Royal Australian Naval Force Enhancements

[Aussie Digger]

I thought I'd start a rolling thread outlining the enhancements to the Royal Australian Navy that are planned for the next few years. Quite a few new capabilities will be coming online in the next few months including upgraded FFG Frigates, upgraded ANZAC frigates, upgraded Harpoon 11 missiles, the new Super Seasprite Helicopters and Penguin Anti-Ship missiles. The first story isn't that exciting though, but it's the type of capability that is essential to allow your combat platforms to function.

DEFENCE BUYS NEW TANKER TO REPLACE WESTRALIA



Defence has purchased a $50 million commercial tanker that will be reconfigured and used to replace the Royal Australian Navy’s ageing current auxiliary oiler, HMAS Westralia, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

The ship, currently named Delos, is a brand new double hulled, environmentally sustainable oil tanker. It was built in the Republic of Korea by the Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Company as part of a four-ship build program for the Greek shipping company Tsakos Energy Navigation.

"At 176 metres long and 37,000 tonnes deadweight, the ship is similar in size to the Westralia," Senator Hill said.

"It will be modified so that it has the latest technology and equipment capable of refuelling a range of Navy vessels, including the ANZAC and Guided Missile frigates and the new Air Warfare Destroyers that will enter into service from 2013."

"The modifications to the ship will be undertaken in Australia – creating new jobs and consolidating the high-tech and specialised skills of our naval shipbuilding and repair sector. The work will include fitting underway replenishment equipment, inclusion of naval command, control and communications systems, facilities for helicopter operations and accommodation upgrades. It is a testament to the skills and experience of Australian industry that this design and modification production work will be done here."

Senator Hill said the ship was selected from a field of 11 ships on the commercial market that were evaluated in a competitive process. In choosing the vessel, Defence consulted with Teekay Shipping Australia, who provide ongoing technical and commercial assistance in the support of Navy’s in-service auxiliary ships.

Subject to final checks, Australia will take delivery of the ship in July. Following delivery, separate competitive contracts will be let for the design and the modification of the ship. Tenders for the design and logistics support package will be issued shortly with a preferred designer to be contracted later this year. Tenders for a repairer/builder to modify the ship will be issued early next year with a preferred repair/builder to be selected by mid 2005. Defence is on track to deliver the replacement oiler capability in 2006 in accordance with the in-service date set out in the Defence Capability Plan.

Senator Hill said the decision to acquire the base ship built upon last week’s landmark decisions relating to the acquisition of the new Air Warfare Destroyers and amphibious ships. It further demonstrated the Coalition’s commitment to implementing the $50 billion Defence Capability Plan to ensure the Australian Defence Force received the capabilities it needs on time and all budget, thereby delivering security outcomes for all Australians.

Here's some pics of the current HMAS Westralia and the new ship that's been purchased.


http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/Jun/030604/C910861_lo.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/Jun/030604/sic97243-24_lo.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/Jun/040604a/2004_S426_02_lo.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/Jun/040604a/2004_S426_03_lo.jpg

I'll post more stories and pics as they come to hand. Cheers.

[adsH]

:lol Sendin out a clear Message to smokers!!! NO SMOKING" its one of the Ships in the PIC under what appears to be the Bridge area.

[Soldier]

Please excuse me about my ignorance, but what type of ship is that in the first Photograph. It certainly is not a destroyer or tanker, or AC. What the heck is that for??

[Aussie Digger]

It's an "underway replenishment" ship. It's capable of providing POL's (petrols, oils, lubricants) munitions, and other supplies (food, water, medical supplies, mail etc) to warships whilst they are "underway", ie: sailing about the Ocean. It is not armed (although the ships company have small arms and 0.50 cal heavy machine guns). The new ship should be good. It will provide the same amount of lift capability as the current ship, but will be able to carry and operate helo's from its deck.

[Pathfinder-X]

wut's wrong with the old tankers???
if the aussies have to convert commercial tanker into a support ship that means the old ones are having bad problems.

[gf0012-aust]

wut's wrong with the old tankers???
if the aussies have to convert commercial tanker into a support ship that means the old ones are having bad problems.

The Westralia doesn't meet International requirements on bilgewater retention etc... To get around that it means to either plan a new vessel, or use a commercial vessel that can be modified.

The Sth Koreans build some of the best double hulled tankers in the world, so the price is right, it complies with international maritime standards and it shortens the procurement time by using a known reliable vessel.

[Soldier]

It's an "underway replenishment" ship. It's capable of providing POL's (petrols, oils, lubricants) munitions, and other supplies (food, water, medical supplies, mail etc) to warships whilst they are "underway", ie: sailing about the Ocean. It is not armed (although the ships company have small arms and 0.50 cal heavy machine guns). The new ship should be good. It will provide the same amount of lift capability as the current ship, but will be able to carry and operate helo's from its deck.

Aussie Digger, You said it will supply fuel etc for other war ships but I do not see any tanker setup or are they built in the basement of the ship thus not visible? And please excuse my knowledge, isn;t it better to drop a pack of mail by a chopper over the destroyer for sailors then sending something so huge in harm's way, which is not even armed?

[Aussie Digger]

Soldier, this ship is a combined "replenishment ship". The RAN also operates a specific fleet oiler (refuelling ship). The new ship can and will provide fuel, oils etc but it is a general purpose support ship, as opposed to a specific oiler etc. The fuel tanks will be below decks as is common with most Oil tankers these days... I doubt that a ship of this class would ever go in "harm's way". It would normally refuel other warships in a "benign" area. Non-nuclear warships remember usually have operating ranges in the thousands if not tens of thousands of miles and sailing a couple of hundred k's to meet up with a replenishment ship would not pose any great problems. The small arms and HMG's I referred to would be to defend the ship in an emergency and to allow the ships company to undertake any emergent warfighting duties that may be required. Pathfinder, you summed up the reason for the replacement of this ship exactly, it's age. This ship as gf pointed out does not comply with International Maritime Regulations (being single-hulled) and as you may have noticed from the photo's is showing signs of ageing rather badly. HMAS Westralia also suffered a bad fire several years ago in which several RAN sailors died and significant damage was done to the ship. It was repaired and brought back into service but it is definitely overdue for replacement. This new ship which will be converted into a replenishment ship, was chosen as a cost effective measure. The recent Australian Defence Capability plan originally intended to acquire a much more capable vessel. The Government has had a re-think however and will be acquiring 2 large Amphibious Warfare ships later in the decade, which will have a large helicopter carrying capability (like the Royal Navies HMS Ocean).

[Aussie Digger]

It seems the new ship will indeed make greater use of helicopters to transport supplies (including mail) between this ship and other warships, given it's planned ability to operate helicopters. HMAS Westralia (as you can see from the pics) cannot operate helicopters and is forced to rely on other methods to transport items between ships (jackstays etc).

[Aussie Digger]

Here's a better pic of the new ship.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/Jun/110604/Delos_lo.jpg

[Aussie Digger]

NAUTRONIX WINS TWO NAVY CONTRACTS



West Australian company Nautronix Ltd has been awarded contracts worth almost $18 million to enhance the Royal Australian Navy’s maritime test and exercise and mine warfare capabilities, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

The contracts are for the provision of a Portable Tracking Range at a cost of $9.248 million and Minecountermeasures Underwater Computer Systems at a cost of $8.6 million.

The Portable Tracking Range will be used to conduct new equipment and systems tests and trials, development programs and tactical exercises outside the current fixed deep water tracking range off WA. The range defines the exercise area and tracks weapons, submarines or surface ships that are being tested to allow detailed analysis of the results. The range also provides safety coverage for the participants.

"The Navy will use the range initially to test the replacement Heavyweight Torpedoes for the COLLINS Class submarines," Senator Hill said.

"The range will also be used when the Navy conducts acceptance trials of the Eurotorp Lightweight Torpedo on surface and air platforms and for shallow water certification activities for the COLLINS Class submarines.

"The range, to be delivered in July next year, is environmentally friendly as all elements of the range are recovered after the exercise or test is completed."

The Minecountermeasures Underwater Computer System will provide RAN Clearance Divers with a modern electronic means to navigate in open water, conduct searches of inshore waters, and log various data elements in real time.

This technology was originally funded through the Defence Capability Technology Demonstrator program. The new system will be delivered to the Navy in 2006 after prototype test and trials activities.

Senator Hill said these acquisitions demonstrated the capability of Australian industry to rise to the challenges put forward by Defence.

"I am particularly pleased that Australian industry will be responsible for about 80 per cent of the total work within these acquisitions, and that the through life support of both will be undertaken in Australia," Senator Hill said.

[Aussie Digger]

Here's an Artist's image of the planned NTCD Class "Mistral" Amphibious Warfare ship for the French Navy that is being evaluated for the Australian Navies requirement of 2 new Amphibious Warfare vessels to replace our current HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla. It is capable of operating 6 helicopters on it's flight deck and up to a further 12 below deck. It's also capable of operating up to 60 armoured vehicles and over 1000 troops simultaneously. Australia is also to evaluate a Spanish design (their Strategic Projection Ship) with our defence Minister visiting Spanish and French shipyards in the next few days to observe these designs. I'll try and find a pic of the Spanish ship too.

http://frenchnavy.free.fr/ships/lhd/images/ntcd-001.jpg

[gf0012-aust]

I can visualise some F-35b's on that flight deck already ;)

If the spanish have got some sense, they will offer a deal for the amphibs and the 3 x air warfare destroyers.

[Aussie Digger]

Me too, a purchase of 24 or so V/STOVL JSF's would match really well with these ships. Unfortunately Senator Robert HILL has publicly stated that we have, "no requirement for this aircraft". That statement is utterly ridiculous as these aircraft would have just as much utility in a Defence of Australia scenario as a forward deployment. Why put all the eggs into one basket, ie: AWD's? We're getting the ships and the number of aircraft anyway. Why WOULDN'T they want to increase our operational flexibility and capability for a very modest sum? How much could the difference between the F-35A and F-35C cost financially? The airforce surely wouldn't care? They could still "own" and operate the aircraft. It would very much add to the ADF's "jointness" as well...

[gf0012-aust]

Unfortunately Senator Robert HILL has publicly stated that we have, "no requirement for this aircraft".

Lets hope they are not famous last words. We've already seen how quickly things can go to custard. The whole idea of a credible military is to have an effective ORBAT and requisite flexibility.

Otherwise we end up with isues like ANZAC frigates that are undernourished for the job required.

Pollies.. :mad

[Aussie Digger]

Yes, please save us from the Pollies. I can think of no sound military reason why you would acquire 2 "helicopter carriers" that are going to be operated with VSTOL aircraft by the Countries that designed them, and not operate VSTOL aircraft yourself when you have a project to acquire a fairly large number of a type of aircraft that has a VSTOL variant!!! It's either got to be a financial reason or a political reason. In this case I can't see it being a financial problem, obviously the Government is still worried about the effect "aircraft carriers" might have on our neighbours...

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, please save us from the Pollies. .......In this case I can't see it being a financial problem, obviously the Government is still worried about the effect "aircraft carriers" might have on our neighbours...

I'm sick of pollies who don't want call a "destroyer" by it's right name and use the appellation "frigate" just so that our neighbours think that we are passive etc...

It's not as if we have a compelling need to go to war with everyone - it really CRAPS me off.

The whole idea of having a capable force is so that your neighbour will think twice about covetting your land. (what frelling school did some of these blokes go to???)

Defence is very simple:

If you steal from us - we'll shoot you
If you try to take our land - we'll shoot you
If you try to invade us - we'll shoot you and leave your country in ruins

Nothing makes that philosophy more apparent than having the platforms that can shoot you and leave your country in ruins. ;)

See, the math is very simple when you think about it. :roll

[Aussie Digger]

I can't understand why the Pollies think other Countries think that we AREN'T passive? Does anyone think that Indonesia wouldn't have a vastly more capable (and aggressive) defence force if they had the funds available to them that we possess? We deliberately limit our defence force in size and combat power, due to politics and the fact that we have no hostile intentions towards anyone else. Equipping these 2 Amphibious ships with a limited number of VSTOL aircraft, would give us the ability to more effectively defend ourselves from air attack and provide a limited strike/CAS capability to our deployed forces. They would not provide us with a massive strike capability, but would go some way to replacing the long range strike capability we currently possess, but will soon (voluntarily) retire (ie: F-111's).

[Aussie Digger]

The ADF has outlined it's plans for the new underway replenishment ship it is acquiring, here they are:

Tender for Conversion of Westralia Replacement


(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued July 28, 2004)


Defence plans to release a request for tender (RFT) for an extensive upgrade to the recently acquired commercial tanker which will replace the Royal Australian Navy’s ageing auxiliary oiler, HMAS Westralia, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

The purpose of the conversion will be to modify the vessel so that it has the latest technology and equipment capable of refueling lots of Navy vessels, including the ANZAC and Guided Missile frigates and the new Air Warfare Destroyers that will enter into service from 2013.

Defence intends to release the RFT for the design, initial logistic support and modification of the Delos by mid September 2004, with the successful tenderer to be contracted by the first quarter of 2005.

In Sydney today Senator Hill and Commodore Kevin Taylor, representing the Chief of Navy, visited the brand new double-hulled oil tanker Delos that will be modified to replace the HMAS Westralia.

The Delos, which was purchased by Defence in June, has been leased for six months to Teekay Shipping under a standard charter contract arrangement. The lease allows Defence to generate income in the period until the modification work commences, avoid the significant costs associated with mooring the vessel, and allow the testing of the vessel’s engineering systems at an early stage.

Senator Hill said that he was impressed with the success of the project to date, which had seen the acquisition of the brand new, maritime pollution and International Maritime Organisation compliant vessel achieved ahead of schedule and under budget.

Senator Hill said that the modification of the Delos would provide the Navy with a significantly improved capacity for the at-sea replenishment of fuel.

“At 176 meters long and weighing 37,000 tons, the Delos is an impressive vessel by any standard,” said Senator Hill.

Some of the specific modifications sought include:

--The installation of a replenishment at sea rig and flight deck for daylight operations;
--Various habitability and accommodation modifications including hotel services (heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, freshwater, sewerage) for Navy personnel;
--A number of navalization packages (including the introduction of the Rigid Hulled Inflatable Boats and a related crane, and Navy life saving and damage control modifications).

Senator Hill said the modifications to the ship, expected to cost between $50 and $70 million, will be undertaken in Australia creating new jobs and consolidating the high-tech and specialized skills of our naval shipbuilding and repair sector.

In order to meet RAN operational requirements in the 2006-07 period, Defence intends to let a single request for tender (RFT) to competitively contract for the design, initial logistic support, and modification of the ship. The successful tenderer for the prime contract will be sought from the members of the existing Navy Repair and Refit Panel, being ADI, Forgacs, United Kilpatrick Green and Tenix. It is expected that some of these companies may team with design and logistic support experts in responding to the tender.

This slightly varies the initial proposed modification approach, which contemplated the tendering of separate contracts for the design/logistics support and then the modification work. However, Defence was able to secure sufficient design data to enable a single tender for the modifications.

It is expected that tendering a single contract for the design, initial logistic support, and modification of the ship will result in the vessel replacing the Westralia six months earlier than anticipated and also generate administrative savings.

Defence looks forward to working with the Australian Defence Shipbuilding and Repair industry to deliver the replacement oiler capability in 2006.

-ends-

from: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3637830.1082089861.QH9hhcOa9 dUAAAaJKqU&modele=jdc_34

[tatra]

Here's an Artist's image of the planned NTCD Class "Mistral" Amphibious Warfare ship for the French Navy that is being evaluated for the Australian Navies requirement of 2 new Amphibious Warfare vessels to replace our current HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla.
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/ships/lhd/images/ntcd-001.jpg

The image shows the BIP multi-purpose carriers proposed by the DCN . I'm not sure that this is the same design as the actual Nouveaux Transports de Chalands de Débarquement (NTCD) being built. For starters, the elevators are in different places. Compare and judge:

This is the 19000tn version of the BIP
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/ships/lhd/images/ntcd-002.jpg

This is the AI of NTCD provided by janes
http://images.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw001220_p_1.jpg

These are other AI of NTCD
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/mistral-ntcd2.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/mistral-ntcd1.jpg

[Aussie Digger]

Maybe not Tatra, but that was the only pic I could find of the ships, I'm not all that patient either and thought that ship would do.. :D:

[tatra]

From elsewhere in the forum.
http://photos.ouestfrance-enligne.com/2004/07/20/br64d_20040719.jpg

[Aussie Digger]

RISK REDUCTION AND DESIGN STUDY CALLED FOR AMPHIBIOUS SHIP OPTIONS


French shipbuilding group Armaris and Spanish shipbuilding group IZAR will be asked to participate in a funded risk reduction and design study for the Navy’s two new amphibious vessels, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Senator Hill said the study was a further step towards the selection of a new amphibious ship design to replace HMAS Tobruk and one of the Landing Platform Amphibious Ships.

The $2 billion project will equip the Australian Defence Force with two new amphibious ships capable of performing a range of tasks, including regional disaster relief, delivering humanitarian aid, support for peace operations, and assistance to policing or military operations.

"Defence has conducted a preliminary design assessment in consultation with the Australian shipbuilding industry which confirmed the basic designs of Armaris and IZAR broadly meet the ADF’s capability requirements for the new amphibious ships," Senator Hill said.

"The study will assist Defence to further assess the suitability of the companies’ amphibious ship designs for the ADF’s capability requirements, including the capability, cost, schedule, technical risk and industry issues relating to the construction of amphibious ships in Australia."

As part of the study, Armaris will be asked to provide detailed information relating to three variants of its Mistral design: the military off-the-shelf design which is currently in production; a modified design providing for increased troop capacity; and an option based on the original extended Mistral design.

IZAR will be asked to provide detailed information relating to its Strategic Projection Ship design.

The decision to conduct the risk reduction and design study is consistent with the Government’s implementation of the Kinnaird Review’s recommendation that increased planning and analysis be undertaken during the early stages of Defence projects.

Senator Hill said Defence was expected to issue invitations to contract to Armaris and IZAR for the conduct of the study by the end of the month, with the companies to respond to Defence’s request for information in December.

It is anticipated that the outcomes of the study will inform the selection of a preferred designer for the amphibious ships in the first half of next year.

It sounds to me that the French Mistral design is very much favoured by the RAN and the Government, with the Spanish design included to provide the appearance of a "competition". You never know though...

Admin: Links!

Sorry webs, anyone can find this story at: www.defence.gov.au

Cheers.

[Aussie Digger]

AEGIS COMBAT SYSTEM FOR AIR WARFARE DESTROYERS



The Howard Government has selected the Aegis air warfare system as the core of the combat system for Australia’s new air warfare destroyers, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

"The Aegis system is the world’s pre-eminent maritime air warfare system and forms the backbone of the United States Navy fleet," Senator Hill said.

"Also currently in-service with the Japanese and Spanish navies and soon to be introduced into the South Korean and Norwegian fleets, the Aegis is capable of detecting and defeating multiple hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres.

"This combat system will be a quantum leap in the air warfare capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy. It will provide significantly increased protection from air attack for troops being transported and deployed, long-range area air warfare defence for a Navy task group and a coordinated air picture for the more effective deployment of fighter and surveillance aircraft."

The first of Australia’s three new air warfare destroyers will be delivered in 2013. The new ships, including the Aegis combat system, will be constructed at a cost of $4.5 billion – $6 billion.

Defence recommended the Aegis as the best system for its air warfare combat needs based on cost, capability, risk and schedule following analysis by the Defence Science Technology Organisation and support from the US Navy.

Defence will now undertake a combat system integration and risk reduction study to:


Refine detailed aspects of the version of the Aegis system to be acquired;


Explore the use of Australian designed phased array fire control technology that has significant potential to enhance the air warfare destroyers’ capabilities; and


Examine options for integrating Australian components and sub-systems into the Aegis combat system.

The decision to conduct the study is consistent with the Government’s implementation of the Kinnaird Review’s recommendation that increased planning and analysis be undertaken during the early stages of defence projects. Defence will recommend the detail of the total combined combat system and the preferred design for the air warfare destroyers in mid-2005.

"This decision is a good example of the benefits Australia has derived from our close working relationship with the US," Senator Hill said.

"The RAN and US Navy have been working closely on the air warfare destroyer project since signing a Statement of Principles on Surface Warfare earlier this year. This cooperation means the RAN will continue to benefit from the US Navy’s wealth of technical and operational experience and knowledge of the Aegis system."

The air warfare destroyers project will provide significant opportunities for Australian industry, including the construction of these ships in Australia and opportunities in sub-systems.

This can also be obtained at www.defence.gov.au

Cheers.

[gf0012-aust]

Explore the use of Australian designed phased array fire control technology that has significant potential to enhance the air warfare destroyers’ capabilities; and


Examine options for integrating Australian components and sub-systems into the Aegis combat system.

I guess that means that Australias CEA Technologies FCS is in the running. ;) The US has been running a mule in a sensitive site - and it apparently has been performing beyond expectations. Now if we can sell that to the USN as well... we might actually start making more money rather than spending it.

[Aussie Digger]

It will be interesting to see the RAN's interest in the CEA-FCS as it progresses. One of these radars is due to be installed on an ANZAC Frigate and if it progresses as well as expected will probably be installed on the whole class.

[Aussie Digger]

Vote of Confidence For Australian Expertise in Electronic Warfare


(Source: BAE Systems; issued Aug. 18, web-posted Aug. 19, 2004)


ADELAIDE, South Australia --- BAE Systems Australia has been selected as sole source provider to deliver a cutting edge Australian designed and developed radar identification system to the Royal Australian Navy, under a contract worth over A$12 million.

David Gordon Electronic Warfare Systems Manager of BAE Systems Australia said, “This is great news. BAE Systems was up against some very stiff competition from overseas companies and the fact that we have been appointed by the Navy demonstrates that it is cost-effective to design and develop Electronic Warfare systems here in Australia. The contract win further demonstrates our company’s ability to support military self-reliance in Electronic Warfare systems in Australia.”

PRISM, a Passive Radar Identification SysteM, is an electronic sensor that passively uses the electromagnetic spectrum to gain information about other parties on the battlefield, or in this case, the maritime operating environment. “The Royal Australian Navy’s acquisition of PRISM proves once again Australia’s excellence in electronic warfare design and support,” said David.

PRISM will be installed on the Navy’s new Armidale Class Patrol Boat and used to detect microwave radar frequencies such as those used by marine radars. The systems will help the Navy to know exactly who is in Australian waters. It will also help in tracking down illegal vessels such as fishing boats.

“Importantly for the local economy, the sale of PRISM to the Navy will mean additional manufacturing, maintenance and ongoing support jobs in South Australia,” explains David.

BAE Systems Australia has developed a family of PRISM systems operating on a variety of ship borne and land-based EW applications; a PRISM Air Defence (PRISM-AD) variant is in service with the Royal Australian Air Force, a PRISM 133 variant is installed on the Navy’s Fremantle Class Patrol Boat and the PRISM III variant is on Navy’s the Huon Class Minehunter Coastal vessels. Mr. Gordon said, “The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is able to significantly lower through-life support costs by having the PRISM product line deployed to multiple users across the Services by using common training, maintenance, test equipment and ongoing support systems.”

The PRISM system will greatly enhance the navy’s ability to provide situational awareness and immediate warning of potential threats.

The PRISM III System is the latest generation of the BAE Systems Australia Limited PRISM product line. PRISM III provides the ability to automatically detect, direction find and classify emitters operating in the microwave frequency band and provides area surveillance and warning of potential threat emitters.

The system comprises two main assemblies; the Antenna Unit and Signal Processing Unit, with an optional Operator console Unit for specialist EW operator positions where required. The system also features a radar threat emitter library that can be easily programmed with specific and general radar types and provides the threat data necessary to engage Electronic Countermeasures such as chaff or active decoys.

-ends-

Obtained from: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4568405.1092028767.QRcJX8Oa9 dUAABm2XOM&modele=jdc_34

[tatra]

For interested Aussies: Mistral taking shape.
http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/photo03.jpg

[Aussie Digger]

TENDERS CALLED TO BUILD AIR WARFARE DESTROYERS



The Federal Government has today advertised for Australian shipbuilders to bid for one of Australia’s largest and most complex Defence projects, the Navy’s Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs).

Defence Minister Robert Hill said a Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released and the terms of the proposal will be available from Monday, 18 October 2004.

"The proposal will be for the construction of three AWDs in Australia," Senator Hill said.

"The RFP will be available to qualified shipbuilding organisations that have entered into agreements with the Commonwealth in relation to confidentiality and related matters."

Senator Hill said tender documents for the $4.5-$6 billion project have been developed by Defence in consultation with independent commercial adviser Carnegie Wylie & Company.

The tender for the construction of the AWDs will remain open for approximately nine weeks. Defence will then evaluate tender responses, with Government to receive a recommendation on the preferred shipbuilder in March 2005.

Once appointed, the preferred shipbuilder will be in a position to assist the Commonwealth select the preferred design for the AWD in mid 2005.

Senator Hill said tenders will be sought on an alliance-style contract basis, with the vessels to be built in Australia. The successful shipbuilder will be majority Australian-owned and be required to satisfy a range of price and non-price criteria, including:

Commitment to the principles of a long-term risk sharing arrangement with the Commonwealth and other industry partners for the construction of the AWDs;
A cost, overhead and pricing structure that will enable the cost effective delivery of the AWDs, including the ability to build designs considering ‘whole of life’ costs;
A sound record of past performance in building naval vessels;
Commercial viability and financial backing;
Access to the skilled workforce required to produce ships to the Commonwealth’s requirements;
Willingness to provide open financial accounting data – including visibility through to the sub-contractor level – to the Commonwealth;
Capacity to provide the Commonwealth with transparency and contractual influence over major sub-contractors; and
Capacity to access sensitive technology required for the AWD project.
Companies bidding for the AWDs will be required to include Australian skills and training programs in their tenders, with Defence to fund companies for extra skills generation and training benefits in the programs.

The AWDs represent a quantum leap in the air warfare capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy. The vessels, which are to be introduced into service from 2013, will be equipped with the world-class AEGIS radar that is capable of detecting and defeating multiple hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres.

The AWDs will also have an anti-submarine and anti-shipping capability, together with the potential for the ships’ sensors to be used to detect ballistic missiles in flight. They will provide significantly increased protection from air attack for troops being transported and deployed and long-range air warfare defence for a Navy task group.

As outlined earlier this year, the Government has asked the international design houses Blohm & Voss of Germany; Gibbs & Cox of the Unites States and Izar of Spain to produce evolved concept designs based on their existing ship classes the Saschen Class F124 Frigate; the Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer; and the Alvaro De Bazan Class F100 Frigate respectively.

The AWD project provides a massive opportunity for Australian industry to participate at both the prime and sub-contractor level. The project will also create new Australian jobs and skills and strengthen Australia’s strategic industrial base.

Good to see the recently re-elected Australian Government getting on with their Defence Plan. Now if only they'd actually fund our Defence Forces properly everything would be all good...

[Aussie Digger]

A proposal has been made to the RAN by Raytheon for a long range land attack missile system to be fitted to Australia's new Air warfare Destroyers. This will not be the Tomahawk Block IV system, as many hoped, but instead is based around a low cost option of retro-fitting obsolete Standard SAM's with a blast/fragmentation warhead and the GPS based guidance system from the SLAM-ER missile system.

This configuration would provide a tactical land attack missile system with a range of 280 - 300ks, and would cost considerably less that a Tomahawk Missile purchase. The weapon is fully compatible with the Mk 41 VLS system that will be installed on the AWD's and has already undergone operational testing with the US Navy.

Such a system is seen as a definite possibility due to it's low cost and good level of capability, but not quite Tomahawk like capability, so our regional neighbours can't get too upset... In addition with several thousand SM-1 and early model SM-2 weapons in existence, a large ready base of weapons exists and the capability could be introduced at relatively short notice.

(Source: BAsed on a Defence today Magazine article in Australia. No online link). Here's the rundown on such a weapon system.

SM-4 RGM-165 Land Attack Standard Missile [LASM]



STANDARD Missile is taking on a new role in Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS). Land Attack STANDARD Missile will provide fast response, precision naval fires in support of Army and Marine Corps forces ashore. The Navy is planning on converting older SM-2 Block II/IIIs to a LASM configuration, providing a significant cost savings. LASM utilizes an advanced Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance section to provide precision guidance. A modified MK125 warhead will provide significant lethality across the spectrum of fire support targets. LASM’s supersonic speed and range fill a key role along with existing and planned gun systems and cruise missiles. Raytheon recently completed the LASM Demonstration Program, including several ground and flight test which validated its role as a land attack missile.

The CNO decided in late 1998 to modify the Standard missile for a surface-to-ground strike role. Studies determined LASM as the most cost-effective way to provide a rapid response, and all weather strike capability in support of military power projection ashore. The LASM mission will provide the required range, lethality, responsiveness and accuracy needed to support Marine Corps Fire Support requirements for Operational Maneuver from the Sea. This version of the Standard Surface-to-air missile is be reconfirmed for use against targets ashore at ranges up to 200 miles. The land-attack Standard missile (LASM), fitted with an advanced warhead and guided by GPS and its own inertial navigation system, will put at risk targets up over 150 nm inland.

The LASM builds on the successful thirty-year evolution of the STANDARD Missile, the US Navy's premier AAW weapon currently deployed on 50 destroyers and cruiser as well as with 13 Navies around the world. The LASM design maximizes use of common components, software and Non-developmental Items (NDI) between STANDARD Missile 2 (SM-2) Blk II/III and SM-3 LEAP (Lightweight Ex-Atmospheric Projectiles) minimizing development and production costs.

On 03 September 1998 the US Navy successfully conducted the third in the series of Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM) Concept Demonstration flights at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The objective of this particular test was to build upon a 24 July 1998 static firing of the Mk125 Warhead conducted at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Virginia in order to validate the warhead fragment pattern under actual missile flight conditions. The Mk125 warhead is currently deployed in STANDARD Missile-2 Block IIIA, IIIB, IV and the future IVA missiles possessing a proven reputation for devastating lethality and rugged reliability. The test used a modified STANDARD Missile-2 Block IIIA, carrying a modified Mk125 warhead which was optimized to the LASM’s terminal trajectory made to enhance effectiveness in the land attack role. The Mk125 modifications primarily involve alterations to the warhead’s explosive initiation system. The STANDARD Missile was launched from the Mk41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) and flew over 50 nautical miles on a pre-programmed flight path to a specific warhead burst point in an arena equipped with witness plates and optical equipment to verify warhead performance under dynamic conditions. This test combined with prior tests in the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998 met all planned Concept Demonstration program objectives. There are approximately 1200 rounds in the U.S. Navy's inventory available for LASM retrofit. Flight demonstrations are planned for FY1998 and FY1999 with an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) about 2003.

[Aussie Digger]

Australia – AEGIS Weapons Systems

(Source: US Defense Security Cooperation Agency; issued May 23, 2005)

On 23 May 2005, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of three MK 7 AEGIS Weapons Systems as well as associated equipment and services.

The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $350 million.

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of three MK 7 AEGIS Weapons Systems, support equipment, testing, computer programs and maintenance support, ship integration, spare and repair parts, supply support, publications and technical data, training, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $350 million.

Australia is an important ally in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power significantly contributes to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in modernizing its surface combatant fleet so as to maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability and contribute to an acceptable military balance in the area. This procurement also aids in maintaining the U.S. Navy (USN) production base and will improve interoperability between RAN and USN forces. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives, and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.

The proposed sale of AEGIS Weapons Systems to Australia will contribute to U.S. security objectives by providing a coalition partner with significantly improved Air Warfare capability. This will improve the RAN’s ability to participate in coalition operations, provides common logistical support with the USN, and enhances the lethality of its Air Warfare Destroyer platform. The RAN can easily integrate the capabilities of the AEGIS Weapons Systems into their concept of operations. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these systems into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be:

--Lockheed-Martin Maritime System and Sensors Moorestown, New Jersey
--Raytheon Company, Equipment Division Andover, Massachusetts
--General Dynamics, Armament Systems Burlington, Vermont
--Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors Eagan, Minnesota

There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of up to three U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Australia.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.

-ends-

Senator Robert Hill mentioned during an interview just the other day, that the Navy has put it's preferred options to Government for the selection of the Air Warfare Destroyer and it's inherent systems, weapons etc. The matter is now being considered by Cabinet and a decision is expected "soon"...

[Awang se]

so, where they going to put it? not on ANZAC, isn't? or maybe Australia will build an all new type of ship, a destroyer or a frigate, like Alvaro De Bazan. those phase array system sure took lot of space.

[gf0012-aust]

so, where they going to put it? not on ANZAC, isn't? or maybe Australia will build an all new type of ship, a destroyer or a frigate, like Alvaro De Bazan. those phase array system sure took lot of space.

It will go on the new vessel selected as the winner for the Air Warfare vessel contract.

The US did offer us Tico's last year, and have apparently offered Block 2 Arleigh Burkes as "second hand" options. But we will in all likelihood go for new builds out of the 3 contenders.

[Aussie Digger]

To give some idea of the capability the RAN will be getting with it's Mk 7 AEGIS systems here's an article from Janes about it.

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/misc/aegis010425.shtml

The relevant passage is: "Baseline 7 will be developed in two phases. Baseline 7 Phase I was planned for the last ship in FY 1998 and Phase II is planned for the last ship in FY 2002. Major Baseline 7 upgrades include, but are not limited to: AN/SPY-1D(V) radar upgrade, integration of Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) and TBMD capability (first forward fit implementation), advanced computer architecture, ID upgrades Phase II, Cueing Sensor, STANDARD Missile-2 Block IIIB full integration, Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS) Phase I and II, Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) helicopter Mark III Block II, Advanced Tactical Support, integrated Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) and Mark 50 torpedo with Periscope Depth Attack."

This system for those interested is to be mounted on a new Destroyer based platform in the 6000+ tonne class known as an Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD). It will be equipped with advanced systems including Mk 45 Block 4 and ERGM, the latest variants of SM-2 (and even possibly SM-6), SM-3 (ABM), Harpoon Block II, ESSM, several close in weapon systems, MU-90 Torpedo and possibly even a stand-off land attack missile system, though probably not Tomahawk.

Ship launched SLAM-ER or Standard Land Attack missile are a definite possibility for the AWD's. The ships will also probably carry 2 helo's equipped with ASW torpedo's and ASuW missiles and possibly unmanned aerial vehicles. As you can see, they will be VERY capable ships when completed...

[Awang se]

To give some idea of the capability the RAN will be getting with it's Mk 7 AEGIS systems here's an article from Janes about it.

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/misc/aegis010425.shtml

The relevant passage is: "Baseline 7 will be developed in two phases. Baseline 7 Phase I was planned for the last ship in FY 1998 and Phase II is planned for the last ship in FY 2002. Major Baseline 7 upgrades include, but are not limited to: AN/SPY-1D(V) radar upgrade, integration of Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) and TBMD capability (first forward fit implementation), advanced computer architecture, ID upgrades Phase II, Cueing Sensor, STANDARD Missile-2 Block IIIB full integration, Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS) Phase I and II, Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) helicopter Mark III Block II, Advanced Tactical Support, integrated Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) and Mark 50 torpedo with Periscope Depth Attack."

This system for those interested is to be mounted on a new Destroyer based platform in the 6000+ tonne class known as an Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD). It will be equipped with advanced systems including Mk 45 Block 4 and ERGM, the latest variants of SM-2 (and even possibly SM-6), SM-3 (ABM), Harpoon Block II, ESSM, several close in weapon systems, MU-90 Torpedo and possibly even a stand-off land attack missile system, though probably not Tomahawk.

Ship launched SLAM-ER or Standard Land Attack missile are a definite possibility for the AWD's. The ships will also probably carry 2 helo's equipped with ASW torpedo's and ASuW missiles and possibly unmanned aerial vehicles. As you can see, they will be VERY capable ships when completed...

It'll be disturbing indeed if US give Aussie a Tomahawk. isn't against MTCR?

[Aussie Digger]

There are exemptions in MTCR for "space developments" and "assured" conventionally armed weapons. Australia has no intention of developing WMD's, despite possessing a capability to do so since the early 60's. In addition the MTCR is not legally binding and Australia being a close and "favoured" allied of the USA would surely be allowed to acquire the Tomahawk should we choose to do so.

Australia has looked into acquiring Tomahawks on a number of occasions (when the Collins Class subs were being designed is one such occasion, the AWD's is another) and there has been no indication from the US that the Tomahawk would not be sold to Australia.

In addition the JASSM air launched cruise missile has a range in excess of 300k's and a payload greater than 500kg's and Congress has already approved the supply of this weapon to Australia should we decide to acquire it...

If you are worried about Australia possessing such a weapon, you can at least console yourself that we are a "responsible nation" and would not lightly use this type of weapon system against anyone...

[Awang se]

I'm not worried about Australia using the weapons, i'm worried that if US supply the missiles to Australia, Russia or China might looking forward to supply their customers in this regions with the same capability.

[Aussie Digger]

ASC CHOSEN TO BUILD AIR WARFARE DESTROYERS



The Federal Government has chosen ASC Shipbuilder Pty Ltd as the preferred shipbuilder for Navy’s Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs) - one of Australia’s largest and most complex Defence projects worth up to $6 billion.

Senator Hill said the Government made the decision after accepting the unanimous recommendation of the Source Selection Board on the basis that ASC Shipbuilders offered a superior bid in terms of value for money.

In addition, the Government has granted first pass approval and provided $455 million towards the next phase of activities including further design work, workforce skilling, initial infrastructure investment and facilities construction.

Senator Hill said the construction of the Air Warfare Destroyers will be one of the most significant shipbuilding projects undertaken in Australia to date, and will provide enormous opportunities for Australian industry.

"More than 1000 direct jobs will be created in South Australia as part of the build contract," Senator Hill said.

"However, up to 70% of the module construction will be sub-contracted to other shipyards around Australia creating around 1000 additional jobs throughout the country.

"This presents an excellent opportunity for the whole of the Australian shipbuilding industry to become involved in the project and also opens up important flow on benefits for key sub-contractors throughout Australia."

ASC Shipbuilder was chosen through a competitive tender evaluation process that also included Northrop Grumman Ship Systems and Tenix Defence.

The conduct of the evaluation and selection of ASC Shipbuilder was reviewed by the Air Warfare Destroyers Program Probity Advisers KPMG and also independently by Sir Laurence Street, both of whom have confirmed that the process was fair and equitable.

"I would like to thank the State Governments of both South Australia and Victoria for providing offers of support to the bidding companies. Both offers were highly competitive and produced excellent infrastructure investment packages," Senator Hill said.

"I also commend Navy, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and the highly capable project team which included the independent financial adviser Carnegie Wylie and Company and Mr David Mortimer who acted as an Independent Chairman to the Selection Board."

- 2 -

The commitment of $455 million towards the second phase of the project will fund the project until mid 2007 and will further reduce risks to the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Defence Procurement (Kinnaird) Review. In 2007, the Government will consider second pass approval for the project.

Defence is currently evaluating three ship designer proposals from Blohm +Voss, Gibbs &Cox and Navantia (formerly Izar). ASC Shipbuilder is now in a position to assist the Commonwealth to select one of those designers in mid 2005, whose evolved design will be further considered in conjunction with an Australianised version of Spain’s existing F100 ship design.

Raytheon Australia has previously been selected as the preferred bidder for Combat System-System Engineer contract in support of the combat system design and maintenance for the Air Warfare Destroyer.

"The AWDs represent a quantum leap in the air warfare capabilities of the Navy," Senator Hill said.

"The vessels, which are to be introduced into service from 2013, will be equipped with the world-class AEGIS Combat System that is capable of detecting and defeating multiple hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres.

"The AWDs will also have an anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare capability, as well as the ability to embark a helicopter at sea.

"They will provide significantly increased protection from air attack for troops being transported and deployed on ADF Operations overseas and can provide long-range air warfare defence for a Naval task group. The ship will also be interoperable with the United States and other Coalition partners."

Senator Hill said the construction of the vessels will be a major project for Defence Industry. Accordingly, companies bidding for the AWDs were required to include Australian skills and training programs in their tenders, in line with the Government’s Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry program.

Obtained from www.defence.gov.au (http://www.defence.gov.au)

With the AEGIS system and now the builder decided on for the AWD's, the only real decision left is which design of ship is to be chosen. I'm betting either a modified Arleigh Burke or F-100, but probably the Arleigh Burke...

[Aussie Digger]

Australia - SM-2 Block IIIA Standard Missiles


On 31 May 2005, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of up to 175 SM-2 Block IIIA Standard missiles as well as associated equipment and services.

The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $315 million.

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of up to 175 SM-2 Block IIIA Standard missiles, up to 30 Telemetry missiles, up to 2 SM-2 Block IIIA Inert Operational missiles, canisters, containers, spare and repair parts, supply support, personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $315 million.

Australia is an important ally in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power significantly contributes to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in modernizing its surface combatant fleet so as to maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability and contribute to an acceptable military balance in the area.

This procurement also aids in maintaining the U.S. Navy (USN) production base and will improve interoperability between RAN and USN forces. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives, and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.

The proposed sale will provide Australia continued anti-aircraft defense capabilities for its Navy. The RAN intends to use the SM-2 missiles on its destroyer class surface ships for self-defense against air and cruise missile threats. Australia, which already has SM-1 Standard missiles in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing these SM-2 Standard missiles.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be: Raytheon Systems Company of Tucson, Arizona and General Dynamics, Scottsdale, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.

-ends-

Obtained from www.defence-aerospace.com (http://www.defence-aerospace.com)

These missiles are to be employed aboard the RAN's FFG's which are currently undergoing a significant upgrade program. This includes the fitting and upgrading of SM-2, ESSM, Harpoon Block II and extensive radar, comms, EW and "environmental" systems. These enhancements will greatly improve the combat capability of the FFG's and fill the gap nicely until the AWD's arrive...

[ajay_ijn]

Is australia having any enemies i don't think.Does RAN Surface ships Participate in wars with USN.

RAN could get a better Missile for their future destroyers like Aster 30/15.
Isn't SM-2 getting older?

[gf0012-aust]

Is australia having any enemies i don't think.Does RAN Surface ships Participate in wars with USN.

RAN could get a better Missile for their future destroyers like Aster 30/15.
Isn't SM-2 getting older?

good grief, why would we want ASTER when it's a less capable system.

As I have just politely pointed out to a French poster on another forum.

sorry matey, I was being sarcastic. my point was that Aster is being promoted by the very country that doesn't have it fielded. and if we are expected to be in awe of it because a frontline combat effective fleet like the Saudis have it... then I rest my interim case.

and for those who continue to prattle on about SPY-1 - lets remember it's a 25 year old system and others have yet to field a contender of equivalency. OTOH, Aegis is already transiting to the next generation. The "contender" in the prev argument doesn't have deployment mass, doesn't have history, isn't placed on any vessels of any combat fleet that would be regarded as Tier 1 capability - and yet we are expected to faun over potential?

it doesn't work that way in my part of the woods. in industry we refer to such prodigious examples of commercial success as "orphans".

I have no doubt that Aster can deliver at a level that will be commensurate with expectations - but when it's compared against a deliberately misrepresented system for the sake of trying to puff up national pride - then sorry - no 1st prize from this little judge.

The fact that we're kitting out with ESSM + a raft of other "connects" means that we can merge and fire with any other Aegis BMS.

No offence, but I'm happy that the Saudis have got Aster - I'm even happier that we don't.

[Aussie Digger]

In the future, the RAN WILL be getting a better missile than the SM-2 Block IIIA missiles (and ASTER by the by) it's currently purchasing. It will be acquiring the SM-6 ER SAM, which will be the first active guided 200nm+ range naval SAM. It will outclass any other Naval SAM in existence by a LONG shot...

Anyway who says SM-2 Block III is inferior to ASTER? The 15/30 designation refers to the missiles range 15 and 30k's respectively I believe. The SM-2 has a range of around 175k's +...

[gf0012-aust]

In the future, the RAN WILL be getting a better missile than the SM-2 Block IIIA missiles (and ASTER by the by) it's currently purchasing. It will be acquiring the SM-6 ER SAM, which will be the first active guided 200nm+ range naval SAM. It will outclass any other Naval SAM in existence by a LONG shot...

Anyway who says SM-2 Block III is inferior to ASTER? The 15/30 designation refers to the missiles range 15 and 30k's respectively I believe. The SM-2 has a range of around 175k's +...

I had a depressing conversation with this Frenchman who doggedly and persistently failed to see that the engagement envelope of ASTER was decidely shorter than SM-2. He couldn't see how missile with a greater standoff capability would and could be used earlier to disrupt an incoming if not set up the kill for another system in the AEGIS grid.

:confused:

I get so frustrated with people who quote platform capability and yet don't understand how "systems" work.

[nz enthusiast]

So whats the plan for Australias missile frigates (not the anzac ones), arent some of them come up for retirement and what are they being replced by or upgraded with.

[Aussie Digger]

Australia currently has 6 FFG frigates in service and 6 ANZAC frigates commissioned, with the last 2 ANZACS due for delivery by June 2006.

2 of the FFG's are to be paid off after 2006, (ie: retired) with the remaining 4 being extensively upgraded and fitted with Harpoon II, SM-2 Block IIIA SAM's, Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles and MU-90 torpedo's. In addition the 4 FFG's are getting extensive radar, fire control, IRST/EW systems and "habitability" upgrades, (basically making things more comfortable on board for the sailors, ie: Internet/email access, air conditioning etc).

The ANZAC's are also to be upgraded with Harpoon II, additional Mk 41 VLS systems for Evolved Sea Sparrow, MU-90 Torpedo, 2 new close in self defence systems (probably SADRAL/Mistral SAM's) and appropriate radar, (2nd fire control channel) fire control upgrades, IRST/EW and new towed sonar, mine avoidance systems, torpedo self defence systems, plus full integration of Seasprite and the Penguin anti-ship missile...

In addition 3 new Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD's) are to be commissioned from 2013. These will be extremely capable surface combatants with capabilities roughly equivalent to current Arleigh Burke class destroyers (minus Tomahawk, to start with at least)...

These Destroyers may replace the FFG's, but I don't think that decision has been finalised as yet. A project to replace the ANZAC's and FFG's is still projected from about 2020 onwards so the FFG's might be around a bit longer yet...

All in all, things are looking pretty rosy for the RAN's surface combatants...

[EnigmaNZ]

"The (upgraded) Adelaide-class frigates, however, are a poignant and haunting reminder of what the United States Navy could have made with their Perry class frigates"
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20056613621.asp
No doubt the Taiwanese are looking very closely at the mods to the "Oliver Hazard Perry" frigates Australia processes, having 8 of their own.
The US did go through a phase of big underarmed ships for a while, eg the Spruance class.
What can be done on the OH Perry's displacement / size can be gained from looking at a Italian DDG destroyer of the era, the Audance class. Ok, they had different roles as planed, but...

Audace CountryITALY Displacement3,600 t / 4,554 t Length140.7 m Beam14.65 m Draft4.6 m Speed33 kts Crew380Propulsion4 boilers for one total power of 73,000 HPArmament1 TARTAR / SM-1MR missile launcher
1 ALBATROS missile launcher w/ 8 cells
1 127/54 milimeter OTO gun
4 76/62 milimeter OTO compact guns
2 light torpedo tubes MK 32 triple A/S for torpedo
1 arranges rocket launcher SCLAR
Helicopters2 AB-212 ShipsAudace
Ardito
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/audace.htm

As to the ANZACs, all units have space and weight for Phalanx CIWS, Harpoon SSM, 8 additional VLS cells, second fire control radar, improved ECM/ESM according to the Hazegray site and others I have seen.
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/asiapac/austral.htm
As the ESSM has a effective range close to the older SM-1, and the ANZAC can carry 32, or 64 in the 16 VLS upgrade, along with the other mods and upgrades planned, it is going to make a very good multirole platform and escort.
"ESSM uses an autopilot for mid-course guidance which is updateable via datalink from the launching ship, switching to semi-active homing in the terminal phase of the engagement. ESSM is a tail-controlled missile for 50g manueverability against anti-ship missiles maneuvering at up to 4g. ESSM has 2-4 times the energy of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile which, combined with its mid-course auto-pilot guidance, gives ESSM roughly twice the range of the Sea Sparrow missile. The autopilot allows several ESSM to time-share a single illuminator in much the same way as the SM-2."
Data for RIM-162A:ESSM
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html
Length3.66 m (144 in)Diameter0.254 m (10 in)Weight280 kg (620 lb)SpeedMach 4+Range50+ km (27+ nm)PropulsionMK 143 MOD 0 solid-fueled rocketWarhead39 kg (66 lb) blast-fragmentation
All very nice. As to using the Standard missile as a LAGM, I did read somewhere that one of the reasons was the flightspeed, in a time critical situation the Standard LAGM with its supersonic speed could provide a faster response compared to the subsonic Tomahawk, so for ranges of a few hundred kilometers, it is not a poor mans alternative.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/lasm.htm
Hey gf, this guy must have future sight or something, lol, his Aussie carrier looks a lot like what is currently being planned, hehe.
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Australian_Perth_Aircraft_Carrier.htm

[gf0012-aust]

Hey gf, this guy must have future sight or something, lol, his Aussie carrier looks a lot like what is currently being planned, hehe.


Looks too British for me. I'm not a fan of the Ocean class type look alikes. :) But any carrier is better than a kick in the kopf. ;)

[alexsa]

Has anybody seen any drawings/details of the original design for the Mistral LPD. There were three versions orignally considered and the one being built as Mistral is actually on of the smaller options (21000 tonnes) where the full size (original design) was about 25000 tonnes. I beleive the larger vessel is the one that is being considered seriously in the risk reduction study and is closer the the IZAR (NAVANTIA) product.

[gf0012-aust]

Has anybody seen any drawings/details of the original design for the Mistral LPD. There were three versions orignally considered and the one being built as Mistral is actually on of the smaller options (21000 tonnes) where the full size (original design) was about 25000 tonnes. I beleive the larger vessel is the one that is being considered seriously in the risk reduction study and is closer the the IZAR (NAVANTIA) product.

I have seen them, but I'd be betting on the larger vessel. the only one that the RAN ADM's were looking at in Singapore were the bigger babies.

I'd be betting on a 25k tonner

[Aussie Digger]

I'm betting the RAN will get the biggest ships it possibly can. Ship steel is relatively cheap after all. Once we've got the ships we can fit more "stuff" into them later provided they're big enough... I think the Spanish IZAR design will win this one though...

[Supe]

I wonder what sort defensive armarments they'll be fitted out for...

Any recent pics of the Navantia LHD floating around?

[Aussie Digger]

I think they'll be equipped with Typhoon 25mm guns (4x) or similar variants, ESSM (probably 1 or 2x 8 Cell Mk 41 VLS) and 1 or 2 CIWS, plus the usual 0.50cal HMG's and small arms for the ships complement, pilots etc. The RAN has already sought funding to equip the majority of it's surface vessels with Typhoon to defend against USS Cole type attacks, though I can't provide a link for that.

The CIWS will probably be the same as that chosen for the AWD's and possibly the ANZAC upgrade program for efficiency and logistical reasons. Whether that will be Mistral/Sadram, Sea-RAM or Phalanx variants remains to be seen.

[alexsa]

In regards to the proposed AWD there seems to be very little detail available about how the AB, F100 or F124 designs would be modified to meet the RAN requirements. After much web surfing I am none the wiser on the prososed modifictions. Has any information been posted anywhere? (the same goes for the proposed LHD).

[knightrider4]

This is a pic of the sanish strategic projection ship which the RAN is looking at.

[Aussie Digger]

In regards to the proposed AWD there seems to be very little detail available about how the AB, F100 or F124 designs would be modified to meet the RAN requirements. After much web surfing I am none the wiser on the prososed modifictions. Has any information been posted anywhere? (the same goes for the proposed LHD).

The reason that very little info on the modified designs is available is that it is a very specific condition of the Australian Government that those competing for the AWD contract do NOT talk at all about their proposals prior to the decision being announced.

This decision has not been explained, though the problems the Department of Defence have had with "Australianised" defence platforms in the past (the RAN's SH-2G Seasprites are one of the most notable examples) could go some way to explaining this decision.

The DoD is only just resolving the issues with the Seasprites and to some degree the Collins Class subs now and here it is, about to undertake yet another massive modification to an already in-service design. The media uproar will probably be deafening and the Government no doubt wants to keep a lid on this for as long as possible...

A decision on the winning AWD design is expected soon. I wouldn't be suprised to see it in the next week or 2... Cheers.

[Jason_kiwi]

What upgrades did u do to the Anzacs...NZ's are due sometime soon...PP is underway as well(RNZN's 7+2 ships)

1 MRV
2 OPV/corvettes
4 IPV
2 LCM's

[alexsa]

Originally Posted by Jason_kiwi
What upgrades did u do to the Anzacs...NZ's are due sometime soon...PP is underway as well(RNZN's 7+2 ships)

1 MRV
2 OPV/corvettes
4 IPV
2 LCM's


Mate, this issue is being discussed at length under the Project Protector subject heading. This appears to be a bit of opinion splatter (i.e. all pages) in so far as I can see.

[Supe]

How does the Navy determine the number of surface combatants required and is the RAN happy with current and future fleet numbers? I've said before that our surface fleet appears light given the amount of ocean/seas it has to cover but then I don't profess to be well informed as to what current RAN doctrine is.

After the last few weeks of reading various forums and articles, the idea that predominately prevails is that Australia seeks a 'qualitative' advantage in lieu of a quantitative one. That's all fine and dandy, but I feel there is also advantage in numbers (possible attrition), ability to project force in multiple areas and deterent value.

I've seen proposals from folks who think the RAN should have more 'hull's but fitted only with the bare minimum. The idea being that the money saved on weapons suites could be put into more ships. In case of hostilties they could be fitted out with the required weaponary. I suppose it is based on the assumption they'll be a period of time in which ships can be 'uparmed'. Some ships of the class would have the full fitout for training and acclimatisation purposes and crews would be rotated through them.

Edit: Unrelated to my post but relevant to thread.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1650/vastergotland121mc.jpg

Interesting scan of article featured on Asia Pacific Defence Reporter posted on other forum. Egads, Singapore is a mini-superpower.

[knightrider4]

A ship fitted for but not with is simply a liability. I would like to see the ANZACS optioned up to fire SM-2 with the appropriate radar and FC facilities as per the original WIP. Naval warfare is by nature a rather high tech affair having substandard platforms simply keeps the undertakers happy.

[Supe]

How is it a liability? I did mention in my post that some ships of the class could be fully fitted out with all the weapons/sensors and whatever else goes into making a first class warship. The savings could go to having more ships with a leaner fitout.

Fitting out a few ships with all the latest/greatest is great but not at the cost of having too few. It's highly unlikely that anyone in our region is going to 'Pearl Harbour' Australia and much more likely that there will be a series of events that signify intent, thus allowing time to 'uparm' those ships that were fitted for. Training isn't an issue since crews could be rotated through the ships (of that class) that were fully fitted out.

The result? Australia has more crews, more ships and if hostilites do eventuate, Australia can fit out those 'fitted for' ships. I presume the modularity of the newer Frigates will aid in this.

[EnigmaNZ]

A ship fitted for but not with is simply a liability. I would like to see the ANZACS optioned up to fire SM-2 with the appropriate radar and FC facilities as per the original WIP. Naval warfare is by nature a rather high tech affair having substandard platforms simply keeps the undertakers happy.

Personally I would fit the full 16 cell VLS that the ANZAC was designed for holding ESSM quadpacks, thats 64 SM-1 like missiles, the ESSM vastly outranges the older seasparrow. Harpoon Bk 2 x 2 quad launchers in their original position on the superstructure, RAM on the raised area in front of the bridge with the lastest block Phalynx on the hanger, add the 127 mm plus the torps and the helo, a couple of bushmasters and 50 cals, plus the electronic upgrades including a 2nd director equals a nice multirole frigate. If the extra 8 cells were to hold 8 SM-2's, seems a look of effort for 8 missiles. The hanger too looks wide enough to have held 2 helos if the door was moved a meter to the starboard side and another hanger door fitted to port. Topside weight though, have much can the ANZAC handle additional.
The Adelaide upgrade is impressive, 32 odd SM-2's and 8 odd Harpoons Bk 2's, 32 ESSM's from the new 8 cell VLS, the 76mm, torps, 2 helos, persoanlly I would have a RAM on the hanger, 2 Phalynx with 1 to each side of the superstructure, 2 25mm Bushmasters, 50 cals, electronic upgrade with a second director a must have with the current blindspot, etc, again a good platform, I know the Adelaide will be reaching it's topside weight limit though. I really think western ships are light in the BPDS and CIWS fitouts, particulary with the new supersonic cruise missiles coming into service with various navies. A billion + dollar ship with 1 or 2 phalynx seems almost criminal.
Platforms fitted for but not with are the way the navy gets hull numbers past the electorate, then quitely upgrades several years down the track to what was wanted all along

[Supe]

A billion + dollar ship with 1 or 2 phalynx seems almost criminal.

Amen. I'm also concerned about the lack of protection on RAN amphib ships. 1 x Phalanx and .50 cal mounts on the old Newports is paltry. I hope the gov isn't skimpy on the LHD's CIWS (guns/missile) defence.


Platforms fitted for but not with are the way the navy gets hull numbers past the electorate, then quitely upgrades several years down the track to what was wanted all along

heh. The electorate remains largely ignorant when it comes to Defence. Most folks understand the need for it, but their eyes glaze over any particular acquisition programme, unless of course it is or is perceived to be a lemon.

There's been a change in how the Government views defence, which is largely driving some of the interest in looking at improving current capabilities. The Gov no longer views Defence's sole province as DOA. I think Senator Hill calls it DOA-I (Defence of Australia and Interests). The current Gov really needs to get Labor on board because when the day comes and there is a change of government, there is a possibility Labor will revert to the old doctrine. The Gov really needs to make its case to the public and Opposition if they want their Defence policies to endure.

If/when they get back in power I can see Labor cutting Defence back to the bone if they can't see the validity of the current Gov's argument.

[Supe]

Ok, found the article I had in mind on doctrine shift. I'm not going to clutter up my previous post with this cut and paste but it's valid in the context of how the Gov see's Australian Defence policy as evolving:

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15499144%255E25377,00.html)


Contract worthy of defence

June 04, 2005

WITH the award of the $6 billion contract to build three air warfare destroyers to Adelaide's ASC Pty Ltd, the Howard Government has taken a big step in its methodical, deliberate transformation of the Australian Defence Force and its underpinning strategic doctrine.

This is a huge process, little understood because so many of the commentators are wedded to the old paradigm. They either pretend that nothing much has changed or they scold the Government for departing from orthodox practice.

Prime Minister John Howard, his Defence Minister Robert Hill and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer are the three key cabinet ministers driving strategic policy.

Three very different men, each is a globalist who rejects the "little Australia" outlook and sees the US-Australia partnership as a global alliance, with Australia having global interests.

The AWDs will be big, powerful ships. They will have Aegis missile defence systems and will protect troops or naval battle groups from air or missile attack.

Hill, in an interview with The Weekend Australian, is robust on their strategic rationale: "The AWD is about the safety of deployed personnel. It gives us the capability of deploying a force more safely than we can now. Given the rapidly advancing air power in the region and elsewhere, it's essential.

"We have a small amphibious capability now. We're planning to [increase] that considerably. If you're sending off a ship with 1000 soldiers on board, you want to have all threats covered. Even with air-to-air refuelling it's very difficult to have 24-hour-a-day coverage by your air force. The AWDs can also protect troops on land."

It is easy to imagine scenarios in our region where Australia may need to deploy troops and may want to make sure it has cover for them. But the AWDs are big, tough, leading edge technology. They will be the most complex pieces of machinery constructed in Australia. They will also give us a capability to deploy further afield.

The Government is also planning to acquire two huge amphibious ships, each of them twice the size of many European aircraft carriers.

At the same time, Hill told me that the extension for a further three years of Peter Leahy as Chief of Army is an endorsement of Leahy's "hardening and networking" plans for the army. "General Leahy is very committed to those outcomes and the Government supports him on that," Hill says. "For the past few years we've been trying to strengthen the army. It had been treated as a second fiddle. [Previous governments] had been funding the navy and air force but expecting the army to do the bulk of the work.

"After the Cold War many armies wanted to get lighter and more mobile. People were thinking of Europe's armies. The threats to soldiers were becoming greater, so to protect your army you actually need more. From our point of view we needed a slightly heavier army. We needed to harden the army, that's why we bought the tanks. We weren't thinking of tank battles of the past."

Hill and his department are working on a cabinet submission on the future of the army. It is already planned to expand it by a further 1100 personnel during the next five years and the cabinet submission will likely canvass ongoing growth in its size.

In my view it will still be too small, but it's certainly moving in the right direction. Add 100 Joint Strike Fighters to the equipment and personnel outlined above and the ADF will be a small but highly formidable and deployable force. The ability of our political system to take decisions quickly and the relevant capabilities in the ADF mean that Australia will be able to help, to make a meaningful contribution, in anything from a tsunami-style humanitarian crisis and traditional peacekeeping to aid to the civil power in a collapsing state or plain war fighting.

I asked Hill to clear up definitively where he stands on the great theological debate between Defence of Australia doctrine, which holds that the ADF should be configured narrowly for the continental defence of Australia v a more global view of our responsibilities and interests.

"I don't ever say Defence of Australia these days but Defence of Australia and Australia's interests," he says.

That would be a very useful new name for present doctrine. Abolish DOA and replace it with DOAAI (perhaps pronounced doe-ai). Hill has his staff working on a new defence update, to be published later this year. It would do an enormous service to clarity in the debate, and would help those in the bureaucracy who want to implement rather than frustrate the Government's policy, to have DOAAI become the new official doctrine.

Hill says his policy is not the DOA of "[Paul] Dibb and [Hugh] White".

"It's not the DOA they developed, based on defending Australia behind the moat [to our north] etc," he says. "That's why they oppose the AWDs, because you wouldn't deploy."

In defence of Australia's interests, Hill says the Government decided to deploy in Afghanistan (far away), Iraq (far away) and Solomon Islands (nearby). The Government wants to have the options to make those decisions.

The old DOA doctrine did enormous harm to the ADF because it was configured to do the one thing it would never be called on to do and stripped of the capabilities it needed for the things it had to do. When there was a coup in Fiji, then cabinet ministers Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans wanted to explore the options of military action to restore the constitutional government. But there were no options because Australia had no relevant equipment.

The army was denuded. The Special Air Service was reduced to the idiotic role of counting trucks on roads in the Kimberley because that was where the mythical invaders of Australia were presumed to be most likely to act. Crazy, I know, but there you go.

More seriously, the SAS had trouble getting resources even for language training because it was thought that it would never deploy overseas. Now, language skills are an essential component of the SAS. In terms of securing resources, making the right equipment decisions and getting high-quality performance from the ADF, Hill has been a highly successful Defence Minister. He could now do both his Government and the ADF a further favour by having official doctrine catch up to government policy.

[gf0012-aust]

If/when they get back in power I can see Labor cutting Defence back to the bone if they can't see the validity of the current Gov's argument.

Cosgrove made Beasley look an idiot WRT his comments about suitability of the the Abrams - but you can bet London to a Brick that Lab would nuke the Abrams, AWD's, forthcoming JASSM and then convert half the navy into a coastguard service.

:mad:

[Supe]

Abrams will be in-service by then (assuming Labor wins next election scenario) and signifcant Defence dollars would have already gone towards the AWD's. The debate really has to move from the partisan to bipartisan view on Defence. That's not to say they will agree with everything but Labor has to understand that times have changed since Dibbs's white paper. ( I'm guessing that's what Labor based its policy of the day on)

I agree with the Government's position that our Defence forces can be tasked with other duties outside of DOA. Not that I always agree where they deploy the ADF, and Howard didn't help keeping the region soothed with his 'deputy' gaffe. I cringed when I heard that on the news.

[Jason_kiwi]

Does anybody no what sort of upgrades will be done on the NZ ANZACS

[nz enthusiast]

There are none confirmed at this stage jason_kiwi. However in the defence reviews done since the anzacs came into service they all say that the nz anzacs need weapons upgrading and that doing the upgrades with Australia is recommended. Its one of two areas where the nz governement are saying they won't do anything (the other being fire support vehicle).

[Jason_kiwi]

Is the fire support vehicle the LAV's?

[nz enthusiast]

No, the lav is the troop transport or APC vehicle. Fire support can be described as a form of mobile artillery or even medium tank by some. We used to have scorpions up until 1998, when they were retired the government said they would replace them but nothing has happened. Defence reviews say the are needed. If you look at the number of lavs compared to the number of M113s and scorpions we used have, you realise it is about the same (around 100).

[Jason_kiwi]

I think instead of the lavs they should have purchased warriors(the UK use them) They are a tracked vehicle armed pretty much like the LAV's. If national gets into power I think they will replace the LAV's.

[nz enthusiast]

I seriously doubt it, it would cost the government possibly hundreds of millions of dollars to break away from the contract and then they would have to cough up more money for a new vehicle.
Rumours (Only rumours), have it that the NZ army actually wanted the British Warrior vehicle or the US Bradley but the government wouldn't buy it becuase it would mean increased maintaince costs. The army wanted the bradley so they could have the surface to air missile ability and therefore less need for the other anti air equipment they have. The would have wanted the British warrior because it is a proven vehicle just like the bradley (bradleys are said to be very strong when team up with abrams).
The army is actually trying to prepare for this new era of mobility warfare, but mobility warfare relys on air strike, fire support vehicles and missile support, none of which NZ has.

[Jason_kiwi]

They do have mistril, Javilin and precision strike equipment. If national gets in they will have an air strike force(well thats what they are saying anyway). I think the Warrior would be ideal.Rapier would be good.

For the army I would purchase
around 100 warriors
30 rapier systems

Navy: after PP ships

2 new frigates to enhance the force to 4
another 170m MRV
new tanker,mine/diving and survey all armed with 1 25mm cannon and 50 cal mgs

Air Force

30 multi role fighters
30 light/training fighters, probably hawks
10 new Hercs
15 Tiger attack helis

[nz enthusiast]

javelin is a anti tank weapon, although it is needed in mobility warfare, it is not in that strike category in my opinion.
Mistril is anti air, not a precsion strike weapon and is really for your own defence, but once again needed in mobility warfare.
there is no precision strike in the NZ armed services, unless you want to count 105mm howitizer and the main guns on the frigates.
It says all over defence reviews 'new zealand needs precision strike for the army, it can be in the following forms...'.

i had a very quick vague estimate on the stuff you want to buy, it will be at least 10 bil from what i can see. Why so expenisve? because your adding in new capabilities, which are always expensive to have. Your going to have to be a bit more reasonable at what you want. There is no way we can afford to maintain that sort of capability without offending the greenies and even genuine NZ. Also for what you want to do your going ot have to find a few thousand people which at this stage do not seem to exist.

My more reasonable list:
Keep the lavs, but look at the possibly of lowering there numbers due to lack of main power (possibly lower to sixty). Consider fire support vehicles if man power is available.
Upgrade thw two frigates slowly, get new torpedos now, new weapons for seaprite, look at surface to surface missile. Keep project protector going. Look at extra weapons for these ships if structure allows. Begin investigation into new tanker and survey vessel.
Keep c-130 and P-3 upgrade projects going and countinue plans for NH-90 (around 14 to 16 would be reasonable). Countinue tender into replacement for sioux (what is availble BTW and what does Austrlia use). Look at the role of attack helis (maybe only 6-12 of these). Begin looking for c-130 and p-3 replace with the possibly of investing in P-8 and A-400m projects.

[Aussie Digger]

How does the Navy determine the number of surface combatants required and is the RAN happy with current and future fleet numbers? I've said before that our surface fleet appears light given the amount of ocean/seas it has to cover but then I don't profess to be well informed as to what current RAN doctrine is.

After the last few weeks of reading various forums and articles, the idea that predominately prevails is that Australia seeks a 'qualitative' advantage in lieu of a quantitative one. That's all fine and dandy, but I feel there is also advantage in numbers (possible attrition), ability to project force in multiple areas and deterent value.

I've seen proposals from folks who think the RAN should have more 'hull's but fitted only with the bare minimum. The idea being that the money saved on weapons suites could be put into more ships. In case of hostilties they could be fitted out with the required weaponary. I suppose it is based on the assumption they'll be a period of time in which ships can be 'uparmed'. Some ships of the class would have the full fitout for training and acclimatisation purposes and crews would be rotated through them.

Edit: Unrelated to my post but relevant to thread.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1650/vastergotland121mc.jpg

Interesting scan of article featured on Asia Pacific Defence Reporter posted on other forum. Egads, Singapore is a mini-superpower.

I think the RAN would be happy with 11-12 frigates plus the AWD's. Even Britain only has a major surface combatant force of 21. A force of 14-15 high quality major surface combatants would make Australia a relatively "big" player on the World scene, not just the Asia-Pacific region. Particularly if the "mini-carriers" come about as hoped.

An Australia Naval task force of an AWD, 2-3 frigates a sub or 2 and a mini carrier with 12+ JSF's, plus a refueller/underway replenishment ship would be a VERY substantial contribution to any force for a Country with the population size of ours...

Btw the way Rear Admiral Barrie made an interesting comment about the size of our major surface fleet just a few weeks ago. Even at just 12 Frigates, our fleet is STILL bigger now than it has been ever since WW2... (I don't have a link for that, but I assure everyone he said it).

And you're right. Singapore has an awesome armed forces for it's size and far exceeds the capabilities of it's neighbours...

[Supe]

Singapore does have legitimate concerns validating their Defence purchases. They spend quite a bit on Defence (GDP wise) but I think it's part of an upgrading process they are currently going through. If you check what sort of gear they have at their disposal, it's pretty damn impressive. They can also count a few Apache's in their helo fleet.

Then of course there's the Malaysians, who've bought themselves the Astros rocket system (strategic value), Vietnam is attempting to modernise their forces.... South East Asia is having a mini arms race. It's something Australian Defence planners must factor in. Fortunately, apart from some law and order issues, our immediate region is relatively benign.

Particularly if the "mini-carriers" come about as hoped.

I'd like to be wrong but I don't see it happening. I expect RAN to get a few more helo's but I don't they should hope for or count on receiving fixed wing aircraft. That said, the SPS should be built with a possible fixed wing complement in mind. An amphibious ship capable of operating a few helo's simultaneously will make for quite a potent force.

[Aussie Digger]

I'd like to be wrong but I don't see it happening. I expect RAN to get a few more helo's but I don't they should hope for or count on receiving fixed wing aircraft. That said, the SPS should be built with a possible fixed wing complement in mind. An amphibious ship capable of operating a few helo's simultaneously will make for quite a potent force.

Agreed on the helo issue, but I think the ability at least to operate the new amphib ships as "mini-carriers" WILL come about. As much as I dislike the idea, the RAAF will probably end up with JSF's, and as we get closer to a final purchase I think the flexibility for both Land based and Sea based operations that the F-35B will provide will swing defence planners in it's favour, despite the additional costs involved. I doubt our ships would be used all that much as "carriers" but more like USMC assault vessels.

The USMC Harriers in the Gulf war were the most forward deployed assets during the early days of the war because of their STOVL capability and were able to provide CAS and strike quicker than any other assets because of this, or so I've read... I can easily picture future F-35B's performing the same role to possibly greater effect...

[Supe]

If the RAN is indeed fortunate enough to get some JSF's, I think Australia would be as you mentioned 'quite a big player' in the region. But.. does if fit into government thinking AND would this denude programmes mean't to keep army capabilities relevant? Some have argued, that the Gov has in the past robbed Peter to pay Paul and the Army is the favourite sacrificial goat. I'm not sure that can really continue given they have been deployed quite frequently in the last few years.

As much as I dislike the idea, the RAAF will probably end up with JSF's

Is there a viable alternative?

[Aussie Digger]

There are viable options for the RAAF, but probably not if the RAN is to operate "mini carriers". The reason the RAN is so excited about the prospect of regaining an "aircraft carrier" type capability is that it is available at only a relatively limited extra cost.

We ARE getting ships that will be capable of operating STOVL aircraft. They have already been funded. We WILL probably get JSF (even if I don't care much for the aircraft, I think the Government's out to spite me...). It's simply a matter of acquiring the F-35B in realistic numbers to provide the capability.

The F-35B will be more expensive than the F-35A we will probably end up with, but with the limited numbers of F-35B's we'd acquire anyway, it shouldn't prove to be TOO expensive to fit in, but would provide significant capability enhancements to overall ADF capability.

The Army has been the poor cousin and urgent action needed to be taken, but Gen LEAHY (and Cosgrove) have been very successful in arguing for greater army capability and these endeavours are starting to pay off (Javelin, M113 upgrade, M1A1's, Tiger ARH, NH-90's, Bushmaster, additional ASLAV's, RBS-70, Land 17, JP 129 etc, etc). I'm betting around December we'll see even further Army enhancements announced, probably including an additional battalion...

The other big ticket projects are still funded however and they might be able to massage the "mini-carrier" idea in too.

I hope so.

[cherry]

I'm glad you brought this subject up. I was about to start another thread but I can add onto this discussion. With an update of the Defence Capability Plan due for release by the end of the year, I was going to ask what people thought the next round of priorities should be for the ADF? Assuming all the big ticket projects are going to go ahead, what in addition to these should ADF be pushing for. The perfect example, and one that I personally think is the highest priority for ADF, is the formation of another batallion within Army. Some things I believe should be addressed or implemented are as follows:

ARMY
- A new mechanised batallion with additional upgraded M113, additional Abrams tanks and support equipment, additional artillery (that selected under Land 17 i.e. SP howitzer).
- The 350 M113 plus those required for additional batallion upgraded even further to address current problems with vehicle upgrade. Australian Defence Magazine June 2005 edition highlighted problems such as lack of firepower. To address this the same turret and weapons should be used as the 25mm turret on ASLAV in place of current proposal. Better heat sheilding from the powerpack for the driver, and a higher level of spall liners (again, the same as chosen for ASLAV).
- ASLAV, Bushmaster, Abrams, M113 and SP howitzer chosen under Land 17 should be armed with a remote weapons station utilising a variety of weapons.
- HIMARS should be purchased to compliment the SP and towed howitzers purchased under Land 17.
- All 14 Caribou aircraft should be replaced with a one for one purchase of Chinooks, possible able to operate from the new amphibious ships, and the existing 6 chinooks upgraded to the same standard.
- A layered anti-air defence comprising of a mix of THAAD and possibly CLAWS or MEADS systems.

NAVY
- Further upgrades to the ANZACS such as adding SM-2, a very short range anti-air missile system, a UAV such as Firescout, a number of 25mm guns, and a longer ranging main gun and munitions when they become available.
- A long range land attack missile for either AWD or collins class.

AIRFORCE
- Around 4 - 6 C-17 transporters.

Thoughts???????

[Aussie Digger]

I'm glad you brought this subject up. I was about to start another thread but I can add onto this discussion. With an update of the Defence Capability Plan due for release by the end of the year, I was going to ask what people thought the next round of priorities should be for the ADF? Assuming all the big ticket projects are going to go ahead, what in addition to these should ADF be pushing for. The perfect example, and one that I personally think is the highest priority for ADF, is the formation of another batallion within Army. Some things I believe should be addressed or implemented are as follows:

ARMY
- A new mechanised batallion with additional upgraded M113, additional Abrams tanks and support equipment, additional artillery (that selected under Land 17 i.e. SP howitzer).
- The 350 M113 plus those required for additional batallion upgraded even further to address current problems with vehicle upgrade. Australian Defence Magazine June 2005 edition highlighted problems such as lack of firepower. To address this the same turret and weapons should be used as the 25mm turret on ASLAV in place of current proposal. Better heat sheilding from the powerpack for the driver, and a higher level of spall liners (again, the same as chosen for ASLAV).
- ASLAV, Bushmaster, Abrams, M113 and SP howitzer chosen under Land 17 should be armed with a remote weapons station utilising a variety of weapons.
- HIMARS should be purchased to compliment the SP and towed howitzers purchased under Land 17.
- All 14 Caribou aircraft should be replaced with a one for one purchase of Chinooks, possible able to operate from the new amphibious ships, and the existing 6 chinooks upgraded to the same standard.
- A layered anti-air defence comprising of a mix of THAAD and possibly CLAWS or MEADS systems.

NAVY
- Further upgrades to the ANZACS such as adding SM-2, a very short range anti-air missile system, a UAV such as Firescout, a number of 25mm guns, and a longer ranging main gun and munitions when they become available.
- A long range land attack missile for either AWD or collins class.

AIRFORCE
- Around 4 - 6 C-17 transporters.

Thoughts???????

They are fine ideas Cherry and probably much in accord with most people around here, the problem though will be the funding. The ADF wants all that kit you've mentioned, but the current DCP is funded to $50 Billion already and can't fit in all that you've mentioned there.

In relation to the M113's, the Army structure doesn't allow for the 3 man turret of the ASLAV throughout the mechanised infantry battalion. With only 9 persons in a section, having 3 people crew the mech vehicle would leave only 6 dismounted troops which is an insufficient number of assault troops...

An increase in section size would therefore be required which would un-balance the battalion in relation to the other battalions and would require additional man-power which the Army apparently can't afford.

An additional mech battalion would only excerbate the situation. A better solution might be to adopt a different 1x man turret that can still mount the 25mm cannon, plus a 7.62mm GPMG and the appropriate sensors. Such a suggestion has already been mooted within Army, but no funding currently exists to implement this.

Another suggestion is that enquiries have shown that the current turret could be easily modified to include a 40mm auto grenade launcher in addition to the 0.50cal MMG currently included. This would fit in with Land 40 Phase 2 which will likely acquire auto grenade launchers for ALL of Army and provide a significant firepower boost, without the cost of the 25mm Bushmaster... However there's not even any money for this at present...

[cherry]

Perhaps your solution to the lack of firepower for the M113 is the best way to solve the problem. This problem must be addressed though. The article from ADM makes such points as 12.7mm gun does not improve on the current Vietnam-vintage T50 turret does now, and would only be effective against soft skinned targets and some reinforced structures. We are virtually the only country left using this lower calibre weapon on a mechanised fighting vehicle, whereas all other countries have opted for at least a 20mm-30mm canon of some description. In addition to this, the baseline armour for most modern armoured vehicles can withstand a 12.7mm hit, reducing the effectiveness of this weapon on this platform to virtually zero. If Army are serious about increasing the firepower of their forces, then surely they will act on this issue and replace the 12.7mm with a larger weapon.

In regards to the "wishlist" I proposed, I was talking outside the 2014 timeframe that the current DCP addresses, say 2015 and beyond. Although some of that equipment may be affordable.

[cherry]

I forgot to ask, would the 40mm grenade launcher have the range and effectiveness of a 25mm bushmaster canon?

[Aussie Digger]

Perhaps your solution to the lack of firepower for the M113 is the best way to solve the problem. This problem must be addressed though. The article from ADM makes such points as 12.7mm gun does not improve on the current Vietnam-vintage T50 turret does now, and would only be effective against soft skinned targets and some reinforced structures. We are virtually the only country left using this lower calibre weapon on a mechanised fighting vehicle, whereas all other countries have opted for at least a 20mm-30mm canon of some description. In addition to this, the baseline armour for most modern armoured vehicles can withstand a 12.7mm hit, reducing the effectiveness of this weapon on this platform to virtually zero. If Army are serious about increasing the firepower of their forces, then surely they will act on this issue and replace the 12.7mm with a larger weapon.

In regards to the "wishlist" I proposed, I was talking outside the 2014 timeframe that the current DCP addresses, say 2015 and beyond. Although some of that equipment may be affordable.

I agree, though the new turret is stabilised and electrically driven and the 0.50cal gun has a day/night optical sighting system and a computerised fire control system which provides an excellent "first round hit" capability whereas the T50 only has the Mk 1 eyeball for sighting and ridiculous little wheels to turn the turret...

The quick change barrel 0.50cal HMG is currently already fitted to the Army's non-upgraded M113's, so as far as calibre goes they won't receive a firepower boost, but the gun will be more accurate and will hit the target more quickly.

I think the 0.50cal is still a reasonably viable option, (ADM is all about selling weapons to the Army and is not necessarily interested in the most cost effective solution for Army), the 0.50cal is an extremely powerful weapon system that still has a lot of utility. Bunkers for instance aren't getting any better protected than they ever have been (being of the same traditional design) and it's still an excellent anti-personnel weapon as well. The US Army for example is not rushing to replace the weapon having it fitted as the sole weapon system for it's Striker APC's...

A new range of ammunition is also being introduced into the ADF for the 0.50cal's that have much improved penetration characteristics and are likely to be more potent than most people will realise. but I tend to agree that only having 1 weapon system is ridiculous. At the least a 40mm grenade launcher should be fitted alongside it as no matter how powerful a weapon system, it can still have a stoppage (it can run out of ammo)...

[cherry]

What priorities would you pursue post 2014 in terms of adding or enhancing capabilities to ADF?

[tatra]

Perhaps your solution to the lack of firepower for the M113 is the best way to solve the problem. This problem must be addressed though. The article from ADM makes such points as 12.7mm gun does not improve on the current Vietnam-vintage T50 turret does now, and would only be effective against soft skinned targets and some reinforced structures. We are virtually the only country left using this lower calibre weapon on a mechanised fighting vehicle, whereas all other countries have opted for at least a 20mm-30mm canon of some description. In addition to this, the baseline armour for most modern armoured vehicles can withstand a 12.7mm hit, reducing the effectiveness of this weapon on this platform to virtually zero. If Army are serious about increasing the firepower of their forces, then surely they will act on this issue and replace the 12.7mm with a larger weapon.

In regards to the "wishlist" I proposed, I was talking outside the 2014 timeframe that the current DCP addresses, say 2015 and beyond. Although some of that equipment may be affordable.

12,7 HMGs can easily be replaced by a 25mm or 30mm Automatic Selfpowered Cannon (a version of the Apache's M230) on a 1-for-1 basis on simple vehicle mounts.

Basically the ASP-30 can fit any mount that will take a .50 BHMG including the M3 ground tripod. Weapon weight is 52kg (114lb). Cyclic rate of the ASP is 400-450rpm. The ASP uses the same ADEN/DEFA 30x113B ammo as the M230 Chain Gun. In US service the most common rounds are the M789 HEDP (HEAT-Frag), M799 HEI and M788 TP. Muzzle velocity is 2,690fps (820m/s).

Online Powerpoint presentation on it here: http://www.geocities.com/strategicmaneuver/sld031.htm

Images here:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/M113ASP.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/hmmwvasp30mmautocannon.jpg

[Aussie Digger]

What priorities would you pursue post 2014 in terms of adding or enhancing capabilities to ADF?

For Army, a brand new fleet wide APC/IFV, an ASLAV armoured recon/Cav replacement vehicle. A new manpad SAM system, replacement of the Chinook aircraft with a replacement aircraft (should one exist)

For Navy, a replacement Frigate program and replacement submarine program, plus a replacement Oiler (HMAS Success will be "long in the tooth by then")

For Airforce, a replacement for C-130 Hercules (H series initially plus J series eventually). An acquisition of a strategic lift capability for airforce (C-17 etc). Plus continuing development and acquisition of AIR 6000.

[Supe]

AD: Success is being replaced by the Delos, which will be commisioned as HMAS Sirius (http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4802/topstories/STORY01.HTM) in RAN service. It should be in service next year.

[nz enthusiast]

I am suprised to see that for the size of the Australian navy they only have one tanker, yet for the size of the NZ navy, we have one also.

[Aussie Digger]

AD: Success is being replace