ADF General discussion thread

[Redlands18]

Well Australia is acquiring a billion dollars worth of sea mines and will clearly need more vessels capable of laying those mines.

I imagine something quick and stealthy, low crew requirements, mostly defensive armament, proven design and cheap as chips,

Why would you build a specialist Mine Layer? The moment it is seen, your enemy will know where the Mine Field is. Subs are by far the best Minelayers followed by Merchant Ships, followed by Naval Vessels that could be doing other tasking, mine laying needs to be done in complete secrecy.

 

[Stuart M]

Well Australia is acquiring a billion dollars worth of sea mines and will clearly need more vessels capable of laying those mines.

I imagine something quick and stealthy, low crew requirements, mostly defensive armament, proven design and cheap as chips,

Abdiel Class minelayers?
Might need a few updates but good for 40 knots..

 

[hauritz]

Why would you build a specialist Mine Layer? The moment it is seen, your enemy will know where the Mine Field is. Subs are by far the best Minelayers followed by Merchant Ships, followed by Naval Vessels that could be doing other tasking, mine laying needs to be done in complete secrecy.

In the event of a war I imagine Australia would be laying mines pretty much everywhere. Harbours, around islands, shipping routes and anywhere else you would want to dissuade the enemy. I feel that Australia's small numbers of submarines, frigates and destroyers would be heavily tasked during a war and merchant ships would probably not be keen to carry out military operations.

Besides minelayer would not neccessarily be the primary mission of any new corvette but I bet it will be one of its important roles.

 

[alexsa]

Why would you build a specialist Mine Layer? The moment it is seen, your enemy will know where the Mine Field is. Subs are by far the best Minelayers followed by Merchant Ships, followed by Naval Vessels that could be doing other tasking, mine laying needs to be done in complete secrecy.

Absolutely, and this may also be something that may use deployable large or extra large UUV's as part of the delivery process (or be the weapon itself) where the desire to leave mines right on, or in, the other parties door step.

Certainly if mines are being laid to protect Australian ports then any suitable ship could be used. However, mines in a choke point or in the approachs to an aggressors harbour, and/or channels or straights through which they must pass, will cause more problems for a hostile force than solely focusing on restricting access to Austalian ports. This would need to be done with stealth.

 

[Volkodav]

The new Cube System is interesting and includes a minelaying module.

The Cube – SH Defence

shdefence.com

 

[Redlands18]

Absolutely, and this may also be something that may use deployable large or extra large UUV's as part of the delivery process (or be the weapon itself) where the desire to leave mines right on, or in, the other parties door step.

Certainly if mines are being laid to protect Australian ports then any suitable ship could be used. However, mines in a choke point or in the approachs to an aggressors harbour, and/or channels or straights through which they must pass, will cause more problems for a hostile force than solely focusing on restricting access to Austalian ports. This would need to be done with stealth.

And laying defensive Mine Fields to protect Australian Ports is the type of War Time job you can use the Arafura's for and even the ADV Vessels, some of which would probably be transferred and commissioned into the RAN in time of a major war.

 

[ASSAIL]

Why would you build a specialist Mine Layer? The moment it is seen, your enemy will know where the Mine Field is. Subs are by far the best Minelayers followed by Merchant Ships, followed by Naval Vessels that could be doing other tasking, mine laying needs to be done in complete secrecy.

And…mines can be laid from the air.
The delivery method will depend on whether it’s an offensive or defensive mine field.
There’s also benefit in an enemy knowing where a minefield exists as well as an unknown field.
Depends on its purpose.

 

[Takao]

There are three reasons to lay mines - offensively against an enemy port, in a choke point or defensively within our own shipping lanes. Obviously there are two times to lay the mines, pre-war or during the war.

For defensive purposes, pre-war and during, any ship will do. It will be operating in ADF controlled waters and will be within designated fields.

For a choke point pre-war you will want something stealthy. So not a dedicated minelayer. If it's during war it depends, but if you don't 100% control there area you need something survivable.

For an enemy port, it has to be stealthy or, in time of war, survivable.

With all this, means that a regular ship, a submarine or an aircraft are the best choice. Depending on the mine design, the ship can be any number of commercial entities. A dedicated minelayer is not a requirement.

Like @ASSAIL says, there are tactical reasons to do some of this stuff, but the basics remain; a dedicated minelayer does not change those scenarios.

 

[Bob53]

Some discounted and brand new US Marines kit could potentially be hitting the market. Anything the ADF might want here? Unwise divestments are crippling US Marine Corps aviation

 

[ngatimozart]

Some discounted and brand new US Marines kit could potentially be hitting the market. Anything the ADF might want here? Unwise divestments are crippling US Marine Corps aviation​

I could find a home for the AH-1Z but persuading the NZ govt to pay for them would be a completely different story.

TBH what on that list would meet the current ADF CONOPS and fill an existing role within the ADF?

• 44 advanced MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft,
• 30 new AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters,
• 24 new UH-1Y Venom utility helicopters,
• 48 new CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters,
• 54 F-35B Lightning II.

Source: Unwise divestments are crippling US Marine Corps aviation

AFAIK the ADF hasn't expressed any interest in acquiring any of those platforms. We already know that govt is looking at cutting CAPEX funding for already approved acquisitions, so how would they pay for anything on this list? What current capabilities would you get rid of to pay for anything on that list?

 

[Bob53]

I could find a home for the AH-1Z but persuading the NZ govt to pay for them would be a completely different story.

TBH what on that list would meet the current ADF CONOPS and fill an existing role within the ADF?

• 44 advanced MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft,
• 30 new AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters,
• 24 new UH-1Y Venom utility helicopters,
• 48 new CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters,
• 54 F-35B Lightning II.

Source: Unwise divestments are crippling US Marine Corps aviation

AFAIK the ADF hasn't expressed any interest in acquiring any of those platforms. We already know that govt is looking at cutting CAPEX funding for already approved acquisitions, so how would they pay for anything on this list? What current capabilities would you get rid of to pay for anything on that list?

yes none of this hardware is currently in service or been discussed for acquisition by the ADF but every time I go to a garage sale I come away with more tools I didn’t know I wanted. Last week I bought 2 5kg magnets with attached shackles that I’m sure I will find a use for. The one that might get a look in could be osprey that might be attractive as floor stock but expensive…

 

[Volkodav]

I could find a home for the AH-1Z but persuading the NZ govt to pay for them would be a completely different story.

TBH what on that list would meet the current ADF CONOPS and fill an existing role within the ADF?

• 44 advanced MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft,
• 30 new AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters,
• 24 new UH-1Y Venom utility helicopters,
• 48 new CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters,
• 54 F-35B Lightning II.

Source: Unwise divestments are crippling US Marine Corps aviation

AFAIK the ADF hasn't expressed any interest in acquiring any of those platforms. We already know that govt is looking at cutting CAPEX funding for already approved acquisitions, so how would they pay for anything on this list? What current capabilities would you get rid of to pay for anything on that list?

Spot on.

That's the part many people miss or don't understand. When a stack of surplus gear became available in the 90s, several critical (some were what we would now call sovereign) programs were cut, curtailed, or never kicked off.

This resulted in a reduction or even total loss of capability, not just in the ADF but in industry and even in our ability to effectively manage major procurements. When the gear we acquired wasn't as good as we thought, the imagined savings became cost imposts.

 

[Stampede]

yes none of this hardware is currently in service or been discussed for acquisition by the ADF but every time I go to a garage sale I come away with more tools I didn’t know I wanted. Last week I bought 2 5kg magnets with attached shackles that I’m sure I will find a use for. The one that might get a look in could be osprey that might be attractive as floor stock but expensive…

Magnets are just fun,you had to have them.

 

[Stampede]

I could find a home for the AH-1Z but persuading the NZ govt to pay for them would be a completely different story.

TBH what on that list would meet the current ADF CONOPS and fill an existing role within the ADF?

• 44 advanced MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft,
• 30 new AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters,
• 24 new UH-1Y Venom utility helicopters,
• 48 new CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters,
• 54 F-35B Lightning II.

Source: Unwise divestments are crippling US Marine Corps aviation

AFAIK the ADF hasn't expressed any interest in acquiring any of those platforms. We already know that govt is looking at cutting CAPEX funding for already approved acquisitions, so how would they pay for anything on this list? What current capabilities would you get rid of to pay for anything on that list?

If true and followed through, with I'm sure the F35B will find a home with existing or aspiring users.

Regards S

 

[seaspear]

Since many of those f-35b,s are deployed on various amphibious ships what then becomes the roles of these ships without those assets do they part with the ships as well is there a home for them as well lol
Aboard The Marine's First F-35B-Packed 'Lightning Carrier' (Updated) (thedrive.com)

 

[Redlands18]

Navy Approves CH-53K Heavy-Lift Helicopter for Full-Rate Production - USNI News
No one will be buying used CH-53Ks as only about 20 exist, the USMC will not have 48 for several more years, far more likely the intended number to be ordered is being reduced, I suspect the same for the F-35B. You may see limited numbers of the others but they have all been in service now for 20+ years so any aircraft would be the oldest in the fleet.

 

[Redlands18]

DTR FEB 2023 (partica.online)
It is a subscription, unfortunately.
Feb Issue of DTR magazine is out and they made some predictions and their reasons on the DSR, and a confidence rating out of 10.
M-1 MBT: 8/10, to far advanced to be cancelled.
Land 400 IFV: 9/10 M-113 has to be replaced but numbers could be reduced as far as 150-160
Land based: ASuW: 7/10, will be Strikemaster(NSM on the Bushmaster Ute)
Future Autonomous Vehicles: 7/10 but numbers scaled back.
Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel-Heavy(LMV-H) 8/10 to proceed.
MQ-9B: 9/10 will stay cancelled.
Additional F-35A: 8/10, 28 more to be ordered.
MQ-4C*: 7/10, they will be cancelled, due to lack of weapons ability.
Arafura Class*: 8/10 capped at 3 Vessels.
Undersea Surveillance: 7/10 program accelerated.
Although not part of the DSR, they have also made a prediction on the Subs: 9/10 Leased Virginia's* followed by builds at a US and or Australian yard.
*Not too sure about these, especially with 6 Arafura's already under construction.

 

[alexsa]

DTR FEB 2023 (partica.online)
It is a subscription, unfortunately.
Feb Issue of DTR magazine is out and they made some predictions and their reasons on the DSR, and a confidence rating out of 10.
M-1 MBT: 8/10, to far advanced to be cancelled.
Land 400 IFV: 9/10 M-113 has to be replaced but numbers could be reduced as far as 150-160
Land based: ASuW: 7/10, will be Strikemaster(NSM on the Bushmaster Ute)
Future Autonomous Vehicles: 7/10 but numbers scaled back.
Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel-Heavy(LMV-H) 8/10 to proceed.
MQ-9B: 9/10 will stay cancelled.
Additional F-35A: 8/10, 28 more to be ordered.
MQ-4C*: 7/10, they will be cancelled, due to lack of weapons ability.
Arafura Class*: 8/10 capped at 3 Vessels.
Undersea Surveillance: 7/10 program accelerated.
Although not part of the DSR, they have also made a prediction on the Subs: 9/10 Leased Virginia's* followed by builds at a US and or Australian yard.
*Not too sure about these, especially with 6 Arafura's already under construction.

Capping at three OPV is interesting given I think 5 have been laid down. I would love to know the logic behind the prediction notng they are guessing more Capes will be ordered as well. That represents a reduction in capability comapred tothe OPV (and will not go down well with CIVMEC).

I have a feeling they are spit balling.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Capping at three OPV is interesting given I think 5 have been laid down. I would love to know the logic behind the prediction notng they are guessing more Capes will be ordered as wel. That represents a reduction in capability comapred tothe OPV (and will not go down well with CIVMEC).

As you mentioned there are 5-6 laid down. Your not just breaking contracts, you would be having to hire crews to come in with blow torches to cut up work already completed including nearly finished hulls. Talk about too late to cancel them, we are more than half way through the complete build!

Leased Virginias? Is the USN getting smaller? Don't see it. Best case they base a Virginia or two out of Perth to help with training and Indian ocean operations. But this doesn't solve our industry problem. Our recruitment and crewing problem. Our submarine availability problem in the short/medium term. This is just the USN picking up Australia's failures and spending a lot on marketing as a success.
Additional F-35's? Getting delivered sometime around 2035 are we? They aren't just laying around. With the F-35 its more a question of when than if. You might as well say the ADF is going to order more 7.62mm ammunition in the future. Yes. Yes they will. I see the USMC has F-35B spots opening up... valuable spots I would say. Maybe they can glue the VTOL controls into regular flight mode, give them hormones and sell them as F-35B's that identify as F-35A's. They are gender type fluid. Its a F-35A with a probe behind its hatch.
Land400? Well I can see initial contract being reduced, that is at least possible. Stupid, but possible. Again, I don't think this will actually save any real money. Cutting numbers kills local production viability and increases per unit acquisition costs and operational costs. Nothing is free. I think who ever believes this will save money, should be placed in a M113, filled with concrete and pushed out the back of HMAS Canberra as a warning to other def mins. In that I would also put the head of the ADF at the time as well. Both the political class and the uniform class can take medicine over disasters like that. We all remember how much money we saved by not building a 4th AWD, and then paying all the builders to simply "work slower and less efficent", then we had to pay again while everyone was sitting around until the next project came down, which we then gave to two yards, because we can show the world how clever we are, twice, by the political class comiting to half the builds and sharing them between twice the yards.
M1 tanks? Well yeah, they are in the pipe and disbanding tanks from the ADF is monumentally stupid and expensive. Armies still have tanks. If you want an Australian Army, you will need tanks. Why is this so much more than the original M1A1 acquisition I don't know. Why was this such a priority over Land 400? I don't know. That's the real juicily bit in this. Why did a MOTS acquisition replacing tanks we bought 10 years ago get ahead of a local industry acquisition replacing the 1960's M113's? Because risk? Because....
MQ-9b/MQ4C - There are issues here. Well look at that, the drones aren't ready and aren't the game changers people thought they would be. Particularly when people who didn't understand over estimated and gave them capabilities they didn't have. Real question is what are we going to do about it. We should order more P8's.

Subscriber only content eh? Clicky baity. Colour me skeptical. Does it come with a colouring-in section of Smith or something? A crystal ball they used to make these predictions? Meth? Maybe some rose tinted glasses? Some magic cordial powder to add to your drink, fanta-sy?

 

[hauritz]

Leased Virginias - Depends on how you define leased. There have been proposals for dual crewing of a Virginia class submarine but that boat would still be controlled by the USN.
Additional F-35s - 9/10 Possibly even 10/10. It has always felt like "when" rather than "if" Australia would take up the option of additional F-35s.
M-1 MBT - 9/10 probably proceed.
Land 400 IFV cutbacks - 10/10 (sadly)
MQ9b stay cancelled - 10/10
MQ4C cancellation - haven't we already accepted the first aircraft? Cutbacks perhaps.
OPVs? That is an interesting one. The navy is in the process of taking delivery of 10 cape class PBs so you could argue that the Armidale class has largely already been replaced. Also rumoured that the new MCMV and Hydro vessels will be based on the Arafura so you could make an argument that any remaining contracted hulls could be utilised for these roles instead.

If DTR is correct however these predictions would mostly represent thinly disguised cutbacks rather than any actual improvement in Australia's defence capability.