Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Australian Maritime Doctrine

This is a discussion on Australian Maritime Doctrine within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler You failed to take into account the immense ASW capability of the F-111! Ah yes, ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 29th, 2012   #16
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,527
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
You failed to take into account the immense ASW capability of the F-111!
Ah yes, the worlds first Mach 2 capable dipping sonar!!!

Deployed from the internal bay by swapping out the Pavetack pod... How silly of me to overlook it...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2012   #17
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,527
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Basil Fawlty's words (don't mention the war!) were heeded when I left out Kopp's comments about F111 but, you will be pleased to note that by retiring them and subsequently purchasing 24 Shorenets we have suffered a net loss in capability of 60%.

I really have to stop reading "Defence Today" it seems to pith everyone off
It doesn't pith me off, in fact I get highly amused by just about everything I hear of the Doctors written work...

The only thng that pithes me off, is that people actually pay good money to read that drivel. You fools!!!

ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2012   #18
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,259
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Ah yes, the worlds first Mach 2 capable dipping sonar!!!

Deployed from the internal bay by swapping out the Pavetack pod... How silly of me to overlook it...
Don't laugh, I actually remember reading somewhere that the Sea Harrier could / should be adapted for the ASW role using sonar buoys dropped from pods as well as air dropped torpedoes and depth charges. Can't remember where I read it but it was during the post Falklands, "the Harrier can do anything" hysteria. I wonder where they were going to do the signal processing to actually work out where the sub is.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2012   #19
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,259
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
It doesn't pith me off, in fact I get highly amused by just about everything I hear of the Doctors written work...

The only thng that pithes me off, is that people actually pay good money to read that drivel. You fools!!!

I used to buy it quite regularly and not read the Kopp articles but unfortunately it got to the point I didn't read more than half the mag.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2012   #20
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 646
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
It doesn't pith me off, in fact I get highly amused by just about everything I hear of the Doctors written work...

The only thng that pithes me off, is that people actually pay good money to read that drivel. You fools!!!

I have to make a confession, "bless me Father, for I have sinned!"

In the distant past I used to buy Defence Today from the newsagent, but I have reformed, I've seen the light!

The "only" time these days when I have a quick look at DT is when I go to pick up my regular monthly edition of Australian Aviation or the occasional Navy mag, and I'll admit, I also buy Australian and New Zealand Defender mag too (its not always very accurate, but has pretty good photo spreads).

I must say that when I do have a look at DT, I quickly zone out as I flick through, it also helps that the newsagent is always looking intently at the people that read and dont buy too, so I quickly put it back without a second thought of buying one!!!

Oh well, off to the newsagent on the 3rd of Jan to get the new, and improved, copy of Australian Aviation!!!

Cheers,

John

PS, Am I forgiven??
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2012   #21
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 768
Threads:
I use to purchase Defence Today to ,stopped buying it when i joint this site.
You want to hear something really funny?

My First post here went along the lines of....."I cannot believe the Australian Government is not Upgrading the F-111 to The Kopp -111"

Lets just say i was shot down by a few of you guys and im glad i was.

I was living in sin. I don't buy Mag's now i just read the forums here.

Cheers.
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2012   #22
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,527
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Don't laugh, I actually remember reading somewhere that the Sea Harrier could / should be adapted for the ASW role using sonar buoys dropped from pods as well as air dropped torpedoes and depth charges. Can't remember where I read it but it was during the post Falklands, "the Harrier can do anything" hysteria. I wonder where they were going to do the signal processing to actually work out where the sub is.
Bugger the Harrier! I want to know what that dipping sonar tethering cable is going to be made of!

It'd be strong...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2012   #23
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,527
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
I use to purchase Defence Today to ,stopped buying it when i joint this site.
You want to hear something really funny?

My First post here went along the lines of....."I cannot believe the Australian Government is not Upgrading the F-111 to The Kopp -111"

Lets just say i was shot down by a few of you guys and im glad i was.

I was living in sin. I don't buy Mag's now i just read the forums here.

Cheers.
That's the thing, most of the things the mags write about is on here or here:

DSCA -- Arms Sales Notifications

Or on any number of ther news sites, months before it comes out in a magazine and as for A&NZ Defender, their photos used to be good, when John (crazy) Farrell used to go out into the weeds and take his own.

Now they're all stripped off the Aus DoD website or off manufacturers websites with his own (usually incorrect) description of the capability in the "news" section, that is 3 months late on everything...

I will ocassionally buy an AA mag or Air Forces Monthly IF, I am flying somewhere and want something to read, but regular purchases? No way. There's nothing in them that can't easily be found for free, apart from the odd exercise report, with many a platitude from some brass somewhere, if you're interested in such things...

About the only thing I "like" about Kopp is that he steadfastly writes the complete opposite of what virtually EVERYONE else does and reality doesn't sway him an inch.
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2012   #24
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,821
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Did this really happen in a modern ADF? or rather is it the figment of a fertile and deluded Dr Kopp.
Alternatively, is he correct?
Its BS.

The ones who jumped in the early part of the decade were a result of

end of posting cycle and ready to move on
those disenchanted with the side effects of ET, ie that those who spoke out on border protection issues (like RADM Barrie) knew that in no uncertain terms that they'd reached as far as they were ever going to go and that they had no future - whereas those who towed the company line (Gen Cosgrove) were able to take advantage of "govt trust" and seized the window of opportunity to get whatever gear they could for the services. (hence the happy partnering days for army, navy and air force for phat ships and heavy lift aircraft) ET was a wake up call on how rooted our logistics was - although dual hat roles were a good selling point, the govt of the day didn't need convincing - and their focus was certainly on more capability to move and have presence anywhere we thought it was in the national interest. Unfort the capacity to get the Ministers blessing on curr gear means being able to sell them on dual hat roles (a twisted spin on VFM in the selection cycle). Thats easy to see as all the fast track progs of note (under the old definition of "major capital acquisitions") have had dual hat capability.

ADO also went through a re-org on procurement, so a lot of the diehard proponents of single service procurement knew it was time to bail.

The defence of australia proponents existed mainly on the suit side of the shop due to being generated by a few "good idea" fairies

add in the start of the mining boom (in real terms) and you could argue that it was just another variation of the exit cycle

as for his comment that ASW atrophied after the end of the cold war - thats just lazy commentary as it's been well published that all countries with capable ASW changed their stance as the need had shifted - it was a "peace dividend"

what he ignores though is the fact that large ASW fleet owners re-roled their aircraft into an ISR emphasis rather than an ASW emphasis. Sure they killed off major slices of their fleets, but it was under a peace dividend mentality - not due to some other "pet rock" idea like whites "defence of australia"

He only has to read publications such as Proceedings to see numerous articles on this very subject
________________
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/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2012   #25
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,863
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Don't laugh, I actually remember reading somewhere that the Sea Harrier could / should be adapted for the ASW role using sonar buoys dropped from pods as well as air dropped torpedoes and depth charges. Can't remember where I read it but it was during the post Falklands, "the Harrier can do anything" hysteria. I wonder where they were going to do the signal processing to actually work out where the sub is.
I've seen pictures of when the USN toyed with dropping torpedos from an A-4. The idea was an ASW carrier would use slower aircraft drop the bouys and helo's to do dipping sonar with an A-4 "CAP" to swing in and drop a torp for the kill.
They never got it to work right.

The stupidest Harrier idea I've seen was the sky crane thingy that was supposed to be mounted on an escort and a Harrier would be picked up and dropped off that.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2012   #26
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 402
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post

My First post here went along the lines of....."I cannot believe the Australian Government is not Upgrading the F-111 to The Kopp -111"

Lets just say i was shot down by a few of you guys and im glad i was.

Cheers.
You are not alone there.
I was a Kopp acolyte and a fan of the F-111.
Joining this forum knocked some sense into me.
Don't buy mags anymore unless there is a feature article I am especially interested in - but will have a quick squiz before purchasing to make sure it has info new to me - would occassionaly buy the Navy or Defence one.
I have noticed now that this forum is a source of info that eventually trickles through to some of the local defence mags. I swear I have seen some magazine articles that looked like summaries from this forum!

rb
rossfrb_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2012   #27
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,259
Threads:
I think the most ironic thing with Kopps article is that the greatest negative impact on the ADFs ASW capability actually occurred with the retirement, without replacement, of HMAS Melbourne in 1982. No more Trackers deployed with the fleet, no more dipping sonars from the Seakings, no more targeting data from the Seakings for the Ikaras. The loss of the carrier and the ability to deploy Seakings with the fleet was perhaps the biggest single ASW capability hit the RAN has ever suffered. Looking back only a decade earlier there was HMAS Sydney which operated Wessex helos for ASW self defence on her Vietnam missions, she could have easily been deployed as an ASW helo carrier in her own right. From two to one and then none ASW carriers and he thinks we are worse off now than then, at least we can actually deploy the equipment we do have now.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2012   #28
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,044
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
I think the most ironic thing with Kopps article is that the greatest negative impact on the ADFs ASW capability actually occurred with the retirement, without replacement, of HMAS Melbourne in 1982. No more Trackers deployed with the fleet, no more dipping sonars from the Seakings, no more targeting data from the Seakings for the Ikaras. The loss of the carrier and the ability to deploy Seakings with the fleet was perhaps the biggest single ASW capability hit the RAN has ever suffered. Looking back only a decade earlier there was HMAS Sydney which operated Wessex helos for ASW self defence on her Vietnam missions, she could have easily been deployed as an ASW helo carrier in her own right. From two to one and then none ASW carriers and he thinks we are worse off now than then, at least we can actually deploy the equipment we do have now.
A few of my thoughts on past ASW

The biggest hit to the RAN's capability IMHO was the loss of the S2's. They were always there when required under all conditions and in all geographic areas. Can't say the same for the P3's unless they were deployed as part of an international exercise.

CASEX's (Combined Anti Sub Exercises) were a constant feature in the EAEA's off JB with air assets from NASNOWRA/Melbourne and the occaisional P3 (provided it wasn't held on the weekendand). A duty clockwork mouse (sub) was always present.
Given today's circumstances I guess this is no longer true.

I did 3 trips on Sydney taking battalions to Vietnam in 69/70 and I can't remember ever having an ASW equipped Wessex 31B configured that way. My memory is that these were utility a/c however, as a snotty, I didn't know that much and could be wrong.

Without dipping sonar, Ikara and its dedicated link became a devalued asset and I guess that started its demise.

Cheers
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013   #29
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,821
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
A few of my thoughts on past ASW

The biggest hit to the RAN's capability IMHO was the loss of the S2's. They were always there when required under all conditions and in all geographic areas. Can't say the same for the P3's unless they were deployed as part of an international exercise.

CASEX's (Combined Anti Sub Exercises) were a constant feature in the EAEA's off JB with air assets from NASNOWRA/Melbourne and the occaisional P3 (provided it wasn't held on the weekendand). A duty clockwork mouse (sub) was always present.
Given today's circumstances I guess this is no longer true.
would completely agree here, the killing off of Melbourne basically was akin to the USN knocking off their ASW Hunter-Killer groups as that was the capability model that Melbourne was more closely aligned to

killing off by capital dribbles down to killing off a capability.

the "peace dividend" mentality which followed on from the collapse of the Soviets was the nail in the coffin
________________
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/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013   #30
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,044
Threads:
The often varied discussion on the RAN thread regarding the future frigate (SEA 5000) and future OCV (SEA 1180), the numbers and mix, the types of systems etc has promted me to skim through the Navy publication "Australian Maritime Doctrine"
http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default...ts/Amd2010.pdf in the hope that there would be some guidance for me to make an informed comment.

I found it to be basic at best, plenty of motherhood statements but if I was given a task to shape the ORBAT of the RAN, that doc would give little guidance and I was disappointed to say the least. Having ferreted around the USN sites in particular, finding a context for the LCS's, there was plenty of relevent direction.

It appears that there is a very specific plan in the USN, the 30 year shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress for regular scrutiny, that gives a sense of continuity for both Maritime Doctrine and naval shipbuilding. There doesn't appear to be the same control over the force structure development in the RAN as it seems to be hijacked by the politicians from time to time

The reason that I'm concerned is, as I have posted on the RAN thread, there must be balance created between 5000 and 1180 but I can't see it.

In the linked doctrine, the total space given to the Patrol forces reads " In a major conflict, the Patrol Boats will contribute to a local patrol and surveillance effort, particularly for inshore and harbour defences. They may also insert small parties ashore where needed" Not much doctrinal development there
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:14 PM.