Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
There’s a big difference between commercial B737’s operating out of an airport with only short distances to fly to their next port compared to P-8’s & E-7’s that usually depart at MTOW to give them the endurance needed for their missions. I believe that the current length of Momote’s runway would restrict the P-8’s to only having half full tanks and the cost of positioning a KC-30A to top up the tanks makes it prohibitive.

Google maps indicates that there is room to extend the runway by about 200m at each end which would make it much more useable by these aircraft types. Expensive, yes - but not as expensive as having to overhaul jet engines more frequently (turbine blades cost big money) and having KC-30A tanker aircraft on station.

IMG_8478.jpeg
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
There’s a big difference between commercial B737’s operating out of an airport with only short distances to fly to their next port compared to P-8’s & E-7’s that usually depart at MTOW to give them the endurance needed for their missions. I believe that the current length of Momote’s runway would restrict the P-8’s to only having half full tanks and the cost of positioning a KC-30A to top up the tanks makes it prohibitive.

Google maps indicates that there is room to extend the runway by about 200m at each end which would make it much more useable by these aircraft types. Expensive, yes - but not as expensive as having to overhaul jet engines more frequently (turbine blades cost big money) and having KC-30A tanker aircraft on station.

View attachment 53626
Maybe, I do wonder why the displaced thresholds at each end though.

Is it a clearance issue with the boundary fence?
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
Maybe, I do wonder why the displaced thresholds at each end though.

Is it a clearance issue with the boundary fence?
They design runways with “overruns” (normally 1,000’ in length but obviously less in Momote) which are useful in event of a rejected takeoff. They are normally not full load bearing strength (although the ones at Cocos were) and the latest designs are for them to crush so that the aircraft tyres settle into them thus increasing the retardation and prevent an overrun.

Engineered materials arrestor system - Wikipedia

The other reason for them is in case there is a wind-shear close to the ground which causes the aircraft to touchdown prior to the threshold.

If there’s an obstacle on/near the extended centreline of a runway, they move the threshold further in to provide the required clearance during the approach (eg Rwy 16L at Sydney airport). The runway section before the threshold is available to be used for takeoff ie full length.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hm, that looks further from the beach than I remember it being years ago. I wonder if they shortened it for some reason? (or my memory is wrong, which is more than possible!). Maybe just the effect of a brown trousers moment.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Hm, that looks further from the beach than I remember it being years ago. I wonder if they shortened it for some reason? (or my memory is wrong, which is more than possible!). Maybe just the effect of a brown trousers moment.
No, the current runway is now showing as shorter than it was towards the end of WWII. It had exceeded 7k ft in length by 1945.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Google maps indicates that there is room to extend the runway by about 200m at each end which would make it much more useable by these aircraft types. Expensive, yes - but not as expensive as having to overhaul jet engines more frequently (turbine blades cost big money) and having KC-30A tanker aircraft on station.
IMO it would seem to be an ideal place to spend money if we were going to spend more money to upgrade capabilities. If it was to get 2440+m it would be the second longest runway in PNG (?).

There are other upgrades happening across PNG. Hoskins for example is being extended this year to 2020m length and full asphalt. Its on New Britain, so not that far away from Manus geographically. Hoskins is better suited for much larger upgrades in length.

Randomly spending money on airport upgrades in PNG can be a bit problematic, as different provinces and islands get very competitive with each other. Operating 737 is very desirable and are seen as gateways for development of hotels and rich tourists direct from places like Australia or Fiji.

See the history of Lae and Nadzab airport (they burnt Lae airport terminal down). Nadzab was extended to operate Mirage fighters, but was never used. Its already 2440m long. And could be longer and a second large runway upgraded. 737 operations only started out of Lae in 2022.

It seems like money has been spent to make several airports in PNG (Lae, Momote, Hoskins) much better accommodate b737 or A320. Many of these have been funded by the asian development bank or via Japan directly.

Crazy crystal/spitballing idea.

Australia-PNG-Japan-US alliance would mean some more cohesive planning and possible a lot more money on these type of projects for their military dimension.

We might even forward deploy a Mogami frigate up this way, and potentially, Japan might be interested in deploying one as well. Being smaller crewed, you could fly in and fly out crews... UAV and UUV.. capabilities via hercs. Plus P8 flights start to make a lot more sense if that is the idea.

It may make sense to disperse operations across the 3 airports up in that region. You could have US marines, Japanese F-35B operating ops as part of a distributed posture. 3 airports worth of infrastructure, fuel reserves, man power, flight capabilities, 3 regions worth of hospitals, hotels, etc. It may make sense that much of the air force stuff happens out of the other two airports, and the naval stuff happens out of Manus/momote.

Historically when we have uninvited guests turn up to our region, they have spent time around this region. Namely the Russian fleet and the Chinese fleet. If the idea is to drain and wear out our capability, then having a regional naval base that can operate up to frigates, and supported by 3 airfields that can support a range of ops perpetually, then that makes that a very big ask for someone out of the region. We would always be ready for something and could bring up bigger resources when required. Being able to rearm ships at Manus would be a very nice capability to have. Being able to protect Manus and its shallow tropical waters would also be ideal. Regional engagement then also is very high, as our pacific brothers stop feeling all alone, and regular port visits would likely be in order. Being able to bring the Japanese and Americans along would be most welcome, as then its less about the random australian political wind of the day.

This is why the PNG deal imo is so critical for naval and sea power in any future conflict. All our pacific friends will be watching this very closely. Its important this works well for everyone. Now that there is this ratified alliance, more significant and long term planning can happen.
 

downunderblue

Well-Known Member
The whole idea of forward defense starts to look more practical with the PNG deal "if" it gives Australian the legal permission and certainly to operate from those PNG bases.

As far as I heard (and I didn't explore it in detail), the as yet unratified treaty is defensive in nature, but I would like to see whether it gives Australia the certainty to prepare to a potential conflict rather than just react if a conflict occurs.

If we propose a rotational Anzac and eventual Mogami, reinforced but forward fuel and munitions stocks, a rotational tong fires Army group, regular deployment of P8's, the occasional E7 and F-35's, we end up making PNG a bit of a target, and I don't know if that's something their politicians can or would stomach. They like many politicians within the region are afraid of upsetting China and losing out commercially.

Forward defense sounds brilliant for us, but I'm not so sure this is what PNG thought they signed up to, as it just puts the reticle further north from continental AU, which likely scares them, justifiably.

Many talk about Butterworth like it is ours to operate from, but again AU as far as I know has no independence to operate without the expressed permission of MY, which is just not going to happen unless MY ends up being shot at. I assume the PNG bases will be exactly the same- usable only 'once' the sovereign country they exist on has been targeted offensively. Prior to that, they will sit there used only for exercises or flag waving exercises on a very infrequent basis.

Again others may know more but normally there needs to be quid pro quo with these deals and a more assertive and proactive deal likely tips the scales too far.
 
Last edited:

SammyC

Well-Known Member
I think there are some easier integrations. Remember that the PNG defence force is chronically underfunded and relies almost entirely on (meagre) donations. It has massive shortfalls in training, maintenance and equipment.

I could not imagine Australia entered into an agreement with PNG without a commitment to significantly increase its funding (PNG would have played China off against us to obtain this). It also suits us to have a 1,000 km additional buffer to our coast line, and a close doorway to the S China Sea region, plus an auxiliary military force (albeit a bit dilapidated) that can be integrated with our own for extended reach.

Stand by for some billion dollar investments. These will add to our defence spending and will move the dial on the GDP % that gets talked about so much.

Perhaps rather than a combat ship like and ANZAC or Mogami, I would think that a forward based Arafura or two would fit more usefully. Alternatively a Border Force contingent with some Capes. Donating more Guardians would be another effective move. These cost less than $20 million each, so even a doubling of the PNG fleet is a sub $100 million investment.

PNG has an enormus maritime EEZ that the current four boats struggle to cover. One of their biggest threats at the moment is illegal tuna fishing, for instance. Interesting fact, 60% of the global tuna supply comes from the Pacific Island region. The islands themselves don't get a reasonable return from this industry, including from the actual fishing as well as the processing. A larger patrol force not only secures a better outcome economically for PNG, but it gives us influence and control over 2.4 million square kms of ocean (a quarter the size of our own) that is increasingly becomming contested.

A replacement of their landing craft with some new small vessels would also be good. They still operate one of our old Balkipapans.

And again investment in the logistics for their Navy: trades, maintenance facilities, parts etc etc.

I should note the army still uses some donated Chinese equipment. I would have thought that needs to be retired and swapped out to remove the influence. Some Bushmasters/Hawkeis would keep Bendigo going for a while longer and would go nicely with their recently supploed landcruisers. A $100 million buys about 20 Bushmasters and 50 Hawkeis. The army doesn't even have quality basic personal equipment. I would have throught a rollout of our standard issue stuff, from Austeyrs, clothing and comms, all of which supports Australian businesses. A $100 million would equip their soldies to the same level of personal equipment as our own.

And then there is training. Their armed forces are so under trained in nearly every discipline. I'd start with basic trades. Do some low-moderate combined exercises.

I also personally think that HMPNGS Tarangau would make for a nice forward base for a small fleet of Ghost Sharks.
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Australia’s main interest with PNG will be forward basing and clandestine operations. I can’t see us doing anything that would openly provoke the Chinese such as basing warships, combat aircraft and missiles.

We could see a few patrol boats and humanitarian equipment.

Probably of greater importance to Australia with PNG is for them to concentrate on internal security rather then train up their military. As things stand they are largely a lawless society, They lack roads and infrastructure. Truthfully the place is a mess.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Lots of talk of forward basing, how many sailors do you think would want to be posted to PNG ? Big consideration, has to be attractive enough for people to want to potentially upend their families to live there. Maybe 6 month rotations to reduce the impact. Needs to be fleshed out policy to ensure there's no impact on retention (which is still horrendous by the way).
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
I think there are some easier integrations. Remember that the PNG defence force is chronically underfunded and relies almost entirely on (meagre) donations. It has massive shortfalls in training, maintenance and equipment.

I could not imagine Australia entered into an agreement with PNG without a commitment to significantly increase its funding (PNG would have played China off against us to obtain this). It also suits us to have a 1,000 km additional buffer to our coast line, and a close doorway to the S China Sea region, plus an auxiliary military force (albeit a bit dilapidated) that can be integrated with our own for extended reach. Stand by for some billion dollar investments.

Perhaps rather than a combat ship like and ANZAC or Mogami, I would think that a forward based Arafura or two would fit more usefully. Alternatively a Border Force contingent with some Capes. Donating more Guardians would be another effective move. These cost less than $20 million each, so even a doubling of the PNG fleet is a sub $100 million investment. PNG has an enormus maritime EEZ that the current four boats struggle to cover. One of their biggest threats at the moment is illegal tuna fishing, for instance. Interesting fact, 60% of the global tuna supply comes from the Pacific Island region. The islands themselves don't get a reasonable return from this industry, including from the actual fishing as well as the processing.

A replacement of their landing craft with some new small vessels would also be good. They still operate one of our old Balkipapans.

And again investment in the logistics for their Navy: trades, maintenance facilities, parts etc etc.

I should note the army still uses some donated Chinese equipment. I would have thought that needs to be retired and swapped out to remove the influence. Some Bushmasters/Hawkeis would keep Bendigo going for a while longer and would go nicely with their landcruisers. A $100 million buys about 20 Bushmasters and 50 Hawkeis. The army doesn't even have quality basic personal equipment. I would have throught a rollout of our standard issue stuff, from Austeyrs, clothing and comms, all of which supports Australian businesses.

And then there is training. Their armed forces are so under trained in nearly every discipline. I'd start with basic trades. Do some low-moderate combined exercises.

I also personally think that HMPNGS Tarangau would make for a nice forward base for a small fleet of Ghost Sharks.
Think they are done with the Guardians. Already have 4.
Arafuras+Capes+LCM on rotation, Bushmasters+ the occasional strikemaster or himars, Hawkeis make sense + maintenance facilities.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Australia’s main interest with PNG will be forward basing and clandestine operations. I can’t see us doing anything that would openly provoke the Chinese such as basing warships, combat aircraft and missiles.

We could see a few patrol boats and humanitarian equipment.

Probably of greater importance to Australia with PNG is for them to concentrate on internal security rather then train up their military. As things stand they are largely a lawless society, They lack roads and infrastructure. Truthfully the place is a mess.


I acknowledged that this is the Navy thread, but it does beg the question as to what this defence pact is all about.
More details and purpose would be much appreciated in the public domain.
PNG would benefit much more by fixing up its police force rather than its defence force.
It’s a very challenged nation that must be congratulated for all its challenges making it to 50 years of independence.
As mentioned a pretty lawless place , tribal violence and at times civil war.
A tough journey..
Will this nation hold together?
What’s in it for us.

I assume it’s geography.
Airstrips, harbours and access to push out a buffer zone of influence further north.

This will be a regional political dance going forward.

Let’s see what evolves

Cheers S
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Lots of talk of forward basing, how many sailors do you think would want to be posted to PNG ? Big consideration, has to be attractive enough for people to want to potentially upend their families to live there. Maybe 6 month rotations to reduce the impact. Needs to be fleshed out policy to ensure there's no impact on retention (which is still horrendous by the way).
Exactly, it's hard enough to get people to stay in Darwin and Perth.

A thought though, make it a plumb posting that precedes a promotion or training program with a couple of years in a southern capitol.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A smart move with aid is to build the assets here as well as doing deep level maintenance, while training local forces and industry to do the rest.

A return to bringing people to Australia for education, training and to work and serve along side our forces, building relationships. Get there civilians into shipbuilding and sustainment as well as their uniformed personnel into our ships and units.

Treat individuals as equals and let them shine, that's something that China will never do. Trash the paternalism and bigotry, be friends and allies instead of colonial lite.

It won't be easy, we have a lot of entitled a-holes in Australia who won't like it, but it's the only way to get PNG as well as other neighbours back in the fold. It will benefit us as much as our neighbours.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Exactly, it's hard enough to get people to stay in Darwin and Perth.

A thought though, make it a plumb posting that precedes a promotion or training program with a couple of years in a southern capitol.
Perth is a lovely place. Don't know why people would want to live anywhere else. Coffee tastes delicious with sand in it.

More seriously, PNG support could be supplemented with FIFO. For instance say Arafura or Cape crews could fly in on 6-12 week rotations out of anywhere in Australia. Increases the staffing required, but that is how most remote industry works these days (not to mention the entirety of the global maritime fleet).

We would still need some shore based roles more permanently, but that is a small contingent. No reason that cannot be FIFOed as well.

Back to Guardians, the value in these is that PNG staffs them themselves. We fund and maintain. They have the benefit of reducing the number of people we need to deploy overseas, and they provide PNG autonomy.

Guardians are unbelieveably cheap. They cost less than $20 million a pop, v in the order of $70 million for an evolved cape and god knows how much for an Arafura. And they do pretty much the same job. They have their faults, but in the grand scheme of things they have been successful (except where people park them on rocks).
 
Last edited:

SammyC

Well-Known Member
A smart move with aid is to build the assets here as well as doing deep level maintenance, while training local forces and industry to do the rest.

A return to bringing people to Australia for education, training and to work and serve along side our forces, building relationships. Get there civilians into shipbuilding and sustainment as well as their uniformed personnel into our ships and units.

Treat individuals as equals and let them shine, that's something that China will never do. Trash the paternalism and bigotry, be friends and allies instead of colonial lite.

It won't be easy, we have a lot of entitled a-holes in Australia who won't like it, but it's the only way to get PNG as well as other neighbours back in the fold. It will benefit us as much as our neighbours.
I agree.

My personal view is that we did enormus damage to the island relationships during the Abbott years. The reduction to aid then is what allowed China to gain a foothold and become a problem now.

The PNGns are good people that had our back in WWII.

We have some incredible training systems, both within the military and in civilian industry. Our TAFE colleges are a great starting point for trades. I could see a TAFE outpost in Morseby. There is already an $80 million program for this through DFAT scheduled for this year (albeit with a contractor).

The WA government is establishing a technical training campus specifically to prepare for the upcoming ship building. Great place to offer PNG some positions.

Also Can't see why Duntroon, Creswell and Cerberus (and other training units) could not form relationships and support structures with the PNG equivalents. We can assist them to train on their own land, as well as accomodate their people in our own facilities.
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
A smart move with aid is to build the assets here as well as doing deep level maintenance, while training local forces and industry to do the rest.

A return to bringing people to Australia for education, training and to work and serve along side our forces, building relationships. Get there civilians into shipbuilding and sustainment as well as their uniformed personnel into our ships and units.

Treat individuals as equals and let them shine, that's something that China will never do. Trash the paternalism and bigotry, be friends and allies instead of colonial lite.

It won't be easy, we have a lot of entitled a-holes in Australia who won't like it, but it's the only way to get PNG as well as other neighbours back in the fold. It will benefit us as much as our neighbours.
Well said Volks. We certainly have a lot of self opinionated, permanently offended a-holes in Australia.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes we do. #1 priority would be to stop making Australians feel ashamed of our past, stop the guilt trips and look to the future. Stop division.
And give us something to be proud of now. Step up and be a good neighbour, a good mate, someone our neighbours want to stand with because they know we have their backs.

It's good policy to treat them as equals and lift them up, but it's also economically sensible. Our training and education sector is struggling, give them a constant flow of students, trade and tertiary, as part of our regional alliances and development and it helps us too.

Get the volumes up and our education sector will grow stronger and meet our needs better.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Lots of talk of forward basing, how many sailors do you think would want to be posted to PNG ? Big consideration, has to be attractive enough for people to want to potentially upend their families to live there. Maybe 6 month rotations to reduce the impact. Needs to be fleshed out policy to ensure there's no impact on retention (which is still horrendous by the way).
Been there, done that - for 2 1/2 years. For me, I’m pretty sure a return would result in instant divorce.
 
Top