Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

L

After reading the posts from yourself and Volk I have come to the conclusion that a shore based system is a worthwhile asset but should not be our primary Anti Ship Area denial capability. That should come from ships, subs and RAAF.

This then leads me to what becomes of the role for the army? If they don’t look after land based AAM, we have only a small Shore based ASM missile capability and a significantly reduced IFV and SPH numbers … the Army starts to look like an after thought.

Look at it this way, the proposed AShM has an opportunity cost, if this proposal wasn't being pushed there would be enough money for more SPGs and armour.

I'm not saying that's what it would be spent on, rather it could be and I think most people would see it as a better option.

 

[protoplasm]

After reading the posts from yourself and Volk I have come to the conclusion that a shore based system is a worthwhile asset but should not be our primary Anti Ship Area denial capability. That should come from ships, subs and RAAF.

This then leads me to what becomes of the role for the army? If they don’t look after land based AAM, we have only a small Shore based ASM missile capability and a significantly reduced IFV and SPH numbers … the Army starts to look like an after thought.

But at some point you still need to be able to control space on land. The purpose of the army isn't to defend the effectors of other systems, their primary purpose is to take, hold and control space on land. We desperately hope this will never be Australian territory, and it is very unlikely to be, but it might be the land of some of our neighbours. I wouldn't want an unfriendly invasion force pushing into the Eastern part of Indonesia or PNG, and they ask for help on land, and the only thing we can say is sorry, we've only got a token force which we need to keep on the Aussie mainland. We'll very quickly lose the capability to shape the activity of the enemy if we can't hold land (even if it's overseas), which means losing control of our SLOC which come close to land.

Reducing individual capabilities in the army below a solid critical mass reduces your institutional knowledge of how to use it to the point where it becomes useless. It's great to be introducing new systems, which provide new or improved capabilities, but if there isn't enough that it'll provide an actual effective capability if it were called upon, there isn't alot of point. We still need to have enough of the complex systems already built so that we can be effective if needed.

 

[ngatimozart]

While the land based AShM used in the manner you described can be effective you also indicate some of the other elements that would be needed. It would also be necessary for the missile system to have local ground defence as well as at least very short or short range AD. Otherwise the missile battery will be able to be eliminated by SF or stand-off munitions. All of these additional elements mean that the footprint of the missile battery is increased and the logistic support is also increased. The last element required is a suitable means of extracting the entire force in the event the position becomes untenable. (Don't want any repeats of Lark, Sparrow or Gull force in the modern era)

Of course they have some ground defence. Probably a platoon, but the idea is to keep the site covert. In both the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagoes there are literally hundreds if not thousands of islands. An enemy cannot undertake a thorough search off each one without it being noticable. How many resources would they require? Yes they have to be resupplied and will be extracted but that c

But at some point you still need to be able to control space on land. The purpose of the army isn't to defend the effectors of other systems, their primary purpose is to take, hold and control space on land. We desperately hope this will never be Australian territory, and it is very unlikely to be, but it might be the land of some of our neighbours. I wouldn't want an unfriendly invasion force pushing into the Eastern part of Indonesia or PNG, and they ask for help on land, and the only thing we can say is sorry, we've only got a token force which we need to keep on the Aussie mainland. We'll very quickly lose the capability to shape the activity of the enemy if we can't hold land (even if it's overseas), which means losing control of our SLOC which come close to land.

Reducing individual capabilities in the army below a solid critical mass reduces your institutional knowledge of how to use it to the point where it becomes useless. It's great to be introducing new systems, which provide new or improved capabilities, but if there isn't enough that it'll provide an actual effective capability if it were called upon, there isn't alot of point. We still need to have enough of the complex systems already built so that we can be effective if needed.

The purpose of the Army is do what its political masters tell it to do. The Army is part of the ADF and as such there are purple considerations that need to be taken into account. The ADF, i.e., RAN, Army, & RAAF, is required to work towards one goal, and that is the defence of Australia; it's people, interests, lifelines, economy etc. In modern times that's better achieved by the integration of all the services to the level that such a goal is achieved.

 

[Volkodav]

The article was good, fair, evenhanded, the show was a wank fest by a self important wanker who thinks he's a journalist. This clown would actually be a better fit on ACA chasing dodgy tradies, because that was about the level of his interviewing technique.

@Volkodav Be mindful of the language please.

Ngatimozart.

Fair call, I'll watch the language. Have you watched it?

 

[ngatimozart]

Fair call, I'll watch the language. Have you watched it?

I have. That's why I used the green ink.

 

[protoplasm]

The purpose of the Army is do what its political masters tell it to do. The Army is part of the ADF and as such there are purple considerations that need to be taken into account. The ADF, i.e., RAN, Army, & RAAF, is required to work towards one goal, and that is the defence of Australia; it's people, interests, lifelines, economy etc. In modern times that's better achieved by the integration of all the services to the level that such a goal is achieved.

That is absolutely true. I was trying to focus more on the way that different capabilities need to be present in sufficient quantities to be able to meaningfully contribute to the combined arms effect that the army can bring to bear in a range of possible scenarios. Particularly focussing on the negative effect of reducing the numbers of specialist elements to the point where their particular contribution becomes ineffective towards the whole.

The government of the day directs the ADF, that is absolute. But the government of the day is also a variable thing based upon election cycles and political whims. Across much longer timescales, the institutional history and long-term understanding of purpose of the Australian Army is rooted in the ability to take, hold and control land space. In the modern context these are combined arms efforts with many contributing capabilities towards that effort.

 

[Redlands18]

Somewhat surprising, not everyone wants nuclear submarines DEFMIN Marles copping some heckling while being interviewed by ex DEFMIN Pyne.

 

[StoresBasher]

Just watched ABC iView Four Corners - Going Nuclear
A very interesting eye opener on the current state of the Collins submarines.

 

[MickB]

Big questions about submarine gap coming up.. Four corners and elsewhere.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651371496680615937

Collins may effectively be out of service.

What day did that happen?
While there is capabilites we would all like to see, and would have preferred them to be introduced a decade ago.
Now we wait an see for the next in a long list of reviews.

 

[StoresBasher]

After watching the FC episode, I suspect as damning as what was broadcast is, I fear the real situation IRT Collins is far worse.

 

[Volkodav]

After watching the FC episode, I suspect as damning as what was broadcast is, I fear the real situation IRT Collins is far worse.

Or better.....

Subs are a sneaky bunch. The only time you definately know where they are is when you can see them, and even then you can't be sure which one it is.

As the report said, COVID border closures broke the sustainment model. The SMEs, who for twenty years, had been travelling back and forth to support two maintenance sites, were unable to.

When your SMEs are not available you don't just call you local "Jim's Submarine Servicing" franchise. Plus there was also the cyclical government driven "efficiencies" that have flow on effects a couple of years down the track.

The reporter had an agenda and was looking for a gotcha moment, but all the relevant, accurate, information was provided by the actual informed experts.

 

[StoresBasher]

Agreed the reporter seemed to have an agenda, but using the COVID excuse seemed rather convienent.
I would have thought that a defence employeee or industry partner would have been considered an 'essential employee' and able to travel.

 

[Bob53]

Agreed the reporter seemed to have an agenda, but using the COVID excuse seemed rather convienent.
I would have thought that a defence employeee or industry partner would have been considered an 'essential employee' and able to travel.

COVID of Employees and also the SMEs also have suppliers who can be effected. Remember if your wife had COVID a you had to isolate for 5-10 days depending on time and the state you were in. Hard to use a lathe or weld anything while working from home. Than anything that had a chip…delays 6-18 months. ( I ordered a VW Crafter..hardly a high tech item in September 2020 and it was delivered first week of March 2022. I ordered another in November 22 and still no build date)

 

[Morgo]

Agreed the reporter seemed to have an agenda, but using the COVID excuse seemed rather convienent.
I would have thought that a defence employeee or industry partner would have been considered an 'essential employee' and able to travel.

Besides the reporter being a bit of a flog I actually thought that it wasn’t that bad. No massive surprises or factual inaccuracies.

It described a capability that has been the subject of neglect and indecision by both sides of politics for c. 15 years now. This is what happens when you chop and change.

The only thing that was particularly concerning - and somewhat unforgivable - is the apparent state of the workforce. I’d be interested to know from the DefPro’s on here what exactly the issue is with recruiting and retaining people. Obviously it’s an extremely demanding job, particularly if you have a young family, and there is an unavoidable element in that that will always be there, but what else can be done to make it more attractive?

Is throwing tons of money at wages, basing on the east coast somewhere in the vicinity of Sydney and increased development opportunities with the USN and RN going to cut the mustard?

 

[StingrayOZ]

The reporter had an agenda and was looking for a gotcha moment, but all the relevant, accurate, information was provided by the actual informed experts.

They wanted to do a thing on dud subs and complain about collins.

Which wasn't the big issue.
The big issues are elsewhere. That we will probably stick with just the Americans and not jointly develop with the uK. The UK wedged themselves unwantedly into AUKUS. There were stories to be told there, but he wasn't listening, it was about getting upset about Collins, and then when ASC asked him who he was and what he was doing he got all upset.. Like shit, that isn't the issue at all. Rex is now irrelevant.

The Navy told him basically yes, there were issues during covid, because the nation broke down as each state became its own micronation. Then they were trying to tell him there would be bigger issues in the future, but he didn't seem particularly interested, no Walklies in the future stuff.

There was some actual stuff that was interesting that was said, but went over his head. Hopefully it hits the right people right in the head. The Sub gap, the LOTE timeframe, the sustainable ship building plan, the ability to cost/pay for it, generating submariners for the nukes, the UK position in this alliance, how we use the subs to deter China, future US-AU policy regarding China.

 

[TScott]

Yes but theirs is unmanned so it's not a big deal if it gets destroyed. How do we get ours to a remote island in all but the most benign of environments ie peacetime. I mean your enemy is hardly going to just let you put it where you want unencumbered are they and in the miniscule numbers we will purchase them say no more than two batteries say 6-8 vehicles that is a whopping 16 missiles. How do we target them? Once fired everyone now knows what island your on. Maybe just bypass the island and not deal with them at all. Something to keep in mind the ADF is not in the same universe as the USMC. To give the impression that it is, is very dangerous to the poor Cannon fodder who will ultimately pay the price. Apologies for my constant editing but what choke points are you referring to? There is no sovereign Australian territory anywhere near a choke point of consequence. To assume another nation will give you access particularly if they are not interested in the fight is quite frankly beyond stupid.

I'm only a novice in these discussions.

However, why is everyone only just discussing the A2/D2 of the JSM in this context with it's range?

We are acquiring 200 x maritime LRASM. I wouldn't have thought it would be too much of an extension to acquire the land based block. LRASM-SL, which can be fired from HIMARS (first tested as far back as 2017 by USMC)

In terms of your post specifically, the US Army first lifted a modified HIMARS with a Chinook (also in 2017), even carrying a LRASM, you are looking at ~8,000kg vs the Chinooks nominated 24,000 pounds (10,886 kg) lifting capacity. No reason they couldn't be transported into remote island choke points off of a LHD.

It's certainly a different discussion with a big increase in range from a island choke point vs a JSM.

A HIMAR located on Christmas Island fitted with LRASM-SL has a deterrent range to within approx 450km of the Spratley Islands.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm only a novice in these discussions.

However, why is everyone only just discussing the A2/D2 of the JSM in this context with it's range?

We are acquiring 200 x maritime LRASM. I wouldn't have thought it would be too much of an extension to acquire the land based block. LRASM-SL, which can be fired from HIMARS (first tested as far back as 2017 by USMC)

In terms of your post specifically, the US Army first lifted a modified HIMARS with a Chinook (also in 2017), even carrying a LRASM, you are looking at ~8,000kg vs the Chinooks nominated 24,000 pounds (10,886 kg) lifting capacity. No reason they couldn't be transported into remote island choke points off of a LHD.

It's certainly a different discussion with a big increase in range from a island choke point vs a JSM.

A HIMAR located on Christmas Island fitted with LRASM-SL has a deterrent range to within approx 450km of the Spratley Islands.

Umm... Not really.

If (big IF) the ADF were to acquire any one or more of the longer-ranged, there would still be all of the issues involved in actually getting whatever launching systems used landed and into position, as well as landing the associated personnel and whatever escorting/security force, and then establishing and maintaining the logistical train required to support the landed force.

As for the greatly increased deterrent range, IMO that would not really be an effective increase. Whilst the missiles used might have considerably longer range, there would still need to be sensing systems in place to detect and ID potential tracks, and given a greatly increased range, such sensing systems would need to be able to track and provide updated targeting information if/when targets move. For some of the more extreme-ranged shots suggested, missile flight times could be in the realm of 1hr, which could see a target having transited several n miles. If the ADF were to acquire a land-based AShM capability able to reach the Spratly Islands (even from much closer islands) Australia would still need to have some sort of system to detect, ID and then target vessels in and around the Spratly Islands. No sensor system, no ability to 'see' targets, much less shoot at them.

As for using CH-47 Chinooks to airlift AShM and launch units to distant islands from Canberra-class LHD's, that could be done, sort of... The combat radius of a CH-47 is ~200 miles, which is still fairly close given the relative distances involved in the Pacific and surrounding seas. Keep in mind though that any deployed AShM, launchers and personnel will also need to be landed as well as supplies. Also, I have significant doubts that a regular M-142 HIMARS could be lifted by a Chinook, since this US Army page on the HIMARS indicates and empty weight of 29,800 lbs which is ~6,000 lbs over the lift weight of a Chinook.

In short, Australia would still encounter issues getting the missiles and launchers to area where they could operate. Issues relating to logistics would also still remain since everything would be deployed some distance from mainland Australia, and Australia would need to be able to get resupply to the area. Lastly, there would still be the issue of being able to detect and ID targets from a distance.

 

[Maranoa]

The US Marine Corps reorganisation was also the result of the service being directed with a specific mission in a specific place ie the first island chain between Japan and Taiwan and Taiwan and the Philippines via the US combined staff. The US Marine Corps also can rely on the US Army to fill all of the many many capability gaps that opened up in its transformation from an amphibious response force of choice to a sea surface area denial mission configured 'littoral' force. None of those truths holds for the Australian position, by reorganising our Army into Marle's proposed missile forces we open massive offensive opportunities for any hostile power to exploit. And, does anybody really believe that PM Albanese, or the next PM who chances are would be much like him, would authorise a long distance strike on hostile forces before they directly commenced combat operations by violating Australian 12nMile limits?

 

[Todjaeger]

The US Marine Corps reorganisation was also the result of the service being directed with a specific mission in a specific place ie the first island chain between Japan and Taiwan and Taiwan and the Philippines via the US combined staff. The US Marine Corps also can rely on the US Army to fill all of the many many capability gaps that opened up in its transformation from an amphibious response force of choice to a sea surface area denial mission configured 'littoral' force. None of those truths holds for the Australian position, by reorganising our Army into Marle's proposed missile forces we open massive offensive opportunities for any hostile power to exploit. And, does anybody really believe that PM Albanese, or the next PM who chances are would be much like him, would authorise a long distance strike on hostile forces before they directly commenced combat operations by violating Australian 12nMile limits?

TBH, I remain quite dubious regarding the "wisdom" which has led to the start of the USMC reorganization. Realistically how wise is it to direct the re-development of a military service so that it is tailored to combat a specific adversary and in a specific area of operations and environment?

Yes, it is true that the USMC can rely upon the US Army to bring and provide capabilities that the USMC no longer has, but this reliance is only true to a certain degree and under certain circumstances. Take the retirement of USMC M1 Abrams for instance. As I understand it, the expectation is that if the USMC needs tanks in the field, these will be provided by the US Army. However, this only works if a USMC deployment which ends up requiring tank support also has a US Army detachment deployed alongside the Marines, and that the Army detachment includes tanks as part of their OrBat. This is not at all the same as the USMC having organic tank support built into a USMC expeditionary unit.

I unfortunately suspect that this reorg is going to turn out as well as a number of other US military reorgs over the last couple of decades. A number of which come immediately to mind from the 2nd time Rumsfeld was the US SecDef, i.e (Stryker vehicles will replace tanks since their mobility negates the need for heavy armour, or artillery is dead so arty units get converted to military police units, etc.)

Where this ties into what the ADF is doing, is that the overall US military is large enough that it could potentially make some of these things which are not all that good in terms of ideas actually work to a degree. The ADF, being considerably smaller in terms of size, budget, and array of 'toys' available to play with, does not have this range of options or flexibility.

As a side note, has the LRASM-SL actually been developed and/or put into production? IIRC less than two years ago LockMart signed development agreements with Thales Australia to develop components for a LRASM-SL, specifically for propulsion systems (again, IIRC) but I have not heard anything about the development having been completed or a LRASM-SL ready to be put into service. Amongst other issues, this then raises the question of just what the capabilities of a LRASM-SL would actually be? Given that the base AGM-158C LRASM which is air-launched and based off the JASSM-ER has a range of ~200 n miles, I would expect a ground-launched version to be similar but with a somewhat shorter range.

 

[Morgo]

If the ADF were to acquire a land-based AShM capability able to reach the Spratly Islands (even from much closer islands) Australia would still need to have some sort of system to detect, ID and then target vessels in and around the Spratly Islands. No sensor system, no ability to 'see' targets, much less shoot at them.

Isn’t JORN able to detect vessel movements in the SCS? If it’s a warzone, and there is an unidentified vessel (or group of vessels) of a certain approximate tonnage moving through a particular area we have declared a “no sail” zone, why couldn’t we lob a LRASM at it and let the onboard sensors handle ID / terminal guidance?

Or have I just committed a war crime for launching a thousand pound warhead at a ship I haven’t properly ID’d?