Australian Defence Force debates

[PacificSentinel]

Release of final Defence Force Posture Review report << AUS DoD

Next stage of future submarine project announced << AUS DoD

Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan << AUS DoD



While I'm happy they've FINALLY got on with the Subs, I'm really off that the Self-Propelled Artillery will be dumped to help pay fo it.

[BELGRAVE]

Originally Posted by PacificSentinel

Release of final Defence Force Posture Review report << AUS DoD

Next stage of future submarine project announced << AUS DoD

Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan << AUS DoD



While I'm happy they've FINALLY got on with the Subs, I'm really off that the Self-Propelled Artillery will be dumped to help pay fo it.

Yes, pity: I rather liked the idea of the Samsung Thunder (K9).

Still, I suppose maritime matters must come first.

[Achtung Baby]

The axing of the self propelled artillery is not the end of the world, having the CH-47s airlifting the current towed arty is good and portable... although I would consider the BAE Archer the best option if given a choice, they can fit inside a C-130.

The delay of the first 12 F-35s is somewhat disappointing, but I guess, and hope any bugs in the system will/or should be gone by the time we receive them. Would this give us an airframe with Block upgrades beyond the 12 currently ordered, who knows!

Keeping the 12 sub commitment is a huge investment, and I welcome it.... but the $200m study to decide on locally built or imported subs makes me scatch my head.

[andrewza]

Using Air to transport towed Artillery will take helicopters away from other jobs and it will be a strain to supply them with ammunition. I would like to see some G6 52 for Australian. But yes the navy is more imported for a island nation. But could Australia handle 12 subs.

Only 12 new fighters. Will they supplement the old ones or replace them.


Dose the Australian air force have the means to transport a SP (or any other heavy vehicle) or do they rely on there allies.

[kuma]

Originally Posted by andrewza

Only 12 new fighters. Will they supplement the old ones or replace them.

The Classic Hornets and newly acquired Super Hornets may probably suffice until the F-35s become available.


http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...d-5a466a891917

F-35 vs F/A-18E/F: Australia Punts on Both Posted by Robert Wall 12:14 PM on May 03, 2012

Australia is holding off on buying the initial batch of operational F-35s. For some time, that was expected to be good news for Boeing, but that no longer looks like it is the case...
That is bad news for Lockheed Martin, which is looking for international buyers to offset U.S. deferals. But Smith also had bad news for Boeing. "My current advice is that the life of type of our 71 classic Hornets and our 24 Super Hornets is sufficient for our air combat capability,” while acknowledging the issue was still under study and a decision will be taken by year-end.

[Achtung Baby]

Originally Posted by andrewza

Using Air to transport towed Artillery will take helicopters away from other jobs and it will be a strain to supply them with ammunition. I would like to see some G6 52 for Australian. But yes the navy is more imported for a island nation. But could Australia handle 12 subs.

Only 12 new fighters. Will they supplement the old ones or replace them.


Dose the Australian air force have the means to transport a SP (or any other heavy vehicle) or do they rely on there allies.

I didn't mean the towed guns should be carried exclusively by helicopters, the portability of such weapons is the key factor I'm after. As for self propelled guns, the G6 is a good platform but it's heavier than the Archer. I'm not in favour of tracked artillery, the need for transporters to carry them is logistically heavy... leave that stuff for the MBTs. Australia bought 16 German MAN TGA 8x8 tractor trucks for the M1. That's a lot of equipment to move if your weapons have tracks. Plus toss in the recovery vehicles, fuel and resupply trucks...

[andrewza]

G6 has wheels. But yes it is heavy.

[Capt AFB]

Originally Posted by andrewza

Using Air to transport towed Artillery will take helicopters away from other jobs and it will be a strain to supply them with ammunition. I would like to see some G6 52 for Australian. But yes the navy is more imported for a island nation. But could Australia handle 12 subs.

Only 12 new fighters. Will they supplement the old ones or replace them.


Dose the Australian air force have the means to transport a SP (or any other heavy vehicle) or do they rely on there allies.

Australia has purchased 4 or 5 C-17 aircraft to help with the heavy lifting. They have been operational since late 2006.

With the retirement of their F-111, I understand that F/A-18 E/F SuperHornet being purchased by the Australian, as a mitigating measure, have been wired so that they can be easily transformed into G models (Growlers) for SEAD once the F-35 come into service.

I was thinking the same thing about having enough sailors to crew 12 submarines.

[wellsfargo]

ADF New white Paper to cost $ 200 m
Afterburner on the back burner ……… the Joint Strike Fighter. It won’t be coming back for years (two years)……….

Cancellation of Self-propelled artillery and New Subs from ????????? Europe or Australia (the Collins Class is a failure (more in dry dock than at sea)…..


$4b defence cuts ….Are we following the US in down-sizing defence…..

“Attack with aggression, but always have a plan of retreat”

[Galland]

the SPG artillery only made sense in the Howard years when we seemed determined to have a heavy mechanized expeditionary force that would use the C-17/ Canberra class LHD's to transport them anywhere the US saw fit, sow e could engage in coalition warfare. Right know, SPG have no place in defending our North West Shelf and should definitely not be pursued. Anyways, they are just targets for any nation in our North who posses Chinese/Russian/US precision guided munitions, better to invest that money into more important projects right now...

[andrewza]

And towed guns are not a target. Actually the ability to shoot and skoot means SP guns are more likely to survive.

[Destroyer25]

Originally Posted by andrewza

And towed guns are not a target. Actually the ability to shoot and skoot means SP guns are more likely to survive.

Artillery isn't a priority for the Aussies though. The chances of them being involved in major land warfare are slim right now. Naval and air force capabilities are far more important right now.

[PacificSentinel]

Minister for Defence – Budget 2012-13 Defence Budget Overview << AUS DoD

Budget 2012-13 Defence Capability << AUS DoD

[Galland]

Originally Posted by andrewza

And towed guns are not a target. Actually the ability to shoot and skoot means SP guns are more likely to survive.

..i direct you to read the post in full; i alude to the fact that a SPG capability is unnecessary and the money for that should be put to better use in capabilities suited to the unique challange of defending the North West Shelf.

..however, your comments regarding the advantages of SPGs over conventional towed artillery systems, i agree with...

[andrewza]

Australians need a good MPA and maritime strike air craft. Sub are nice and all but a waist of money if you get more than you can handel.