A backwards SP wish-list anybody?

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

VGNTMH 11/16/2008 7:23:19 AM

I am surprised that no one has contributed to this discussion!

How about I start with this list:

(This list is not a list of what I would cancel, but a list of what projects I think would be at risk ...)

1) Self Propelled Guns, getting the lightweight, shorter ranged, and unprotected M-777s with Excalibur but no SPGs
2) Fewer and later F-35 JSFs, de risked and justified by the F/A-18F purchase
3) No replacement for cancelled I-View TUAVs
4) No direct replacement for Caribous, instead arguing that the MRHs would allow the CH-47s and the C-17s would allow the C-130Js to replace what the Caribous did
5) Cancelling the re raising of 8/9RAR, arguing that "at least we are getting a separate 7RAR"
6) Cancelling the third amphibious/RORO ship
7) Forgetting about a fourth AWD
8) Upgrading/ASMDing/CEFARing only some of the ANZACs, leaving the others basically as "patrol frigates"

Quote Reply

hairy man 11/16/2008 5:50:46 PM

I have to agree with that list, although I think (6)is the least likely to be cancelled. It will however probably be delayed.......

Quote Reply

Gecko 11/16/2008 9:36:57 PM

I have to agree with that list, although I think (6)is the least likely to be cancelled. It will however probably be delayed.......

If anything I think (6) is the second most likely as its role can be "poorly/politically" agued away when HMAS Sirrus and Sucess get replaced (Number one is the F-35 cut to 75 aircraft).

Great list! With most of the other programs a choice dosen't need to be made for some time, or can be delayed so I wouldn't expect the current government to make a descion when it can be differed to another term. The only exception to that is a 4th AWD. We may hear about it this term if SA isn't falling labours way closer to poll time.

If I had to make the choice now I would go 2, 6, 4, 5, with the reaminder all about equal.

I will also add:

A small cut in the P3-C replacement.

A reduction in Land 106 (say only half get the upgrades)

A delay or reduction in Land 121 if possible (however, if the ecomomy goes belly up anything thats makes alot of local jobs will be hard for any government to reduce so it may actually be brought forward)

Quote Reply

Volkodav 11/17/2008 3:47:30 AM

JSF cut to 24-36 F-35C models to serve as a silver bullet strike fighter force, while retaining the SH's and replacing the remainder of the legacy bugs with 36-48 Gripen NG's.

Can all planed upgrades on the Blackhawks pending their replacement with MRH-90.

Cancel the ANZAC upgrade and bring forward its replacement which will incorporate evolved systems intended for the ANZAC's

Sell our upgraded FFG's to who ever the US will let us sell them to and replace them with an extra 1 or 2 AWD's

Can the logistics ship in favour a couple of Austal Cats.

Replace the land 17 SPG with a M777 mounted on a Copperhead 6x6.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 11/17/2008 4:24:20 AM

Thanks for getting this one up and running VG, I thought it was dead in the water.

Anyway, my approach to the current budgetary difficulties would be as follows. Note that I'm assuming that that the problems will last 2 to 3 years so this would obviously change if it was shorter or longer.

1. Cancel the M-113 upgrade. We should be getting proper IFVs to replace them anyway so we should soldier on with the un-upgraded versions for a few years

2. Delay:

a: The decision to purchase the extra AWD. We wouldn't be getting it till close to 2020 anyway so that doesn't matter.

b: The decision on the third sealift ship for the same reason.

c. The purchase of 26 of the 100 F-35's. The SH's can cover the gap and it would allow us to benefit from later blocks in the early 20's.

d. The replacement of the Hamel and the M-198. As an ex-gunner I hate to say this but these can soldier on for a while with new ammo and sighting systems so it isn't a priority.

e. The C-130H replacement. These are 30 years old but a cargo type that has had a decent overhaul can last a lot longer than that.

f. The Carabou replacement (after retiring the Bou's). We have enough airlift for now and we can cope with rotary.

g. Any new ASW helecopter that is on the horizon. We have 16 Seahawks and 16 spots on our frigates, so they will do for the moment.

h. The Orion replacement. The P-3's will be ok to soldier on for another couple of years.

i. Any new Chinooks that we were planning on getting. We are getting heaps of NH-90's so they should hold the fort for now.

3. Keep

j. The Bushmaster purchase going. I hate saying this because I don't think the Bushie should ever have gotten off the ground but since we are hellbent on equipping our Army with them we may as well doing so during the tough times if we can, as the money spent will boost the local economy. They provide an export opportunity as well.

k. The CEAFAR fitout on the ANZAC's and associated accessories. It is too important a project to ditch and will also produce dividends for the local economy, perhaps even with exports.

l.The re-raising of 8/9 RAR. Global economic turmoil is if anything likely to increase the need for peace enforcement/keeping troops for low to medium level ops in our region, so we need the extra capability. Times of rising unemployment are also good times to be recruiting in.

4. Buy

m. Modern IFV's for 5 and 7 RAR as a priority. The idea of our troops having to get around in an RPG rich environment in the clapped out M-113's appalls me, yet it is quite possible that it could happen in our region in the next couple of years. We can at least afford to get some second hand refurbished Brad's or Warriors to protect them properly. We'd probably get some good ones too as a result of defence cuts elsewhere.

5. Retire

n. A regular ARA Cavalry regiment and put their ASLAV's into storage. As has been pointed out before on this board we don't need two force recon regiments so it would be a reasonable economy measure. We could then split the remaining regiment into independent squadrons between the ARA Brigades.

6. Lay up

o. Two Collins class subs. We can only keep three at sea anyway with the forth being used for training and as a surge capability when necessary.

I believe there are projects to update our air defence system and propellent manufacturing capability. I don't know enough about them to comment about whether or not they can be delayed.

Quote Reply

Raven22 11/17/2008 6:48:03 AM

They'd want to be quick if they want to 'cancel' 8/9RAR. 8/9RAR already has over 200 soldiers, and their own vehicles and equipment etc. By early next year there will be a deployable company group capability, with a full deployable battlegroup capability by 2011. In reality it's pretty much too late to stop it being re-raised - it would take a lot of political balls to lay the colours back up after only 6 months.

There's no point cancelling the M113 upgrade either. Theres already a couple of companys worth that have been delivered, with lots more coming through the production line. All the money has alredy been spent - cancelling now would just be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

5. Retire

I know this is only because of your weird personal prejudice against wheeled AFVs, but why? Army wants a third ASLAV regiment in Townsville - for what possible reason would you disband one? The money has already been spend on all those ASLAVs and the training and equipment for 2.5 cavalry regiments. Disbanding them would save a pittance while taking away a significant slice of army combat power. It is silly.

Quote Reply

DropBear 11/18/2008 12:07:32 AM

JSF cut to 24-36 F-35C models to serve as a silver bullet strike fighter force, while retaining the SH's and replacing the remainder of the legacy bugs with 36-48 Gripen NG's.

Not sure why getting a couple of dozen Naval JSF variants and a couple score Gripens would actually save any money.

Especially considering that the C-Model would cost more than the CTOL JSF and the capabilties of the Gripen are on par with our legacy Bugs anyway.

Curious.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 11/18/2008 5:30:07 AM

Not sure why getting a couple of dozen Naval JSF variants and a couple score Gripens would actually save any money.

Especially considering that the C-Model would cost more than the CTOL JSF and the capabilities of the Gripen are on par with our legacy Bugs anyway.

The C has greater range and payload than the A also a stronger structure which one would think would improve fatigue life. It would also be purchased far later than the F-35A's, so long after the current financial situation has turned around.

The Gripen NG is a generation ahead of the Legacy Bugs with its AESA radar and sensor fusion, it is also certified with a wide range of current generation US ordinance. Its greatest advantage is its low purchase and through life costs which would be enhanced through its engine compatibility with the SH.

The SH will give us an edge regionally for a decade or so and will be ideal for conversion to various support and force multiplying roles after this. The Gripen NG is significantly cheaper to buy, own and operate than either the SH or F-35 while remaining a highly capable combat platform in its own right, in particular when operated in conjunction with complimentary combat types (SH), AEW and tankers. Operating SH's and Gripens together will give us a first rate air combat force through to 2020 at significantly lower cost than an all F-35 or mixed F-35, SH force. The F-35C (or future enhanced model) would then be acquired around 2020 to take over the top tier strike fighter role from the SH allowing us to retain our edge.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 11/18/2008 6:10:09 AM

Swedish marketing is better than swedish functionality - how many repeat customers outside of sweden go back to swedish combat aircraft?

as for cheaper through life costs - one of the things that the swedes excel at is screwing the customer on the maint. - if you don't make money on the sale (and nobody really does) you get it on the roundabout.

I'd rather see 100 shornets than 100 gripens - and we all know how much I love the Shornet. :)

Quote Reply

Volkodav 11/18/2008 6:29:35 AM

Swedish marketing is better than swedish functionality - how many repeat customers outside of sweden go back to swedish combat aircraft?

I'd rather see 100 shornets than 100 gripens - and we all know how much I love the Shornet. :)

I agree to a degree however Hungarian Gripens have impressed on exercise with NATO in Italy. I would never want to see it as our only combat type, but as a compliment to other leading edge types it would be ideal.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Volkodav 11/18/2008 7:44:25 AM

Operating SH's and Gripens together will give us a first rate air combat force through to 2020 at significantly lower cost than an all F-35 or mixed F-35, SH force. The F-35C (or future enhanced model) would then be acquired around 2020 to take over the top tier strike fighter role from the SH allowing us to retain our edge.

The Heritage Bugs aren't due for retirement until 2015-2018 so if you directly replaced them with Gripens you would only be getting 2 to 5 years out of them until your 2020 intro for the SH. The alternative of buying Gripens earlier would just bring forward the cost of replacing the SH's the exact opposite outcome to the potential savings that we are discussing in this thread. Any benefits in O and M costs from the Gripens vs the Hornets over the early part of next decade would be far outweighed by the purchase price over that period.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Raven 11/18/2008 8:10:07 AM

5. Retire

As rich people say "watch your pennies and your pounds will look after themselves". When you are on an economy drive you can't turn your nose up at a "pittance" because all those pittances that we spend on the non-essentials add up to a substantial amount that could go to getting/keeping stuff we really need.

On the M-113 upgrade if the money is spent then that is bad luck. However if it isn't all spent and there is wiggle room in the contract then we should get out of it for the remaining vehicles ASAP AFAIC.

On the Cavalry regiment, I'd amend my suggestion to saying that we should disband one regiment and move the vehicles to the reserve cavalry units. Currently they are operating land-rovers in the reconnasiace role which is pretty sub standard. We could have them operate the same ASLAV's as the regs at a lower wage/fuel cost and maintain the capability to deploy them, aliebiet over longer contingencies. Each regiment might even keep a "high readiness" troop that can be used at shorter notice, like the ARES grunts do now.

The other benefit would be that it would free up 400 or so black hats to be moved into other roles. That would mean that we could forgoe recruiting 400 newbies with their basic training and some of their IET training expenses. What is the manning situation like in 1 Armd Regiment and in the Cav regiments at the moment? If it is anything like that of the rest of the Army then I'd imagine that they could accomodate a lot of the extra troops. Others might not mind the chance to retrain into a new job. The remainder could be deployed as ARA Cadre staff with the newly ASLAV equipped reserve units to increase the level of training there whilst being available for rotation with the remaining Cav regiment if it is on ops. It's a much more effective use of resources.

As for whether or not we need 2 or more regiments of Cav for our current deployments into the sand pit, one regiment can rotate a squadron through any deployment which is the most we need to be able to do. I know we sent 40 vehicles during the Iraq deployment but we have more Bushmasters now so why would we need to send all those ASLAV-PC's to shift the grunts? At the most we would need to send a squadron of ASLAV 25's for escort duties and fire support.

BTW, I'm unaware of any plans to turn 3/4 Cavalry Regiment into an ASLAV unit as it has only recently recieved its one squadron of Bushmasters. If you want to direct me to a source on the matter I'll be happy to accept it, otherwise I'll take the claim with a grain of salt.

Quote Reply

Raven22 11/18/2008 8:49:18 AM

So you want to take hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the equipment off the ARA and give it to the Reserves to continue to run. That would save zero dollars, and would decrease Army capability by ten percent. An excellent suggestion... Giving eqipment to the Reserves is the worst way to save money imaginable. If you really want to save money, take all heavy equipment off the reserves, as they provide essentially zero capability as formed bodies anyway. This is essentially what has happened, and why the Reserves have lost their M113s and arty guns.

So you want to take 400 trained ASLAV crewman, take all their vehicles off them, and tell them to go do something else? That sounds like an excellent idea for retention. Why put the ARA soldiers into the reserve units to give them a deployable capability? Why not just keep them in an ARA cav regt so they can do the same thing, and at greater than troop level?

It's a much more effective use of resources.

No it isn't, hence why not a single person in Army has suggested it. It is a really, really dumb idea.

The source was the RAAC corp conference earlier this year. Basically everyone of LTCOL and above talking shop. The decision was that Townsville would recieve a squadron of ASLAVs, but it is up to government to decide.

Quote Reply

DropBear 11/18/2008 6:53:06 PM

The greater range is helpful but not at the increase in unit cost per frame. I'd say it would be cheaper to offset the range gain by operating an additional 1-2 gravy strokers if that was a critical mission consideration.

Quite. The NG Gripen has more advanced systems than our current Bugs, however, what I meant to say (twas in a hurry) was that as the flight performances and physical size isn't far removed from what we have now in the Bug, then it wouldn't seem like much of an improvement if one was to purchase them to directly replace the Bugs.

Kinda like replacing Mirage III with Bugs and then replacing Bugs with Mirage 2000.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 11/19/2008 8:51:29 AM

Typical ARA arrogence WRT the Reserves. The Reserves can't confidently jump into a conflict immediately as formed bodies but that isn't their job. Their job is to provide reinforcements for large, long term operations which require multiple rotations. That implies a proper work-up and they would therefore be quite capable of providing individual replacements or formed bodies under this instance. Reservists and Nashos did quite nicely in previous conflicts so anybody who dismisses them now is frankly just displaying personal prejudices. We don't need two or three ARA cavalry regiments available at short notice so the role for the reserves is obvious. The opportunity to have a HRR component is a bonus

As for loosing their guns, yes, the story that I heard from within the corp was that there were concerns that they couldn't train to a sufficient capacity. I believed it at the time but on reflection it seems wrong. We had a couple of GRES Bombadier number 1's in charge of our guns when I was in 1 Field and they did their job very competantly. Its one of the more responsible jobs in the Army for a two striper as well .... theres a bit more at stake when you are lobbing a bomb that can land anywhere within an 11.4km radius than there is in patrolling a section or commanding a glorified SUV. I'd be quite happy that the GRES could meet their brief.

As for the plan not saving any money that is bullshit. A major part of the reason for having GRES is that not paying them full time makes them cheaper than the regs. They also use less fuel and stores as they train less often.

That's the one great thing for organisations about a pending recession, your employees all of a sudden have a lot less options when it comes to leaving. This is especially the case when you only have a non-transferable skill like armoured car driver. I don't know how old you are but I suspect that you are a bit younger than me and don't remember what it was like in the last recession. Welcome to the brave new world where you are a seller in a buyers market. The ones of you with brains who have had their fun doing donuts in 8WD's, would take the opportunity provided by a plan like this to corp transfer and learn a skill that is marketable in civvie street.

As for the idea of using ASLAV crewmen as ARA cadre staff in reserve units, its not a new one and you will find that it actually suits a lot of the ARA who get deployed to those units. In particular it would provide people with the opportunity for postings near their home town for a few years. A lot of guys who are over Darwin, Townsville or Brisbane would probably jump at the idea, so I see it as being a positive for recruitment and retention.

Finally I'm sure that even if a few regs did throw a hissy fit and leave, the prospect to work on some better gear would definately improve recruitment and retention of reservists.

I'd be interested to know if the decision was just make by the Black Hat's to ask for the extra gear or whether the Army hierachy had agreed to it. Those are different things. Anyway there is nothing stopping the Army splitting the remaining Cav regiment between the 3 ARA Brigades under my suggested plan.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

	News As History - January 9, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us