The Defence White Paper

You are all wrong. The last 28 F35’s are going to be “C”s for our new carrier.
Seriously though, if Austar are going to build the MRC Corvettes, they will need to be re-designed to allow for heavier weapons fit. The current design does not appear to be well armed.

Has Spain ordered the F-35B yet?

No. No hurry: Spanish Harriers are fairly young, & have been upgraded. The Spanish can wait for full-rate production, after the bugs have been ironed out.

9.20 The new vessels will be larger than the current Armidale class patrol boats, with an anticipated displacement of up to 2,000 tonnes.

9.21 This concept relies on the use of modular unmanned underwater systems for both mine countermeasuresand hydrographic tasks. These systems are envisaged to be containerised and portable modules capable of being used in any port or loaded onto any of the Offshore Combatant Vessels or other
suitable vessels.

9.22 The future Offshore Combatant Vessel will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting roles, border protection tasks, long-range counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, support to special forces, and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood.

Nomad

I see now why you thought of the Gowinds. That could almost be written around them. The Dutch Sigma family is another possibility.

The only official government word on the last batch of F-35 is that a decision will be made in 2014. The decision is to either retain and upgrade the F/A-18F or purchase a further 28 F-35 (F/A-18F would then retire in 2020).

Planned deliveries are something like:
2013: 4
2014: 8. Decision on deliveries in 2019-2020 (28 a/c).
2015: 15. IOC with one squadron.
2016: 15
2017: 15
2018: 15. FOC with three squadrons.
2019: 15
2020: 13. Fourth squadron.

F-35B and UCAV have been mentioned in local defence magazines.

Outside of the USMC and RAF, the F-35B will be purchased by Italian Navy (22), Italian Air Force (40 F-35B along with 69 F-35A). Israel might purchase some F-35B as part of its options – they are concerned with having airfields closed down by Hamas rockets.

Has Spain ordered the F-35B yet?

As for the UCAV, nothing approaching fast jet performance are officially planned to enter service anywhere yet. Closest is the USN F/A-XX. A decision on whether this will be manned or unmanned will not be taken till 2015 and isn’t planned to enter service till 2025. Part of this is the X-47 demos.

[QUOTE=Ja Worsley;1430866]Are you trying to tell me that the 100 F-35’s that are already approved will be in two batches with the second (28 frames) not actually bought, but rather ammended to become X-47B’s? I don’t think so- read the White Paper and then compare that to the DCP and what is already on the DMO’s website… 100 F-35’s will be bought- 72 of those are to be A model! This is why I am asking about the other 28, I do know for a fact that the B model does hold interest in the ADF (who cares if it’s the RAAF or the RAN that operates them)- fact is, 28 F-35’s are yet to be accounted for!

I have read were the RAAF was looking at a squadron UCAV’s as a aircraft to under take high risk strike missions (I am still looking for the source).

I still don’t believe we will see F35B’s in the RAAF, while you are correct in that the DCP and White Paper both say 4 squadrons of JSF’s, the White Paper also states the Shornets should remain viable until at least 2020.

The DCP states a 4th Squadron of JSF’s will be acquired under Phase 2C (page 44) of AIR6000, Page 48 gives a basis timetable for First and Second Pass Approvals and IOC for every Phase except Phase 2C.

I wonder why?

I had a look at the Gowind design

You can’t be serious! Yes they look nice and they sure do pack a punch- but these are better off being replacements for the Anzac class than the Armidale class!

I looked at both the Austal MRV and the Incat LHT, while both are nice looking ships and I am in favour of supporting local design and manufacture, I must admit to a prejudice against aluminium hulled/superstructured ships after the Sheffield’s experience in the Falklands.

From The White Paper

“Offshore Combatant Vessels

9.20 The new vessels will be larger than the current Armidale class patrol boats, with an anticipated displacement of
up to 2,000 tonnes.

9.21 This concept relies on the use of modular unmanned underwater systems for both mine countermeasures
and hydrographic tasks. These systems are envisaged to be containerised and portable modules
capable of being used in any port or loaded onto any of the Offshore Combatant Vessels or other
suitable vessels.

9.22 The future Offshore Combatant Vessel will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting roles, border protection tasks, long-range counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, support
to special forces, and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood.
Defence will examine the potential for these new ships to embark a helicopter or UAV, to allow a surge
in surveillance and response capabilities without the need to deploy additional ships. This increased
capability will also ensure that major surface combatants are free for more demanding operations. “

I don’t believe either the MRV or LHT has the combat to under take offshore and littoral fighting roles as per the White Paper. (my bold above 9.22)

Nomad

…
I had a look at the Gowind design
…
You can’t be serious! Yes they look nice and they sure do pack a punch- but these are better off being replacements for the Anzac class than the Armidale class!…

Gowind is a whole family, not a single class. The currently offered variants go from 1000 to 2500 tons, which is not a practical Anzac replacement, even at the top end. They don’t necessarily pack a big punch: the options include lightly armed vessels suitable for fisheries protection, etc, with a work deck which can be used for deploying MCM drones. That may be what Nomad is referring to.

Look at the brochure (2 meg PDF).

Will the AU NFH be fitted with the RAST system? I can’t see in any of the pictures of it how it will be secured to the deck, although in some of the pictures floating around the net of NFH’s landing on Frigates, they (the frigates) have a grid fitted for a decklock (harpoon) type system.
I know that the RAST system takes up space in the frame for fuel but Aussie ships are already fitted with them.
Also can somebody please post a link to where the info on weight and avionic issues came from?

Cheers

The RAAF and Government have said that the first batch of Hornet replacements would be manned aircraft, the second batch may be unmanned.

IMHO it is more likely we will see a aircraft along the lines of Northrop Grumman’s X-47, before we ever see an F35B in RAAF colours.

Are you trying to tell me that the 100 F-35’s that are already approved will be in two batches with the second (28 frames) not actually bought, but rather ammended to become X-47B’s? I don’t think so- read the White Paper and then compare that to the DCP and what is already on the DMO’s website… 100 F-35’s will be bought- 72 of those are to be A model! This is why I am asking about the other 28, I do know for a fact that the B model does hold interest in the ADF (who cares if it’s the RAAF or the RAN that operates them)- fact is, 28 F-35’s are yet to be accounted for!

The White Paper suggests that Navy is looking to replace its Patrol Boats/MCM’s etc with a multi-role vessel that has more combat power than the current fleet of PB’s to operate independently in the green zone and as part of a TF/SAG in the blue zone.

I believe something like DCNS’s Gowind would be a good solution.

Actually the White paper acknowledges the short supply of vessels on the front line up in the top end, this is why they are looking at mission modular capabilities. Recently HMAS Leeuwin and Melville (our two main hydrographic vessels) have had to deploy under a patrol condition- they had their nice shiny white finish painted over and became warships in the standard storm grey like all other RAN Fleet units. The fact that these two vessels have an organic air element prompted the RAN and the government to include this capability on the next class of vessel for patrol duties! The recent surge in hostilities with Pirates has also raised the question about the pure stopping power of the 25mm Bushmaster gyro stabalised weapon aboard the current patrol fleet. When I did an interview a couple of years ago with the Commander of HMAS Wollongong III, he praised the weapon (as you’d expect) saying that this gun can shoot the rudder off an FFV with precise accuracy- this is a huge advancement over the Bofors 40/60 on the old Freemantle class! Thing is, the old Bofors had a bit more punch and the Bushy has the precision. What the navy want is a weapon that combines these two guns into one- with precision and punch, because the Pirates have some very heavy weapons on their side (mostly WW2 5.5″ guns and the likes, left where they stood after the war ended)! Sure they make their own ammo and yes 1 in 25 shots blows up in their face, but getting to number 25- who wants to take on such a big gun in todays standards?

I had a look at the Gowind design

You can’t be serious! Yes they look nice and they sure do pack a punch- but these are better off being replacements for the Anzac class than the Armidale class!

Incase you didn’t see the link to the MRV by Austral above, here are a couple of pics of this vessel…

Finally below is the Incat LHT I spoke of above and many times before (honestly, I would love to see this vessel in service-ANYWHERE)!

[/B]Ja

1. It states that 100 F-35’s will be bought, but only lists 72 as being of the A modelDoes this mean that the navy will get 28 B model planes?

The RAAF and Government have said that the first batch of Hornet replacements would be manned aircraft, the second batch may be unmanned.

IMHO it is more likely we will see a aircraft along the lines of Northrop Grumman’s X-47, before we ever see an F35B in RAAF colours.

2. 20 new OPC’s will replace the current fleet of ACPB’s, Hydrographic ships and specialist support vessels. The new ships to have in built modular mission equipment. Currently I know of only four types in the world that can fulfill this requirement- LCS 1, LCS2, Austral’s MRV and Incat’s Light Helo Transport Vessel (LHT). Given the merits of all involved, neither LCS will be looked at under the RAN’s plans, so this leaves just the MRV and LHT.

The White Paper suggests that Navy is looking to replace its Patrol Boats/MCM’s etc with a multi-role vessel that has more combat power than the current fleet of PB’s to operate independently in the green zone and as part of a TF/SAG in the blue zone.

I believe something like DCNS’s Gowind would be a good solution.

Nomad

Here you go, some pics of the NFH NH90

Dutch

Norwegian

French

And the Swedish Hi-Cab

1997 for me. I remember all the rumours of Kidd, Ticonderoga and Spurance transfers also!

Ah yes, I remember those as well- everyone was looking forward to them coming here but the government wanted new build vessels. I also remember the offer to have three Already Broke class transfered to us with a fourth thrown in to sweeten the deal, this one fell through because we NEED organic air cover- the ones offered to us only had the helo landing deck. I also remember the OPC back then, I still think we should have went ahead with that plan- Stupid Howard Government!

I’ve also heard 12 for Holsworthy. It depends on the different mixes quoted. July 2010 is for one in service at sea, with others to follow. You’ve probably already seen MRH90 photos with Army or Navy on the nose….

Yeah I have seen the pics of 002 (NAVY) and 003 (ARMY)- in fact if you look at the original post you can see that I posted a pic of 002 😉 Really not sure I agree with the camo on the Navy buses- I guess in time that will change! I was also wondering if you heard anything from your sources about the RAN getting more Helo transport once the LHD’s come on line? My sources have said that the RAN want their own machines because they don’t trust the Army on their new ships (this coming from the incident with the Blackhawk falling off the LPA), my sources have mentioned the Navy looking at the Hi-cab version like those being built for Sweden and Finland.

Oakey is combined Army/Navy training – three of the six naval MRH90 are supposed to be deployed at one time, which doesn’t leave a lot for initial aircrew training.

This emphasises my questions about more being ordered for the navy in fleet support role! If you take into account all deployed aviation for ships it breaks down like this:

1x Tobruk

1x Success

1x Sirius

4x (minimum) for LPA’s

Now if you take out Tobruk as being dockside (and it hardly leaves there these days :mad:) This still leaves all six employed at any one time. The two LPA’s are hardly ever home and when they are they only here for a few weeks before they are off again (They are our most used vessels). Sirius doesn’t have a hanger, so it’s helo will be shore based at FBW and Success’s helo would be over worked due to her being up in MEAO almost all the time. We do actually need more and soon.

At least 44 Penguin missiles have been delivered (and in stock a number of years back). At least the MU-90 is a dead cert for some of the European NFH customers. AFAIK The RAN wants medium range (Penguin or similar) and Hellfire missiles.

The MU90 will be a dead cert on any new Naval Combat Helo, I don’t see much problem intergrating the Penguin on our fleet, since IIRC, the Norwegians are also doing this.

About the common civilian misconception – during the mid 1990s the Army was actually the worst! You’d remember what a non-event the internal disclosure was when ADF policy changed? LOL

Ohhhhh yeah, I do remember that- I remember also when Sexual preference also got thrown out under the “Non Discrimination” laws- there was a certain PO who jumped at that one and fully announced that he couldn’t wait to pull into port to **** some boys! Needless to say that during my time, I only ever found one and he was very odd- he got done one day. I was sitting in the SCRAN hall with my oppos and we were reading the paper, and there was this pic of a person done from an Identity kit who was wanted for questioning over a certain incident in Frankston involving a minor- later that afternoon, the Police came screaming in with lights and sirens going, turns out, it was him after all! Such a shame.

1997 for me. I remember all the rumours of Kidd, Ticonderoga and Spurance transfers also!

I’ve also heard 12 for Holsworthy. It depends on the different mixes quoted. July 2010 is for one in service at sea, with others to follow. You’ve probably already seen MRH90 photos with Army or Navy on the nose….

Oakey is combined Army/Navy training – three of the six naval MRH90 are supposed to be deployed at one time, which doesn’t leave a lot for initial aircrew training.

At least 44 Penguin missiles have been delivered (and in stock a number of years back). At least the MU-90 is a dead cert for some of the European NFH customers. AFAIK The RAN wants medium range (Penguin or similar) and Hellfire missiles.

About the common civilian misconception – during the mid 1990s the Army was actually the worst! You’d remember what a non-event the internal disclosure was when ADF policy changed? LOL

Peter: I agree that “NO Official” sources say that there will be any B models, but all other “Official” sources do state that only 72 A models will be bought and that the “Official” total will be 100 bought- this is where I get my 28 B models from. I know that back when I was in the Puss, there was talk of buying B models (this was in 96-98). While I do see a small number as you say, going to ship board usage, 28 would give us two squadrons (805 and 808 with 10 each) as well as a training squadron (724 with 8 planes).

July 2010 for the first deployment of the MRH-90 Navy, that means that they will receive them as of next month if they haven’t started to already, after all, they need to work up on them and attain IOC all before deployment! As for the six at Holsworthy- I think I hear a higher number going there as a back up to the Anti-Terrorist group who have gotten their Blackhawks already. IIRC I read that the training for the MRH-90 was going to be done at Nowra and not Oakey (will confirm that).

Yes the OPC’s will be helo capable and also very highly possible with UAV support as well as the RAN are serious about intergrating this capabilty into frontline units especially along the top end with Piracy, people smuggling and drug trafficking becoming a higher priority now (God knows how many times we’ve stopped the Tampa returning). As for the number of helos, the latest report states that the number needed will be 24- but as you say, that number changes all the time!

The SCUP program does seem to revolve around avionics and radar rather than adding any new firepower to it. The new MU90’s will be intergrated on the AP-3C’s and not the Seahawks and any thoughts of Penguins on any helo have gone right out the window now (which leads me to ask- did we actually buy any stock of those and if so, can we sell them off?)

Air 9000 Phase 8 has actually been brought forward with it now up for second pass approval this month! This means that acquisition of a winner will now take place in 2010/2011 (contract signing with deliveries to commence 2012/2013). This gives the impression that the current fleet is in a bigger crisis than previously thought! If this comes to pass, then the favoured choice will be the Romeo’s as they are a majorly reduced risk compared to the NFH-90’s. The support structure as mentioned above is already in place! The swaying factor will be the total aim of the Air 9000 Program- “To reduce the amount of Helo’s operated by the ADF”. Now given that the Seahawk and Blackhawk are on the way out and the MRH-90’s are coming on line- this is where the strength of the NFH bid comes from. The first customer (The Netherlands) will receive their first machine this month with Norway and France set for not long after that. That being so, there is still major work to be done on the program in terms of:- First of type certification, ironing out the teething problems, working out weapons fits which each customer (it’s a given that Australia will want different weapons on their machines compared to those in Europe).

I’m glad to hear that someone else agrees with me on the Ordinary Seaman position- it really does make a lot of sence, I mean they sign up, see what life in the Puss is like then decide if they want to stay and where. I garentee (as would you given you and I share a common back ground), that when they get in and do a trip, they will see that it’s not all Yelling and screaming at you, nor is it off to fight a war straight away! Bringing back the OS position will actually dispell a vast amount of fears held buy the civilian world about life in the navy- especially that very common one (you know they one I’m talking about)!

While doing a bit of searching tonight, I came across a pic that I’d thought I’d share with you guys- An F-38B in 805Sqdn markings 😎

Regarding the F35’s, the 72 in the initial order are to replace the F/A 18A/B’s. The final 28(?) (it says around 100, not neccessarily exactly 100) will replace the 24 Super Hornets.

Regarding the Crew Numbers for the ANZAC replacements, the Hobarts will have a similar crew size to the ANZACs despite a much larger displacement, as do the UK T45’s (~180) with are also 7000t+.

Hopefully the ADF will acquire the NFH-90’s to complement the MRH-90’s rather then SH-60R’s since it will take the ADF to 4 Helo Types eventually. Tigers, NFH/MRH-90, Chinook, Training Helicopter.

1. The options are for F-35A. No official source mentions F-35B. The F-35B is one of the those rumours that refuse to die.

8. Yes the first 6 operational will be go to the RAN – first deployment due July 2010. However the training aircraft are to be delivered first. From 46:
24 with 5 Aviation Regiment (Army) at Townsville.
6? at Holsworthy (Army)?
6 with Navy at Nowra
7 at Oakey for Army/Navy training
3 depot maintenance

9. AFAIK the OPC will be helicopter capable? This would be one reason for increasing helo numbers. There is also the need for more naval aviation in any case. With 16 Seahawk the numbers were (these have changed several times): 6 on ships, 2 shore detachments, 6 training, 2 depot maintenance

The currrent plan is the Seahawk will run onto the retirement of the FFGs and will not undergo a major MLU. Seahawk Capability Assurance (SCAP) 1 will replace some obsolent components (2010/2011). SCAP 2 will do same through end of life (2012/2013) with radar and acoustics. Final retirement is due 2020-2025. MU-90 integration was cancelled June 2008 (although will probably occur in the future?). Penguin msl integration is currently not planned, but would take around 2 years if funded.

The new helos are due to enter service 2017-2019. From 24 AIR 9000 Phase 8 helos – 8+ would deployed (3 Hobart class, 8 Anzac – minus any for maintenance) -I’ve seen 9 ship flights, assuming 2 shore detachments, 6 training this leaves 7 spares (attrition, maintenance, etc).

A decision on AIR 9000 Phase 8 is due ~2015. Its likely to be either NH90 or MH-60R. MH-60R is the stalking horse/fall back. If the naval NH90 runs into problems (they are still struggling with weight and avionics issues), then the MH-60R (easy to integrate) would be selected and the naval NH90 passed to the Army.

ASW is highly perishable skill set, and the surface RAN is currently poorly equipped to deal with submarines.

Agreed on the Ordinary Seaman suggestion. They attempted something similar in the late 1980s during my time in. It worked, but as usual was canned.

28 seems a lot of F35B’s, since we will only have the two Canberra Class. (Unless the RAAF want some of them for non sea use.) I would imagine that no more than 7 -8 would be on each Canberra, and maybe 4 for training etc..

Damn that’s going to cost a lot:cool:

Interesting about the F35s maybe its a case of leaving options open and a small purchase of Bs will be studied?

A few nations seem to be interested in the B models outside of Harrier replacements, namely Israel. I think nations may be coming round to the view that STOVL can be useful in dispersing forces without a big shiny air base. I can see the potential there for the Aussies.

Damn that’s going to cost a lot:cool:

Interesting about the F35s maybe its a case of leaving options open and a small purchase of Bs will be studied?