Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








ADF General discussion thread

This is a discussion on ADF General discussion thread within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; more on the USMC forces arriving in sunny NT unfort, no pictures on the arrival of the chinese contingent for ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old April 21st, 2017   #376
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,991
Threads:
more on the USMC forces arriving in sunny NT

unfort, no pictures on the arrival of the chinese contingent for this years exercises

The Thundering Third arrive in the Top End for Marine Rotational Force – Darwin 2017 – Aviation Spotters Online
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2017   #377
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 255
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
My argument wasn't that flat tops shouldn't have strategic length VLS, let alone no point defence or close in defence, but rather if we embraced distributed lethality and had large numbers of VLS fitted to LPDs and possibly AORs (two strategically vital to protect platforms'), as well as our destroyers and frigates, we could get away with not having them equipped with SM-3/6, Tomahawk etc.

Taking this further, if your minor combatants and even support roled minor ships on a common hull (MCM, hydro, oceanography, even dare I suggest APD / assault transports), are designed with sufficient magin, then fitting an 8 or16 cell strategic length VLS should not be an issue. These little ships could then use SM-6, ESSM, even VLASROC, Tomahawk etc. (as well as LRASM but this could also be fitted on slant launchers like Harpoon and NSM, similar applies to Sea Ceptor, RAM Block II and Nulka which can use ExLS units in VLS or other options that don't take up VLS cells). Fit CEC and/or other data links and they could conceivably add to the task forces SM-3 load out, as well as being able to employ their other weapons to far greater effect.

As to strategic length VLS on flat decks, why not? Bear in mind they would need to be located well away from flight operations to permit their use at any time, i.e. peripheral VLS installed outboard of the island or even in the starboard side of the island so that structure masks flight operations from the missile launch.
Volk it's interesting the weapons fit for Italy's aircraft carrier Cavour and the future Landing Helicopter Assult ship Trieste. Muliple Oto Melara 76mm and 25mm guns plus VLS for Aster 15 and 30 missiles.Their ageing light carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi once even had SSM to add its impressive air defence arsenal. Ambitious maybe, but for a small ship it was/is a useful of kit.
The Italians tend to put a fair bit of punch on their ships so maybe we could take note and apply were practical some of these lesson to our new supply ships and amphib's.


Regards S
Stampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2017   #378
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,549
Threads:
Cavour has Sylver A43 for Aster 15.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2017   #379
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 741
Threads:
Been reading some SLDinfo.com and in one of the articles I came across this interesting snippet that I have not seen in the media (may have missed it).

Australian Army Modernization: An Update from Brigadier General Mills | SLDInfo

Quote:
“It started with an Army Innovation Day in which we put the challenge to industry of providing a small UAV which could be used by small army units.

“A number of companies trialed their capabilities and we then picked one – the Black Hornet – for further trials.

“We established a trial in one of our brigades and within Special Forces. It was deployed to Iraq for a short period of time.

“We like it. Patrol reports were very favorable.

We are now looking to enter into a contract with a company to procure enough nano-UAVs to equip every one of our platoons and vehicle troops with its own nano-UAV.”
Looking into nano UAV's doesnt surprise me, To be looking at equipping every platoon and vehicle troop with one though does some what as I never heard or expected to see it coming to such a level so soon that we are already talking to a contractor about it.

Other interesting snippet's in that article (and there are a few others released over the last week that relate to the ADF).

Quote:
“One of the options we could explore is to take legacy vehicles, such as the M113, and install an autonomous vehicle kit.

“As a result we could get a vehicle which could be used for the dirty and dangerous missions which are currently being done by our troops. Further more this would be a relatively cheap and value for money option for the Australian tax payer.”

“For example under this context the M113 could now become an autonomous resupply vehicle. I need the resupply to go from X to Y. Its protection level is not as high as our manned vehicles, LAND 400, but it doesn’t need to be. There’s just bullets, beans, etc. in these vehicles, but they can make their way autonomously from point X to point Y.”
Apparently we are also looking to start trials towards the back end of this year running for a few years on autonomous robots and/or vehicles to clear the ground ahead of a patrol.
vonnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2017   #380
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,991
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vonnoobie View Post
Apparently we are also looking to start trials towards the back end of this year running for a few years on autonomous robots and/or vehicles to clear the ground ahead of a patrol.
its been normal to run UAS ahead of patrols in afghanistan - and they've been running micro UAS recently

about the size of a can of aftershave
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2017   #381
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
its been normal to run UAS ahead of patrols in afghanistan - and they've been running micro UAS recently

about the size of a can of aftershave
This one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hornet_Nano

Regards,

Massive
Massive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2017   #382
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13
Threads:
Point Trading kicks up fuss over ADF tendering process... Wondering if this is an actual problem or just sour-grapes?

Quote:
Defence Department accused of dudding Australian businesses
Exclusive by defence reporter Andrew Greene

An Australian-owned company specialising in security and military equipment has accused the Defence Department of dubious contract tendering processes and questioned whether local jobs are actually being prioritised.

Melbourne-based business Point Trading Group has been involved in lengthy legal action against Defence after its contract negotiations to supply grenade launchers to the Australian military were terminated in 2011.
Rest is on the ABC new website, unable to post a link due to my current post-count.
CJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #383
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,169
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR View Post
Point Trading kicks up fuss over ADF tendering process... Wondering if this is an actual problem or just sour-grapes?

Rest is on the ABC new website, unable to post a link due to my current post-count.
Yeah Australian business was 'dudded'...

One Australian company missed out on a contract, offering a German made AGL.

One Australian company got the contract offering a US made AGL...

ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #384
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 27
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatH View Post
https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/...no1Babbage.pdf

I Found this Article by Ross Babbage on a potential future ADF out to 2050ish very interesting, if a little outdated. It encourages Australia to heavily alter our defence force in response to the increasing power of some nations in our region.

It seems to be quite opposed to the views of many on DT who argue for a balanced defence force.

Thoughts?
Sorry, came across this one a bit later. But I'd like to add my comment.

Firstly, the real danger to Australia from greatly increased power and wealth of the Asian giants is the change in the balance of influence. Our political class will pursue their own interests of securing their private wealth and status by using their role as national elites to gain a place of status in the higher social circles of the Asian giant political culture.

In fact this is already happening. The rent or sale of ports to Chinese firms while people like Andrew Robb build their post politic career. Another example of how the shift in influence can manifest is the current natural gas controversy. Imagine if it were food that became scare due to exports being more lucrative than the domestic market.

So I claim the greatest threat to Australian security in an enriched and empowered Asia comes not from the PLAN but rather from our own political class. Note other nations in our region, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, S. Korea, all know what it is like to have one's nation dominated by a foriegn power. Initially this happens through the national elite identifying with and ultimately serving the interests of a powerful foriegn elite. This is why most nations in Asia can get quite uppity about any attempt over questions of leadership. But it is sensible for the people of a nation to be concerned about their nation elites selling them out. We should take a leaf out of their book and keep our own politic class worried about their continued political careers.

On a technical note regarding Ross's force, with or without the Americans, we will always operate as part of an alliance. He force capacity suggest seems to imply independent operations. Though I think we could use greater numbers of aircraft than currently planned, the numbers he suggests are too much. Someone has to pay for it. History is full of examples of sovereigns who sent their realm broke due to military expenditure. We to put the better portion of our national treasury into things like education and infrastructure (which ideally won't then be sold of by the rubbery figures in parliament). This stuff generates new wealth in future. No point having military power if you've got no income.

Just my 2 cents.
foxdemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #385
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 485
Threads:
I am posting this here because it seems to involve all three services.

Medusa. Has any poster any info re same?
From my understanding we are taking on the Norwegian NASAMS and Australianising it, and mounting it on the Hawkii (which is the Australian bit I can see, plus CEA radar). I have read where they are going to be using Block ll Aim-9x short range AAM which will replace our current short range AAM, and AIM 120 AMRAAM which will give us a medium range missile. I have also read where we are going to use ESSM in the medium range area, but as I see it the AIM-120 has a range of 120km (air launched),
against the ESSM a range of 50km surface launched, which I imagine would be about the same, and as the ESSM is a bit dearer than the AIM-120, what is its advantage? Unless it is because it can be quad packed?
Also, the Army would get the short ranged missiles, would they also get the medium range missiles? And where does the RAAF fit in?

Last edited by hairyman; 1 Week Ago at 10:08 PM. Reason: Additional info.
hairyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #386
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,169
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
I am posting this here because it seems to involve all three services.

Medusa. Has any poster any info re same?
From my understanding we are taking on the Norwegian NASAMS and Australianising it, and mounting it on the Hawkii (which is the Australian bit I can see, plus CEA radar). I have read where they are going to be using Block ll Aim-9x short range AAM which will replace our current short range AAM, and AIM 120 AMRAAM which will give us a medium range missile. I have also read where we are going to use ESSM in the medium range area, but as I see it the AIM-120 has a range of 120km (air launched),
against the ESSM a range of 50km surface launched, which I imagine would be about the same, and as the ESSM is a bit dearer than the AIM-120, what is its advantage? Unless it is because it can be quad packed?
Also, the Army would get the short ranged missiles, would they also get the medium range missiles? And where does the RAAF fit in?
You can't compare air-launched missile range to ground / surface launched missile range in any aspect, the effect of gravity and zero altitude / airspeed has to be overcome by the ground-launched missile, whereas the air-launched missile already has altitude and airspeed in it's favour.

The ESSM has a much larger missile body (ie: significantly bigger in diameter and length) translating to a far bigger rocket motor and vastly more propellant than any of the AMRAAM variants, recognising their differing employment modes. This is why the 'AMRAAM-ER' variant is using the ESSM missile body and the AMRAAM guidance, warhead and fusing system.

ESSM can be quad-packed in a strategic length Mk 41 VLS, but this won't be the launcher used by Army. I would suggest AIM-9X, AMRAAM and AMRAAM-ER will all be qualified for launch and will be employed on a mix and match basis by Army as required by the tactical situation.

As for engagement ranges, I would suggest something along the lines of up to 12k for AIM-9X, up to 25k's for AMRAAM and up to 50K's for AMRAAM-ER would be the upper limit of their envelopes.

As I understand it the intent is for Army to use NASAMS II for their short / medium ranged tactical air defence coverage needs with RAAF to (eventually) operate a Medium / Long ranged strategic air defence system (albeit they are 'only' calling it a 'medium ranged) system.

It seems as if something akin to Patriot / MEADS / SAMP-T / Arrow is envisaged for the RAAF requirement, with (I fully expect) over time some limited BMD capability to be added to the RAAF requirement.
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #387
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 243
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
I am posting this here because it seems to involve all three services.

Medusa. Has any poster any info re same?
From my understanding we are taking on the Norwegian NASAMS and Australianising it, and mounting it on the Hawkii (which is the Australian bit I can see, plus CEA radar). I have read where they are going to be using Block ll Aim-9x short range AAM which will replace our current short range AAM, and AIM 120 AMRAAM which will give us a medium range missile. I have also read where we are going to use ESSM in the medium range area, but as I see it the AIM-120 has a range of 120km (air launched),
against the ESSM a range of 50km surface launched, which I imagine would be about the same, and as the ESSM is a bit dearer than the AIM-120, what is its advantage? Unless it is because it can be quad packed?
Also, the Army would get the short ranged missiles, would they also get the medium range missiles? And where does the RAAF fit in?
We had a chat about this in the Aus Army thread. ESSM (and its GBAD "cousin" the AMRAAM-ER) probably has a longer reach than the AMRAAM when surface launched. Bigger rocket motor with more propellant is what it boils down to I imagine.

As a (very) rough rule of thumb you can probably think of AMRAAM as a ~25km missile when surface launched, with ESSM/AMRAAM-ER probably around twice that.

Edit: ADMk2 beat me to it

Last edited by Boagrius; 1 Week Ago at 11:24 PM. Reason: Pipped at the post
Boagrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #388
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 485
Threads:
Thanks for your replies boys. I had read where the ESSM had been enhanced with the AMRAAM guidance system, and I was aware that the airspeed etc would make the Air to Air Missiles shorter ranged with surface launch, but I did not have a clue as to how much it would effect them. I imagine the RAN would be watching this with interest, with a view to added the systems to vessels that up to now have no surface to air missiles. It would be a pretty cheap way to go, and easily fitted.
hairyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #389
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 243
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
Thanks for your replies boys. I had read where the ESSM had been enhanced with the AMRAAM guidance system, and I was aware that the airspeed etc would make the Air to Air Missiles shorter ranged with surface launch, but I did not have a clue as to how much it would effect them. I imagine the RAN would be watching this with interest, with a view to added the systems to vessels that up to now have no surface to air missiles. It would be a pretty cheap way to go, and easily fitted.
Yes, confusingly the AMRAAM-ER and ESSM Block II are extremely similar missiles.

AFAIK the AMRAAM-ER is a land based weapon that mates the propulsion section of an ESSM to the guidance section of an AMRAAM (~AIM120C?).

The ESSM Block II on the other hand will replace the guidance system from the Block I missile (needs illumination from launch platform up to impact) with an active seeker of its own. Whether or not this seeker will have any relationship with AMRAAM I am not sure - wouldn't surprise me to find out it is something larger and perhaps more capable.

I expect the RAN will go down the ESSM Block II path in due course given our experience with its predecessor.
Boagrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #390
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,599
Threads:
An interesting article on the many flashpoints in Asia


Are we sleepwalking to World War III? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM.