ADF General discussion thread

[hauritz]

Not a fan of Corvettes but I do understand that they may be necessary if we are to build up the fleet size within a 10 year timeframe. The option of ending the Arafura build at 6 units and then building something like the MMPV 90 instead would be a quicker process than throwing open a whole new selection program.

I am not sure what the degree of commonality exists between the OPV 80 and OPV 90 but hopefully there will be enough to allow for a relatively smooth transition in production.

The standard line of BS the Australian is pushing these days is that Ukraine has shown that heavy armour is unsurvivable and obsolete. In actual fact what it has shown is when used predictably and without adequate support, loses are high.

Using that same metric Sheridan and his ilk would also have to say the fast jets, helicopters and warships are also unsurvivable and obsolete. There is much to be learned from the Russian/Ukraine war but it will take years to draw any real conclusions. It will take even longer to apply what is learned from these lessons to the Australian military.

If the Greg Sheridan report is based on the DSR. Then there is alot to debate in the DSR. I disagree scaling back Army fighting vehicals. I also disagree with the critism of the Hunter quote:"with the overweight, under-gunned Hunter frigates we are going to get on Star Trek time from the British". That is unfair as we don't know the final design. In Australia we seem to bag our ships built in our shipyards, until the final product is released.

Hardening our bases, extra F35 and local missile manufacture are worth a discussion. Hell my first posts were about put a F35 squdron in Perth to protect the sub base. Yeh I know some topics are already being discussed. This will put a new perspective on the debate.

I did notice no mention of the B21. Interesting....

Regards
DD

Definitely need more F-35 but I am not sure I see the value in B-21s, at least in Australia's case. To start with the recommendations of the report will be out to 2033 and I am not sure the B-21 will even be available at that time. Also for the delivery of standoff weaponry it probably couldn't do any better of a job than the F-35 or P-8. You could argue that instead of spending tens of billions of dollars on bombers you could direct that money on extra munitions. If there is one thing I picked from the experience of both Russia and Ukraine in their war it is that you will run out of precision weapons before you run out of platforms to deliver them.

Of course you could argue that the B-21 could be used to deliver conventional bombs, but what sort of damage could a handful of conventionally armed bombers really do against the Chinese?

A mix of precision weapon equipped F-35s, Rhinos, P-8s and naval vessels backed up by Wedgetails, Growlers and tankers should be a sufficient deterrent for any hostile naval forces operating in this region.

 

[ASSAIL]

I put Sheridan and Gottliebsen in the same category.
They both should confine their writings to subjects in which they both have core competencies, Sheridan/politics, Gottliebsen, economics because they know SFA about defence and are influenced by so-called experts who are also incompetent.

 

[Volkodav]

Not a fan of Corvettes but I do understand that they may be necessary if we are to build up the fleet size within a 10 year timeframe. The option of ending the Arafura build at 6 units and then building something like the MMPV 90 instead would be a quicker process than throwing open a whole new selection program.

I am not sure what the degree of commonality exists between the OPV 80 and OPV 90 but hopefully there will be enough to allow for a relatively smooth transition in production.

Using that same metric Sheridan and his ilk would also have to say the fast jets, helicopters and warships are also unsurvivable and obsolete. There is much to be learned from the Russian/Ukraine war but it will take years to draw any real conclusions. It will take even longer to apply what is learned from these lessons to the Australian military.

Definitely need more F-35 but I am not sure I see the value in B-21s, at least in Australia's case. To start with the recommendations of the report will be out to 2033 and I am not sure the B-21 will even be available at that time. Also for the delivery of standoff weaponry it probably couldn't do any better of a job than the F-35 or P-8. You could argue that instead of spending tens of billions of dollars on bombers you could direct that money on extra munitions. If there is one thing I picked from the experience of both Russia and Ukraine in their war it is that you will run out of precision weapons before you run out of platforms to deliver them.

Of course you could argue that the B-21 could be used to deliver conventional bombs, but what sort of damage could a handful of conventionally armed bombers really do against the Chinese?

A mix of precision weapon equipped F-35s, Rhinos, P-8s and naval vessels backed up by Wedgetails, Growlers and tankers should be a sufficient deterrent for any hostile naval forces operating in this region.

The irony is, had we built corvettes or even the less capable patrol frigates Paul Dibb wanted, instead of the MEKO200ANZ, there would have been no way to justify not acquiring sufficient large frigates and destroyers.

Part of the reason we are where we are is because successive government were able to pretend FFGs, were equivalent to DDGs and patrol frigates were equivalent to FFGs.

 

[ngatimozart]

For those who argue that that the tank is dead, deceased, passed it's mortal coil, bereft of life, gone to its maker. Read this before commenting any further. It is lessons on offensive manoeuvre gleaned so far from the Russo Ukrainian War. If anything it suggests maybe more tanks should be acquired for the ADF as well as IFVs.

Ukraine and the Future of Offensive Maneuver - War on the Rocks

Editor's note: This is the first installment of a two-part series on the contemporary challenges to offensive maneuver based on observations from the war

warontherocks.com

 

[ADMk2]

Again, with the criticism of "under-gunned" Hunters, Sheridan is showing his lack of understanding, especially If he is talking about the 32 VLS Cells that everyone thinks, it's going to be. As has been said plenty of times the Hunters are primarily ASW Frigates, more VLS Cells are not going to do anything for taking out Subs, the ability to carry multiple air, surface and subsurface Drones are going to. The Hunters are big for a reason that has little to do with the number of VLS Cells.

Not to mention he clearly hasn‘t a clue what ‘quad-packing’ is.

A Hunter could be packed with 128 anti-air missiles if RAN wanted, which would be the single biggest anti-air load-out a RAN vessel has ever carried…

It wouldn’t matter if Hunters came with a 96x VLS cell. RAN’s guided weapons inventory would empty out, before the Hunter class ‘loaded out’ bearing that in mind…

 

[Redlands18]

Not to mention he clearly hasn‘t a clue what ‘quad-packing’ is.

A Hunter could be packed with 128 anti-air missiles if RAN wanted, which would be the single biggest anti-air load-out a RAN vessel has ever carried…

It wouldn’t matter if Hunters came with a 96x VLS cell. RAN’s guided weapons inventory would empty out, before the Hunter class ‘loaded out’ bearing that in mind…

Only need to put 10 VLS Cells (40 Missiles) on a Hunter to be able to match the Missile load out of a Perth class DDG with a Missile (ESSM Blk2) that has superior range to the Perth's original Missile (Tartar).

 

[Volkodav]

Not to mention he clearly hasn‘t a clue what ‘quad-packing’ is.

A Hunter could be packed with 128 anti-air missiles if RAN wanted, which would be the single biggest anti-air load-out a RAN vessel has ever carried…

It wouldn’t matter if Hunters came with a 96x VLS cell. RAN’s guided weapons inventory would empty out, before the Hunter class ‘loaded out’ bearing that in mind…

Not to forget ESSM Block II has an envelop I believe is superior to that of the SM-1MR and approaching that of the early SM-2MR. I will have to dig it out, but there have even been trials of the ESSM in the terminal ABM role, i.e. a last ditch hail Mary.

Going forward instead of arguing about if the hunter is big enough and then suggesting a smaller design is somehow better, maybe consideration needs to be given to getting VLS to sea on other platforms and using CEC for the Hunters and Hobart's to use their loadouts.

A VLS with a quad pack can carry ESSM, one with ExLS can carry Sea Ceptor, RAM Block II, Nulka and I believe Griffen and other missiles. If the RAN looks to fit a 16 cell or larger vls to every ship type it deploys over 2000t then some cells could carry the ships defensive load (ESSM/SeaCeptor/RAM/Nukla) and the remaining cells have SM-6, or even SM-3 or tomahawk for the majors to control.

I'm not just thinking the corvettes for VLS either, I think LPDs and even a medium LST would be viable.

 

[spoz]

A corvette is built to warship standards. The MMPV 90, as its name suggests, is built to OPV standards, not warship standards; it is based on the OPV 80 design. Adding armament and sensors does not alone make a ship suitable to go in harms way; it needs to have been designed and built with survivability in mind in such things as damaged stability, bulkhead penetrations, counter flooding capability, shock mounting and the like which are not nearly as critical in an OPV. You can’t make a purse from a sow‘s ear. The OPV 80 is a perfectly good OPV but it is not a surface combatant

 

[StingrayOZ]

OPV80 is just all sorts of wrong to try to up arm. The project was never created as a up gun corvette type project. We went very low end OPV spectrum. If we were building something like Avante 2200 or a Sigma or Gowind type combatant OPV, well yes, we would have overpaid for those that were just doing OPV duties and they would have been decontented corvettes.

But the OPV80-90 is just not in that category at all. In anyway.

A modern corvette has 57-76mm main gun, 16vls (quad packed), 8xantishipping missiles, torpedo's and usually a CIWS based around 20-35mm guns, and a 10 ton helicopter. 7-30 day endurance. The OPV is just miles away from what it can support in systems, weapons, speed, power, crew, radar, etc. Corvettes are useful in protected or closed areas, like the Gulf, Mediterranean, or very narrow straits. Places where the unit really isn't going anywhere, its moving around, but basically stays in a constricted area. Australia has few locations like that to worry about.

I think 32VLS for hunters is fine. Its a frigate. The pundits are being silly.

I think the concern would be if we tried to operate them as cruisers or destroyers. Leading a massive aegis taskforce, performing anti-air, highend BMD, landstrike, long range naval strike/ASuW and ASW. Then 32 vls starts to look small if you subtract 8 for tlam, 8 for LRASM, 16 vls quad for ESSM II. So no SM-2 or SM-6.. Okay get rid of LRASM (although NSM is definitely no a long range ASuW weapon), you now only have room for 8 sm-2/sm6. Pretty light loadout. Plus your trying to embark command on that ship, plus its going to be operating ASW activities.. Its not an everything do at once platform. One Hunter won't fight the entire Chinese Navy by itself (in 2032? we will have 1 hunter?). The hunters have a great self protection capability, but they won't be protecting US carriers from the Chinese by themselves.

Which is why I support TLAM being carried by the Hobarts and Collins. Hobarts will can carry more missile stuff.

What I worry about is if conflict looks likely, we are now doing constant exercises with the Americans and allies, we have only 2 hobarts in the water, going on 3+ month deployments constantly at high tempo, 28kt the whole time, our capability become brittle. Even with a Hunter, that doesn't solve our problem. An Anzac isn't a Hobart or a Hunter. Its an older, non-networked, single layer defence, ASW frigate.

Our obsession with ubermench units is not productive. We need more regular middle power units, not ubertech wonder units in the quantity of 1. B21's are not a here an now solution and even if we had two squadrons, that is not going to be a meaningful threat to mainland China. China is not Indonesia. A few key strikes on Indonesia back in the 80's and 90's, oh, yeh, it would give them pause, and they would struggle to make a meaningful reply.

Meanwhile China of today would shrug off a full successful strike of 100 x 2000lb guided munition strike on mainland china, it would not meaningfully degrade their military capability, or political capability. They have a navy that can be in multiple places at the same time, so a removal of a whole taskforce, while annoying, isn't going to stop them. I would also argue that any strike Australia made would more likely than not, be fairly easily fended off by a large Chinese task group and any mainland location would easily incept nearly all of that so much so it would be a meaningless gesture.

Our focus needs to be our ability to contribute to allied efforts. Air units and B21 doesn't really allow us to do that. Naval units do. Australia's strength is political focus and will, its symbolic but important. Our ability to influence and operate with the Americans is unique. However, if we don't have any suitable units to reflect that, then we are useless. Presence is everything. Our focus isn't to wipe china out on our own.

History has shown, strong powers have lost the plot and narrative of war when supporting powers lost confidence and weren't even able to make symbolic shows of support. At some point the Americans will ask "is this important? what is the outcome we are seeking? Is this our priority? How is this seen? Where are our allies?". If we don't have good answers and ways to convincingly show our belief in those answers, then everything quickly hollows out.

Hunters are important frigates, we need them. But we need to have our destroyers in the waters for the next 5 years. Particularly the next 5 years.

 

[hauritz]

My main concern with corvettes is that they might not actually be that much more useful in a hot war than an OPV80. Which is of course pretty much useless. Perhaps patrolling the waters in Australia’s Southern regions but certainly you wouldn’t want to deploy them to the north.

The minimum standard for a front line warship these days might be something around the size if the type 31.

Time isn’t on our side however. Ditching OPV80s in favour of the MMPV 90 might be the only option we have for getting at least something in the water.

I don’t think a handful of B-21s, unless nuclear armed, would be that impactful against China. Also they do not yet exist. Last thing Australia needs is yet another 20 year program diverting time and money away from shorter term more achievable projects.

 

[seaspear]

Is it feasible to replace CIWS with Searam for the R.A.N ,this article suggests some advantages
Analysis: SeaRAM/RAM vs. Phalanx/Goalkeeper - Naval Post- Naval News and Information

 

[Morgo]

Meanwhile China of today would shrug off a full successful strike of 100 x 2000lb guided munition strike on mainland china, it would not meaningfully degrade their military capability, or political capability.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this particular point. It depends where the bombs land.

I’d wager that putting 10x strikes at various points along each of the four main oil and gas pipelines (see here) and then the remaining 60 into the three gorges dam might be a little more inconvenient for the Chinese.

But the gist of your point remains 100% valid, as it’d be far more cost effective to do this with Tomahawks than manned aircraft.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I’d wager that putting 10x strikes at various points along each of the four main oil and gas pipelines (see here) and then the remaining 60 into the three gorges dam might be a little more inconvenient for the Chinese.

The Chinese would have those pipeline hits fixed within 48 hours IMO, and they have significant storage. Even then a strike like that is beyond Australia's capability regardless of how many b21s we operated.

We have discussed 3 Gorges before. 200m of concrete supported by water is pretty thick. Dam busters were using 9,000 lb bombs on dams 3-4m thick at the weaker point, and struggling, the original plan was to use 22,000lb bombs. 3g isn't a small regional dam, built in Germany in the 1920's or 30's during an economic crisis. Your talking about a megaproject that is the pride of China. They overbuilt that thing.

I'm not saying 3 gorges would be impossible, but I don't believe its a super vulnerable soft target people think it is or it may look. It would certainly get their attention. I would presume them hitting back on a 1 on 1 situation would be pretty brutal in comparison.

But look at that flow through Malacca/Sunda/Lombok.. 85% of crude oil and ~50% of gas. Most of the coal comes through this region from Australia/Indonesia, maybe 80%. That doesn't even require face to face conflict (although it would likely escalate to that quite quickly). We already have their attention.

Part of their strategy would be to scare off Australia from even considering such a move. Frequent overflights, frequent naval patrols.

In fact the whole question of will they or won't they take Taiwan, may rest of how capable/willing Australia looks at controlling that tiny bit of air/space.

That requires ships and subs, operating under an umbrella of aircraft.

China won't be sending down their entire fleet. Again, its not the main game, but it is a critical point. Having 6 hobarts, collins with Tlam, turning the LHD's into ASW carriers, a squadron in Butterworth, and P8's/E7 flying around would make it a significant challenge. Have a few wild cards, some American ships, India being ambiguous but active and a UK/EU group operating off Perth would make it seem high risk. Being close enough to Australia and friends, we could maintain a high tempo of ops in that region for a long time.

Its a bit further than China would like its fleet to be, as its moving to the edge of its range of aircraft, missiles and shorter ranged naval assets.

Again, seems way more productive than some token attempt at a strike on mainland or near mainland China with Australian assets like a B21, operating from mainland aus. That won't deter, that will not cause them pause. They kind of expect a strong conventional hit if it came to war.

They think that they can squash hundreds of F-35's/F-15/F-16 based out of Japan and SK and Guam. They think they can outsize the Americans + Japanese in naval power in the region. That is where their main focus will be.

China isn't far away 1970 or 1980 Indonesia. Putting a Jdam on the desk in the Ministry of defence high-rise office isn't going to stop them, even if we could do it. Its a different game, with different actors, different capabilities, different motives, in a different time.

 

[Morgo]

The Chinese would have those pipeline hits fixed within 48 hours IMO, and they have significant storage. Even then a strike like that is beyond Australia's capability regardless of how many b21s we operated.

I am far from an expert in gas pipelines, but could they really turn around repairs so quickly? I’d say a sub sitting in the north of the Bay of Bengal could stir up a lot of mischief lobbing Tomahawks into Xinjiang….

But look at that flow through Malacca/Sunda/Lombok.. 85% of crude oil and ~50% of gas. Most of the coal comes through this region from Australia/Indonesia, maybe 80%.

This is the real meat. A few months of this and the lights will be out in mainland China.

 

[Bob53]

I'm not sure I agree with you on this particular point. It depends where the bombs land.

I’d wager that putting 10x strikes at various points along each of the four main oil and gas pipelines (see here) and then the remaining 60 into the three gorges dam might be a little more inconvenient for the Chinese.

But the gist of your point remains 100% valid, as it’d be far more cost effective to do this with Tomahawks than manned aircraft.

Riiiiight …even if possible to break the 3 gorges dam ….. we are going to drown may be ten maybe 20 million people downstream. I don’t think so… even in a hot war some things are not acceptable I would think and ADF planning really should be aimed at preventing incursion and bloodying noses away from mainland China. B21 money would be better spent on a larger stockpile of munitions to be delivered by existing assets. More P8, F35 and Tankers would deliver a faster benefit.

 

[Bob53]

For those who argue that that the tank is dead, deceased, passed it's mortal coil, bereft of life, gone to its maker. Read this before commenting any further. It is lessons on offensive manoeuvre gleaned so far from the Russo Ukrainian War. If anything it suggests maybe more tanks should be acquired for the ADF as well as IFVs.

Ukraine and the Future of Offensive Maneuver - War on the Rocks

Editor's note: This is the first installment of a two-part series on the contemporary challenges to offensive maneuver based on observations from the war

warontherocks.com

I don’t think anyone here …well not many are arguing against the heavy armour acquisitions for the ADF. I think the messages coming from the federal government is the the likliehood of Australia getting into this type of war is low so they want to redirect cash to long range munitions and long rage strike platforms.

right wrong on that assumption only time will tell. My view is proceed as designed with the Army heavy force and purchase the long range strike capabilities and build the munitions inventory.

 

[Morgo]

Riiiiight …even if possible to break the 3 gorges dam ….. we are going to drown may be ten maybe 20 million people downstream. I don’t think so… even in a hot war some things are not acceptable I would think and ADF planning really should be aimed at preventing incursion and bloodying noses away from mainland China. B21 money would be better spent on a larger stockpile of munitions to be delivered by existing assets. More P8, F35 and Tankers would deliver a faster benefit.

I am absolutely not saying we should. That would clearly be a war crime.

I am saying that there are actions we can take on the Chinese mainland that would have a strategic impact, particularly disrupting energy flows, but that the B21 is not the right tool for that job either. Tomahawks (and their successors) are.

 

[swerve]

We have discussed 3 Gorges before. 200m of concrete supported by water is pretty thick. Dam busters were using 9,000 lb bombs on dams 3-4m thick at the weaker point, and struggling, the original plan was to use 22,000lb bombs. 3g isn't a small regional dam, built in Germany in the 1920's or 30's during an economic crisis.

Three of the four dams on 617 squadron's target list were pre-WW1. Only the Sorpe dam was post-WW1, built starting in 1926. The pre-war Möhne & Eder dams were breached: the Sorpe wasn't, despite at least one hit in the Dambusters raid & hits by Tallboys (12,000lb ground-piercing 'earthquake' bomb) in a later attack. The type of dam made a difference.

 

[Massive]

My main concern with corvettes is that they might not actually be that much more useful in a hot war than an OPV80

If summarising the discussion to date it seems to be landing on a fleet something approaching:

1. 16 Tier 1 combatants (4-8 AWD, 8-12 ASW frigate)
2. 6-8 Tier 2 combatants (~5000t GP frigate)
3. 12 Tier 3 combatants (~1500-2000t Mine warfare/OPV)

Is this feasible?

There have been some comments regarding an additional LHD or an additional AOR. With existing plans for 2x JSS, would it be better to accelerate these instead.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

Nfrom the experience of both Russia and Ukraine in their war it is that you will run out of precision weapons before you run out of platforms to deliver them

I agree.

And to me this suggests investing in inventory before additional F-35 etc.

More broadly I feel that more P-8s would make sense before more F-35 given the expanses involved.

Regards,

Massive