ADF General discussion thread

cdxbow

Active Member
Re the comparison of numbers:

Israel's armed forces are very powerful, but local. Most of the air force's transport aircraft are old. Its tankers are very old, secondhand Boeing 707s & some KC-130H. It would now be converting ex-airline 767s if Boeing hadn't refused to sell spares or provide any other support for them.

The navy's biggest warships are 1900 tons - & they're just being delivered. Until now the biggest was 1200 tons - & it only has three of them. No replenishment at sea, amphibious ships etc. Doesn't seem to do ASW, either.

Lots of conscripts, paid bugger-all, & very cheap reserves.

And it's got a lot of stuff free, or at a discount. Its German-built submarines were heavily discounted, for example. IIRC they got one roughly out of each three free.
Yes, point taken re Israel, however the comparison with the French and Singapore is closer and still looks poor for Oz. I know we have the 'tyranny of distance' and a small population to contend with that makes our requirement very different. This makes it all the more important that our procurement is done well. I'm hopeful that ADF has improved, in the past there seems to have been a period of poor choices or failure to make a choice. RAN has probably suffered the most for it.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yes, point taken re Israel, however the comparison with the French and Singapore is closer and still looks poor for Oz. I know we have the 'tyranny of distance' and a small population to contend with that makes our requirement very different. This makes it all the more important that our procurement is done well. I'm hopeful that ADF has improved, in the past there seems to have been a period of poor choices or failure to make a choice. RAN has probably suffered the most for it.
Not sure how much the ADF could really have done about the "poor choices or failure to make a choice" as many of these instances seem to have been driven by gov't as opposed to service personnel.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Makes sense to me. Pair it with the TEL the USMC will be using for Tomahawk MST and you could plausibly shoot both the MST and SM-6 from it to boot. A2/AD in the making...
 

cdxbow

Active Member
Not sure how much the ADF could really have done about the "poor choices or failure to make a choice" as many of these instances seem to have been driven by gov't as opposed to service personnel.
True, always a challenge to serve the political masters. However that is perhaps the ultimate test of a senior bureaucrat, getting was is needed despite or in spite of the government of the day. Sometimes too easy to lay all the blame on the pollies. .

ASPI have published a report 'Cracking the Missile Matrix' see Cracking the missile matrix | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI
They refer to the appendix for the actual magical matrix, which is a PDF with the magical matrix rotated 90 degrees. Difficult to read, but if you turn your monitor 90 deg. to the right you can read it. Or you could use the easy to use jpg I have made, see att.

ASPI_mm.jpg
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
WRT the comparison to Israel, the Israeli Navy is a green water navy at best and it doesn't have the anywhere the sam AOMI that Australia or NZ have. So IMHO comparing the Israeli Navy and the RAN in any strategic context is a waste of ink and paper, apart from the fact that operate in two totally different strategic worlds. Israel also faces different strategic problems and priorities to Australia, and more importantly its geographical and spatial context is completely different.

On the nuclear issue I can see a few problems and the biggest one is the non proliferation treaty which Australia is a signatory too. It would take a lot of fancy political and diplomatic footwork and dancing to be able to produce nuclear weapons and not be sanctioned by the UN for it. Never take it for granted that the US will be ok with a nuclear armed Australia and that they the UK, or France will protect you in the UNSC if a sanctions motion is submitted by vetoing the motion.

I agree that a SSBN fleet would be highly expensive and cost prohibitive. However if you decided to go down the nuclear weapons path you could still have two legs of the triad with GL- ICBM and RAAF deployed nukes from fast jets in ALCM(N). There would be no reason why the RAN couldn't use SLCM(N) from their subs either.
From a colleague I worked along time ago, the UK attempt to acquire a credible nuclear device was at times actively at a technical level obstructed. Even after UK, Aus, Canadian and nz supplying componentry to the active US production of weapons for their stockpile.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
From a colleague I worked along time ago, the UK attempt to acquire a credible nuclear device was at times actively at a technical level obstructed. Even after UK, Aus, Canadian and nz supplying componentry to the active US production of weapons for their stockpile.
Oh yes, the US went out of their way to prevent the Poms from obtaining a nuclear weapon, considering if it wasn't for the Poms the US wouldn't have had a working nuke before 1950 at the earliest. Nor would have they had working jet engine or centmetric radar either. They definitely wouldn't have been able to crack the German Ultra codes nor have the leg up to computers.
 
True, always a challenge to serve the political masters. However that is perhaps the ultimate test of a senior bureaucrat, getting was is needed despite or in spite of the government of the day. Sometimes too easy to lay all the blame on the pollies. .

ASPI have published a report 'Cracking the Missile Matrix' see Cracking the missile matrix | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI
They refer to the appendix for the actual magical matrix, which is a PDF with the magical matrix rotated 90 degrees. Difficult to read, but if you turn your monitor 90 deg. to the right you can read it. Or you could use the easy to use jpg I have made, see att.

View attachment 48174
LRASM on subs? Interesting to see how (or if) the RAN would do that. Tube or go the whole hog and put VLS cells in? An even greater strategic asset/deterrent.
I did read that there is a potential trade off to increase range (increasing to 1000km+) by reducing the warhead size on LRASM. Something I think Army should look at.
 

xhxi558

New Member
Was reading the NZDF thread and the discussion where a comment was made that the warning window for war was narrowing and was likely now less than 5 years (post #5541) and also the recent increase in rhetoric from Dutton and Pezzullo on China, defending Australia and Taiwan, and I wonder if we will see this reflected in the upcoming budget with a larger than expected increase in funding to meet these challenges.

As I see it the potential options in the mix are:
  • Bring forward existing schedules and spending
  • Expand existing capabilities
  • Fund the army's expansion plans (post #7414 Australian Army thread)
  • Invest in further war stocks
While I believe a significant additional increase on the current budget estimates, think +1% of GDP, is necessary, I do expect I will be disappointed.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re the comparison of numbers:

Israel's armed forces are very powerful, but local. Most of the air force's transport aircraft are old. Its tankers are very old, secondhand Boeing 707s & some KC-130H. It would now be converting ex-airline 767s if Boeing hadn't refused to sell spares or provide any other support for them.

The navy's biggest warships are 1900 tons - & they're just being delivered. Until now the biggest was 1200 tons - & it only has three of them. No replenishment at sea, amphibious ships etc. Doesn't seem to do ASW, either.

Lots of conscripts, paid bugger-all, & very cheap reserves.

And it's got a lot of stuff free, or at a discount. Its German-built submarines were heavily discounted, for example. IIRC they got one roughly out of each three free.
Yep, not to mention maritime patrol forces, strategic air transport forces, AEW&C, Air to air refuellers, amphibious ships, blue water surface and sub-surface navy… VERY big ticket items, Israel doesn’t at all, or operates in small numbers, appropriate to their geography.

Horses for courses.
 

Bob53

Active Member
Was reading the NZDF thread and the discussion where a comment was made that the warning window for war was narrowing and was likely now less than 5 years (post #5541) and also the recent increase in rhetoric from Dutton and Pezzullo on China, defending Australia and Taiwan, and I wonder if we will see this reflected in the upcoming budget with a larger than expected increase in funding to meet these challenges.

As I see it the potential options in the mix are:
  • Bring forward existing schedules and spending
  • Expand existing capabilities
  • Fund the army's expansion plans (post #7414 Australian Army thread)
  • Invest in further war stocks
While I believe a significant additional increase on the current budget estimates, think +1% of GDP, is necessary, I do expect I will be disappointed.
The recent window to war and war is coming commentary isn’t helpful I think. Why tell a potential adversary that we think war is possible. That home affairs public servant Johnny got way out of his lane. Even the thought of a war to our North, aside to as a response to a direct attack on us, would be lunacy. We send a few ships to get sunk and then what? We replace them at the rate of 1 every 3-4 years.

If there was one way to make the Chinese think twice...is to hit their pocket. If every government was to announce that in the event of a invasion of Taiwan, every Chinese owned business, commercial and residential property, bar of gold and penny held in that country would be confiscated, intellectual property rights annulled, every Chinese national would be immediately interned pending expulsion, every education qualification would be annulled, and any money owing to any Chinese interest would be wiped.

It may not stop an invasion but it would probably hurt the governing chinese more than throwing our defence force personnel into a suicide mission.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The recent window to war and war is coming commentary isn’t helpful I think. Why tell a potential adversary that we think war is possible. That home affairs public servant Johnny got way out of his lane.
I think he knew exactly what he was doing. China is certainly in no doubt that we think war is coming so it's hardly going to surprise them. But they aren't the only ones hearing the words.

His words leave wavering governments in the Pacific and SE Asia in no doubt of what we think is happening.

China does NOT want that. It suits them to be benevolent old Uncle Xi with the catch free wallet. The more countries willing to turn a blind eye to their actions and potential consequences the better. As far as China is concerned lack of push back equals acquiescence.

Wars are fought with words as well as guns. Best we recognise that and mobilise our neighbours, or at least put them on their toes

oldsig
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Apologies in advance for bringing up an old subject, that being the 35B and it's relevance to the ADF.
In particular it's deployment off the Canberra Class.

For those still listening, I found this recent You tube clip most interesting and one that mirrors much of my attitude to the subject.
It's well worth a look


The poster runs under the title hypohysterichistory and is found on both Youtube and Tiktok

He looks more like a surfer than any academic. However, the clip is a well researched piece and strikes a good balance regarding the Pros and Cons of this particular subject.
Sure it has a bias towards reintroducing this capability to the ADF, but in a world changing so fast re China and what broad affect this will have on the region, it's a subject well worth reconsidering.
When Prime Minister Abbott asked this very question the world was a very different place.
The F35B concept for the Canberra Class was rejected.
I certainly didn't "buy" the reasons given back then and my view point has not changed since.
Rather it has been reinforced by the support and adoption of this very capability by many of the worlds leading Navy's.
If I had one doubt it was as to the question of the future of manned fighters into the future.
In the last year I have come to the conclusion they will still be around for many decades to come.
On that assumption, I don't see any difference as to whether the plane fly's off a runway or a ship.
It's just what that particular plane brings to the battlespace.

In the context of the ADF the F35B adds more than it takes.

Time to look at this subject again with an open mind.



Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Apologies in advance for bringing up an old subject, that being the 35B and it's relevance to the ADF.
In particular it's deployment off the Canberra Class.

For those still listening, I found this recent You tube clip most interesting and one that mirrors much of my attitude to the subject.
It's well worth a look

The poster runs under the title hypohysterichistory and is found on both Youtube and Tiktok

He looks more like a surfer than any academic. However, the clip is a well researched piece and strikes a good balance regarding the Pros and Cons of this particular subject.
Sure it has a bias towards reintroducing this capability to the ADF, but in a world changing so fast re China and what broad affect this will have on the region, it's a subject well worth reconsidering.
When Prime Minister Abbott asked this very question the world was a very different place.
The F35B concept for the Canberra Class was rejected.
I certainly didn't "buy" the reasons given back then and my view point has not changed since.
Rather it has been reinforced by the support and adoption of this very capability by many of the worlds leading Navy's.
If I had one doubt it was as to the question of the future of manned fighters into the future.
In the last year I have come to the conclusion they will still be around for many decades to come.
On that assumption, I don't see any difference as to whether the plane fly's off a runway or a ship.
It's just what that particular plane brings to the battlespace.

In the context of the ADF the F35B adds more than it takes.

Time to look at this subject again with an open mind.

Regards S
I watched it tonight and he won't like necessarily like my reply. I really liked his F-35 video because it was a good piece of work. However with this one I feel that he's fixated on using the two Canberra class ships rather than looking at alternatives. Secondly, his figure of US $50 million for the conversion of each ship is somewhat naive because it excludes considerable other expenses involved beyond the pure engineering side.

However if you put those to one side he does give a reasonable assessment of the situation for and against. It's just his conclusion that's not quite right.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The recent window to war and war is coming commentary isn’t helpful I think. Why tell a potential adversary that we think war is possible. That home affairs public servant Johnny got way out of his lane. Even the thought of a war to our North, aside to as a response to a direct attack on us, would be lunacy. We send a few ships to get sunk and then what? We replace them at the rate of 1 every 3-4 years.

If there was one way to make the Chinese think twice...is to hit their pocket. If every government was to announce that in the event of a invasion of Taiwan, every Chinese owned business, commercial and residential property, bar of gold and penny held in that country would be confiscated, intellectual property rights annulled, every Chinese national would be immediately interned pending expulsion, every education qualification would be annulled, and any money owing to any Chinese interest would be wiped.

It may not stop an invasion but it would probably hurt the governing chinese more than throwing our defence force personnel into a suicide mission.
I don’t think it’s lunacy in the slightest if you read what he actually said. For one thing he never mentioned China and for another he never mentioned war WITH China…

But this tip-toeing around and being terrified of our own shadow and unable to even openly speak, while they threaten and bluster, and say and do whatever they feel like, has to end.

That sort of behaviour is called appeasement and we all know how well that approach works against belligerent powers…
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I don’t think it’s lunacy in the slightest if you read what he actually said. For one thing he never mentioned China and for another he never mentioned war WITH China…

But this tip-toeing around and being terrified of our own shadow and unable to even openly speak, while they threaten and bluster, and say and do whatever they feel like, has to end.

That sort of behaviour is called appeasement and we all know how well that approach works against belligerent powers…
There are, unfortunately, to many people around like Neville Chamberlain waving their hands around saying "Peace in our time". Didn't work out to well for Neville. Appeasement as a policy is always a failure because it encourages the tyrant to push more and keep on pushing until they either get what they want at the expense of everyone else or war breaks out and the appeasers are totally unprepared. Too many die because of their failures.
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
There are, unfortunately, to many people around like Neville Chamberlain waving their hands around saying "Peace in our time". Didn't work out to well for Neville. Appeasement as a policy is always a failure because it encourages the tyrant to push more and keep on pushing until they either get what they want at the expense of everyone else or war breaks out and the appeasers are totally unprepared. Too many die because of their failures.
Chamberlain's peace in our time was a play for time. He had known for a long time that war had been on the cards and had fought for alot of the changes to the RAF that permitted success.

He championed the hurricane, spitfire and home island chain radar. Churchill had been a fan of the Paul Bolton defiant.

Chamberlain had fought hard for massive defence funding increases but knew he had to act a part as I think the estimate was they, the UK would not be ready before mid 1940's and I think the nazis were thinking Germany would not have been ready before 1946/1947.

As a result both sides thought they were making small gambles but instead stumbled into war in states neither side thought sufficient for war.

I see parallels to this on our time. If I find the link to the doco I'll post it.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Apologies in advance for bringing up an old subject, that being the 35B and it's relevance to the ADF.
In particular it's deployment off the Canberra Class.

For those still listening, I found this recent You tube clip most interesting and one that mirrors much of my attitude to the subject.
It's well worth a look


The poster runs under the title hypohysterichistory and is found on both Youtube and Tiktok

He looks more like a surfer than any academic. However, the clip is a well researched piece and strikes a good balance regarding the Pros and Cons of this particular subject.
Sure it has a bias towards reintroducing this capability to the ADF, but in a world changing so fast re China and what broad affect this will have on the region, it's a subject well worth reconsidering.
When Prime Minister Abbott asked this very question the world was a very different place.
The F35B concept for the Canberra Class was rejected.
I certainly didn't "buy" the reasons given back then and my view point has not changed since.
Rather it has been reinforced by the support and adoption of this very capability by many of the worlds leading Navy's.
If I had one doubt it was as to the question of the future of manned fighters into the future.
In the last year I have come to the conclusion they will still be around for many decades to come.
On that assumption, I don't see any difference as to whether the plane fly's off a runway or a ship.
It's just what that particular plane brings to the battlespace.

In the context of the ADF the F35B adds more than it takes.

Time to look at this subject again with an open mind.



Regards S
Nope - he misses a lot.

- F-35B adds more costs than an entirely A fleet that means other capabilities have to be given up.

- The modifications made to the Canberra Class make it an LHD. You can have an LHD or a light CV, not both. The other task is possible, but severely compromised

- A CV capability is more than the ship and a handful of aircraft. You need the escorts, the AEW&C and the resupply. We can do some of two of those three, but not all of them.

- Converting one to a CV means we are down an LHD. We can't lift enough for a first wave as it is - loosing a LHD is stupid. And we couldn't run it as a LHD instead (beyond point 2), because the two main times you'll need a carrier are convoy escort or landing...

- He dramatically under-estimates the costs of changing one LHD. Most of his cost estimates are at least an order of magnitude off.

- Nothing like this came out of FSP, not even in the 2030s/40s. Lots of other tech can capabilities did, but not this nor any of it's enablers. That should say something....

Can you make the argument the RAN needs a CV? Yes - and I'm a believer. With that in mind, do you want some half-arsed effort like a Canberra/F-35B is or do you want something useful like (at least) a QEII, preferably with C's? It needs to be the latter - and there isn't the $$ or workforce to do it.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Nope - he misses a lot.

- F-35B adds more costs than an entirely A fleet that means other capabilities have to be given up.

- The modifications made to the Canberra Class make it an LHD. You can have an LHD or a light CV, not both. The other task is possible, but severely compromised

- A CV capability is more than the ship and a handful of aircraft. You need the escorts, the AEW&C and the resupply. We can do some of two of those three, but not all of them.

- Converting one to a CV means we are down an LHD. We can't lift enough for a first wave as it is - loosing a LHD is stupid. And we couldn't run it as a LHD instead (beyond point 2), because the two main times you'll need a carrier are convoy escort or landing...

- He dramatically under-estimates the costs of changing one LHD. Most of his cost estimates are at least an order of magnitude off.

- Nothing like this came out of FSP, not even in the 2030s/40s. Lots of other tech can capabilities did, but not this nor any of it's enablers. That should say something....

Can you make the argument the RAN needs a CV? Yes - and I'm a believer. With that in mind, do you want some half-arsed effort like a Canberra/F-35B is or do you want something useful like (at least) a QEII, preferably with C's? It needs to be the latter - and there isn't the $$ or workforce to do it.

To me I think people are missing the point of a handful of B's on the Canberra class and its not for sea control but more about sea denial not only for the task force during transit, but also at some point the full ARG concept might just be used with or without allied air support. Yes the Brits used the Apache off HMS Ocean in Libya but I believe the USMC doctrine of a mixed fast jet and rotary assets gives more options in a variety of possible scenarios. We were lucky in respects to ET that we had aircraft capable of going all the way from Darwin but that might not always be the case in the future.

I whole hardly agree with not converting them to be either used as a full-time carrier, if that is what we need then buy one and all it entails, but what i do not agree with is say 4-6 being to support the task group and boots on the ground organically is beyond the capability of a full blown ARG using all three ships at the same time. I think the cost of being able to support warrants the expenditure
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Nope - he misses a lot.

- F-35B adds more costs than an entirely A fleet that means other capabilities have to be given up.

- The modifications made to the Canberra Class make it an LHD. You can have an LHD or a light CV, not both. The other task is possible, but severely compromised

- A CV capability is more than the ship and a handful of aircraft. You need the escorts, the AEW&C and the resupply. We can do some of two of those three, but not all of them.

- Converting one to a CV means we are down an LHD. We can't lift enough for a first wave as it is - loosing a LHD is stupid. And we couldn't run it as a LHD instead (beyond point 2), because the two main times you'll need a carrier are convoy escort or landing...

- He dramatically under-estimates the costs of changing one LHD. Most of his cost estimates are at least an order of magnitude off.

- Nothing like this came out of FSP, not even in the 2030s/40s. Lots of other tech can capabilities did, but not this nor any of it's enablers. That should say something....

Can you make the argument the RAN needs a CV? Yes - and I'm a believer. With that in mind, do you want some half-arsed effort like a Canberra/F-35B is or do you want something useful like (at least) a QEII, preferably with C's? It needs to be the latter - and there isn't the $$ or workforce to do it.
Thanks Takao for the reply.
I will politely disagree.

Part of the challenge is knowing what the true costs are for such an endeavor, with only so much information available in the public domain.
It's understandable and not a complaint.

I am still skeptical re the costings to upgrade the ships, but even if it is what was stated 5 years ago it's really not a big deal.
We are a rich nation and are throwing money at defence. No compromises and no sacrifices need to be made to other projects.
Really if we want to go down that path dollars are not a problem or a deal breaker.


I am however against a dedicated CV as that would probably be a bridge too far for a defence force of our size. I don't like single use ships and as a total ( Carrier ) package you would be looking at a serious F$#k ton of resources to do justice to such a venture with a very large capital investment in ships / aircraft and auxiliaries. Still doable but this would start to have an effect on other defence projects.
CV's don't carry heavy vehicles or have a docking well or accommodation for large troop numbers.
Too niche a capability for us.
Good for a navy twice the size of the RAN.

The F35B can operate off both the land and Sea. Both hemispheres have appeal for the ADF.
But they don't need to be in great numbers.

In the LHD context a compliment of six aircraft would revolutionize the options available to the battle space.
A sovereign capability that places all the diverse range of capabilities of a 5 Gen aircraft with in our fleet or land command.
An adversary would require a very different skill set of knowledge and platforms to combat an ADF with this even modest air group.

We can still do this with our 11 frigates and a couple of supply ships.

As far as the limited nature of valuable space on a LHD.
Its academic.
The LHD is a flexible platform that is task orientated. Arguments of the F35B tacking up space can apply to any bit of KIT held within the loading dock / vehicle / aircraft hanger or flight deck.
It's always a balancing ack of getting the most appropriate bit of kit for the job at hand within the constraints for the platform.
Remember you can still sail without carrying a single F35B and that goes for any other platform in ADF Inventory.
The F35B just becomes another option.

A big deal is being made re the UK sending an aircraft carrier around the would.
At this stage it's carrying 8 F35B's. A modest capability for sure and yes it can carry more but what it is really carrying is the flag of a nation.
it is carrying commitment and the determination of a nation that we mean business at distance .
It is physical foreign policy in action.

The ADF has also sent its Canberra Class on such missions through out our immediate region, the Indian and Pacific Oceans and also to the North.
Currently they have only embarked helicopters.
A couple of F35B's parked on deck wont conquer a foreign nation but they may help win one that feels insecure.
Not may nations can send a 5th gen aircraft to sea. Not many nations can combat such a force multiplier.
We could be one of them.

We are so close.
We have the F35A and we already have the ships.

For myself it's a no brainer


Regards S

PS............. thanks for reading I'll now leave this subject.
 
Top