ADF General discussion thread

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Now would be the time to put together a wishlist to give to the US.

I am pretty sure any gadget or widget in the defence spectrum that could reasonably be incorporated into the ADF would be considered.

Don't know if there is anything that would be nice, cheap to purchase and operate but was previously a bit of an overreach or overkill.

But the whole ADF should be putting together a wish lists.

C17's, PAC3, SM-3, Aegis setups for the future frigates, tlam, B1's, sharp sticks..
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I see Jim Molan has had a pretty big spray about ADF funding, fuel reserves, America's military capability, missile stocks..
Nocookies

I thought there were specific steps taken to address the fuel reserve issue.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I see Jim Molan has had a pretty big spray about ADF funding, fuel reserves, America's military capability, missile stocks..
Nocookies

I thought there were specific steps taken to address the fuel reserve issue.
Not so surprised a former military man would talk defence as a new senator. I was however pleasantly surprised as to the coverage on the ABC.
Will watch with interest if the comments get any political traction in the months ahead.I somewhat expect that with politics in holiday mode the comments may be forgotten. I do hope not.


Regards S
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I see Jim Molan has had a pretty big spray about ADF funding, fuel reserves, America's military capability, missile stocks..
Nocookies

I thought there were specific steps taken to address the fuel reserve issue.
I don't know as the comparisons to Japan swooping down towards Australia in 1942 are particularly relevant today. Japan met with very little resistance as it moved through SE Asia. It would be a different story today. It would be a tough slog fighting your way through SE Asia let alone mount an attack on the Australian mainland.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Army artillery enhanced under $100m project - Defence Connect

I recall discussion either here or one of the other ADF related threads about wanting Australia to be producing more of our own munitions which turns out we are and may be doing even more of. Small victories :)

At least if we can get system set up to be producing all of our own small munitions (personnel weapons, mortars and artillery) we will be in a better position should sugar honey ice tea ever hit the fan.

Would like us to produce our own missiles but economics might prevent it, Wouldnt hurt at least reviewing such an option and costing it out.
 

hairyman

Active Member
Army artillery enhanced under $100m project - Defence Connect

I recall discussion either here or one of the other ADF related threads about wanting Australia to be producing more of our own munitions which turns out we are and may be doing even more of. Small victories :)

At least if we can get system set up to be producing all of our own small munitions (personnel weapons, mortars and artillery) we will be in a better position should sugar honey ice tea ever hit the fan.

Would like us to produce our own missiles but economics might prevent it, Wouldnt hurt at least reviewing such an option and costing it out.
I think I read somewhere a couple of months ago that we were looking at starting a production line for ESSM missiles, Whether it was connected with the NASAM project or not I am not sure.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I think I read somewhere a couple of months ago that we were looking at starting a production line for ESSM missiles, Whether it was connected with the NASAM project or not I am not sure.
What you likely read was an article about the ESSM Block II's and Australia's role in there production as they are not entirely built in the US with parts built world wide by multiple of it's users.
 

hairyman

Active Member
You are probably correct Vonnoobie. But there is some talk of us producing the Spike missile if things fall into place, so that would be a start in the right direction.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Not sure if its been linked before but came across this article on the CEA GBMMR which is the unit that will be linked in with the NASAM system. Ground Based Multi Mission Radar (GBMMR).

What caught my eye is the multitude of tasks it can perform (I'm unfamiliar if all radars are capable of this or not).

The system has already previously been proven in South Africa (2014?) with defence system.

I know that we are looking to acquire a mobile ASM capability, What is the likely hood of the GBMMR being used with said future system as well?

The CEAFAR GBMMR leverages existing technology to provide an active phased array surveillance and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) capability for land-based operations.

GBMMR is suitable for deployment by road, rail or air. The system operates from portable or fixed power sources enabling mobile operation and offers increased operational flexibility at fixed sites through its rapid set up and tear down.

The GBMMR array utilises CEA’s unique scalable tile-based architecture enabling the system to be matched to a range of military and civil applications that include:

  • land-based air surveillance, including protective surveillance of key land-based assets such as defence facilities, airports and forward operating bases;
  • mobile battlefield and airspace surveillance integrated to a local Command & Control (C2) suite for inputs to:
o Ground Surveillance

o Counter Rockets, Artillery and Mortars (C-RAM)

o Weapon Location and

o Ground Based Air and Missile Defence.

  • air traffic control, including terminal area radar and en route monitoring with integrated IFF (all modes);
  • surface search and coastal surveillance, including drug and customs surveillance operations, border intrusions, search & rescue operations and low level hostilities; and
  • weather monitoring radar, for the timely observation/prediction of wind and precipitation conditions, weather avoidance (for aircraft) and clear-air turbulence detection.
SYSTEM FEATURES

The features of the radar include:

  • high track update rate
  • high track accuracy, fire control quality on all tracks
  • pulse Doppler operation – very high performance in clutter
  • no in-mission maintenance – highly parallel architecture allows failures to be managed whilst deployed
  • reduced Total Cost of Ownership through minimal consumables and in-field maintenance requirements
  • rapid deployment and very low deployable infrastructure requirements
  • simultaneous multi-mode operation with no cone of silence
  • high immunity to interference and electronic attack
  • integrated track management and data fusion
  • full IFF integration - including modes 5 & S
  • remote or local operation
  • electronic stabilisation
  • very high availability
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #451
Not sure if its been linked before but came across this article on the CEA GBMMR which is the unit that will be linked in with the NASAM system. Ground Based Multi Mission Radar (GBMMR).

What caught my eye is the multitude of tasks it can perform (I'm unfamiliar if all radars are capable of this or not).

The system has already previously been proven in South Africa (2014?) with defence system.

I know that we are looking to acquire a mobile ASM capability, What is the likely hood of the GBMMR being used with said future system as well?
With respect to a future ADF land-based/mobile AShM capability (which is what I think you are referring to) it is really hard to say as very little has become public with respect to doctrine or CONOPS.

For instance, is the expectation that the missile batteries would make long-ranged or over-the-horizon shots at hostile shipping? If that is the case, then the AShM's would need to receive targeting data from offboard sensors and any GBMMR arrays would need to be off site, in a position to have a LOS to the target(s) and datalinks to relay that data. OTOH the system does look like it would be able to provide a mobile radar network which could be setup and linked on an ad hoc basis. Such a system, especially if linked to NASAM and AShM batteries could make approaching to within 100 km of Christmas Island a rather hazardous passage.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Once again I am reminded how the ABCs defence reporter, Andrew Greene is not up to the task.
His report on the British
Sh defence Secretary's visit to Australia and HMS Sutherland FON foray into the SCS is appalling

British Defence Secretary warns Australia to remain vigilant to China's 'malign intent' http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-13/british-defence-secretary-warns-australia-to-remain-vigilant/9425166
If the Type 26 is really similar to a Type 23 frigate such as HMS Sutherland, as Andrew Greene reports ("HMS Sutherland is an anti-submarine warship similar to the design the UK is hoping to build for Australia as part of the $35 billion Future Frigate Program*), then the RAN should immediately forget the Type 26 for the future frigate program. Of course the reality is that the Type 26 is a totally different design and I am appalled that a defence reporter can be so ignorant of such a basic fact. He must also be aware that what is on offer is the design. There is no way that the Australian Government (no matter which party is in power when a decision is made) will agree to the future frigates being built in the UK.

Tas
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
If the Type 26 is really similar to a Type 23 frigate such as HMS Sutherland, as Andrew Greene reports ("HMS Sutherland is an anti-submarine warship similar to the design the UK is hoping to build for Australia as part of the $35 billion Future Frigate Program*), then the RAN should immediately forget the Type 26 for the future frigate program. Of course the reality is that the Type 26 is a totally different design and I am appalled that a defence reporter can be so ignorant of such a basic fact. He must also be aware that what is on offer is the design. There is no way that the Australian Government (no matter which party is in power when a decision is made) will agree to the future frigates being built in the UK.

Tas
It seems it is not just Andrew Greene who thinks the Type 26 is similar to the Type 23. A news release from Minister Christopher Pyne today (Australian Government website) stated "Sutherland is a Type 23 anti-submarine warfare frigate, an earlier version of the Type 26 being proposed by BAE Systems for Australia’s Future Frigate program."
Minister for Defence Industry tours British Frigate | Department of Defence Ministers

An earlier version! Really?

Tas
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Hello, new to the forums.

I've been a lurker for a while and thought I would sign up, primarily for some help regarding a question and to stoke some discussion.

This is primarily in regards to what the ideal military structure and doctrine would be for a country like Australia should it's economy and population be more akin to that of France or Britain. This is part of a project I am doing for a course in Australia, Asia and the Pacific (AAP) which seeks to determine how Australia would respond to some kind of major insurgency within the Southeast Asia region (say an Abu Sayyaf offensive, like what happened in Iraq and Syria). I understand Australia currently relies heavily on the United States for sea lane security and that the nation would no doubt take a very active role in such a conflict, however I am interested in the prospects of Australia's role if it were a greater power, relied less on US security guarantees and how such a force would be structured to fight within the region against such a threat.

Could we expect a larger navy? A larger marine styled force with urban and jungle capabilities?

This question interests me and I feel it is a good topic to discuss, especially considering Australia's population and economic growth to be had in the coming decades.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Hello, new to the forums.

I've been a lurker for a while and thought I would sign up, primarily for some help regarding a question and to stoke some discussion.

This is primarily in regards to what the ideal military structure and doctrine would be for a country like Australia should it's economy and population be more akin to that of France or Britain. This is part of a project I am doing for a course in Australia, Asia and the Pacific (AAP) which seeks to determine how Australia would respond to some kind of major insurgency within the Southeast Asia region (say an Abu Sayyaf offensive, like what happened in Iraq and Syria). I understand Australia currently relies heavily on the United States for sea lane security and that the nation would no doubt take a very active role in such a conflict, however I am interested in the prospects of Australia's role if it were a greater power, relied less on US security guarantees and how such a force would be structured to fight within the region against such a threat.

Could we expect a larger navy? A larger marine styled force with urban and jungle capabilities?

This question interests me and I feel it is a good topic to discuss, especially considering Australia's population and economic growth to be had in the coming decades.
Would be interesting but I seem to remember something like this was discussed maybe about a year or so ago , can't remember to much what was the guts of it tho.

If Australia where to increase to that level that would indicate a massive investment which would measure something around the 4% of GDP at current rates, in USD the UK is spending roughly 52b compared to AU of 24b of which a large chuck of the UK is earmarked for a continuous at sea nuclear deterrent. As we can see by the current UK experience throwing money into defence does not always amount to a balance force this is mostly down to the amount of commitments the UKG expects the UK to uphold overseas and also to be somewhat less reliant on of design build of major capital equipment. Money is not the hindrance to increasing the ADF but it's manning levels, could we in this age of multiculturalism expand to that level needed to capatilise on that investment?


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...K_Defence_in_Numbers_2017_-_Update_17_Oct.pdf



UK defence in numbers 2017 - GOV.UK
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
With regard to U.K. capital expenditures on defence and the current fiscal pressures, the carriers (together with F-35Bs) and SSBN programs are the root cause. Shelving one of these programs would have relieved some of the pressure. Which would be the best to shelve is a tough question. Prior to what seems to be Cold War 2.0, I would have opted for the latter but now, not so much.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Ah, I see the conversation has taken off in the NZDF thread. Can't seem to edit the above though so will just leave it here.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I just watched Shadow Defence Minister, Richard Marles deliver a speech at the National Press Club in Canberra.
It was a good speech and gives me confidence that a future Labor government will stay the course on defence acquisitions, maintain the 2% GDP Defence spend and pose no sovereign risk to decisions taken by their predecessors.
However, he spruked Austal continuously and criticised the decision on OPVs because Lurssen was a German company with no Australian design input and no transfer of IP but the Fassmer OPV was a 50% Austal design with full transfer of IP!
Yet the mottly crew of journos present had no idea, the questions were pathetic ranging from; why are we buying the F35 which is an anachronism? to, will the Labor party factions change their stance in Vic. And why aren't we buying the Austal trimaran FFX as our SEA 5000 solution. Not one went to the heart of the issue. You could also be forgiven in believing that the Labor Party is the Mesiah for defence and that Marise Payne is hopeless and Christopher Pyne is a moron.
So apart from that it was good and I could only wish that a decent bloke like he was the leader and not the present one.
 
Last edited:

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well looks like our new CDF is off to a flying start hey !! Let me just leave it at that because is will loose my ...................................
 
Top