (as well as LRASM but this could also be fitted on slant launchers like Harpoon and NSM, similar applies to Sea Ceptor, RAM Block II and Nulka which can use ExLS units in VLS or other options that don't take up VLS cells). Fit CEC and/or other data links and they could conceivably add to the task forces SM-3 load out, as well as being able to employ their other weapons to far greater effect.
As to strategic length VLS on flat decks, why not? Bear in mind they would need to be located well away from flight operations to permit their use at any time, i.e. peripheral VLS installed outboard of the island or even in the starboard side of the island so that structure masks flight operations from the missile launch.
So it's effectively a wideband digital receiver?
the geek adjective of passive sniffer and dynamic broad spectrum mapper is far more appealing
more on the USMC forces arriving in sunny NT
unfort, no pictures on the arrival of the chinese contingent for this years exercises
The Thundering Third arrive in the Top End for Marine Rotational Force – Darwin 2017 – Aviation Spotters Online
unfort, no pictures on the arrival of the chinese contingent for this years exercises
The Thundering Third arrive in the Top End for Marine Rotational Force – Darwin 2017 – Aviation Spotters Online
Volk it's interesting the weapons fit for Italy's aircraft carrier Cavour and the future Landing Helicopter Assult ship Trieste. Muliple Oto Melara 76mm and 25mm guns plus VLS for Aster 15 and 30 missiles.Their ageing light carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi once even had SSM to add its impressive air defence arsenal. Ambitious maybe, but for a small ship it was/is a useful of kit.
The Italians tend to put a fair bit of punch on their ships so maybe we could take note and apply were practical some of these lesson to our new supply ships and amphib's.
Regards S
Been reading some SLDinfo.com and in one of the articles I came across this interesting snippet that I have not seen in the media (may have missed it).
Australian Army Modernization: An Update from Brigadier General Mills | SLDInfo
Other interesting snippet's in that article (and there are a few others released over the last week that relate to the ADF).
Australian Army Modernization: An Update from Brigadier General Mills | SLDInfo
Looking into nano UAV's doesnt surprise me, To be looking at equipping every platoon and vehicle troop with one though does some what as I never heard or expected to see it coming to such a level so soon that we are already talking to a contractor about it.
Other interesting snippet's in that article (and there are a few others released over the last week that relate to the ADF).
Apparently we are also looking to start trials towards the back end of this year running for a few years on autonomous robots and/or vehicles to clear the ground ahead of a patrol.
its been normal to run UAS ahead of patrols in afghanistan - and they've been running micro UAS recently
about the size of a can of aftershave