Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Defence procurement bungles and wins (Read 25516 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #60 –
Australia is in the business or procuring long range Tomahawk missiles that are capable of being launched from submarines using CLS(Capsule Launch System) as well as Destroyers via VLS(Vertical Launch System).

After the election Labour confirmed this interest, the nuclear submarines are going ahead I think it's almost guaranteed, perhaps the only thing that might interfere are potential developments in naval robotics(drones whether surface or submarine). The big advantage is not cost, because you just spend as much by purchasing more, the big advantage is not needing resupply so they can stay on station virtually indefinitely, so I suspect these will also be some sort of nuclear based system using the newer compact nuclear pebble bed reactors that are about the size of a commercial fridge. Submarine drones aren't what people think of when they think about drones, these things are likely to be some significant fraction of the size of a normal submarine, and set to autonomously follow surface patrols until required to deploy. Think of vessels in the 30m to 50m class.

The other thing about a submarine drone, they don't need a lot of voids inside for crew, so they can be built to resist the deepest reaches of the crust. In effect sitting invisible on the bottom somewhere until required to come to launch depth. Turns out courtesy of Australia's long history of extreme location mining, we are overloaded with experts capable of designing systems for autonomous operation.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #61 –
Sadly, there is another example of poor defence procurement.

Australia has two Canberra Class Amphibious Assault Ships, also known as Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs).  On paper, the two LHDs provide the ADF with one of the most capable and sophisticated air-land-sea amphibious deployment systems in the world.  The 27,000 tonne LHDs are the largest ships in the RAN and are  able to land a force of over 1,000 personnel by helicopter and water craft, along with all their weapons, ammunition, vehicles and stores.

The first issue with our LHDs is that, although they are capable of embarking Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft, they are only equipped with rotary wing aircraft.  This means that any opposed landing would have to be carried out without air cover.  Our LHDs were designed in Spain and Spain is currently the only other operator of this class of ship.  Spain's Amphibious Assault Ship, Jaun Carlos, is equipped with the AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft and/or the F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft making it a far more potent defence asset.

The second issue came to light when HMAS Adelaide lost power while on a humanitarian mission to Tonga.  The Canberra class vessels have azimuth propulsion pod systems that are more commonly used on passenger vessels.  It seems that the seawater cooling system became blocked by volcanic ash and the diesel generators overheated and shut down.  That doesn't bode well for operations in a hostile environment.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #62 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Russian nukes have good mobility, their Sarmat 2's are very mobile and if Vlad is out gunned with the conventional weaponry he will up the stakes imo...

Russian artillery, both conventional and missile, is being outgunned now.  The link I posted above shows Russian footage of a TOS-1A Thermobaric Weapon System coming under counter-battery fire.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #63 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Spain's Amphibious Assault Ship, Jaun Carlos, is equipped with the AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft and/or the F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft making it a far more potent defence asset. That doesn't bode well for operations in a hostile environment.
Wouldn't the LHD's be capable of launching the F-35B, if we procure some?

Interestingly, it seems the F-35B is the only variant that seems to be delivering any sort of service reliability, but I suspect we'd be going down the Loyal Wingman drone route for air cover, these drowns aren't just for air combat but can be flown from any CAC platform, but of course they are some way off.

Flying in combat against a drone is bound to be a little unnerving, you usually expect an opponent to have some degree of self-preservation, but you can think of drones basically as the autonomous version of a Kamikaze pilot. Then the battle comes down to whoever has the biggest budget!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #64 –
Quote from: LP – on
Wouldn't the LHD's be capable of launching the F-35B, if we procure some?

Interestingly, it seems the F-35B is the only variant that seems to be delivering any sort of service reliability, but I suspect we'd be going down the Loyal Wingman drone route for air cover, these drowns aren't just for air combat but can be flown from any CAC platform, but of course they are some way off.

Flying in combat against a drone is bound to be a little unnerving, you usually expect an opponent to have some degree of self-preservation, but you can think of drones basically as the autonomous version of a Kamikaze pilot. Then the battle comes down to whoever has the biggest budget!

Yes, our LHDs are designed specifically for STOVL aircraft; helicopters don't use the ski-jump ramp over the bow.  However, the  F-35B isn't on our shopping lists and it would take a major change of direction to address that ... or a defence minister with some idea of force projection and the necessity of air superiority.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #65 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Russian artillery, both conventional and missile, is being outgunned now.  The link I posted above shows Russian footage of a TOS-1A Thermobaric Weapon System coming under counter-battery fire.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/01/ukraine-war-russia-donbas-weapons-00036156

Russia have the edge now and virtually have taken the Dombas and I dont see that being returned, its become a game of long shelling artillery and Russia are just slowly raising the area to the ground. I watched a news report last night that had Ukraine down to some fairly ancient artillery and are desperate for the promised delivery of some new more advanced weaponry from the West to stay in the fight. Reports are Putin is down to his last few months given his health issues but as I suggested even with a ceasefire and withdrawal I think the Russian hierarchy even without Putin will want the Russian speaking Dombas area as its pay off for ending the war.

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #67 –
I'm curious to find out what people think about the procurement of 3 to 5 Virginia Class(USA) and up to 7 Astute Class(UK) nuclear subs.

To me it's a no brainer for a country like Australia with it's massive coastline to be heading down this route, the new submarines have serious capabilities, far beyond those of the more conventional.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #68 –
Quote from: LP – on
I'm curious to find out what people think about the procurement of 3 to 5 Virginia Class(USA) and up to 7 Astute Class(UK) nuclear subs.

To me it's a no brainer for a country like Australia with it's massive coastline to be heading down this route, the new submarines have serious capabilities, far beyond those of the more conventional.

We should have gone for nuclear submarines instead of the Collins class but better late than never.  If I remember correctly, K Rudd proposed obtaining nuclear subs in 2010 … but you can’t rush these things 🙄

I understand that the Aussie-built subs will be the Astute class replacements rather than the current Astute class.

There was some talk about us getting a couple of Astute class subs as an interim measure and to help the Brits with their defence budget (a bit like Melbourne-Collingwood and Grundy). There would have been merit in that arrangement in that there would be commonalities across the Astute class and their replacements.  Having a submarine fleet with both Virginia class and Astute replacement class vessels is not the most efficient option in terms of crew training and flexibility.  There will be commonality with reactors and, presumably, weapons and systems, so some Virginia experience should be transferable.

"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #69 –
Quote from: LP – on
I'm curious to find out what people think about the procurement of 3 to 5 Virginia Class(USA) and up to 7 Astute Class(UK) nuclear subs.

To me it's a no brainer for a country like Australia with it's massive coastline to be heading down this route, the new submarines have serious capabilities, far beyond those of the more conventional.

Sad but true, Spotted One. Should have been done long ago.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #70 –
I used to know a guy who was high up in logistics for the Navy. He suggested the Collins subs did really well in joint exercises with the US Navy as they ran very silently when submerged. The Yanks had problems trying to locate them.

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #71 –
Quote from: Mav – on
I used to know a guy who was high up in logistics for the Navy. He suggested the Collins subs did really well in joint exercises with the US Navy as they ran very silently when submerged. The Yanks had problems trying to locate them.

Yes, that’s true and a Collins class sub managed to “kill” a USN carrier on exercise.  However, the Collins class are unreliable and require more maintenance than sea time.

Astute or Virginia class subs are equally stealthy and outperform the Collins class in terms of reliability, range, speed and weaponry.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #72 –
Come a long way since the 'O' class subs we sailed with! I entertained the thought of becoming a submariner but way back then there was a maximum height of 5'10"... no cigar for moi. Heightism?
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #73 –
Quote from: DJC – on
There will be commonality with reactors and, presumably, weapons and systems, so some Virginia experience should be transferable.
My understanding is that they will all be using the same Rolls Royce reactors, so if true in that regard they are pretty compatible.

I wonder if there is more to the spread of solutions than just economics and good will, there might be some advantages in communications / interoperability, and there might be issues related to future technologies as well.

There were similar issues behind the JSF choice, the JSF's ability to be quickly reconfigured to suit joint operations was a much higher priority for Australia than buying the F22 and having the best superiority fighter.

You are only as good as your allies.

PS; I read somewhere the Astute class replacement is going to have some crazy endurance and reach capabilities, which seem to be ideal for Southern Ocean operations. As well as something in Submarine operations that will be akin to the JSF Loyal Wingman program.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins

Reply #74 –
Speaking about helicopters ...

Back in 2004 the Howard government decided to replace Navy Seahawks and Army Blackhawks with the NHIndustries MRH90 multi-purpose helicopters, known as Taipan in Australian service.  While it may make sense for both services to use the same helicopter (although six of the RAN helicopters are navalised), the defence department argued strongly against the MRH90 and recommended more Blackhawks.

The Taipan has been a disaster with ongoing reliability problems so bad that the ADF was forced to hire commercial helicopters.  On top of that, a Taipan's operating cost runs out at $48K per hour.

Despite lobbying from the French government, the Australian government has decided to ditch the MRH90s and replace them with Seahawks and Blackhawks.  We're not exactly back where we started because the new helicopters are current models and quite an advance on those the MRH90s replaced.

Then there's the Eurocopter Tiger Armed Recce Helicopter.  It's another example of an existing design reconfigured to meet Australian conditions and operating requirements.  After considerable delays in getting the Tigers airworthy and operational, ongoing issues and the realisation that they couldn't perform the role that they were purchased for, the ADF is going to replace them with AH64E attack helicopters.  An "off the shelf" purchase that will provide the ADF with a far more reliable and capable aircraft.

We don't have a huge defence budget but we do need reliable and capable defence assets.  Blowing dollars on the wrong helicopters and being forced to replace them well before their anticipated service life is just p1ssing our defence budget away.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball