ADF General discussion thread

John Newman

The Bunker Group
The Hobart's are destroyers in name, the F-100s are frigates in name.

Ironically the much larger, better equipped G&C evolved design was referred to as a frigate.

The hunters will be larger and better equipped than the Hobart's. It's irrelevant whether we call them destroyers or frigates.
I think the best way to describe the difference between a Destroyer and Frigate these days is their primary role.

I would say a Destroyer has a primary AAW role, with a secondary ASW role, and a Frigate has a primary ASW role, with a secondary AAW role.

Which, if you compare a Hobart vs a Hunter, is exactly how they are configured and equipped.

For surface warfare it’s pretty much line ball if both types are equipped with similar gun and AShM armament.

Anyway, just my opinion.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think the best way to describe the difference between a Destroyer and Frigate these days is their primary role.

I would say a Destroyer has a primary AAW role, with a secondary ASW role, and a Frigate has a primary ASW role, with a secondary AAW role.

Which, if you compare a Hobart vs a Hunter, is exactly how they are configured and equipped.

For surface warfare it’s pretty much line ball if both types are equipped with similar gun and AShM armament.

Anyway, just my opinion.
The old rule of thumb was destroyers were useful at multiple roles where frigates were specialised in one role but second rate in the rest.

The exception being the GP frigates that were basically light destroyers, and sloops that were slow destroyers.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
But even the various current frigate and destroyer classes vary so much in comparative tonnage it's hard to classify do we compare destroyers for instance by V.L.S as heavy medium or light destroyers for their capacity to engage
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The old rule of thumb was destroyers were useful at multiple roles where frigates were specialised in one role but second rate in the rest.

The exception being the GP frigates that were basically light destroyers, and sloops that were slow destroyers.
To the layman observer like myself the terms have become a bit meaningless.

Most larger ships will have a range of weapons and sensors to combat the range of threats on, under and above the ocean.
The larger the ship the more you can carry.
But what class a given Navy gives to its fleets ships vary's across the globe and over the decades.
Whether it's 1000t or 10 000t , I just want to know what are the ships capabilities and have we got the correct mix of capability's for a balanced fleet.
The problem with getting too fixated with class names is that they often denote perception of capability and then pigeon hole a vessel into set tasks.

I can understand some nostalgia with the class names of battleship / cruiser / destroyer / corvette etc.
Just not sure whats what in this day and age.

Maybe better to have these names denote a ship by a range of weight, not what weapons they carry.

Anyway still need to find a way to get increased capability this decade.


Cheers S
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The hunters will be larger and better equipped than the Hobart's. It's irrelevant whether we call them destroyers or frigates.
I certainly don't think there is a considerable amount of difference in terms of original capability between the two. The Hobarts will appear to be more tightly integrated with Spy + Aegis and a larger vls magazine, making them more suitable for Aegis fleet integration and possibly for SM-3, as well a larger missile load out enabling things like tomahawk. The the difference is mild out of the box, the Hunters have much more room for growth and will probably have a deeper radar horizon and would likely make better ships for individual work.

But I think people are missing what the current ADF and Australian defence discussion is.

It is more about Australia not having a navy at all. Its more like stop building Hunters, get rid of the Hobarts, push the SSN acquisition way, way into the future (shelved). Buy B21's. Perhaps build patrol boats.

It is not a continuum between new Hobarts and Hunters. Its effectively removing large area defence vessels from the RAN, the big ships. Removing both Hobarts and Hunters from the future (or curtailing their build at 3-6). Replacing them with aircraft. Building more Hobarts will be an argument for more Hunters, not the other way around. This would also include disposing of the LHD's and going with smaller amphibious ships that do not need escorts (or so the logic goes). Basically break the submarine arm as well, it turns out SSN's are hard and expensive. Hard to build, hard to operate, hard to dispose of. The USN isn't going to base 12 SSN's and 2 SSBN in Australia. They aren't going to pay for upgrades to FBE and FBW.

Osborne and henderson can then build small ships <2000t. These would then adopt the ASPI Patrol boat battleship concept of putting a NSM on them, maybe with a 40mm gun to deal with air threats. These ships would operate in Australian waters under the safe protection of the RAAF.

This then frees up lots of money for aircraft.

The argument goes that aircraft are more flexible, faster to respond, more survivable. Western doctrine generally has aircraft as the tool for anti-shipping, not ships, therefore, pointless to build large ships as in future wars they are too open to attack, and Australia needs to focus on sinking chinese naval assets. The US is basing B-52's here and will likely base B21's here. So Australia will defund its Navy to fund a much more capable airforce, based around long range bombers. Which will be based up north. The US has already funded upgrades to Tindal.

Also, it is argued it is too hard to staff and crew the Navy. Australians would prefer jobs in the air force. Therefore we should abandon these hard to staff platforms. Fund more upgrades to airbases and long range strike platforms.

I would be interested in how people see that proposal working. Particularly we would be basically be abandoning or winding up any existing ship acquisitions right now, and B21's might appear sometime mid/late 2030's. Perhaps.

I think there is more to defence of Australia than bombing mainland china with B21's. Which likely won't be survivable in Chinese airspace in 2030.
I am also not convinced that moving the Australian navy into a brown water force will solve our problems, nor will again abandoning local manufacturing of complicated things like ships and land platforms for a US off the shelf wonder weapon.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member

Kim beasley calls to increase defence spending.

Interesting about Japan interested in hosting Australian nuclear submarines.
Wonder where that 2.5% of GDP was being spent, certainly wasn't on blank Ammunition. Went on a major exercise around 1990 and got issued 4 blank rounds for the entire exercise.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Wonder where that 2.5% of GDP was being spent, certainly wasn't on blank Ammunition. Went on a major exercise around 1990 and got issued 4 blank rounds for the entire exercise.
Joined the reserves in 82 and fired 20 live rounds on recruit course and a further 20 rounds on the next 2 week camp.
Don't recall firing a blank round in the first two years.
We became well versed in vocally recreating the sounds of various munitions,vehicles and aircraft we could not actually employ.


Cheers S
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Joined the reserves in 82 and fired 20 live rounds on recruit course and a further 20 rounds on the next 2 week camp.
Don't recall firing a blank round in the first two years.
We became well versed in vocally recreating the sounds of various munitions,vehicles and aircraft we could not actually employ.


Cheers S
Early 90s the barrel of my SLR was too hot to touch from the number of blanks I fired every day of every Cultana or Murray Bridge weekend or two week camp. Many of us also had to carry belts for the M-60 as well.

Transfering from RAINF to RAAC there were less blanks for personal weapons but more live shoots, plenty of blanks for the .30 and .50.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Early 90s the barrel of my SLR was too hot to touch from the number of blanks I fired every day of every Cultana or Murray Bridge weekend or two week camp. Many of us also had to carry belts for the M-60 as well.

Transfering from RAINF to RAAC there were less blanks for personal weapons but more live shoots, plenty of blanks for the .30 and .50.
Change of government in 83
People joined and then promptly left.
84 onward was much more respectable and got to fire most of what was in the battalion..............Blanks and Live rounds.

Cheers
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
I certainly don't think there is a considerable amount of difference in terms of original capability between the two. The Hobarts will appear to be more tightly integrated with Spy + Aegis and a larger vls magazine, making them more suitable for Aegis fleet integration and possibly for SM-3, as well a larger missile load out enabling things like tomahawk. The the difference is mild out of the box, the Hunters have much more room for growth and will probably have a deeper radar horizon and would likely make better ships for individual work.

But I think people are missing what the current ADF and Australian defence discussion is.

It is more about Australia not having a navy at all. Its more like stop building Hunters, get rid of the Hobarts, push the SSN acquisition way, way into the future (shelved). Buy B21's. Perhaps build patrol boats.

It is not a continuum between new Hobarts and Hunters. Its effectively removing large area defence vessels from the RAN, the big ships. Removing both Hobarts and Hunters from the future (or curtailing their build at 3-6). Replacing them with aircraft. Building more Hobarts will be an argument for more Hunters, not the other way around. This would also include disposing of the LHD's and going with smaller amphibious ships that do not need escorts (or so the logic goes). Basically break the submarine arm as well, it turns out SSN's are hard and expensive. Hard to build, hard to operate, hard to dispose of. The USN isn't going to base 12 SSN's and 2 SSBN in Australia. They aren't going to pay for upgrades to FBE and FBW.

Osborne and henderson can then build small ships <2000t. These would then adopt the ASPI Patrol boat battleship concept of putting a NSM on them, maybe with a 40mm gun to deal with air threats. These ships would operate in Australian waters under the safe protection of the RAAF.

This then frees up lots of money for aircraft.

The argument goes that aircraft are more flexible, faster to respond, more survivable. Western doctrine generally has aircraft as the tool for anti-shipping, not ships, therefore, pointless to build large ships as in future wars they are too open to attack, and Australia needs to focus on sinking chinese naval assets. The US is basing B-52's here and will likely base B21's here. So Australia will defund its Navy to fund a much more capable airforce, based around long range bombers. Which will be based up north. The US has already funded upgrades to Tindal.

Also, it is argued it is too hard to staff and crew the Navy. Australians would prefer jobs in the air force. Therefore we should abandon these hard to staff platforms. Fund more upgrades to airbases and long range strike platforms.

I would be interested in how people see that proposal working. Particularly we would be basically be abandoning or winding up any existing ship acquisitions right now, and B21's might appear sometime mid/late 2030's. Perhaps.

I think there is more to defence of Australia than bombing mainland china with B21's. Which likely won't be survivable in Chinese airspace in 2030.
I am also not convinced that moving the Australian navy into a brown water force will solve our problems, nor will again abandoning local manufacturing of complicated things like ships and land platforms for a US off the shelf wonder weapon.
This is a monumental change indeed if it happens.

The immediate problems that jump out to me are:

1) What happens when our relatively limited number of airbases get hit by ballistic missiles? Or is there some significant increase in bare bases / hardening of facilities to be undertaken?

2) The analysis is probably right that aircraft can be effective against surface targets, but what about subsurface? How effective is a P8 vs a Hunter at tracking a sub? How many P8s would you need to ensure that you could keep one on station constantly to track a sub? Or do we use our own SSKs/SSNs for that?

3) What happens to the cost of a local build of SSNs if the continuous shipbuilding program gets thrown out?

4) How do directed energy weapons factor into this? Ships are a much better platform for these than aircraft in my estimation.

5) How do we reassure the Pacific Islands about our commitment to the region? Do we base aircraft offshore?

6) Marles’ recent press seems to indicate that he is a very big fan of SSNs. I doubt they will be shelved.

This seems to be a very big bet on one set of capabilities… not sure it makes sense. Presumably inter service rivalry is alive and well in the jostling for prioritisation.

When you say “current ADF and Defence” - is that shorthand for RAAF? ;)
 

Dickyknees63

New Member
I joined as a Reservist in '83. RAInf as a Rifleman then Asslt Pnr. Plenty of live stuff incl SLR, M16, F1, M60, Bren as an SFMG, Browning Hi-Power. Have fired 66 & Carl Gustav SRAAW's. In Asslt Pnr Pl got to use pretty much every demolition charge that was in the inventory at the time. Even sheet explosive (Metabel). 30/50 Beehive remains a fave, with Bangalore a close second, not to mention M14, M16 & M18 mines. Corps transerred to RAA after completing Offr Trg. Was a gun line Offr then FO. Got to use realisitic rates in fireplans and exercised at Cultana with 8/12 Mdm as an independent battery of 105's on M2A2's. Did a mobile OP in the back of an M113 as we advanced to contact. Good fun. Left in '98 after 15 terrific years.

I should have said that the point of this post was to say that 'timing is everything' re the ADF, from the perspective of a serving member as much as the govt of the day and its spending priorities. I think I had a pretty good run in terms of training opportunities and access to kit (did I mention an F-111 photo recce flight over a Coy defense we had established as Asslt Pnrs with Engr support? :cool: )
 
Last edited:

protoplasm

Active Member
I certainly don't think there is a considerable amount of difference in terms of original capability between the two. The Hobarts will appear to be more tightly integrated with Spy + Aegis and a larger vls magazine, making them more suitable for Aegis fleet integration and possibly for SM-3, as well a larger missile load out enabling things like tomahawk. The the difference is mild out of the box, the Hunters have much more room for growth and will probably have a deeper radar horizon and would likely make better ships for individual work.

But I think people are missing what the current ADF and Australian defence discussion is.

It is more about Australia not having a navy at all. Its more like stop building Hunters, get rid of the Hobarts, push the SSN acquisition way, way into the future (shelved). Buy B21's. Perhaps build patrol boats.

It is not a continuum between new Hobarts and Hunters. Its effectively removing large area defence vessels from the RAN, the big ships. Removing both Hobarts and Hunters from the future (or curtailing their build at 3-6). Replacing them with aircraft. Building more Hobarts will be an argument for more Hunters, not the other way around. This would also include disposing of the LHD's and going with smaller amphibious ships that do not need escorts (or so the logic goes). Basically break the submarine arm as well, it turns out SSN's are hard and expensive. Hard to build, hard to operate, hard to dispose of. The USN isn't going to base 12 SSN's and 2 SSBN in Australia. They aren't going to pay for upgrades to FBE and FBW.
Single biggest issue, persistence. Having an aircraft performing a role 24/7 1000nm+ from a friendly runway is a major undertaking. This involves a huge number of role aircraft, plus supporting aircraft (tankers), plus ground support, plus all of the facilities at the airbase to support that level of ongoing persistence. And as has been pointed out, that airbase becomes a high value fixed target for the enemy.

Or I can have a capable ship on station, and that ship moves, making targeting harder for the enemy. It is a false economy to believe that you can use aircraft as a direct substitute for capable ships. I know that everything should be working together as a combined arms force with complementary capabilities all contributing to the overall effort, but the pretence that you can just remove one contributor and substitute another for it is ridiculous.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I joined as a Reservist in '83. RAInf as a Rifleman then Asslt Pnr. Plenty of live stuff incl SLR, M16, F1, M60, Bren as an SFMG, Browning Hi-Power. Have fired 66 & Carl Gustav SRAAW's. In Asslt Pnr Pl got to use pretty much every demolition charge that was in the inventory at the time. Even sheet explosive (Metabel). 30/50 Beehive remains a fave, with Bangalore a close second, not to mention M14, M16 & M18 mines. Corps transerred to RAA after completing Offr Trg. Was a gun line Offr then FO. Got to use realisitic rates in fireplans and exercised at Cultana with 8/12 Mdm as an independent battery of 105's on M2A2's. Did a mobile OP in the back of an M113 as we advanced to contact. Good fun. Left in '98 after 15 terrific years.

I should have said that the point of this post was to say that 'timing is everything' re the ADF, from the perspective of a serving member as much as the govt of the day and its spending priorities. I think I had a pretty good run in terms of training opportunities and access to kit (did I mention an F-111 photo recce flight over a Coy defense we had established as Asslt Pnrs with Engr support? :cool: )
Glad you had a good experience.
To be fair so do I.
Mind you, closest I got to an F111 was at an airshow.
I bet you valued that F111 flight.

Cheers S
 

Dickyknees63

New Member
Glad you had a good experience.
To be fair so do I.
Mind you, closest I got to an F111 was at an airshow.
I bet you valued that F111 flight.

Cheers S
Sure did, but we all had to look down when it came
over low and fast lest our shiny faces gave our position away. The air photo dudes at Edinburgh picked out some of our pits but by no means all. I still snuck a peek though
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Wonder where that 2.5% of GDP was being spent, certainly wasn't on blank Ammunition. Went on a major exercise around 1990 and got issued 4 blank rounds for the entire exercise.
Kim is being a bit liberal with the truth. He inherited a defence budget from the previous government of around 2.5%. At the time they were paying off some big ticket items for the ADF. The F-18A/B and Adelaide frigates programs were in full swing at the time. By the time he left government that spending had dropped well below 2%.

He isn't wrong about having to grow the current defence budget to around 2.5% though. In fact so many expensive programs have already been locked in that I am not sure avoiding increasing expenditure is even possible at this stage. Whatever recommendations made from the upcoming review will blow spending out even further.

I think he might also be right about Australia dropping the ball with defence expenditure over the years. We now have to play catchup. He also implied that AUKUS could see defence spending lifted even further. I expect he is correct. Training Australian submariners on USN and RN submarines, building bases for US/UK navies, air forces and ground troops, paying a premium for early access to nuclear subs and the cost of nuclear stewardship won't come cheap.
 
Last edited:

Milo

New Member
This article is mostly about the MRH-90 but towards the end it says that in response to Navantia's unsolicited proposal for three new air warfare destroyers, Defence has commissioned Rand Corporation to perform a risk reduction study on the proposal-

Defence officials also confirmed on Wednesday that the Australian government would consider an unsolicited proposal from the Spanish company Navantia to build three more ships for the navy this decade.

Navantia’s pitch to build three additional Hobart-class destroyers includes three options: build them in Spain with some modules in Australia; build them in Spain but with the combat system integration largely done in Australia; and build them entirely in Australia.

Defence has asked analysts from Rand Corporation to do a “risk reduction study” on the proposal so the government can weigh up the idea.

Navantia recently submitted a second unsolicited proposal to build six small warships known as corvettes.


Australia pays to maintain trouble-plagued Taipan helicopters no longer being used by navy | Australian military | The Guardian
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
This article is mostly about the MRH-90 but towards the end it says that in response to Navantia's unsolicited proposal for three new air warfare destroyers, Defence has commissioned Rand Corporation to perform a risk reduction study on the proposal-

Defence officials also confirmed on Wednesday that the Australian government would consider an unsolicited proposal from the Spanish company Navantia to build three more ships for the navy this decade.

Navantia’s pitch to build three additional Hobart-class destroyers includes three options: build them in Spain with some modules in Australia; build them in Spain but with the combat system integration largely done in Australia; and build them entirely in Australia.

Defence has asked analysts from Rand Corporation to do a “risk reduction study” on the proposal so the government can weigh up the idea.

Navantia recently submitted a second unsolicited proposal to build six small warships known as corvettes.


Australia pays to maintain trouble-plagued Taipan helicopters no longer being used by navy | Australian military | The Guardian
Avante Family - Patrol Vessels - Navantia
The Corvettes would probably be something based on the Avante 2200 which is 98m and 2500t,
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Top