The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Radical Plans for the ADF
VGNTMH    6/27/2008 8:36:16 AM
On Strategy Page Australia we often discuss replacing one type of fighter aircraft with another, or the merits of one class frigate over another. With a defence white paper in the offing I thought it might be opportune and interesting to see if anyone had any truly radical or revolutionary plans for the ADF. Not just replacing one asset or piece of equipment with another, but radical restructuring, procurement, or personnel initiatives for the ADF?

I have half a dozen ideas, but here is one to get the ball rolling:

I would combine the RAN and the RAAF into a new "Royal Australian Maritime Defence Force" (RAMDF)!

The logic and thinking behind this is as follows:

1) Australia is a maritime nation.

2) Many roles of the ADF are maritime in nature, where maritime is defined as something which operates over, on, or under the sea.

These roles include:
? Border surveillance and protection, that is stopping unauthorized people coming to Australia over or on the sea
? ASW and SLOC protection
? DOA against amphibious assault
? Regional Force Projection over the sea
? Deterring possible regional enemies over or from the sea

3) All of these maritime roles involve both sea and air platforms, and indeed some land based (JORN) and space (satellites) platforms as well.

For instance:
? Border protection involves JORN, surveillance aircraft, patrol boats and perhaps helicopters
? ASW and SLOC protection involves maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters, frigates, and submarines
? DOA against amphibious assault involves strike aircraft and submarines
? Regional force projection involves transport aircraft and LHDs, as well as the land force being projected
? Deterring a regional enemy could involve strike aircraft, submarines, or cruise missiles

4) Maritime defence forces have been split on a largely platform basis between the RAN and the RAAF since 1921 or thereabouts, and the two services are both primarily organized along platform lines. That is the RAN is defined or delineated as being responsible for the surface ship, submarine, and maritime helicopter platforms and the RAAF is delineated as being responsible for the land based fixed wing aircraft platforms.

5) In this maritime environment and for these maritime services, "combat systems", "combat systems integration", and "Network Centric Warfare" are becoming more and more important.

By combat systems I mean electronic systems which:
? Take information from sensors (radars, sonars etc)
? Add navigational and mapping information to the sensor information
? Build a "situational picture database" of contacts detected by the sensors
? Assemble information about these contacts and try and classify them
? Visualize or display this information
? Possibly share this information with other platforms (data links etc)
? If necessary take action to attack these contacts with weapons (missiles etc)

For instance this definition could cover all of the following:
? AEGIS firing SM-2s and ESSMs
? Wedgetail AEW aircraft controlling F/A-18s or F-35s
? Assembling an ASW operating picture from information provided from frigates, submarines, P-3C Orions, helicopters etc and initiating action by one of these platforms

These "combat systems" are central to any operations conducted by either the RAN or the RAAF.

6) Meanwhile, both the RAN and the RAAF are "dominated" or "controlled" by the platform "drivers", seaman officers in the case of the RAN and pilots in the case of the RAAF. That is these two services have a "platform driver centricity". I get the impression that this is especially the case for the pilots in the RAAF.

7) Because of the platform delineation and driver centricity of the RAN and RAAF, I would assert that:
? The RAN and the RAAF focus on their own platforms rather than the wider picture
? The focus is on platforms (eg an AEGIS AWD) or groups of platforms (eg F/A-18 + Wedgetail + MRTT) which belong to the one service and which contain all of the combat systems and weapons needed for a task, and that it might be better to take a NCW approach with sensors, combat systems, and weapons on different types of platforms.
? Each service argues in favour of their own assets, that is the RAAF argued in favour of land based fast jet aircraft and against the CV aviation of the RAN in the 1970s and 80s.
? Combat systems are not integrated to the best degree
? The careers of "combat systems people" are limited (Has a non seaman officer ever headed the RAN? Has a non pilot ever headed the RAAF?)

(Am I correct in these assertions?)

8) I would also assert that, in a political sphere, there has been a history of angst, poor coordination, and outright political conflict between the RAN and the RAAF. (To be fair ? this is maybe less so now than in 1944 (trying to find U-862) or in the 1960s and 70s (arguments over HMAS Melbourne).

9) Meanwhile, technological change is:
? Decreasing the roles of "platform drivers".
? Greatly increasing the importance of "combat systems" and NCW.

10) Therefore, why not merge the RAN and the RAAF into a "Royal Australian Maritime Defence Force" (RAMDF), remove inter service political angst, and focus very much on "combat systems" and NCW rather than platforms?

11) The advantages of establishing a merged RAMDF could be:
? Increased focus on combat systems and systems personnel
? Improved cross platform combat systems integration
? Reduced inter service political angst
? Possible cost savings
? Increased emphasis on vital roles currently split between services (e.g. ASW and SLOC protection)
? Increased focus on assets which are vital for the ADF and Australia but not the primary focus of a service (i.e. the service platform drivers), such as the C-17s and P-8s in the RAAF and, to a lesser extent, the LHDs in the RAN.
? The more rapid acceptance and introduction of non traditional platforms (UAVs, Tomahawks, F-35Bs, JLENS)
? We might finally get some longer ranged or deployable aviation assets to accompany the RAN on regional Army deployment or convoy escort work (Wedgetails integrated with AWDs, F-35Bs).
? Clear delineation of the ADF into (a) High technology, capital intensive, computer system focused, maritime, and (b) Land based, rifleman focused, components.

12) The platform drivers could still have their own branches within the RAMDF, but their branches would no longer be paramount.

The branches of this new RAMDF could be: something along the lines of:
? Combat Systems
? Propulsion engineering (after all, all jet aircraft, turbo props, helicopters, and most ships are all gas turbine powered!)
? Ordinance and weapons systems (although this should perhaps be under combat systems?)
? Pilot
? Seaman
? Other/logistics/medical etc

13) A common ranking structure could be established, especially as the RAAF ranks are based on the RAF, and these were originally based on the RNAS, which is based on the RN like the RAN.

Does anyone think this RAMDF idea has any merit?

Could we see a Wedgetail combat systems officer or an ASW tactician heading the RAMDF and the ADF!

Bring on the day of "systems people" rather than "bus drivers" such as seaman officers or pilots! (That is going to get me into trouble!)
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

SCisback       6/27/2008 9:21:03 PM
"Could we see a Wedgetail combat systems officer or an ASW tactician heading the RAMDF and the ADF!

Bring on the day of "systems people" rather than "bus drivers" such as seaman officers or pilots! (That is going to get me into trouble!)"
 
Umm, Seaman Officers are the "systems people".
 
Learning to drive is the first step. After a few years of consolidation of their Bridge Warfare Certificate with Officer Of the Watch time, a Seaman Officer will specialize as either a Principal Warfare Officer, Submarine Officer, Mine Clearance Diving Officer, Hydrographer, METOC, or even a Pilot or Observer (airborne tactician).
You will not get anywhere near Rear Admiral rank if you have not specialized.
 
The seaman officer/warfare branch is very broad and diverse. It is much more than just bus drivers. It includes all aspects of naval warfare, everything you mentioned. But it does all start by learning on the bridge driving the big grey porsche.
 
Most of the flag officers are PWOs. Trust me they have spent plenty of time in the Ops room sweating over a combat systems console with circuits linked to a dozen different units.
 
 
As for the idea, I think the current system works just fine.
 
Canada tried something similar to your proposal with the "Canadian Forces". It didn't fix any of the pains, it just created more problems.
They do not actually have a "navy", they have Canadian Forces Maritime Command. Wbhatever way you look at that, it sucks.
 
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       6/28/2008 3:14:27 AM
What about a Royal Australian Expeditionary Forces...?  -Designed not replace existing services only to complement them.
 
RAEF - Royal Australian Expeditionary Forces ( Mini- MEU/Rangers)  -2000 troops -responsible for providing force projection and rapid maritime/airborne deployment in our region,combined-arms task forces with limited air and naval organic assets.
Expeditionary force and Rapid decoyment
 
Commanded by Special operations command / New Expeditionary HQ facilities/barracks RAN Cairns
 
Supported by other services .(where required)... particularly the navy/air force... 
 
As this force is maintained at high state of readiness to respond to regional emergencies, it allows elements of army/navy/air force reduce readiness potentially reducing costs,improving recruitment and allow basing close to population centers.... which in turn leads to improved moral etc ...
 
 
Quote    Reply

VGNTMH    Expeditionary Forces   6/28/2008 6:09:49 AM

What about a Royal Australian Expeditionary Forces...?  -Designed not replace existing services only to complement them.

RAEF - Royal Australian Expeditionary Forces ( Mini- MEU/Rangers)  -2000 troops -responsible for providing force projection and rapid maritime/airborne deployment in our region,combined-arms task forces with limited air and naval organic assets.  


Isn't 4RAR already a high readiness, rapid reaction, deployable by air or sea, Ranger like force? Maybe not a mini MEU. But if 4RAR was transported by C-17, supported by a few M-113AS4s, some Tiger ARHs, NH-90s, and a few guns with Excalibur, and perhaps a company of 1RAR, then that is a capable regional expeditionary combined arms force?
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       6/29/2008 5:09:28 AM
True to some extent, however they lack the indepenant doctrine and true combined force structure and specially training and peacekeeping methods required for such a force...... I suspect...
 
Perhaps if you also added this lot to the mix : some SP 120mm mortar and HiMARS,AAV, MV-22 Osprey etc  
sourced some naval assets IE: F125 Frigate, LHA(modified), MRV-Upgraded,  FAC/Corvette, AIP SSK , 1 AUX
 A400M, UAV , F-35B , MRH-90 , 1 Wedgetail / 1 Tanker .......
Source Navy/airforce and military/federal police personal...  (overall target personal spread would be 45%Army/25%Navy/15%Air force/10%other/5% Special forces)  - Then force structure established ... 4RAR could probably take it on....the land component role...
 
(LHD remain navy ships but provide supports RAEF where needed) - F-35B flown by RAEF pilots
 
 
You wanted Radical...........
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/29/2008 8:00:48 AM

True to some extent, however they lack the indepenant doctrine and true combined force structure and specially training and peacekeeping methods required for such a force...... I suspect...
 

there's a force structure difference between rapid reaction, expeditionary and long term peacekeeping.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       6/29/2008 8:29:29 AM
Point taken.....
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

VGNTMH    STOVL   6/29/2008 10:42:04 AM

Another of my rather radical plans for the ADF would be to replace part of the RAAF?s CTOL fast jet combat aircraft force with S
TOVL aircraft, that is F-35Bs.

These F-35Bs:
* Would not be quite as effective as CTOL equivalents at land based CTOL DOA or CTOL coalition operations
* Would have several advantages over CTOL aircraft, mainly under the sub heading of greatly wider applicability
* Would result in a ?cascading sequence of efficiencies? within the ADF.
* Would increase the degree of jointness within the ADF in general and the RAAF in particular
* Could still be operated by the RAAF (or the RAMDF!) to minimize political angst

Not Quite as Effective in CTOL Roles
F-35Bs will be not quite as effective as the CTOL F-35A variant due to:
* Less room for internal munitions
* Less internal fuel

Both of these because of the space and weight taken up by the lift fan.

But they will have the same:
* Stealth
* AESA
* Electro Optical sensors
* Networking
* Weapons integration

So the capability gap between STOVL and CTOL aircraft will be much closer with the F-35. This is unlike the F/A-18A/B/C/D and AV-8B generation of aircraft, where the STOVL aircraft was much less capable than the CTOL one.

And in the case of DOA missions, F-35s of any variant will:
* Carry the JASSMs and Harpoons externally, mitigating against the smaller internal munitions capacity of the F-35B
* Be almost entirely dependant on tanking anyhow, again mitigating against the smaller internal fuel capacity of the F-35B

So the differences between the F-35A and F-35B will be minimalized in the DOA scenario anyhow.

In the unlikely event of anything DOA wise ever happening, F-35Bs could be deployed in the same fashion as F-35As. In the meantime they can make themselves useful in other roles and areas!

And the lower munitions carry capability of the F-35B is becoming less and less important in the days of PGMs. You no longer need to carry dozens of 500kg bombs to be useful!

Wider Applicability
F-35Bs would be able to do everything that the existing RAAF CTOL fast jet combat aircraft force can do, plus at least three
other roles, providing:
* Air defence to RAN convoys or amphibious task groups outside the range of land based CTOL aircraft
* CAS for ADF regional deployments outside the range of land based CTOL aircraft
* Air support for coalition operations from allied CVs or CVLs where no land bases are available (though it is true that F/A-
18Fs and F-35Cs could operate from CVs if trained to do so)

That is the main reason why F-35Bs should be acquired for the ADF is that they will be more useful!

In particular because of their greater range and persistence, coming from their forward deployability.

Cascading Sequence of Efficiencies
And if STOVL jets were/will be part of the ADF, this could result in a cascading sequence of efficiencies and cost savings ...

What I mean by this is:
* If F-35Bs or SHARs and NH-90 or Seaking AEW were available for the RAN, would the AWDs and the SM-2 upgrades for the FFGs
really have been necessary? ESSMs and CIWS yes, and SM-3 for BMD if this is decided on, but surely not SM-2 for area air defence!
* If F-35Bs or AV-8Bs were available for the Army, would the argument in favour of Tiger ARHs and Excalibur/SPGs be as strong?

That is money expended on STOVL jets might save money in other areas!

Increased Jointness
The presence of F-35Bs would also engender an increase sense of jointness in the ADF in general and the RAAF in particular.
The  RAN and the Army would know that the RAAF would be there with them, even far away from land bases. And some of the RAAF would be organic to and embedded with the Army or RAN, and so would hopefully learn more about the Army and RAN like the USMC pilots do.

STOVL CVL ability of the LHDs
And before anyone says that the LHDs are not designed to be CVLs and don't have the jet fuel bunkerage, maintenance
facilities, munitions magazines, and air traffic control ability to operate F-35Bs ....

A bit of vision and flexibility please!

What you say is probably correct to a degree!

But:
* We are not talking about carrying and supporting 24 or 36 F-35Bs on a LHD! Imagine what contribution a flight of say six F-35Bs could make to a regional ADF deployment or the air defence of a RAN convey!
* The LHDs already have jet fuel bunkerage for days of operations by 16 NH-90s or Tiger ARHs.
* Maintenance facilities could be containerized and stored in the vast vehicle decks of the LHDs
* Accomodation would not be a problem
* How much munitions bunkerage would you need for 100 AMRAAMs!
* Extra jet fuel could be stored in jettisonable wheeled tanker trucks like the USN did in 1942. If the CV/LHD was hit or an inbound strike was detected, ditch the tanker trucks! (eg Yorktown 1942 at Midway and Hornet at Santa Cruz ..)
* Jet fuel could even be carried in containers in the well deck, if in danger, flood the well deck and submerge the containers!
* Air traffic control and fighter direction could be provided by an ANZAC, an AWD, a Wedgetail, a RAAF forward air traffic
control radar on the LHD, or by fitting a radar (SMART-L?) to the LHD! I am sure this is doable!
* The Spanish are plannig to operate AV-8Bs and perhaps F-35Bs from their LHDs
* Even if F-35Bs and possibly AEW capable V-22s couldn't fit down the lifts of the LHDs, who cares! Operate from the deck like 
the CVE HMS Audacity or the USN super carriers do half the time!
 
And if some @@$$%% idiot removes the ski ramp from the LHDs I will scream!

Vision of what STOVL Airpower could do for the ADF
For a vision of how useful STOVL jets could be for the ADF in a long range, maritime, partly amphibious environment, read RN FAA pilot Sharky Ward's book about the Falklands.

He did:
* Air Defence
* Recon
* CAS Strike
* Maritime Strike
 
And that was with the tiny / poorly equipped / not very capable Sea Harrier which was vastly less capable than the CTOL aircraft of the day (F-15, F-16, F-14, F-4, Tornado, Mirage etc)!
 
Conclusion
STOVL F-35Bs would be superb:
* Multi role
* Deployable
* Useful in all circumstances
* Joint

Assets for the ADF.

A superb implementation of air power in general! A superb implementation of air power for the ADF in the extremely long distances and maritime environment of the Pacific!

I want them for the ADF!

A bit of vision please!

 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       6/30/2008 12:22:05 AM

What about a Royal Australian Expeditionary Forces...?  -Designed not replace existing services only to complement them.

 

RAEF - Royal Australian Expeditionary Forces ( Mini- MEU/Rangers)  -2000 troops -responsible for providing force projection and rapid maritime/airborne deployment in our region,combined-arms task forces with limited air and naval organic assets.

Expeditionary force and Rapid decoyment

 

Commanded by Special operations command / New Expeditionary HQ facilities/barracks RAN Cairns

 

Supported by other services .(where required)... particularly the navy/air force... 

 

As this force is maintained at high state of readiness to respond to regional emergencies, it allows elements of army/navy/air force reduce readiness potentially reducing costs,improving recruitment and allow basing close to population centers.... which in turn leads to improved moral etc ...

 


Australian Expeditionary Forces/ Australian Offence Forces (AOF).........hmmmm.........Its days like this when I wish we were spain.........CVL, LHD, 6 AWDs and 6FFGs.......and Marines.
 
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       6/30/2008 1:51:59 AM
How about the USN Aviator model (btw much larger than the RAAF)? Flight officers spend a few years (3yrs?) in 'fleet' or then rotate for a 'shore tour' (further education, staff postion etc) for a few years then back to 'fleet'.
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       6/30/2008 1:55:08 AM

How about the USN Aviator model (btw much larger than the RAAF)? Flight officers spend a few years (3yrs?) in 'fleet' or then rotate for a 'shore tour' (further education, staff postion etc) for a few years then back to 'fleet'.


Good mix of air and naval warfare
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy