cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, If the party starts in 5-6 years this is the sort of thing that can be added and integrated in time. The future maritime platforms are coming in 2030+and may simply be irrelevant because events overtake their development. The rectrospectoscope tells me our current national ship building plan is the right plan, if only it were 10 years ago.
A significant fleet of the maritime strike TLAM would add something significantly new to the ADF, long range strike with significant mass. Unfortunately the RAN is limited in it's ability to capitalize on them because of the lack of magazine depth for full length missiles. Land based TLAM could be used as part of the armies long range fires project and used in both expeditionary role and continental defence. Sure, their may be better, newer missiles in the pipeline, but this would add significant capabilities, quickly, with little risk. Best billion dollars we could spend for quick and maximal benefit. Servicing and refurbishing the fleet locally could be one of the functions of our future 'Missile works'.
Agree. Much the same as TLAM, these can add some potent, new capabilities quickly, again with little risk. Certainly JSM for the F35 is a must. NSM could be a literal Harpoon replacement, but we also have buy in to LRASM for the future and I have just suggested spending a billion dollars for a TLAM fleet, so a need for the NSM might not be so great. I hope the ADF is concentrating more effort on capabilities that can be introduced in the next couple of years, and are able to serve capably through the next decade.
With great fanfare DoD announced a few months ago a whole range of new missile capabilities are being sought, but only ESSM Block II, SM-2 Block IIIC and SM-6 were specifically named...
As usual with the current “capabilities black hole” in defence, no details on launch systems, timelines, numbers, cost, integration requirements or a whole host of things, least of all ASM or land attack capabilities…
TLAM is becoming more a of a sub surface platform. Even the US, which has tremendous surface VLS capability is moving more onto subs. IMO there is a bit of a justification on non stealthy platforms firing stealthy weapons and stealthy platforms firing less stealthy weapons.
LRASM/TLAM/NSM/JSM/SM-6 are all complimentary. There are strong arguments for each missile, and having it in our inventory. As they are in the USN.
NSM is also supposed to get a submarine launch version.
Exclusive: Latest Details on Kongsberg NSM-SL (Submarine Launch) Weapon System. However it range isn't the same as a TLAM, there isn't that deep strike capability from afar, or being able to cover a sea with a single unit.
However, NSM - TLAM comparisons are strange, one is ~10 times the mass, 4+ times the range and a war head ~five times larger.
There are a range of opportunities.
LRASM is for the super hornets, but may become a critical weapon for the P8.
TLAM may be for the AWD's, but find its main home on the subs.
NSM may be for the Army, but find its way onto frigates/AWD's.
SM6 may be for the AWD, but could find its way onto super hornets.
Hence why getting them into the ADF, is critical and secondary programs can get underway or be assessed.
LRASM/TLAM/NSM/JSM/SM-6 are all complimentary. There are strong arguments for each missile, and having it in our inventory. As they are in the USN.
NSM is also supposed to get a submarine launch version.
Exclusive: Latest Details on Kongsberg NSM-SL (Submarine Launch) Weapon System. However it range isn't the same as a TLAM, there isn't that deep strike capability from afar, or being able to cover a sea with a single unit.
However, NSM - TLAM comparisons are strange, one is ~10 times the mass, 4+ times the range and a war head ~five times larger.
Shame, more details would be useful here.
There are a range of opportunities.
LRASM is for the super hornets, but may become a critical weapon for the P8.
TLAM may be for the AWD's, but find its main home on the subs.
NSM may be for the Army, but find its way onto frigates/AWD's.
SM6 may be for the AWD, but could find its way onto super hornets.
Hence why getting them into the ADF, is critical and secondary programs can get underway or be assessed.
Sea 4000 Phase 6 was tendered in October last year. According to Navantia, who as the design agent for the class should know, that includes an upgrade of Aegis to Baseline 9. In turn, articles in the USNI News have indicated Baseline 9 is ABM capable; able to employ both SM-3 and SM-6. So it would seem the acquisition of the capability to use them, if not the missiles themselves, is underway. The timeframe for delivery starts in 2024.
aviation_enthus
Member
The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship
A non-maritime patrol variant of the P-8 could provide the Air Force with a highly flexible platform for augmenting the bomber force and much more.
www.thedrive.com
Quite an interesting concept for an “RB-8” based on the 737/P-8 airframe.
Some of the suggested uses for this concept are quite fascinating, especially with regard to the large areas of ocean and SLOC we need to protect in any conflict. IMHO it would complement the current P-8 fleet by providing similar capabilities and weapons but without the cost of fitting it out for a specific sub hunting role. It could also potentially provide more “mothership” type platforms to use with future Loyal Wingman type drones, plus plenty of space in the cabin to fit whatever operator consoles that could be required. Also has plenty of onboard power generation for future upgrades/uses.
I’d imagine 2-3 RB-8 style aircraft shadowing a hostile fleet in the oceans around Australia would present a significant threat. The potential ability to have drone surveillance, some electronic jamming and up to 12 Harpoons (across 3 airframes) would pose a decent threat to any naval force operating without air cover. Plus this threat could be generated without tanker support and would have the potential to loiter for hours (depending on the range from Australia of course).
I’d argue it helps fill a gap left by the retirement of the F-111 (long range maritime strike) and frees up P-8 airframes for more specific roles like sub hunting. It would also allow the F-35’s (and associated tankers) to be deployed on other high value missions.
The CAS proposal is also useful in the context of our near region in any future peace keeping operations Eg East Timor or the more recent deployments to the Philippines in their battle against ISIS. A useful and easily deployable (and relatively cheap to operate) contribution we could make to the security of our neighbours.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Yes, mixture of arsenal ship and drone mothership. Given the current P8 can already accommodate most of the capabilities I thought it ended up a good argument for a small force like the RAAF to simply get more P8's. Bring the fleet up to 20 and acquire LRASM as soon as available, The platform is going to be around for a long time, has a huge user base and will evolve considerably, best to keep our modest force instep.The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship
A non-maritime patrol variant of the P-8 could provide the Air Force with a highly flexible platform for augmenting the bomber force and much more.
Quite an interesting concept for an “RB-8” based on the 737/P-8 airframe.
Some of the suggested uses for this concept are quite fascinating, especially with regard to the large areas of ocean and SLOC we need to protect in any conflict. IMHO it would complement the current P-8 fleet by providing similar capabilities and weapons but without the cost of fitting it out for a specific sub hunting role. It could also potentially provide more “mothership” type platforms to use with future Loyal Wingman type drones, plus plenty of space in the cabin to fit whatever operator consoles that could be required. Also has plenty of onboard power generation for future upgrades/uses.
I’d imagine 2-3 RB-8 style aircraft shadowing a hostile fleet in the oceans around Australia would present a significant threat. The potential ability to have drone surveillance, some electronic jamming and up to 12 Harpoons (across 3 airframes) would pose a decent threat to any naval force operating without air cover. Plus this threat could be generated without tanker support and would have the potential to loiter for hours (depending on the range from Australia of course).
I’d argue it helps fill a gap left by the retirement of the F-111 (long range maritime strike) and frees up P-8 airframes for more specific roles like sub hunting. It would also allow the F-35’s (and associated tankers) to be deployed on other high value missions.
The CAS proposal is also useful in the context of our near region in any future peace keeping operations Eg East Timor or the more recent deployments to the Philippines in their battle against ISIS. A useful and easily deployable (and relatively cheap to operate) contribution we could make to the security of our neighbours.
aviation_enthus
Member
Yes additional P-8’s would do most of what is mentioned. However I think the point was by deleting some of more specific equipment it might make the airframe cheaper to acquire, but still extremely useful
Quite an interesting concept. Would be interesting to see if it is picked up. I do have some reservations about it but undoubtedly they could be alleviated. WRT the CAS component, I think that would have to be an optional extra WRT to near peer conflict, as is noted in the article. We'll just have to wait and see.
Whether or not it has a place in the RAAF ORBAT is another story.
Whether or not it has a place in the RAAF ORBAT is another story.
Totally agree the P-8 has a lot of potential.
As to a stripped down version losing its ASW emphasis; well certainly a maybe for the USAF.
But not for the ADF.
While I can appreciate the perceived cost benefits, we need the flexibility of the P-8 across all domains.
That said, lets explore what this platform can contribute outside of the ASW realm.
As a long range bomb truck deployed in appropriate circumstances I can see great potential.
If the ADF wants to quickly add long range strike across the land / sea space, additional P8s and complimentary MMTT are our quickest fix.
Both aircraft are in service, but probably not in the numbers we actually need.
When it takes time to build ships and introduce new aircraft, consolidating and expanding on what we already have is the quickest remedy for deterrence in the short term.
Get those two additional KC-30's and a few more Poseidon's over and above the 14 ordered.
Regards S
ADF is currently looking at ways it might be able to provide many of the effects of a submarine, without actually having a submarine…
I’d suggest additional P-8A’s, additional ISR and additional maritime strike capability would be foremost among those options…
I wonder if the trade off might be fewer submarines eventually?
We already have fewer submarines, we should have built 8. I think it would be a hard battle to give up subs. There is a number based around viability of building, operating, manning them.
Operational costs of a sub vs a P8 are incomparable. Manning a P8 is fairly easy, with its crew of nine. Maintenance, based off a 737, is very low, you can find techs with 20 years experience on 737 a dime a dozen. Parts and logistics are again, commercially sourced. It is mainly an acquisition cost. 737 operating costs are within the means of an individual, like an actor. We are also talking about adding to an existing pool that is already broad.
If in a couple of years we wanted to divest ourselves of a few, they will be the easiest platform in the world to sell on to friendlies. Just like the p3 Orion's before them. Even if we just operated them as gap fillers. However, I think after acquiring them they will prove their worth.
P8 could be an interesting platform.
- Perhaps if armed with a SM-6 as a air to air missile in the way the p3's were able to carry AGM-65 maverick.
- LRASM would give it useful reach
- Other munitions could be integrated, able to loiter and drop many smart munitions and drones.
In an actual conflict, its the type of platform we could actually continually fly and continue to operate. We can operate them from airstrips that a quite remote, and the have range to be able to get there and patrol. A far more realistic option than B21's.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Just read the piece on the RB-8, if obtainable at $130 million, it seems to be a good option for the US and offers great flexibility. For P-8 users with smaller fleets, an extra 2 P-8s or 3 RB-8s, the former option may be preferable. An RB-8 production run would extend P-8 availability to nations that are late to the party (Canada) and perhaps to P-8 users that see merit in additional aircraft.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
The Australian Defence Sales Catalogue 2021 has now been released.
Gives an overview of capabilities available from Australian Defence companies but also lists some surplus major weapons systems available to buy from the Australian Government. So for example ASLAVs are now available (would have thought they might make an ideal vehicle for conversion to an unmanned ground vehicle). Also listed as coming available are M113AS4s, HMAS Sirius, the Tiger ARHs etc.
One listing really surprised me
Not till 2030 but I didn't think they had even started a replacement programme and thought a total refurbishment was an option?
Gives an overview of capabilities available from Australian Defence companies but also lists some surplus major weapons systems available to buy from the Australian Government. So for example ASLAVs are now available (would have thought they might make an ideal vehicle for conversion to an unmanned ground vehicle). Also listed as coming available are M113AS4s, HMAS Sirius, the Tiger ARHs etc.
One listing really surprised me
Not till 2030 but I didn't think they had even started a replacement programme and thought a total refurbishment was an option?
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Here is the link if anyone is interested in the whole catalogue:
There was I think some interest from state/overseas government entities in some of these as fire fighting (Fire King) and police tactical units.
I would be quite happy if some of the older units were repurposed for emergency services or spares for these.
Some police services were buying bearcats. Bushmaster may be a reasonably good alternative.
Some countries would be happy with cheap second hand units rather than new builds.
New builds are still coming off the line. Probably cheaper than remanufacturing. Particularly for the AUSGOV. I assume the will just keep producing them.
The new ambulance version looks nifty. I would imagine earlier versions will be replaced with new versions.
Thales completes first Medivac Bushmaster - Australian Manufacturing Forum
the first of five Medivac variants of the Bushmaster armoured vehicle (pictured) has rolled out of Thales’ factory in Bendigo, Victoria. Destined for the Netherlands, the Medivac is a hospital on wheels built for the battlefield and is is distinguishable as the first Bushmaster with front doors...
www.aumanufacturing.com.au
t68
Well-Known Member
There was I think some interest from state/overseas government entities in some of these as fire fighting (Fire King) and police tactical units.
I would be quite happy if some of the older units were repurposed for emergency services or spares for these.
Some police services were buying bearcats. Bushmaster may be a reasonably good alternative.
Some countries would be happy with cheap second hand units rather than new builds.
New builds are still coming off the line. Probably cheaper than remanufacturing. Particularly for the AUSGOV. I assume the will just keep producing them.
The new ambulance version looks nifty. I would imagine earlier versions will be replaced with new versions.
Thales completes first Medivac Bushmaster - Australian Manufacturing Forum
the first of five Medivac variants of the Bushmaster armoured vehicle (pictured) has rolled out of Thales’ factory in Bendigo, Victoria. Destined for the Netherlands, the Medivac is a hospital on wheels built for the battlefield and is is distinguishable as the first Bushmaster with front doors...
I think the new builds are going to the Dutch & Kiwis, I imagine will eventually gift a few to the island countries like the Fiji who have a track record of support UN peacekeeping missions.
Fiji finalizes sale of military vehicles from Australia – FBC News
Netherlands Orders 6 New Bushmasters Protected Mobility Vehicle - MilitaryLeak
Kiwi Army Get New Bushmasters and MRZR Mobility Platforms (overtdefense.com)
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I’m going to go out on a limb here, make a prediction, and suggest we’ll see an early replacement of the Bushmaster fleet, new build rather than a major upgrade.
Why you ask?
The current Government policy is very much about supporting local manufacture of defence equipment, eg, jobs, jobs and more jobs, which equals smart politics too.
Continuous naval shipbuilding in SA and WA for example = manufacturing jobs.
For Army, production hubs by Rheinmetall in QLD, Hanwha in Geelong VIC, Thales in Bendigo VIC.
The Government will need to keep these production facilities ‘fed’ with work to make them viable.
• Rheinmetall - Boxer, heavy Trucks and Lynx (if it wins), plus ongoing sustainment.
• Hanwha - AS9 and AS10 SPH vehicles and Redback (if it wins).
• Thales - Bushmaster & Hawkei.
Thales has a small number of foreign Bushmaster orders, and a few years Hawkei production, then what? Valley of Death?
My prediction is at the upcoming election we’ll hear about ‘meaty bones’ being promised in the electorates where those manufacturers are located.
Watch this space!
Just my opinion of course too.
Cheers,
aviation_enthus
Member
I hope you are correct!!
Even if the actual manufacturing was consolidated in 2 facilities (out of the 3 mentioned), I’m sure given the amount of heavy vehicles being ordered we could make some sort of “continuous build program” just like the Navy.
With items as small as vehicles (and relatively inexpensive) we should be able to sustain regular orders, even if the gaps were filled with donations to some of our near neighbours (Eg Bushmaster and Hawkei). Or even NZ if they could be convinced….
This plus continuous ship building plus the proposed missile manufacturing facility would take Australia a long way toward a more resilient position in the event of war.
Rather then from 3 to 2 it really should go down to a singular location even something along the lines of a common user facility for ground vehicles with multiple companies sharing the main production facilities. All well and good to have multiple sites but it increases risk of death valleys where as having a single site between various vehicles across the board, exports and upgrades/maintenance could allow such a site to retain enough personnel to make it cost effective (ie: harder for some random polly to want to cut to save a dollar) and even put them in a better position to be able to ramp production up when/if needed. Hell throw in production or trains and trams because between NSW and VIC we technically have the scale for continuous production of those with majority to full Australian content which would benefit a few of the defence contractors to keep them busy and thus keeping them sustainable and by extension keeping us self sufficient.