ADF General discussion thread

t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Boagrius said:
All very true. That said I do wonder what our response would be to significant enhancements to PLAAF strategic bomber assets. While the H6 isn't an issue for us in its various iterations right now, if they do succeed in replacing it with the H20 or similar down the track, would that begin to affect our force planning?
Click to expand...
Agree our higher *threat levels come in the guise of any future LRSB aircraft and long range submarine and with SLCM not neccasarly to invade but more of blocking or raiding force on the Australian mainland.

It's for these reason I think its in Australia best interest to have a comprehensive ASW and long range strike capbilty spread over air sea gap with both submarines frigates/destroyers and long range bomber force.

Edit

Interesting tho that the AGM-158 JASSAM has reached FOC within RAAF but " JASSM will also be carried by the F-35, eventually, but it’s no longer on the list of weapons for certification by the end of the development program. If and when it’s certified for the F-35 family after 2020"

That's gives an indication on why the bugs are staying. I wonder if things go well with USN UCLASS and AGM-158 become our LRSB?

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/EquippingDefence/AI5418PH1-FOSOW
 
Boagrius

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
t68 said:
Agree our higher *threat levels come in the guise of any future LRSB aircraft and long range submarine and with SLCM not neccasarly to invade but more of blocking or raiding force on the Australian mainland.

It's for these reason I think its in Australia best interest to have a comprehensive ASW and long range strike capability spread over air sea gap with both submarines frigates/destroyers and long range bomber force.
Click to expand...
That would have been my take as well. I imagine worst case scenario for us (jn the next ~30 years anyway) would be Chinese gunboat diplomacy traveling south of the SCS. I suppose it is early days for the time being, as their next gen LRSB has yet to take shape and they don't seem to have the tanker assets (or inclination) to escort them to our part of the world. Interesting times though - I imagine a few decades could change all that.
 
R

rjtjrt

Member
vonnoobie said:
Something else to consider, Our location in the world.

We have no airborne threats to the east, south or west... Everything we have to worry about is north of us. Of all those the most capable air force is allied with us along with a less capable one also an ally. Every other one is too small, under supplied or fielding very old equipment.

We have no need to field more then 100 modern combat aircraft, anything more would be over kill and taking away valuable resources from other area's that all vitally need those resources.

When you break it down those in range to attack us (only really ASEAN members) ..

Brunei - No combat aircraft
Cambodia - No combat aircraft
Indonesia - Only capable combat aircraft are 25 older model F-16's and 16 Su 27/30's, Simply outnumbered by us
Laos - No combat aircraft
Malaysia - Arguably more capable then Indonesia with 18 Su-30's and plan's under way to replace 30 Mig 29's and F-5's with either Typhoons and Rafales, Also a member of FPDA with Australia so more likely an ally then an enemy.
Myanmar - Has a number of modern aircraft including 31 Mig 29's and 16 JF-17's on order however capability is in question due to it's lack of any use in a number of skirmishes (ie: Flashy equipment, no support and experience to use it).
Philippines - While nothing official is more of an ally, or at least friendly to Australia. That said there most capable aircraft are 12 FA-50 trainers from South Korea so of no threat what so ever.
Thailand - Decent force but has tended to be more COIN orientated, 51 F-16's, 30 F-5's and 7 JAS 39's.. F-5's and F-16's are outdated, JAS 39 are there most modern aircraft but too few in number.
Vietnam - 11 Su-27's and 35 Su-30's make up there biggest capability, but between the range, limited budget support and the fact they hate China more then Australia likelihood of them becoming an active enemy is low.

All in those with the capability aren't on bad term's with us being either neutral or close allies, every nation that could become a threat is either too far away, has no airforce to speak of or too little of one to matter.
Click to expand...
Interesting Singapore not mentioned (no, I am not suggesting Singapore is anything other than an ally, but it is far and away currently the most formidable SE Asian power, and looks a match or more for Australia in military power). It is also FDPA.

Also, Indonesia is economically growing and is predicted to be a major economic power in the not too fat distant future, and with that will come more and better armed, especially as she feels a need to "match up" to China given the bits of the South China Sea that Indonesia claims.
 
B

bdique

Member
rjtjrt said:
Interesting Singapore not mentioned (no, I am not suggesting Singapore is anything other than an ally, but it is far and away currently the most formidable SE Asian power, and looks a match or more for Australia in military power). It is also FDPA.

Also, Indonesia is economically growing and is predicted to be a major economic power in the not too fat distant future, and with that will come more and better armed, especially as she feels a need to "match up" to China given the bits of the South China Sea that Indonesia claims.
Click to expand...
Singapore does seek to build a deeper strategic partnership with Australia. I don't think you can call it an alliance, but there's definitely a move towards building stronger military and economic ties.

Singapore, Australia sign Comprehensive Strategic Partnership deals

I can't really speak for Indonesia so it would be great if someone more knowledgable could step in, but from what I know that there have been plans to comprehensively modernise the military for some time now (I think it is around the time Widodo entered office), so I doubt the modernisation plans can be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to an increasingly assertive China.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
vonnoobie said:
Thailand - ... 7 JAS 39's.. F-5's and F-16's are outdated, JAS 39 are there most modern aircraft but too few in number. .
Click to expand...
A small point which doesn't affect your overall judgement, but the four JAS39D are combat capable, so Thailand has 11 JAS39 able to fight.
 
Last edited:
P

PatH

New Member
Article on potential future ADF

https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/vol4no1Babbage.pdf

I Found this Article by Ross Babbage on a potential future ADF out to 2050ish very interesting, if a little outdated. It encourages Australia to heavily alter our defence force in response to the increasing power of some nations in our region.

It seems to be quite opposed to the views of many on DT who argue for a balanced defence force.

Thoughts?
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
PatH said:
https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/vol4no1Babbage.pdf

I Found this Article by Ross Babbage on a potential future ADF out to 2050ish very interesting, if a little outdated. It encourages Australia to heavily alter our defence force in response to the increasing power of some nations in our region.

It seems to be quite opposed to the views of many on DT who argue for a balanced defence force.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Received a security warning with above link claiming my connection is not private and saying attackers might be trying to steal my information.
 
P

PatH

New Member
Redlands18 said:
Received a security warning with above link claiming my connection is not private and saying attackers might be trying to steal my information.
Click to expand...
Really? If that's the case you could try googling it, It's title is;
Learning to Walk Amongst Giants:
The New Defence White Paper
By Ross Babbage
 
cdxbow

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
PatH said:
https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/vol4no1Babbage.pdf

I Found this Article by Ross Babbage on a potential future ADF out to 2050ish very interesting, if a little outdated. It encourages Australia to heavily alter our defence force in response to the increasing power of some nations in our region.

It seems to be quite opposed to the views of many on DT who argue for a balanced defence force.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Interesting, but I thought disappointing. He ends up suggesting that ADF needs to add some capabilities, he suggest adding 1 or 2 of the following:

1. Exceptional strategic and operational ISR capabilities not only regionally but globally;
2. Very strong air defence and medium/long-range air strike capabilities with hardened base and support facilities. This might require 300-400 JSF equivalents together with 30-40 aerial tankers, etc.;
3. A very strong and well-crewed submarine force—possibly numbering 20-30 boats;
4. Exceptional cyber attack and cyber defence capabilities; and
5. A moderately capable ballistic missile defence capability.

I would of thought that 1 & 4 would already be done as part of the 'balanced force' of an ally of the US with access to US resources. Increase in aircraft, more subs and a new BMD capacity are left, a fairly modest and unimaginative list. I too, would interested what the defence pros think.

Redlands18 said:
Received a security warning with above link claiming my connection is not private and saying attackers might be trying to steal my information.
Click to expand...
Damn, PLA Unit 61398 is already at work.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I would think options 2 and 3 would be more expensive than the rest of the defence force put together.

What he seems to have left out is networking and distributed lethality making each element of the ADF an interlinked combat node. VLS on minor combatants, amphibs and support ships networked with the major combatants, F-35s, P-8s and E-7 for instance would make taking down a task force far more complicated and difficult for an aggressor. Can they chose to ignore an OPV/OCV with an eight cell VLS that is probably only carrying ESSM and Nulka but could potentially have four cells with SM-6, SM-3, or even cruise missiles networked with other assets? Maybe the loadout is entirely cruise missiles and the ship is relying on RAM or SeaRAM for self defence. What if the replacement(s) for Choules is fitted with a 24-64cell strategic length VLS and a variant of the combat system and sensor suite fitted to the SEA5000 frigates?

Of course there is also my favourite suggestion, what if three or four of the Frigates in the balanced force are replaced with light carriers operating F-35B with all the advantaged that platform brings to the game? Maybe in addition the ADF could deploy a VTOL platform, manned or unmanned, that incorporates an evolved F-35 like sensor suite and appropriate data links.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
PatH said:
https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/vol4no1Babbage.pdf

I Found this Article by Ross Babbage on a potential future ADF out to 2050ish very interesting, if a little outdated. It encourages Australia to heavily alter our defence force in response to the increasing power of some nations in our region.

It seems to be quite opposed to the views of many on DT who argue for a balanced defence force.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I think Ross might have been on the gear

  • Very strong air defence and medium/long-range air strike capabilities with hardened base and support facilities. This might require 300-400 JSF equivalents together with 30-40 aerial tankers, etc.;
  • A very strong and well-crewed submarine force - possibly numbering 20-30 boats
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
gf0012-aust said:
I think Ross might have been on the gear

  • Very strong air defence and medium/long-range air strike capabilities with hardened base and support facilities. This might require 300-400 JSF equivalents together with 30-40 aerial tankers, etc.;
  • A very strong and well-crewed submarine force - possibly numbering 20-30 boats
Click to expand...
Might have? ......

He does realize that extra fighters and crew means extra trainers.. Probably around 120-200 of them... Between the trainers, fighters and tankers you are looking at a 200% increase in air craft within the RAAF and likely a similar personnel increase....

He is keeping the drug dealers in business him self with the amount of gear he is on. Over $30 billion just in acquisition cost's not including all the spares, support and other purchases with the air craft... $60 - $90 billion over the life of it... That is a good chunk of change that could go anywhere else and still be better spent.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
I think Ross might have been on the gear

  • Very strong air defence and medium/long-range air strike capabilities with hardened base and support facilities. This might require 300-400 JSF equivalents together with 30-40 aerial tankers, etc.;
  • A very strong and well-crewed submarine force - possibly numbering 20-30 boats
Click to expand...
I agree with you on that part and Volks assessment regarding the networking capabilities of assets etc. Not about swapping a couple of FFGs for flat tops though.

However I think Ross's Strategic Tides 20-40 Years Ahead section is not too bad although I think that he may over estimate the US a bit. That section by necessity is somewhat of a crystal ball and reading of goats entrails material, but I think he raises quite valid points about how the Asian - Pacific Region will possibly change over that period and from Australia's (& NZ's) POV it isn't going to fill us with tidings of joy; in fact far from it.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart said:
I agree with you on that part and Volks assessment regarding the networking capabilities of assets etc. Not about swapping a couple of FFGs for flat tops though.
Click to expand...
My attraction to light carriers is more a factor of how much capability networked aviation assets bring to the game, be they F-35Bs, or even older AV-8B+, as well as modern naval helicopters, especially the heavy weight ones, and more and more, UAVs. Its not the carriers themselves that excite me, its the transformational capabilities of the systems the bring to the battle and support. No carrier, no F-35B and far far fewer helicopters and UAVs. They are still the most efficient and effective way of getting lots of aviation over the fleet.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
My attraction to light carriers is more a factor of how much capability networked aviation assets bring to the game, be they F-35Bs, or even older AV-8B+, as well as modern naval helicopters, especially the heavy weight ones, and more and more, UAVs. Its not the carriers themselves that excite me, its the transformational capabilities of the systems the bring to the battle and support. No carrier, no F-35B and far far fewer helicopters and UAVs. They are still the most efficient and effective way of getting lots of aviation over the fleet.
Click to expand...
If they can turn the MQ-8C Fire Scouts into UAS-ASW/ASh platforms then the lethality numbers and enhancement potential head north pretty quickly

I think you'll see the "first day of war" breachers becoming more and more tied into UAS/USV and their ilk and them also being the long range spear carriers etc.....
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
My attraction to light carriers is more a factor of how much capability networked aviation assets bring to the game, be they F-35Bs, or even older AV-8B+, as well as modern naval helicopters, especially the heavy weight ones, and more and more, UAVs. Its not the carriers themselves that excite me, its the transformational capabilities of the systems the bring to the battle and support. No carrier, no F-35B and far far fewer helicopters and UAVs. They are still the most efficient and effective way of getting lots of aviation over the fleet.
Click to expand...
It's the losing the FFGs I was getting at. I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding what the flattops would offer. If the flat tops were to happen then I would see them more as a new capability; a DDH per se with ≥ 64 VLS cells etc., that could self escort. Possibly an adjunct to the AWD; not that it's going to happen unless the brown smelly stuff hits the fast rotating object.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Think you would still be hard pressed to sell that idea to the pollies on exchanging 8,000t FFG's with a 20,000t armed flat top.

If they are armed similarily to the FFG's then I'd be all for them preferably if it's a one for one replacement.

Probably an easier spot to talk the pollies into getting them would be the future logistics support ship (If it is decided we need a second one) and the eventual (yet to be determined) replacement of Choules.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
not that it's going to happen unless the brown smelly stuff hits the fast rotating object.
Click to expand...
It's too late then, problem is its not the 1940's anymore when you could turn industry to war production and spit out aircraft and jeep carriers. Modern warships are so technology advanced its also it's downfall in building them quicker.

While budgetary concerns rule the day I do think the ADF should be a little larger than its is, But as a number of posters have said non-specialist jobs fill easy enough but the specialist jobs are harder to fill so increasing is not that easy untill the rewards are higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top