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: White paper orders huge military build-up!!!!!!!!!
Volkodav    4/25/2009 3:36:57 AM
Ummm wow! How accurate is this?

Patrick Walters, National security editor | April 25, 2009

Article from: The Australian

KEVIN Rudd is set to announce Australia's biggest military build-up since World War II, led by a multi-billion-dollar investment in maritime defence, including 100 new F-35 fighters, a doubling of the submarine fleet, and powerful new surface warships.

Play
12345Loading?Please login to rate a video.You can't rate an advertisement.(1 vote)

Biggest military boost since WWII
Kevin Rudd is set to roll out the biggest military build-up since World War II. 04/09 Sky News
Views today: 396Sorry, this video is no longer available.The new defence white paper will outline plans for a fundamental shake-up of Australia's defence organisation to ensure that the nation can meet what the Prime Minister sees as a far more challenging and uncertain security outlook in Asia over the next two decades.

China's steadily growing military might and the prospect of sharper strategic competition among Asia's great powers are driving the maritime build-up, which will see new-generation submarines and warships equipped with cruise missiles, and a big new investment in anti-submarine warfare and electronic warfare platforms, including new naval helicopters.

The white paper will consider the emerging non-traditional threats to Australia, including cyber security, climate change and its associated risk of large uncontrolled people movements.

Senior government sources say Mr Rudd has insisted that defence spending remain largely insulated from the Government's budget difficulties, but the Defence Department will still have to find at least $15 billion of internal savings over the next decade to help pay for the $100 billion-plus long-term equipment plan.

Mr Rudd said yesterday the delivery of the white paper was proving "acutely challenging as we work to defend ourselves from the global economic storm".

"It is the most difficult environment to frame the Australian budget in modern economic history. It is also the most difficult environment to frame our long-term defence planning in modern economic history as well," he told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce. "Nevertheless the Government will not resile even in the difficult times from the requirement for long-term coherence of our defence planning for the long-term security of our nation. This is core business for government. That is why we have forged ahead in our preparation of the defence white paper because national security needs do not disappear because of the global recession. If anything, those needs become more acute."

Funding pressures will mean the navy will not get a fourth air warfare destroyer, and the delivery of the first batch of the RAAF's F-35 joint strike fighters will slip by at least one year to 2014-15.

The huge cost of paying for the next-generation defence force, due to be detailed in the white paper and the forthcoming 10-year defence capability plan, will have little impact on the defence budget over the the next four years.

Apart from the air warfare destroyers and the F-35 fighters, most of the planned defence purchases will not have to be paid for until well into the next decade and beyond.

Mr Rudd and Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon are expected to release the long-awaited white paper as early as next week, with the more detailed 10-year defence capability plan due to be published by mid-year.

The naval build-up will be led by a planned 12-strong submarine fleet expected to replace the Collins-class boats from 2025. It will enable the RAN to deploy up to seven boats to protect Australia's northern approaches, including key maritime straits running through the Indonesian archipelago, at times of high threat.

The white paper will outline the requirement for a new class of eight 7000-tonne warships equipped with ballistic missile defence systems similar to the three air warfare destroyers already on order that will eventually replace the Anzac frigates.

A new class of 1500-tonne corvette-size patrol boats able to take a helicopter is slated to replace the Armidale-class vessels from the mid-2020s.

The more robust maritime force will also mean the RAAF's veteran AP-3 Orion fleet being replaced with a mix of at least eight P-8 Poseidon long-range surveillance aircraft, together with up to seven unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles, possibly the US-made Global Hawk, operating out of an expanded Edinburgh air base in South Australia.

The navy is also expected to acquire up to 27 anti-submarine helicopters.

Mr Rudd has foreshadowed the maritime build-up as pointing to the need for Australia to accommodate "huge increases in military spending here in our own region".

"If we are going to defend our sea-lines of communication to the rest of the world, we have got to make sure that we have got the naval capability to underpin that. And Australia must therefore have necessary maritime power in the future in order to give that effect," Mr Rudd said late last year.

As well as re-equipping with up to 100 F-35 fighters, the air force is expected to get up to six extra C-130J Hercules transport aircraft and a replacement for the Vietnam war-era Caribou light transport, expected to be the C-27J.

The $10 billion long-term expansion and "hardening and networking" of the army will continue with the regular army growing to about 30,000, including eight infantry battalions.

The army's Chinook helicopter fleet is expected to expand from six to 10 aircraft and the land force is expected to be re-equipped with self-propelled and towed artillery in the next decade.

The army will also acquire a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles from 2020.

The new white paper says Australia's defence force should be capable of taking the lead security role in Australia's neighbourhood, particularly the South Pacific, as well as having the ability to deploy military forces further afield.

Senior government sources say this year's white paper is a more broad-ranging and ambitious document than the 2000 white paper. It aims to give Australia more strategic weight and the Government more options when it comes to deploying military forces in the neighbourhood or further afield.

The white paper has moved defence doctrine back to a more regionally-focused approach firmly founded on the defence of Australia. It rejects the notion that terrorism and unconventional intrastate conflict should be a primary driver of the defence force structure.

The Rudd Government's focus on expensive war-fighting equipment underlines the Prime Minister's view that Australia must face up to a much broader range of contingencies, including the strategic consequences of inter-state conflict in Asia.

For the first time the white paper will address in detail electronic warfare trends, particularly the growing cyber security threat to Australia's national security network.

The Government is already investing millions of dollars to bolster Australia's cyber defence capability, led by the Defence Signals Directorate, and will invest even more heavily in the years ahead to protect critical infrastructure from cyber attacks already being mounted by a number of countries led by China and Russia. The Government is also moving quietly to bolster Australia's ability to mount offensive cyber operations.

The threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation in the Asia-Pacific will also be carefully monitored by Defence but the Government has ruled out any early development of a dedicated ballistic missile defence system for Australia. The biggest challenge to the blueprint remains the global economic crisis.
 
Quote    Reply

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

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
gf0012-aust       5/8/2009 5:47:46 AM
Navy's patrol boat, mine counter measures, hydrographic and oceanographic forces into a single modular multirole class of around 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels

The marine engineers involved with the minewarfare boats must be pi$$ing themselves laughing over that little gem.  We already had the best minewarfare vessels in the world and we parked them because of manning and running issues.

You can't make an all singing, all dancing OPV with minewarfare capabilities. - jack of all trades, master of none.

what ferking idiots 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/8/2009 8:46:02 AM
MCM, Hydrographic and Oceanographic vessels are excellent at what they do but are of little use in expeditionary or even short notice operations as they don't tend to be very deployable or very survivable. This is why the US is going down the path of LCS, MH-60S, plus the MCM robots deployed on the latest Flight II Burkes and why the UK is looking at the C3 concept. The aim is to have some level these vital capabilities available where and when required instead of the current situation where purpose designed platforms are along side at their home port instead where they are needed.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/8/2009 8:49:40 AM
Inside JHSV - Design Details Revealed
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/8/2009 10:30:05 PM

MCM, Hydrographic and Oceanographic vessels are excellent at what they do but are of little use in expeditionary or even short notice operations as they don't tend to be very deployable or very survivable. This is why the US is going down the path of LCS, MH-60S, plus the MCM robots deployed on the latest Flight II Burkes and why the UK is looking at the C3 concept. The aim is to have some level these vital capabilities available where and when required instead of the current situation where purpose designed platforms are along side at their home port instead where they are needed.

some fundamental issues at stake here.

hull design and signature integrity is critical for mine warfare. you cannot marry the technology requirements for organic minewarfare into a combat fighting hull.  completely different reqs.

similarly, the minewarfare and mine management philosophies of USN/RN/RAN/Canada are conceptually/idealistically different.

US timeline is do be able to shovel 25gb by 2015 over the air.  straight away that means a disconnect between "terran" data management and underwater.  Their maritime view is that they will grow the softwire solution for all their weapons systems.

RN/RAN and Canada to some extent are less ambitious.  We're staying with hardwire management due to respective concerns.  hardwire management automatically takes us back to hull design and integrity - and the massive single point  that a hybrid hull designed to sig manage underwater, sig harvest underwater etc.... is not useful or remotely desirable for a bluewater surface combatant.

its either one or the other - and I don't have confidence that the US can pull this off on a "3 course meal" - this is a "12 course meal" and we're still at aspirational levels.

Hybrids which have close role functionality have a better chance of working - but platforms with disparate  mission sets and opposing styles of operation are just opportunities to waste money and keep the private sector in business.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/9/2009 3:25:40 AM
Fair call, so basically if we want it to work we will need to start with a platform that is designed with MCM in mind from the start. I know our MCMV's have GRP hulls but Germany's Frankenthal class are fabricated from non magnetic steel, could Aluminium also be a suitable material?
 
Now lets say the RAN's new corvettes are designed from the outset for extremely quiet operation as well as with a very low magnetic signature, to make them suitable for use not only for MCM, but with an appropriate fitout, also for shallow water ASW. I know these aren't the only factors to make or break a MCMV design but could it be done affordably? 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/9/2009 4:12:25 AM

Fair call, so basically if we want it to work we will need to start with a platform that is designed with MCM in mind from the start. I know our MCMV's have GRP hulls but Germany's Frankenthal class are fabricated from non magnetic steel, could Aluminium also be a suitable material?

Now lets say the RAN's new corvettes are designed from the outset for extremely quiet operation as well as with a very low magnetic signature, to make them suitable for use not only for MCM, but with an appropriate fitout, also for shallow water ASW. I know these aren't the only factors to make or break a MCMV design but could it be done affordably? 

I guess I take a very catholic view of this.  ie.  design a vessel around its primary mission.  otehrwise, esp with hybrids, "jack of all trades, master of none" will rear its ugly head.

and if you look at australian ship yards on the east coast - and their performance to date (FORGACS, ex-Tenix/BAE, ex-ADI/Thales) then poking your eyes out with a pair of knitting needles is a safer bet to get a good result.

I'm not convinced of the merits of it.  Until we can have absolute confidence in the speed, reliability and security of our broad area wireless water network (the US vision) and/or the wired broaded underwater network (DSTO's current view) - and a much smaller sensor grid as a result of hardware and technology limitations, then core capability from the mother vessel remains.

If not, and we choose hybrids to save money, then you can bet your sweet bippy that any red element is going to engage in tactical "noblesse oblige" and root that vessel into next monday.... :) 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/9/2009 5:22:36 AM
Volkodav,
 
Exactly where did you source that pic?
 
I looked around the Austal site and it didn't look familiar.
 
It doesn't look like the MRV90 as it looks slightly larger. Perhaps I missed it on the site.
 
Curious.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/9/2009 6:48:15 AM
DB, its the shiny new front page for the Austal site.
 
My guess is its something they did up once they heard about the 20 offshore combatants in the white paper.
 
gf, I agree on ADI and Forgac but always thought that Tenix / Bae were pretty good. End of the day the offshore combatant concept seems to have been tailor made for Austal so I cant realy see the eastern states getting the contract. In the same line, unless ASC screws the poach on the AWD's, they would have to be the front runners for the ANZAC replacements.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/9/2009 9:14:00 PM

gf, I agree on ADI and Forgac but always thought that Tenix / Bae were pretty good.

I hope BAE do fix them up, but Tenix were also woeful.

Out of the current lot, Austal are the only game with a good executive and a good workforce.  ASC have the workforce but an ordinary executive and a somewhat ordinary middle management (much like BAE UK and BAEA was in the mid 90's).

FORGACS, Thales and Incat are absolutely woeful.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       5/9/2009 10:31:36 PM
 
Is there any feasibility in using the Future RAN OPV (Multi-Role -mine warfare mission module) on Expeditionary/Front line duty?
 
However maintaining the a couple of Huon Class (Say 2) in Naval reserve ( or mothballed) in case a DOA scenerio arises?  
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/10/2009 2:52:20 AM
ASC have the workforce but an ordinary executive and a somewhat ordinary middle management (much like BAE UK and BAEA was in the mid 90's).
 
Ty for the vote of confidence . I hear you and concur on the exec and middle management. Some areas are definitely improving with good appointments in recent times, however some of the succession planning leaves a lot to be desired. The situation where very long serving managers are choosing and grooming their own replacements as well as distributing allocated prof dev training according to their own whims rather than in the best interests of company is something that still needs to be addressed. We just need to hope that now that Greg has resigned that they can find someone who is keen to carry on with what Gumley started.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       5/10/2009 3:28:35 AM
 
Do you think that political considerations will come into play?
 
I.e :  Austral =  OPV (WA)
        ASC =     Future Subs (SA)
        Tenix =     Future Frigates (VIC)
 
Thus spreading the work and government defence dollar across three states.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/10/2009 3:40:33 AM

 

Do you think that political considerations will come into play?

 

I.e :  Austral =  OPV (WA)

        ASC =     Future Subs (SA)

        Tenix =     Future Frigates (VIC)

 

Thus spreading the work and government defence dollar across three states.


The abortion of an IP agreement ASC was forced to sign with Kocums may actually make it easier and cheaper to give the submaines to BAE and the new frigates to ASC, both at Tech Port SA. Vic will miss out but that serves them right for stealing the Gran Prix!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/10/2009 6:18:57 AM


The abortion of an IP agreement ASC was forced to sign with Kocums may actually make it easier and cheaper to give the submaines to BAE and the new frigates to ASC, both at Tech Port SA. Vic will miss out but that serves them right for stealing the Gran Prix!

I really can't see the  point in giving the subs to BAE - after all, it was the americans who fixed the problems on the astutes - the poms no longer have the expertise that they used to.  OTOH, they're still up there when it comes to skimmers.

the other problem however, is that ASC's reputation with the americans is pretty well shot - they'd rather put a firehose through the place.  I met any number of blokes from the US end of the business who despaired at the undeserved self importance from ASC executives and their views on how "smart" they were at sub design and building.

I'd rather see US expertise and know how in the subs.  skimmers I don't care about so much - but, the koreans and the japanese build at a better tech level than the poms though.... 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/10/2009 7:26:04 AM
It was the EB relationship with Bae and the actual building of the boats not the design I was thinking about. Besides when it comes to the design US just wouldn't be interested in working with the French or Germans but Spain would have to be in with a chance.
 
I did like the Navy Magazine sketch for a conventional Virginia incorporating a Jimmy Carter type wasp waist section forward though.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



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