Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Boagrius]

Right now I am asking about and questioning a capability that none of our major allies possess, that as far as I can see has come completely out of left field. I'm sorry if I am not able to instantly absorb and understand why we are planning to acquire a capability that to my knowledge has never been seriously suggested for the ADF before.

Not meaning to stir the pot here whatsoever but I also found it to be a little out of left field. That said, it also strikes me as the kind of program that could easily be changed or scrapped in the foreseeable future - for example with a change of Govt. If any of the grand plans detailed in the DWP are ever going to get the chop, I imagine this might be a prime candidate since it is essentially a "nice to have" rather than "need to have" capability - probably a ways to go before it's worth much thought.

Just my 2c.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not meaning to stir the pot here whatsoever but I also found it to be a little out of left field.

CREF my previous

without seeing the paperwork which resulted in this being inserted into the DWP its all speculation as to what the triggers were

there is a clear aversion to getting orphan systems after a few years of bad experiences - so I would expect that there is some interlinking and supporting logic with other systems...

however, thats unlikely to hit the public domain

 

[Boagrius]

CREF my previous

without seeing the paperwork which resulted in this being inserted into the DWP its all speculation as to what the triggers were

there is a clear aversion to getting orphan systems after a few years of bad experiences - so I would expect that there is some interlinking and supporting logic with other systems...

however, thats unlikely to hit the public domain

Thanks gf I am a long time lurker both here and at T5C (like... 10 years) and am always interested by your input. Will be fascinating to see how this one plays out.

At any rate the acquisitions planned in the DWP generally seem pretty sensible from what I can tell... *waits for reality to fall well short of expectations* :hitwall

 

[gf0012-aust]

At any rate the acquisitions planned in the DWP generally seem pretty sensible from what I can tell... *waits for reality to fall well short of expectations* :hitwall

what terrifies me is a change of govt - not because of any personal political preference issues, its just that a change of govt would see an incoming govt leaving their mark as a matter of principle

and if the other mob were in and generated this, I'd be saying the same.

there needs to be some stability in both sides accepting DWP's rather than running around when they get in and deciding to chop things up to show that they're in control.

we were starting to make the italians look like a stable democracy....

 

[alexsa]

i commented a few weeks back that BF were becoming a naval reserve and ships were getting retasked with new roles

Ocean Protector is to be operated as a Naval Auxiliary under the Naval Flag Administration so this is another first as well.

 

[Boagrius]

what terrifies me is a change of govt - not because of any personal political preference issues, its just that a change of govt would see an incoming govt leaving their mark as a matter of principle

and if the other mob were in and generated this, I'd be saying the same.

there needs to be some stability in both sides accepting DWP's rather than running around when they get in and deciding to chop things up to show that they're in control.

we were starting to make the italians look like a stable democracy....

My fears exactly... not to mention future govts who might like to take a wanton razor to it all so as to balance the books in other areas...

That said one can only hope that the emerging seriousness of our geostrategic situation will start to generate some bipartisanship on this front.

I think the ADF had an identity crisis from the fall of the Berlin wall onwards. With China on the prowl in the Pacific you would think the ADF will have a clearer job description and (hopefully) become less of a political football because of it... or at least a less bouncy one! :rotfl

 

[Stampede]

This is one inclusion I find quite strange - anyone know anything about it? What threat are they intended to defeat?

Surprised as well

Land based ASM?

Just speculation, but in the "White paper at a glance section", under Key Enablers was the statement .........

The airfield at Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be upgraded to support the new P‐8A Poseidon maritime surveillance and response aircraft.

Just a guess, but this and other off shore Austalian Islands may be on the radar for a greater defence role.
Off shore Island defence hub for aircraft with some anti ship and SAM capability????
Really just don't know, it's sort of out of no where.
Nice to know more about it's justification and sense of priority
Not sure what the neigbours would make of such offshore military developement.
Any way will be interesting to see how it plays out.
As I said, just a guess so please be kind.......

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

what terrifies me is a change of govt - not because of any personal political preference issues, its just that a change of govt would see an incoming govt leaving their mark as a matter of principle

and if the other mob were in and generated this, I'd be saying the same.

there needs to be some stability in both sides accepting DWP's rather than running around when they get in and deciding to chop things up to show that they're in control.

we were starting to make the italians look like a stable democracy....

Not just change of government, a change of PM can completely phurk a DWP or DCP just as effectively as a change of government. We saw what happened with the switch from Rudd to Gillard (China is a threat becomes China is nice to orphaned kittens), sort of makes me wonder how different todays paper is from the draft from last September. From memory there were major changes between Hawke and Keating, Keating being an F-111 fanboi and lover of antiques in general leading to a lot of the US surplus procurements where the strategic / industrial side was as important to Hawke as the capability.

 

[hauritz]

what terrifies me is a change of govt - not because of any personal political preference issues, its just that a change of govt would see an incoming govt leaving their mark as a matter of principle

and if the other mob were in and generated this, I'd be saying the same.

there needs to be some stability in both sides accepting DWP's rather than running around when they get in and deciding to chop things up to show that they're in control.

we were starting to make the italians look like a stable democracy....

Well that is the trick isn't it?

This will have to survive several changes of government, economic ups and downs, and changing strategic circumstances.

These projects will take decades to complete. I
will probably be in my 90's before the final collin's replacement hits the water.

 

[Goknub]

The land-based ASM makes a lot of sense. Not only does it complicate anyone considering a Falklands type adventure but also allows any amphibious force to protect itself and the SPOD, freeing up the frigates/destroyers.

Think guarding Dili harbour in 1999. In higher level ops this would be even more important. The first hint of an enemy sub and the surface ships will be heading for deep water and aircraft can also be driven off. A land-based ASM would be valuable for any deployed force.

 

[rockitten]

Surprised as well

Land based ASM?

Just speculation, but in the "White paper at a glance section", under Key Enablers was the statement .........

The airfield at Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be upgraded to support the new P‐8A Poseidon maritime surveillance and response aircraft.

Just a guess, but this and other off shore Austalian Islands may be on the radar for a greater defence role.
Off shore Island defence hub for aircraft with some anti ship and SAM capability????
Really just don't know, it's sort of out of no where.
Nice to know more about it's justification and sense of priority
Not sure what the neigbours would make of such offshore military developement.
Any way will be interesting to see how it plays out.
As I said, just a guess so please be kind.......

Regards S

Well, there is one scenario I can think of, which the "deploy-able land based ASM" may be useful: when ADF is deployed for a Falkland/Guadalcanal style Campaign. Imagine our foe (AKA china) invaded some "disputed island" in the region, and ADF is deployed alongside USMC. Our navy and air force may too busy dealing with the massive air sea battle and so our RAR on shore will need so "shore batteries" to held their own.

By the way, the new submarine by early 2030s, that is 14+ years from now. It sounds quite a long time, can Collins hang on so long?

 

[Raven22]

It's also worth pointing out that land based anti ship missiles isn't just some brand new concept that the White Paper writers thought up on the spot, the capability has been talked about for a long time. It's just that most of the talking has been internal defence planning, not the sort of thing that gets much public attention (although ASPI have written papers about it)

I also think that everyone is thinking the capability will be much bigger and more expensive than it will be in reality. I doubt we will see a large anti-ship missile such as Harpoon or NSM or whatever bought. I think the capability will be more along the lines of an ATACM with an anti-ship seeker head fired from a HIMARS launcher. Essentially, taking an existing capability such as HIMARS (that will by then be in service anyway) and giving it an anti-ship capability as a supplement to its land fires role. Such a capability wouldn't be designed for sinking Chinese aircraft carriers, but more as a supplement to other capabilities to deny the littoral approaches to certain places.

Such a capability would be an order of magnitude smaller and simpler than what I think most people are envisioning.

I could be completely wrong though.

 

[Goknub]

Well, there is one scenario I can think of, which the "deploy-able land based ASM" may be useful: when ADF is deployed for a Falkland/Guadalcanal style Campaign.

Seems we're thinking along similar lines. If amphibious is going to be a key role of the ADF then it's worth doing it properly.

 

[Volkodav]

Surprised as well

Land based ASM?

Just speculation, but in the "White paper at a glance section", under Key Enablers was the statement .........

The airfield at Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be upgraded to support the new P‐8A Poseidon maritime surveillance and response aircraft.

Just a guess, but this and other off shore Austalian Islands may be on the radar for a greater defence role.
Off shore Island defence hub for aircraft with some anti ship and SAM capability????
Really just don't know, it's sort of out of no where.
Nice to know more about it's justification and sense of priority
Not sure what the neigbours would make of such offshore military developement.
Any way will be interesting to see how it plays out.
As I said, just a guess so please be kind.......

Regards S

Now that's an interesting possibility, rather than choke points, most of which would require deployment of the capability into the sovereign territory of one or more of our neighbours, we could instead be talking defence of Australian territories that would be under threat because they are being used as forward operating bases. Even then, would it not be cheaper to stand up another squadron or two of F-35s, or keep the SHs for longer?

 

[rjtjrt]

Re Land Based anti ship missile.
If it were to be an Harpoon class missile, then is this proposed capability a way of ensuring we select JSM instead of LRASM for air and naval ships?
As far as I know, JSM is planned to,have a land launched version, burpt I have not seen any mention of a land launched version of LRASM.
If one were Machiavellian, it cold be seen as a manoeuvre to get JSM selected.

 

[Boagrius]

^Wouldn't surprise me to see us field both systems at some point. LRASM has the range and the punch, while JSM can fit inside an F35. If the U.S decides to go for LRASM as their interim Harpoon "replacement" then I'd be surprised if we didn't end up with it too, even though we're already more or less a lock for the air launched JSM.

I'd expect LRASM at least has a lot of potential for the RAN, since there are now murmurs of LM developing a non-VLS version as well as the VLS compatible one. Could free up some of those scarce Mk41 cells for RAN surface combatants...

Also, someone alluded to this earlier, but I do think the land based ASM could make a lot more sense if coupled with a HIMARS launcher (which we look set to acquire anyway). That way OPFOR could at least be left with some uncertainty as to whether said HIMARS vehicles are carrying regular rocket artillery or ASMs, potentially forcing them to put ASM range rings around vehicles that don't have them. Would make more sense as part of an amphibious task force that way.

 

[Boagrius]

Disregard - computer had a hissy fit.

 

[Redlands18]

The Collins class should have a huge amount of life left in them, just ask the uninformed idiots who pass for journalists in the mainstream media and the disenfranchised ex military that feeds them, according to them They have spent there entire lives either broken down or crewless.

Also in the DWP is a point about a review of the future sub design in the late 20s a hint that there will probably be at least 2 seperate groups of boats. Would make no sense in ordering a boat in 2022 that won't see service till 2052. Always thought a 4x4x4 group design program would be the best way to go. Not necessarily a new design each time but improvements that turns the new boats to at least a sub class of the origional class.

 

[Volkodav]

The Collins class should have a huge amount of life left in them, just ask the uninformed idiots who pass for journalists in the mainstream media and the disenfranchised ex military that feeds them. They have spent there entire lives either broken down or crewless.

From about 2005/6 or perhaps earlier their were always at least two, usually three and at one time four boats out of the water at Adelaide for several months to a couple of years at a time, with only one or two of them being worked on at a time. It should have only been one their receiving FCD with others coming in for a couple of months at a time for MCDs.

This situation wasn't because of breakdowns or maintenance issues but for crewing and cost saving as for every boat in FCD there was one already gutted in pre-FCD that we were not allowed to work on because there was no funding and another in pre-pre-FCD layup, i.e. mothballed because there was not the crew or funding available for the RAN to even keep it in commission for along side training (that would have helped the crewing situation). The another boat would come in for MCD meaning there were four in the sheds at Adelaide, two thirds the fleet, and virtually all work would stop on the boat in FCD as labour was transferred to the MCD.

This is nothing new, this is exactly how successive governments used to operate Williams Town and Cockatoo through the 50s, 60s and 70s, the place the blame on yard management and the unions. The customers is always right, even when they are behaving in a deceitful, self destructive and dangerously incompetent way.

 

[Redlands18]

From about 2005/6 or perhaps earlier their were always at least two, usually three and at one time four boats out of the water at Adelaide for several months to a couple of years at a time, with only one or two of them being worked on at a time. It should have only been one their receiving FCD with others coming in for a couple of months at a time for MCDs.

This situation wasn't because of breakdowns or maintenance issues but for crewing and cost saving as for every boat in FCD there was one already gutted in pre-FCD that we were not allowed to work on because there was no funding and another in pre-pre-FCD layup, i.e. mothballed because there was not the crew or funding available for the RAN to even keep it in commission for along side training (that would have helped the crewing situation). The another boat would come in for MCD meaning there were four in the sheds at Adelaide, two thirds the fleet, and virtually all work would stop on the boat in FCD as labour was transferred to the MCD.

This is nothing new, this is exactly how successive governments used to operate Williams Town and Cockatoo through the 50s, 60s and 70s, the place the blame on yard management and the unions. The customers is always right, even when they are behaving in a deceitful, self destructive and dangerously incompetent way.

Thanks for the reply Volkodav. I do realise that the Collins class have had their fair share of problems but these have been blown out of all proportions by the mainstream media. Too many men on the street regard the Collins as a total failure. You only have to read the posts on this board and respectable Defence publications by well informed people like yourself to know this is simply not true.