Just want to get some discussion going on what people might think the new Australian Defence Capability Plan 2006-16 might bring with it. I personally think that we will finally see a solution to the embattled AIR9000 helo project with the decision to purchase further MRH-90s to replace the Blackhawks, more MRH-90s to replace the Seakings, 12 upgraded Blackhawks and a further purchase of Chinooks. We may also see the purchase or lease of either C-17 or A400M in the near future. For the Army, I envisage Remote Weapon Stations ordered for Abrams, ASLAV, M113, and Bushmaster. Possibly an MLRS system to supplement the new howitzers and a new ground based air defence system futher down the track. ???????????
What will DCP06 bring
- Thread starter cherry
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
It all depends on which way a purchase is approached. If they are to replace the Caribou then I would replace them with a tit-for-tat buy (14), but if the Caribous were replaced with another fixed wing platform then I would personally like to see at least another 10 Chooks bought. ADF may want to operate them from the new LHD as well so a marinised capability in the Chooks may also be desirable (I know the UK has had problems introducing this capability but perhaps we can learn from their mistakes). So basically I would like to see at least another 10 chinooks purchased, I think this would be around the $1B mark?????
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
Now it's time to find out. The DCP public version has been released and can be downloaded at the following link:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/dcp.cfm
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/dcp.cfm
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Answer to the topic: nothing much new or exciting...
Land 17 Artillery replacement to be deferred by 3 years. Hopefully the 155mm ammunition replacement project continues in the meantime and we get new ammo and precision guided munitions for our existing assets...
Land 19 RBS-70 replacement/upgrade announced. Sounds like we'll get a new system, but only one and not complementary short/medium ranged systems.
AIR-9000 Phase - 8 new anti-submarine/anti-surface warfare helo's. I'd hazard a guess at NH-90 being a "shoe-in" but MH-60R has to be a good chance as well, particularly if our current Seahawks could be re-manufactured to that standard.
Psychological warfare production capability: new psychological warfare ops capability.
Land 17 Artillery replacement to be deferred by 3 years. Hopefully the 155mm ammunition replacement project continues in the meantime and we get new ammo and precision guided munitions for our existing assets...
Land 19 RBS-70 replacement/upgrade announced. Sounds like we'll get a new system, but only one and not complementary short/medium ranged systems.
AIR-9000 Phase - 8 new anti-submarine/anti-surface warfare helo's. I'd hazard a guess at NH-90 being a "shoe-in" but MH-60R has to be a good chance as well, particularly if our current Seahawks could be re-manufactured to that standard.
Psychological warfare production capability: new psychological warfare ops capability.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
Bugger all in there really. Disappointing I must say. What do you think SEA1100 will bring and in what form?
There was no mention of anything additional such as more javelins, more C-130J, more bushmasters, more chinooks, no further phases of LAND17, no all-terrain vehicles, no VSRAD for ANZACs, and no UAV capability for the Armidales like rumours have been suggesting. All in all, very little new stuff. I am flabbergasted!
There was no mention of anything additional such as more javelins, more C-130J, more bushmasters, more chinooks, no further phases of LAND17, no all-terrain vehicles, no VSRAD for ANZACs, and no UAV capability for the Armidales like rumours have been suggesting. All in all, very little new stuff. I am flabbergasted!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I can't understand why they bothered really. There's bugger all in there that's different to 04-14 DCP, except for some things being deferred (Land 17) and none of GF's hints as to additional capability.cherry said:Bugger all in there really. Disappointing I must say. What do you think SEA1100 will bring and in what form?
There was no mention of anything additional such as more javelins, more C-130J, more bushmasters, more chinooks, no further phases of LAND17, no all-terrain vehicles, no VSRAD for ANZACs, and no UAV capability for the Armidales like rumours have been suggesting. All in all, very little new stuff. I am flabbergasted!
The ANZAC radar upgrade has already been announced for instance AND funded yet all of a sudden they are talking it up as a "new" capability.
Load of crap. The CEA-FAR/CEA-MOUNT upgrade was announced when ASMD got 2nd pass approval. What's the big deal now???
When I was reading it and not seeing the rumoured things I couldn't help but think we'd be continuing the tradition of ad hoc announcements of purchases, witness the C-17's and NH-90s.Aussie Digger said:
Besides, even if they did have a plan, DMO, Tenix or ADI would be sure to ferg it up quick smart anyway
Cootamundra
New Member
Good point AD. I was underwhelmed I must say. But GF has seemed pretty sure that we have a number of announcements still to come. I tried to clarify over T5C but he pointed out that his numbers were correct just the platform had changedAussie Digger said:
At the moment we have a couple of solid 'rumours' going;
1. KC-130Js
2. More Chooks
3. Upgraded C-130Hs for SpecOps (mind you this maybe the H upgrade listed in the DCP
4. Battlefield transporters - what kind and how many who knows but the Spartan keeps getting mentioned
If you read this gf what's your take?!
If not, then we'll all have to continue to speculate :laugh
I must say I was MOST disappointed about the Arty upgrade getting pushed back (again) I thought we were ready to move forward on that one. We've firmed up the numbers/mix (i.e. Air portable + SP), why push it back?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Agree completely. I'd like to see some substance to these claims. The only hardening to the Army that is occuring that I can see is 3RAR becoming mechanised and this is only being achieved by stripping 3/4 Cav Regt of it's M113AS3/4's and 7th Brigade of it's Bushmaster IMV's. The Reserve is also being stripped of any actual COMBAT capability...cherry said:
Maybe they should call it "hardening and Networking 1 Brigade" as the rest of Army is being shafted...
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Seen it before...
Do you all think its a space for but not with devlopment plan like our ANZACS, To condense it:
A2A refuelling 5 planes enough for what a Squadron on a ferry mission to the US?
Wedgetails 6, Enough for a contiunued presence in a certain area with the capability of refuellers
22 LRH enough for a difference but really in a deployed situation minus maitenance etc,
59 M1A1's I mean really not quite a regiment is it,
etc etc.....
As I've said its been said before in many different threads, but perhaps the strategy is have a basic established capability in all areas that present a highly capable modern Armed Forces minus a paratrooper force yet if war should come rely on a 1 year or so not War like happened in '39 to allow for purchasing equipment leasing stuff etc. I guess its easier than having nothing at all and it does elimanate a long lead in time but..........
Do you all think its a space for but not with devlopment plan like our ANZACS, To condense it:
A2A refuelling 5 planes enough for what a Squadron on a ferry mission to the US?
Wedgetails 6, Enough for a contiunued presence in a certain area with the capability of refuellers
22 LRH enough for a difference but really in a deployed situation minus maitenance etc,
59 M1A1's I mean really not quite a regiment is it,
etc etc.....
As I've said its been said before in many different threads, but perhaps the strategy is have a basic established capability in all areas that present a highly capable modern Armed Forces minus a paratrooper force
yet if war should come rely on a 1 year or so not War like happened in '39 to allow for purchasing equipment leasing stuff etc. I guess its easier than having nothing at all and it does elimanate a long lead in time but..........- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13
I guess with the lack of new projects in the DCP that the possibility of purchasing something like the Raven or Skylark UAV that our forces are supposedly trialling will not be happening. I think the Chief of Army has a lot to answer to.:sniper
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Skylark has already been purchased, why would they trial it now? It's deployed with both the Al Muthana taskgroup and the specwarops taskforce in Afghanistan...cherry said:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #15
Only 10 Skylark UAV platforms were purchased, and 4 Raven systems for SOF. I thought this was the trial. The budget must be tighter than I thought. Our army are so 'hardened and networked" now with those 14 systems. Lookout enemies of Australia!!!!!!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well were only getting 4 systems for the TUAV, with a system consisting of 4x air vehicles, so yes, the budget IS tight.
The Government is giving us some decent kit, but only in small quantities, enough to give us good capability for limited deployments and that's about it...
The Government is giving us some decent kit, but only in small quantities, enough to give us good capability for limited deployments and that's about it...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #19
Not a hope in hell of this happening! I wouldn't be expecting any additional purchases of anything that's not in the current Defence (Lack of) Capability Plan. Our military leaders are determined to keep the ADF 30-40 years behind everyone else. We might as well just join forces with NZ. Like I have previously said, why would anyone want to join the ADF when they are scaling back numbers of platforms, replacing current capability with less platforms that only maintain capability rather than increasing it, and taking far too long to decide how they will under-equip our soldiers. Any rumours you hear of additional purchases are simply that.....rumours.
On the bright side (if you look very carefully) some platforms are better than none and having a core groups trained in there use will allow for rapid expansion should there worth be proved, or the situation demand it.cherry said: