T
The NG is comparable to the SH in capabilities and the SH are still ordered by the USN and will last more than 15 years to come.

Not in the slightest. For starters NG doesn’t even exist. Gripen DEMO does.

2nd, SH Block II is proven, in-service and has attracted international sales (NG has not).

3rd, SH Bk II has capabilities (HART, Towed decoy, dual cockpit HMS, internal gun on 2 seat variant etc) that have never even been implemented by SAAB on the Gripen and in some cases cannot be.

Someday the Gripen might come close to the capabilities present on the Super Hornet Bk 11, but they are nowhere near it, yet.

Fine, as long as you don’t call it a baby seal.

never
ever
call it a baby seal.

You can call it a seal if you wish. L-M don’t mind, they even find that whole “saga” quite amusing.

Afterall they created this:

Next I am sure we will hear that flight testing is over-rated.

Er no. Next you’ll hear that AA-1 is going to China Lake for live weapons firing tests after a few more flights at Fort Worth.

BF-1 and 2 will be back in the air within weeks on a regular basis and BF-1 will start doing in air STOVL work this coming Summer (Northern Hemisphere).

AF-1 will be conducting it’s first flight this Summer as well and CF-1 will be rolling out in the fall.

Have a nice day. 🙂

Just a (maybe silly) question besides the ongoing discussions … I wonder why only so few pictures of the prototypes were published !??

Any idea why … or better, where to find new ones ?

Deino

Plenty here brother. Plenty of fact here too. Unlike this site…

http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo.htm

While at the same time it is re-equipping heavily for conventional warfare, in the form of M1 MBT’s, SPH’s, attack helicopters etc……

1. Australia has maintained a tank capability ever since they were first invented. When obsolete they require replacement. I doubt you particularly understand how Army uses it’s tank capability, but it isn’t to fight the Soviets in the Fulda Gap…

2. SPH’s, this is a capability that is LONG overdue. Most nations in our region, are equipped with multiple launch rocket systems, towed guns AND self-propelled howitzers. If you expect Army to fight wars in our region, they NEED mobile artillery firepower. A few towed guns do NOT cut it.

3. Attack helicopters. The Tigers are actually replacing the UH-1H Bushranger attack helicopter capability and the Kiowa reconnaisance helicopter. Were these designed to fight “conventional warfare” too?

Apart from the long over due purchase of the capability likes of the C-17A’s, I have not seen too much in the way of cohesion / inter-service cooperation and operational support between the RAAF and Army

Look harder…

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/EDITIONS/4913/topstories/story5.htm

For while the long over due and much needed Caribou replacement program has already been postponed again and again, the army need for a true and versatile STOL transport aircraft (which would be most welcome in Afghanistan!) is to be Band-Aid fixed with the lease of a handful of Beech King aircraft. What a joke!

1. Caribou’s are entirely obsolete. There is not one airfield in Papua New Guinea that RAAF flies into that a C-130 cannot land on. Therefore, why does Army require a STOL aircraft capability?

The Caribou does indeed take off in a remarkably short distance, but then, it carries nothing to do this, so what is the point of it exactly?

The King Air is being used, to keep the 38 Sqn gainfully employed in the operating an aircraft business until a decision is made. Personally, Army needs more Chinooks and RAAF needs more Hercules and C-17’s.

A short ranged airlifter, that can lift ****** all loads is an entirely unnecessary additional platform for RAAF to manage, and one that offers few capability benefits and the only plus is a cost effective benefit that is offset by the need to continually maintain such a diverse range of miniscule sized aircraft fleets, in my opinion.

ex-US Navy Newport Class LST’s – HMAS Kaminbla and Manoora.
After all the RAN history and skills, the purchase of the bargain basement priced ships proved to be an expensive exercise, when it was discovered that they were full of rust, and need extensive and expensive work done to them to make them sea and operational worthy (this was on top of their extensive modifications so as to make them into the LPA’s they are today)

It was a bad decision alright. RAN proposed new-build vessels to Government and the proposal was rejected. The Keating Government, flush with excitement for “second hand deals” forced RAN into adopting these hulks.

It is a credit to everyone involved, that they are actually providing useful capability and excellent service today, despite the politically mandated acquisition, not because of it.

The ANZAC Frigate Program
Possibly the biggest and most expensive patrol bouts ever built!
Based on the West German Meko 200 Frigate design, the RAN agreed (with the Government of the day) to build and operate these potentially good ships in a poor-mans configuration with the fantasy that in time of war, they could be upgraded with the click of a finger.

1x 127mm gun, 8x Harpoon Block II SSM, 32x Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, 2x triple torpedo launcher for MU-90 torpedos, 2x Mini-typhoon 12.7mm guns and 4x flex 12.7mm guns, plus Nulka electronic decoy systems, chaff and flare launchers, make the ANZAC’s the most heavily armed patrol boats on the planet, in my opinion.

In reality they have operated for almost a decade without a combat effective ship-based helicopter (the helicopter that was to operate from it would be delayed and then canned altogether!).

Rubbish. Every single ANZAC operational deployment has seen an S-70B2 Seahawk, deploy with the ship.

Our service men and woman have been deployed into harms way in a class of ship, which for over a decade lacked an adequate CIWS or Point air defence missile capability – oh that’s if you don’t include the good will of the Australian Army who would be so kind to deploy their very limited number of RBS-70 PDSAM system onboard these ships to give them some form of air defence – but saying this what was defending army units???????????

Every single member of the RAN, would prefer 32x ESSM level of protection over ANY CIWS system in the world, ANY day of the week.

It is an unfortunate fact that the weight of the 32 ESSM’s, has reduced the top weight margin of the ANZAC’s so as a CIWS cannot be carried as WELL, but there is no doubt, ESSM is far more capable than any point defence or CIWS in existence. RAN’s ANZAC’s are far better protected with 32x ESSM, than the RNZN ANZAC’s which maintain the early Sea Sparrow missile and a Phalanx CIWS.

The RBS-70 has NEVER deployed on board an ANZAC. They deployed on the LPA’s – HMAS Kanimbla, which by the way, DOES have a Phalanx CIWS.

What does THAT tell you about the operational capability of a CIWS, exactly?

After all this effort, time and money, the RAN chose to aquire the Huon class minehunter (Based on the Gaeta class minehunters designed for the Italian Navy).

So what’s the problem? The current level of capability or the money spent acquiring it?

Collin’s class diesel-electric submarine program
Hell where does one start with this program????
I think the RAN was way over ambitious about the whole program – from Australia’s ability to construct such an advanced vessel, with no previous sub-building experience, to the RAN’s, want of U.S advanced sensors and electronics, incorporated into the existing Swedish design sensors and electronics systems, which was to become a operational / inter- phasing nightmare.
Compounding this over-ambisouse dream of the RAN, for the want of an SSN in a SS, was the enduring noise problem, which contradicted the entire concept of a modern submarine.
All in all, the RAN’s handling of the Collins class submarines has had a major impact on the RAN/ADF capability, moral, retention and recruiting in the submarine arm.
Way to much time and money have been spent trying to rectify (and save face) these poor management problems, that the ADF, has missed an opportunity of acquiring an additional option of two further hulls, or the opportunity to fit the class with AIP systems, which would have given the Collins class a vast improvement in operational performance.

1. How about starting with the FACT, that the RAN has one of the best conventional submarines in the world and POSSIBLY only bettered by the Oyashios, in Japanese service?

2. RAN trialled a Stirling AIP system on the Collins Class boats. The amount of space they took up, reducing capability in other areas, wasn’t worth the small amount of capability improvement it offered. The Stirling engines, RAN acquired, are still sitting on crates at ASC…

3. Performance since the fitting of the AN-BYG-1 combat systems has been tremendous. Lethality, added to the Mk 48 Mod 7 ADCAP’s is unbelievable.

Try reading this sometime:

http://www.abbeys.com.au/items.asp?id=113675

Absolutely fascinating stuff and a real insight into the Collins, rather than the crap pedalled in the Broadsheet media. Yes they had problems, but they are also just about the best Subs in the world, including Nukes…

SH-2G(A) Super Seasprites program
This was a program that I knew was to good to be true.
Firstly the bargan basement price of the ex-US Navy Seasprites which we payed raised my eyebrows, followed by the actual age of the design itself made alarm bells start ringing in my head (after all the US Navy retired its last Seasprite in 2001!!!).

This program started in 1994…

Then the bomb shell hit hit me like a train.
The RAN’s ‘Bling Factor’ struck again.
The RAN’s want for a design of the 1960’s to have the sensors and weapons capability of the newer and larger Seahawk fitted and operational was the final staw.
What the hell did they expect to achieve?
Instead in the end long after the New Zealanders had their Super Seasprite operational, the RAN were still hanger queens, in a thousand pieces, and many RAN officials and contractor enginners and technicians scratching their heads.
In the end the so-called cost-effective bargan, became another RAN management nightmare, the project was running six years over schedule, and its cost had blown out to A$1.1 billion, only to be cancelled in the end.
I for one always thought the then and ready to go small and combat efficiant Westland Lynx the design for the RAN’s needs.
Then again with the RAN’s track project management record, they would enevatably stuffed this too!

Did they stuff up the introduction to service of the Seahawk? What about the Seaking? What about the MRH-90?

The Seasprite should never have existed. Government refused to fund an additional Seahawk order, because the Seahawk’s could not have operated from the OPV project Government was fixated on (because Malaysia had shown interest in a joint project).

OPV was cancelled when Malaysia pulled out and Seasprite had already been approved and funded. It should have been cancelled and new-build Seahawks acquired, but if Government refuses to fund it, RAN can’t do much about it…

Hobart Class AAW Destroyer program
I must admit that I was very surprised (but not disappointed!) at the RAN’s selection of the small, lighter and cheaper Spanish based F100 design, over that of the American evolved version of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
I for one thought that the RAN, with political consent of ‘Sheriff’ John Howard would have went for the larger, heavier, more expensive and more complicated American design – so hats off to ever was the deciding factor!!!
Although it is still to early to both see and know just how this much needed capability class of ships will go in production and service, my greatest concern is the past governments and RAN’s want for the class to incorporate a Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) capability including carrying the SM-3 Blk1a and Blk2.
My biggest concern is that this ABM ‘Bling Factor’ will add both cost and complication to the design!

1. ABM capability is a growth option for AWD’s. It will NOT be part of baseline capability, so the AWD’s will be in-service before ABM capability is added, if in fact it ever is.

2. The AWD will be carrying 48x strike length Mk 41 VLS cells. These are capable of carrying SM-3 with NO modification required, whatsoever. (Out of interest, they are also capable of carrying Tomahawk CM with NO modification whatsoever…)

3. The remaining ABM capability is a software change to AEGIS combat system. It is a fairly minor, though not inexpensive change at a technical level. On a strategic level it will be a MASSIVE change.

Add to this my concern that due to its ABM capability, the Australian government may divert the classes intended primary role of Fleet Air Defence of a Task Force, to that of operating of the Australian coast to provide ABM duty.
It also worry’s me that with the added cost and complication of adding this ABM factor into the equation, the opportunity and want for the fourth hull of this class will most likely be ruled out as to expensive.

Relax. The Global Economic crisis will rule out the 4th, before ABM capability at a technical level will ever become an issue… :rolleyes:

As for the AP-3C Orion – I think this plane and its capability still has many years of life left in them.

Not without new wings…

I’m all for re-winging them, and if need be upgrading them.

They have a rolling upgrade program, called the Capability Assurance Program.

The most recently announced upgrade is the incorporation fleet-wide of the Star Safire HD EO/IR sensor system and associated solid state recorder and Link 16 transmit/receive capability.

Adding full motion, high definition EO/IR video/still images and an off-platform broadcast system is truly a massive enhancement.

As to new wings, we’ll see. RAAF has been studying this very issue over the last 12 months, hiring L-3 and Australian Aviation (who did the Kiwi P-3K re-wing job quite successfully) to conduct the study.

Unfortunately RAAF’s AP-3C’s may require quite a bit more than simply new wings…

I can just imagine the RAAF and RAN wanting the modern and shiny ‘Bling Factor’ Boeing P-8A, but at the end of the day the RAAF would not be able to replace the P-3 on a one for one with the P-8.
And one thing that the RAAF is going to need is numbers.
When it comes to ASW and MP, numbers will always be needed.

No, what is needed are 3 things.

1. Sensor coverage.

2. Response options.

3. Sustainability.

Whether these are provided by a single aircraft type or not is irrelevent.

The issue of the Global Hawk is a big disappointment – its capability and ability to send it into harms way will be a mistake not to utilize!

Agreed. RAAF and DMO most definitely have the capability inherent to introduce this into service, despite the current breadth of acquisition projects.

Government simply won’t fund it and have royally p*ssed off Northrop Grumman and the US Navy in the process.

Any chance of a “deal” on the Global Hawk has evaporated completely.

Finally at the end of the day I have always been concerned that the ADF as a whole has never really sat down and seriously discussed service-to-service what equipment / weapons systems are really needed to achieve a thorough and decisive defence structure to defend Australia.

Rubbish. ADF serves at Government’s directions. Each capability requirement for ADF is generated by the Tri-service Capability Development Group and submitted to the Minister via the heads of each service and ADF head-sheds.

For EACH single capability acquired, multiple capability options, along with ADF’s recommendations are provided to the Minister and he along with the National Security Committee of Cabinet, is the one that makes the final decision.

In many cases would like to see more of the ADF operation needs being evaluated more thoroughly and this need being put out as Request For Proposal (RFP) for tenders to meet this requirement, as opposed to the ADF’s tradition of adopting an existing weapons system / platform, which has to be modified extensively (which more time than not leads to delays, added expense and operational restrictions in the field!) to meet the ADF’s requirement.

Look at the recent major acquisitions, I think you’ll find the major “Australianisation” phase has run it’s course:

1. M1A1 – off the shelf acquisition, except for the inclusion of some TUSK elements, themselves off the shelf and minor Australian requirements – a refrigerator for cooling drinks, additional radios able to communicate with legacy Army radio systems and Australian specification camouflage netting.

2. MRH-90 – off the shelf, except for inclusion of additional radios able to communicate with legacy Australian Army radios.

3. Javelin ATGW – off the shelf.

4. F/A-18E/F Super Hornets – off the shelf, except for inclusion of “metric” gauges and ILS/NOS landing functions.

5. Tiger ARH, off the shelf, except inclusion of Hellfire, which has integrated so smoothly, that even France has acquired the system and radios able to integrate with legact systems.

6. AWD’s, off the shelf – Spanish F-105 design except for inclusion of RAN specified Horizon search radar, CIWS and in-service torpedo system. Hull, AEGIS, weapons, propulsion and major sensor systems all standard as per the Spanish specification.

7. C-17A’s, off the shelf.

8. KC-30A refuellers. First of class, admittedly, but the “standard” EADS boom, as already fitted to A310 refuellers, standard pod based system, already fitted to B-707 previously and standard EWSP and communications fit, as fitted to other in-service ADF aircraft, including C-17A’s and C-130J-30’s.

This trend is continuing, witness the cancellation and re-tender of the TUAV capability. The manufacturer of the I-VIEW changed the engine for the UAV, AFTER it had won the tender. Now it is being re-released for MOTS only. No developmental aircraft.

But I am a realist!
Not now or in the past (since WWII) has the Australian Government had the ‘balls’ or will to commit to such a way of thinking or supporting and encouraging an indigenous military industry, which could design and build tailor made equipment and weapons systems for the ADF.

Except Bushmaster. And ALR-2001 radar warning receiver. And Perentie long range patrol vehicles. And M72A6 SRAAW. And…

I’m sorry, as I thought I would never say it, but the ADF and its weapons acquisition programs must be scrutinized much closer and made accountable to keep the ADF on the tracks.

They are. Government has made ANAO and Defence conduct a FULL audit on EACH program EACH year and report through ANAO to Government…

This is especially more important now than ever with the giant rise and fast building and expanding conventional military forces (with the consent of their so-called political leaders!) within the Pacific region.
For I think that within the next 10-years the ADF will discover first hand conventional warfare on a scale it has not seen since WWII in the Pacific.

With who and for what? No-one including China has the slightest reason to be conducting conventional land warfare in SEA in the next 10 years.

One other thing I would like to see would be a bipartisan agreement by both major political parties (past and binding in legislation) in Australian to structure the ADF in a way that allows the ADF to concentrate on its primary task of defending Australia and its interests, instead of continuously shock upside down and forced to restructure and re-train every time one of the two major political party’s get into power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards
Pioneer

I thought you were a realist? 😀

Of all the measures they could take, surely this is the most sensible? What could possibly be the use of keeping all our submarines operational at the moment if we desperately need to save money and can only generate a crew for three of the six at any given time, and have low morale levels in the service?

Each Collins Class sub has a maximum manning complement of 58, and RAN maintains a shore crew of 36, who work on behalf of the entire submarine squadron.

RAN currently has 440 qualified submariners. It has a full wartime requirement of 660, which would allow for crews to be properly rotated.

Thus, if ALL the boats were somehow in the water, they could be crewed at present. What RAN does NOT have in it’s submarine squadron, is the “sustain” capability, inherent in the military mantra: “raise, train, sustain”. These crews cannot operate indefinitely.

However in saying all that, in a 6 sub fleet, at any one time;

1 sub will be in extended maintenance/upgrades (2 years or so in dry dock).

1-2 subs will be undergoing less extensive upgrades/maintenance, meaning that 3-4 subs is all that will EVER be operational, except perhaps for short-duration surge operations.

Our submarine squadron, like most other RAN FEG’s are mostly meeting the requirements placed on them by Government. What they can’t do is “surge” as they would need to do for full on warlike or warfighting duties, nor operate their boats for extended periods and bring in relief crews.

Sailors must have recreational leave. They must attend training courses, to keep their skills and capabilities up to date. They must have a posting cycle, to ensure they are professional military personnel, with a variety of operational experience.

The argument that we can “only put 3 to sea” is a fallacy and reducing the number of boats, might alleviate the crewing situation somewhat and save some coin, but it will massively affect our capability.

The remaining 3 or 4 boats, still need maintenance and upgrades, just as much as 6 boats do…

Australian Prime Minister Keven Rudd has slashed the Australian defence budget effectivly ending hope for a fourth Hobart class Destroyer.

No he hasn’t. He is swanning around Europe and the US, with the G20 ignoring him, and busily singing China’s praises, whilst effectively ignoring his responsibilities in Australia.

Other items on defence bill that have been effected are:

[LIST=1]
[*]Susspension of F-35 order, and possible cuts to the number ordered

Really? Prove it.

[*]Cutting the 3% defence increase

Actually the Defence Minister announced only last week, that the “3%” real increase is remaining.

[*]Mothballing the Collins Class subs

Wrong. It has been speculated that one or 2 boats, will be made non-operational, until RAN’s crewing situation improves.

[*]And delaying the P-8 buy

Wrong. Global Hawk was delayed, not P-8A.

There had been a lot of speculation here about buying a fourth AWD, but this is the first conformation we have of one actually having been ordered.

One was NOT ordered. It was only EVER speculated. You can’t cut what hasn’t been ordered or planned.

Same too with the P-8, till now only a speculation- perhaps our AP-3C’s will get the re-winging after all, but how this will work with the purchase of UAV technology is still a matter for debate.

Here it is in plain English:

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Fitzgibbontpl.cfm?CurrentId=8829

P-8A has NOT been deferred or cancelled, Global Hawk has. If a Journo can’t even get it right when Defence announces it in PLAIN ENGLISH, it says a lot about those who actually listen to them…

The F-35 order is an on going up and down project, to the point where the Australian people now really don’t care what happens with the machine. What is becoming critical is the replacement of the Hornets, by 2015 the planes will be at the end of their useful service lives and delays in this program have severe remifications across the board.

Supported no doubt by polls and research on these matters, I presume?

The Hornets are good until 2017/18. Find out what FLEI means, and what level the RAAF’s Hornets are at and do the maths…

Mothballing the Collins fleet would be a considerable money saver but a major loss in defence capabilities in terms of reccon and strike options. Sure the fleet has had it’s problems, but to give the whole game away to save money- lunacy.

No-one has ever discussed mothballing the entire fleet. This statement is ridiculous.

Another problem faced by the RAN is staffing, trained staff are way down on operational requirements with over 8000 positions in desperate need of filling. So in all, the cutting back may actually save the money required and also give the RAN a chance to build up it’s numbers.

Navy is only funded to man around 13,500 full time positions. Are you honestly suggesting RAN only has 5,500 staff?

I don’t think RAN has 8000 vacancy’s…