Carlton Supporters Club

Social Club => Blah-Blah Bar => Topic started by: DJC on April 02, 2022, 02:11:25 am

Title: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 02, 2022, 02:11:25 am
The Defence Department's acknowledgement that the AUKUS submarine deal is going to cost us $5B in payments to France before we even put a down payment on our new submarines got me thinking about how much of our defence budget is wasted on poor contract management and inappropriate purchases.

The Defence Minister recently announced that the MRH-90 Taipan multi-role helicopters were to be replaced by Sikorsky Black Hawks and Sea Hawks after the Taipans were found to be unable to perform the roles they were purchased for.  In fact, the Taipans were purchased to replace our Black Hawks and Sea Hawks.  In other words, we are replacing the Taipans with the helicopters they were intended to replace!

It was previously announced that our Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopters were not fit for purpose and will be replaced with Boeing Apache Guardians, a helicopter that was in service before we chose the Tiger.

A significant part of our defence budget is going to the acquisition of F-35 Lightning multi-role, supersonic, stealth fighters.  They may well be the real deal but we forked out a lot of money to help with development.  On top of that, the F-35B version has vertical take off and landing ability and would be be a significant force advantage if deployed on our Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

Back on land, the Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle has been purchased even if it can only meet one of the Army's requirements for offensive firepower and anti-missile capability.  Then there's the Hawkei tactical vehicle that's currently withdrawn from service because the brakes don't work.

Of course, there have been some excellent military equipment purchases in the recent past but shouldn't we expect that all of our defence expenditure produces material that's fit for purpose and is state of the art?
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Thryleon on April 02, 2022, 09:49:34 am
Government departments make stupid finance decisions all the time.

They almost spend for the sake of it.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 02, 2022, 01:14:48 pm
Government departments make stupid finance decisions all the time.

They almost spend for the sake of it.

They also make excellent decisions and get more bangs for their bucks.

Sticking with Defence, the decision to purchase M113 armoured personnel carriers can’t be faulted and the same can be said for the last three generations of tanks, the Bushmaster PMVs, Landrovers, Unimogs, patrol boats, destroyers, frigates, Hornets, F111s, Hueys, etc.

Problems seem to arise when we’re after something off the drawing board or want to modify an existing design to suit a real or imagined requirement.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 02, 2022, 02:19:27 pm
These are panels made up of military personal and bureaucrats they are not primarily political decisions, and the noise often comes from those who fails to win the tender.

No one solution is perfect, and most decisions come with compromise.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Thryleon on April 02, 2022, 11:32:30 pm
They also make excellent decisions and get more bangs for their bucks.

Sticking with Defence, the decision to purchase M113 armoured personnel carriers can’t be faulted and the same can be said for the last three generations of tanks, the Bushmaster PMVs, Landrovers, Unimogs, patrol boats, destroyers, frigates, Hornets, F111s, Hueys, etc.

Problems seem to arise when we’re after something off the drawing board or want to modify an existing design to suit a real or imagined requirement.

I agreed with you.

They waste money.

Now which is it. Do they do it well or don't they?
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Baggers on April 03, 2022, 09:31:26 am
They also make excellent decisions and get more bangs for their bucks.

Sticking with Defence, the decision to purchase M113 armoured personnel carriers can’t be faulted and the same can be said for the last three generations of tanks, the Bushmaster PMVs, Landrovers, Unimogs, patrol boats, destroyers, frigates, Hornets, F111s, Hueys, etc.

Problems seem to arise when we’re after something off the drawing board or want to modify an existing design to suit a real or imagined requirement.

Totally agree, David. In fact there is much about the Aussie -- with limited resources and small population -- military that is deeply admired by other nations, even setting examples. This reputation has been built over many, many decades under both major political parties.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 06, 2022, 12:06:28 pm
Australia is already well down the track to having a hypersonic weapons platform by accident, having spent many years in collaboration with NASA on space planes / launch platforms with transonic / hypersonic capability. I suspect that AUKUS see this as potentially a hypersonic cruise capable missile as apparently many problems of transitioning between subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic flight have already been addressed by the research, math done now it's an engineering gig.

One has to wonder what the researchers will think when AUKUS hijacks the existing research and turns it into another weapons project. It's going to be bitter sweet for some, they'll get the funding they wish they had always had, but it won't necessarily translate to the new hypersonic public access transport system they had hoped for!

Of course the next step might well be a hypersonic weapons or surveillance platform.

A lot of it will go dark, blacker than my heart! :o

For those interested in some of the background, it's a project between UoQ and NASA, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161117-australias-hypersonic-spaceplane-for-a-new-space-race

Oddly enough, I've worked with some of these people in the past, it turns out that R&D into additive manufacturing via kinetic spray requires the design of de Laval spray nozzles that just so happen to be ideal starting point for scramjets and hypersonic propulsion. I can tell you they won't be happy if the research gets restricted.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 06, 2022, 12:20:13 pm
I agreed with you.

They waste money.

Now which is it. Do they do it well or don't they?

That's the quandary Thry; our defence purchases are often state of the art, fit for purpose and good value.  Then there are the purchases that have cost blow-outs and land the troops with gear that's not up to the job.  How do we get it so right ... and so wrong?
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 06, 2022, 12:37:56 pm
On The Project, it was claimed that the armed UAV program has been dumped. Bad timing, given that drones have proven very effective in Ukraine against the Russians. In the event of a hostile amphibious invasion taking advantage of remote coastline areas, you'd think UAVs would be very effective in disrupting advances on populated areas. And they'd be a lot cheaper than F35s.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 06, 2022, 01:15:12 pm
In the event of a hostile amphibious invasion taking advantage of remote coastline areas, you'd think UAVs would be very effective in disrupting advances on populated areas. And they'd be a lot cheaper than F35s.
It's interesting, they are certainly effective, but maybe not as cheap as people think. A military grade drone, one that is comms secure and hardened against hacking, EMP, laser, etc., etc., can cost million$ For every F35 there would be dozens or even hundreds of drones required to do the same job, modern fighter aircraft are really a platform, so a simple comparison is not really valid.

Also, I note that launching drones is not simple either, not from the technical perspective but from a tactical perspective, the smaller drones do not have ranges measured in thousands of kilometres. As you launch a drone it comes up on / over the horizon as a bright RF source, launch too many from one location and it's like putting a pin on the map for your enemy to reference. So generally they have to be transported and launched from diverse locations.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 06, 2022, 01:35:27 pm
UAVs operate in tandem with aircraft. If the other side dominates the air, then drones would be picked off pretty quickly. That's the remarkable thing about the Ukraine war: everybody assumed the Russians would quickly dominate the airspace but Ukraine's fighter pilots and missile defence systems have ensured the Russian fighters are occupied with other threats.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 06, 2022, 02:24:06 pm
I believe one of the main reasons for the F35 being favoured is it's ability to remain stealthy while dynamically acting as a mobile CAP Command Centre for dozens or even hundreds of drones. But these smaller drones still have to be launched within range of a target, in Ukraine that might be OK but keep in mind Ukraine is smaller than NSW. (For those confused by this when looking at a map, keep in mind the normal map projections are neither linear or to scale for some places look smaller while others look bigger.)

I'm very anti-foreign ownership of air fields in WA and NT, simply because just one large air transport can land and launch dozens of hundreds of drones in minutes and cripple air superiority over that area in just minutes.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 06, 2022, 02:56:10 pm
On The Project, it was claimed that the armed UAV program has been dumped. Bad timing, given that drones have proven very effective in Ukraine against the Russians. In the event of a hostile amphibious invasion taking advantage of remote coastline areas, you'd think UAVs would be very effective in disrupting advances on populated areas. And they'd be a lot cheaper than F35s.

Which armed UAV program?

We have the Triton UAS (based on the Global Hawk) that, with the P-8A Poseidon, replaced the venerable Orions (based on the 1950s Lockheed Electra turbo-prop airliner) in the maritime surveillance and anti-shipping role.

The MQ-28A "Loyal Wingman" (they could have called it David Glascott), now known as Ghost Bat, is the Super-Hornet, F-35 force extender.  Its new name was recently announced at a naming ceremony at RAAF Amberley and the aircraft has now completed three test flights.  I suspect that it would cost us a packet if we were to pull out of the joint design/construction project with Boeing ... but it is defence procurement.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 06, 2022, 03:07:10 pm
The MQ-28A "Loyal Wingman" (they could have called it David Glascott), now known as Ghost Bat, is the Super-Hornet, F-35 force extender.  Its new name was recently announced at a naming ceremony at RAAF Amberley and the aircraft has now completed three test flights.  I suspect that it would cost us a packet if we were to pull out of the joint design/construction project with Boeing ... but it is defence procurement.
Although Loyal Wingman is a drone, it important to highlight it is not what people think of when they talk about drones, it's basically a 2/3rds scale pilotless fighter jet / robotic wingman costing $20M a piece. Cheaper than a fighter jet and no human life is at risk and it is not constrained by human flight limits. It really is what an associate described as the F35's angel.

FYI;
F35 = 15m long
LW = 11m long

Most people think about smaller sized gadgets launched of a tank or some other mobile armament, and these smaller gadgets are the devices having the major impact in Ukraine.


Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 06, 2022, 03:37:01 pm
Yes, the unmanned aircraft used by the major powers are a little different to the drones that folk use for aerial photography.  The Australian Army's UAVs are small recce/surveillance aircraft without an offensive capacity but it would be relatively simple to modify  UAVs like that to carry explosives.

The Global Hawk is probably the most famous unmanned aircraft system and it is 14.5m long with a wingspan of 40m.  Even at that size, its payload is limited to 910kg (the Super Hornet's payload is 8,000kg).  The "flyaway" price of a Global Hawk was $130M in 2013.  We have eight Triton UAS and, as they are modified for maritime surveillance, I suspect that they are a little more expensive than your standard Global Hawk.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 06, 2022, 04:02:16 pm
We have eight Triton UAS and, as they are modified for maritime surveillance, I suspect that they are a little more expensive than your standard Global Hawk.
I saw the early version of the Triton at the Melbourne Airshow years back, they are rather impressive and had the Global Hawk on the tarmac next to it. Triton was significantly chunkier build and I gather this reflects it's potential payloads, Wikipedia claims they are dimensionally the same but I doubt that, I suspect they have just used the Global Hawk data for the Trition page.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on April 06, 2022, 05:46:55 pm
UAVs operate in tandem with aircraft. If the other side dominates the air, then drones would be picked off pretty quickly. That's the remarkable thing about the Ukraine war: everybody assumed the Russians would quickly dominate the airspace but Ukraine's fighter pilots and missile defence systems have ensured the Russian fighters are occupied with other threats.
Russia havent deployed their best jets/pilots on mass as yet, their commanders dont want to risk them after losing a SU34 early in the conflict to the Ukraine anti-aircraft missile systems which as you described have proven very adequate.
Its the same with their best troops who have been kept back as well, Putin thought his conscripts and armored columns would do the job but they have also failed with the infantry not so keen to engage the Ukranians on the ground and leaving their tanks exposed to very good anti tank weaponry supplied by the British in the main.
Ukraine were hard hit when they split from the USSR and had to give up their nukes and airforce which included a decent air fleet of bombers which would have been very handy today. Lot of their Nukes were in silo's which would have been a major deterrent to Putin as would those bombers which could carry nuclear payloads as well as conventional bombs.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 06, 2022, 11:26:23 pm
Russia havent deployed their best jets/pilots on mass as yet, their commanders dont want to risk them after losing a SU34 early in the conflict to the Ukraine anti-aircraft missile systems which as you described have proven very adequate.
Its the same with their best troops who have been kept back as well, Putin thought his conscripts and armored columns would do the job but they have also failed with the infantry not so keen to engage the Ukranians on the ground and leaving their tanks exposed to very good anti tank weaponry supplied by the British in the main.
Ukraine were hard hit when they split from the USSR and had to give up their nukes and airforce which included a decent air fleet of bombers which would have been very handy today. Lot of their Nukes were in silo's which would have been a major deterrent to Putin as would those bombers which could carry nuclear payloads as well as conventional bombs.

In fact, the Russian troops Putin sent into Ukraine are volunteers, not conscripts.  Apart from poorly maintained vehicles and logistical problems, Putin's forces have largely failed because Ukraine's air defences have held up very well and, without overwhelming air superiority, the ground forces are vulnerable to well-equipped Ukranian forces fighting on their own territory. 

The tanks deployed by the Russians are primarily 1970s vintage T-72s and T-80s (the latter designed and built in Ukraine) and they have been next to useless in the face of an onslaught of mainly British/Swedish Javelin anti-tank missiles.  The next generation T-90s, a development of the T-72, have fared little better and the Russians' 21st century T-14 Armata MBT is so unreliable that it cannot be deployed.

Czech Republic T-72s are now being sent to Ukraine and Russia's numerical superiority in MBTs is slowly being reversed.

NATO would be pleased in the knowledge that its more sophisticated MBTs and anti-tank weaponry would make mincemeat of the Russian armoured columns.

Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on April 07, 2022, 08:28:07 am
35% of the Russian army are conscripts 18-27 year olds forced into national service for 1 year, Putin's elite national guard, elite paratroops, navy seals etc have not entered the fray. Putin has even been sending 60 year olds into battle armed with old rifles from WW2.
Don't think you will find too many genuine volunteers given the Spetsnaz and Rosgvardiya commanders don't want to be involved and have told Putin they will be staying home.
My son in law is Ukranian and his family back home say there are Russians fleeing from death squads who are shooting deserters.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 07, 2022, 10:09:55 am
I read a while ago that by law in Russia conscripts can't be sent to war outside Russia. They're supposed to be a kind of Home Guard. Yes, I know that's somewhat farcical as whatever Putin says goes therefore the law is just a veneer. But the law exists because it reduces the risk of discontent amongst parents who fear their kids will be sent off to die in some stupid war.

Conscripts were apparently told they were required for manoeuvres and before setting off they were required to sign documents. Those documents "upgraded" them to volunteers. Volunteers are paid more but can lawfully be sent off to fight. There's debate about whether Putin was kept in the dark over this strategy to send conscripts to fight.

It must have been a shock to the conscripts to find themselves in lethal combat with little training. No wonder morale has collapsed.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 07, 2022, 10:29:17 am
By the way, although there has been a surprising reliance on Russia's conscripts and volunteers, Putin did send in the spetnaz special forces but I imagine the losses they suffered resulted in more reliance being placed on mercenaries and conscripts:
Quote
When President Vladimir Putin launched his war on Feb. 24 after months of buildup on Ukraine’s borders, he sent hundreds of helicopter-borne commandos — the best of the best of Russia’s “spetsnaz” special forces soldiers — to assault and seize a lightly defended airfield on Kyiv’s doorstep.
...
On the first morning of the war, Russian Mi-8 assault helicopters soared south toward Kyiv on a mission to attack Hostomel airfield on the northwest outskirts of the capital. By capturing the airfield, also known as Antonov airport, the Russians planned to establish a base from which to fly in more troops and light armored vehicles within striking distance of the heart of the nation’s largest city.

It didn’t work that way. Several Russian helicopters were reported to be hit by missiles even before they got to Hostomel, and once settled in at the airfield they suffered heavy losses from artillery fire.

An effort to take control of a military airbase in Vasylkiv south of Kyiv also met stiff resistance and reportedly saw several Russian Il-76 heavy-lift transport planes carrying paratroopers downed by Ukrainian defenses.

Although the Russians eventually managed to control Hostomel airfield, the Ukrainians’ fierce resistance in the capital region forced a rethinking of an invasion plan that was based on an expectation the Ukrainians would quickly fold, the West would dither, and Russian forces would have an easy fight.
Russia's Failure To Take Down Kyiv Was A Defeat For The Ages (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-ukraine-war-kyiv_n_624d854fe4b0587dee70faee), Huffpost.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on April 07, 2022, 11:51:51 am
I read a while ago that by law in Russia conscripts can't be sent to war outside Russia. They're supposed to be a kind of Home Guard. Yes, I know that's somewhat farcical as whatever Putin says goes therefore the law is just a veneer. But the law exists because it reduces the risk of discontent amongst parents who fear their kids will be sent off to die in some stupid war.

Conscripts were apparently told they were required for manoeuvres and before setting off they were required to sign documents. Those documents "upgraded" them to volunteers. Volunteers are paid more but can lawfully be sent off to fight. There's debate about whether Putin was kept in the dark over this strategy to send conscripts to fight.

It must have been a shock to the conscripts to find themselves in lethal combat with little training. No wonder morale has collapsed.
Yep, no doubt Putin tricked a lot of his troops thinking it was a training exercise, then threw them in vs a battle hardened Ukraine military that have so far whipped their rusky behinds. The use of Drones by the Ukrainian military has been a real eye opener for me on how modern battles are now fought, seems the Russians are still doing it by numbers from the WW2 playbook and have been poorly led as well by their commanders who have now decided to sit back and just level cities with rockets/artillery etc rather than engage Ukrainian ground forces.
Been talk of Russian tank crews selling their equipment for Ukrainian passports and citizenship.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 08, 2022, 10:14:08 am
35% of the Russian army are conscripts 18-27 year olds forced into national service for 1 year, Putin's elite national guard, elite paratroops, navy seals etc have not entered the fray. Putin has even been sending 60 year olds into battle armed with old rifles from WW2.
Don't think you will find too many genuine volunteers given the Spetsnaz and Rosgvardiya commanders don't want to be involved and have told Putin they will be staying home.
My son in law is Ukranian and his family back home say there are Russians fleeing from death squads who are shooting deserters.

As Mav posted, Spetsnaz units were part of the initial assaults, as is their role.  Some Spetsnaz units perform the same roles as US Navy SEALs, our clearance divers, etc and they would have carried out the coup de main attacks on Ukrainian ports and naval bases.

The death of Colonel Sergei Sukharev has received extensive coverage in Russia.  He was the CO of the elite 331st Parachute Assault Regiment of the Kostroma Guards.  Mark Urban, who is a widely published author of military history works, details Sukharev's death, its impacts, and Ukrainian tactics employed to defeat Russian airborne forces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chwUmbOTjPU

Then there's Colonel Yury Medvedev who was killed by his own troops after half of the unit became casualties.  Col Medvedev is  thought to have commanded Russia’s 37th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade.

The idea that Putin has deployed 'cannon fodder' to Ukraine and will follow up with 'elite' units is spin.  They have committed their best troops but many of them are poorly trained three-year 'volunteers' with low morale and a history of refusing to follow orders.  Conscripts have even less training and most are restricted to logistics tasks and logistics has been one of the Russians' biggest fails.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 08, 2022, 10:35:49 am
Conscripts have even less training and most are restricted to logistics tasks and logistics has been one of the Russians' biggest fails.
And the rumours are they are not being paid, so they are selling off their own equipment and resources to the Ukrainian public.

There is a political rumour going around that Russia primary motivation is economic, they want to the Ukraine to become dependant on Russian resources, this  is rationalised by the weirdness of the attacks of the Ukraine power stations. Basically, Russia has taken them offline and tried to put them in a state that will see them as unserviceable for many years, but then allowed the workers to return to the sites to ensure the safety and security is maintained around the waste piles.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on April 08, 2022, 12:55:11 pm
And the rumours are they are not being paid, so they are selling off their own equipment and resources to the Ukrainian public.

There is a political rumour going around that Russia primary motivation is economic, they want to the Ukraine to become dependant on Russian resources, this  is rationalised by the weirdness of the attacks of the Ukraine power stations. Basically, Russia has taken them offline and tried to put them in a state that will see them as unserviceable for many years, but then allowed the workers to return to the sites to ensure the safety and security is maintained around the waste piles.
They are selling equipment for passports, tanks are being sold for Ukrainian citizenship.
Ukraine wanted to join the EU power grid but are tied to Russia...the date of the invasion coincided with Ukraine wanting to disconnect from Russia and test various loading issues they will cause when they connect to other EU countries.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 10, 2022, 12:33:36 pm
Does the Russian debacle in Ukraine signal the end of the era of tanks & attack helicopters? Militaries have a tendency to fight the last war and are slow to anticipate future needs. Back in the day, the battleship was the terror of the seas, but WW2 put an end to that. It became obvious that they were vulnerable to attack by the air if they didn't have their own air cover, and aircraft carriers became the big dogs of naval combat. Bismark was sunk following attacks by old-style biplanes, while the Tirpitz was sunk by Lancaster bombers while hiding in the fjords of Norway. Then the British learned their lesson when they sent HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse to the Indian Ocean despite the aircraft carrier that was supposed to cover for them being delayed after running aground. They were sunk by Japanese planes. Ultimately, naval strategists realised that there wasn't much point assigning aircraft carriers to protect battleships given that the reach and potency of bombers from aircraft carriers was much greater than that of battleships anyway. In their turn, aircraft carriers may now be too vulnerable to missile and submarine attack to be of much practical use in a real war.

Are tanks now the land-based equivalent of battleships: terrifying monsters in days past which are now vulnerable to a bloke carrying an anti-tank missile? And anyone who saw Black Hawk Down understands how vulnerable attack aircraft are to hand-held missile attack. Both of these vulnerabilities have been exploited by the Ukrainians.

This article argues time's up for tanks & APCs: Ukraine has become a graveyard for Russians — and for modern weapons systems, Salon. (https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/ukraine-has-become-a-graveyard-for-russians--and-for-modern-weapons-systems/)

On Netflix, there's a 4-part doco Age of Tanks. It summarises its last part Twilight of the tanks in this way: "In a new era of warfare, the once-invincible tank progressively becomes a dangerous, vulnerable and costly liability". It notes that Western powers haven't developed new tanks for the last 25 years because of these concerns. But Russia created an allegedly high-tech tank, the T-14 Armata, in 2014. The Russians claim it has active armor (radar detects incoming missiles and a counter-shot is fired to destroy it) and has stealth characteristics which will make it harder to target. It also has an automated turret while the 3 tank crew are protected by a capsule under the main armour at the front of the hull. You'd think that the Russians would take advantage of the Ukraine War to test out this new tank, but I haven't heard anything that suggests they've been doing so.

It's pretty obvious the Russians have been pretty poor at future-proofing their military. In particular, it's hard for them to abandon prestige weapons such as tanks which have been used to intimidate rebellious populations in their orbit and which won such legendary battles as the Battle of Kursk. I'd hope the US is more agile, but the main problem the US faces is the power of the military-industrial complex. Many in Congress will fight tooth and nail for increased spending on weapon systems manufactured in their State and former military and heads of the DoD are able to find lucrative jobs as lobbyists or with corporations supplying the military.

And then you have idiots like Trump who are in love with potent symbols of military strength such as aircraft carriers when military strategists might prefer smaller, less costly weaponry. Direct political interference can also hamstring military planning. For instance, under Trump the military was banned from taking Climate Change into account in its planning even though the military itself wanted to know whether rising sea levels would inundate some of its sites and whether changes in rain patterns might create new areas of instability etc.
   
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 10, 2022, 01:00:02 pm
Of course, Biden's a military genius as is his sidekick climate change idiot Kerry ::) 
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 10, 2022, 01:07:27 pm
You don't have to be a genius to allow the military to consider all relevant information.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 10, 2022, 01:30:48 pm
Nor evacuate through a protected military airfield (Bagram) and choose Kabul.   And he STILL has done sfa for his own citizens left behind ... numbered in the thousands
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 10, 2022, 01:36:39 pm
Nor evacuate through a protected military airfield (Bagram) and choose Kabul.  And he STILL has done sfa for his own citizens left behind ... numbered in the thousands
So in a war zone, you want to allow thousands of "civilians" unfettered access to a defensive military stronghold!

Thousands of "friendly foreign eyes" inside the airfield boundary!

I suspect there is a reason all the various allied forces used the public airport for evacuations, rather than expose the positions and layout of the military targets.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 10, 2022, 01:52:33 pm
I wonder what military genius committed to a set-date withdrawal of US forces in direct negotations with the Taliban to the exclusion of the Afghan Govt ...
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 10, 2022, 01:56:41 pm
I wonder what military genius committed to a set-date withdrawal of US forces in direct negotations with the Taliban to the exclusion of the Afghan Govt ...
It was Birther Obama wasn't it? ;D
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 10, 2022, 02:01:48 pm
Yes, we have a very stable genius to thank for that.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 10, 2022, 04:14:09 pm
So in a war zone, you want to allow thousands of "civilians" unfettered access to a defensive military stronghold!

Thousands of "friendly foreign eyes" inside the airfield boundary!

I suspect there is a reason all the various allied forces used the public airport for evacuations, rather than expose the positions and layout of the military targets.

Ever thought about US passport holders?  Ever considered Bagram was effectively lost anyway once those citizens were cleared?  Kabul was a pathetic FU.  
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 10, 2022, 04:37:00 pm
I wonder what military genius committed to a set-date withdrawal of US forces in direct negotations with the Taliban to the exclusion of the Afghan Govt ...

The Afghan government?  Who crumbled inside weeks not once putting up any resistance?   Millions stolen ... Ashraf Ghani?  Ring any bells?



Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 10, 2022, 05:33:44 pm
Ever thought about US passport holders?  Ever considered Bagram was effectively lost anyway once those citizens were cleared?  Kabul was a pathetic FU.
I thought you were an air man, you're going to keep aircraft on the ground in observational range of thousands of unknowns while refuelling and loading. They used Bagram inside an exclusion zone for the slow process of refuelling and basically spent as little time on the ground in the public airport as possible.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 10, 2022, 05:44:47 pm
The Afghan government?  Who crumbled inside weeks not once putting up any resistance?   Millions stolen ... Ashraf Ghani?  Ring any bells?
After the US left the Afghan Govt out of the talks with the Taliban, it was stripped of any status when the US commenced to pull out. That pretty much killed any chance of the army or police force holding the line against the Taliban during the withdrawal and that was what the US needed them to do. The US didn't need them to hold the line for long. Just long enough to cover the withdrawal was all that was needed.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 10, 2022, 07:17:45 pm
I thought you were an air man, you're going to keep aircraft on the ground in observational range of thousands of unknowns while refuelling and loading. They used Bagram inside an exclusion zone for the slow process of refuelling and basically spent as little time on the ground in the public airport as possible.

I am .. but you don't need to fly far when a C 17 has a full load range of 4500 kms ... a flight between (for example) Delhi to Bagram is only 1000 kms.  i.e. Full pax load from Bagram, no refuel necessary, return flight to India.  VERY easy.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 10, 2022, 10:23:02 pm
I am .. but you don't need to fly far when a C 17 has a full load range of 4500 kms ... a flight between (for example) Delhi to Bagram is only 1000 kms.  i.e. Full pax load from Bagram, no refuel necessary, return flight to India.  VERY easy.
You know it's not that simple, you know the bureaucracy stops them using the simplest routes. Subject to who is onboard and which countries are involved.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 11, 2022, 06:40:50 am
So you seriously think India would not be a more than a willing participant in refuelling a US military aircraft?  Do you really understand that passengers don't have to deplane at ALL until their final (U.S) port where they are cleared and processed?   India would be no more than a fuel refill.  I know a helluva LOT more about the operational logistics than you appear to think.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 11, 2022, 07:26:29 am
So you seriously think India would not be a more than a willing participant in refuelling a US military aircraft?  Do you really understand that passengers don't have to deplane at ALL until their final (U.S) port where they are cleared and processed?  India would be no more than a fuel refill.  I know a helluva LOT more about the operational logistics than you appear to think.
If it's that easy then why didn't it work that way when it had the chance, for example even the flights Australia sent in refuelled on the ground in Bagram.

You might know a lot about aircraft logistics, but you seem wilfully ignorant of global politics.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 11, 2022, 07:41:22 am
Ever heard of ATC and how it applies to different airports? ... I know you always must have the last word, so you're welcome to it. 
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 11, 2022, 07:48:10 am
Ever heard of ATC and how it applies to different airports? ... I know you always must have the last word, so you're welcome to it.
Yes I've heard of it, no I'm not an expert in it, but I do know that all the rules that apply here in Aust are not universal, in fact nothing that comes out of the UN and other peak bureaucratic bodies is "universal".

If you think that is false, you best go back and revue some of your China posts!

Did you know the person previously in charge of ATC in Vic was quite a good sportsmen, and spent time in charge over in the UK as well? It's surprising just how small the world really is if you travel enough!

As for Bagram, I do not have to speculate on that, my friend's son was on the flights repatriating Australians. His recollections are somewhat alarming about just how complex bureaucracy makes such an effort.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 11, 2022, 10:56:17 am
Bagram was a secure airport with the US in command of ATC and the entire airfield.  Kabul was not and at the adjudications of the taliban as to what aircraft received clearance.

"We evacuated Bagram Airfield, which was the dumbest thing anybody could have ever done. At what point do you believe abandoning one of the largest airfields in the world is a good thing knowing that you still needed to move Americans and our allies out of the country?

That will be the original sin of this evacuation. Closing Bagram meant losing access to a secure airfield. This limited the number of air resources as they were moved to other areas outside Afghanistan and resulted in a delayed ability to move personnel. In addition, the evacuation needed to depart from the Kabul Airport, a location the U.S. did not control, which resulted in a chaotic scramble of U.S. personnel and allies out of the country".


Case closed. EOD
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on April 11, 2022, 10:59:12 am
I love the way you said you'd give LP the last word only to get in the last word yourself and then close the discussion ;D
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 11, 2022, 11:24:26 am
I love the way you said you'd give LP the last word only to get in the last word yourself and then close the discussion ;D
Even more bizarre, the use of the "we" in that discussion to mean "the world / everybody", and not just the "US"!

But that is how the US media report, and as a result how social media dominates discussion, the "we" is always "everybody"!
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on April 30, 2022, 11:54:12 am
https://au.yahoo.com/news/leaked-document-shows-chinas-plans-in-solomon-islands-225546575.html

Ok , we cut aid to the Solomon Islands and we put that money into a missile base on the east coast and get cracking on building those nuclear subs too. They can play with their chinese mates and have joy rides to China on their new airstrip for all I care but dont come crying to us when CoVid hits again or a Tsunami takes out your infrastructure and you want our help.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 30, 2022, 12:32:56 pm
Cancel all foreign aid to them and give them notice we're closing our embassy.  Then watch them sweat
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 30, 2022, 02:36:50 pm
Cancel all foreign aid to them and give them notice we're closing our embassy.  Then watch them sweat

Playing right into the CCP’s hands  ::)

The fact that the US didn’t re-open its Solomon Islands embassy is a factor in the CCP gaining a foothold in our backyard. Hopefully, a new US embassy and Scotty keeping his mouth shut will reverse the CCP’s gains.

And we wouldn’t get much of a missile base for the paltry amount of aid we give the Solomons … not that a missile base would present much of a threat.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 30, 2022, 02:47:55 pm
Over $240 million p.a. is not paltry .... stuff them.  Ingrates
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on April 30, 2022, 04:32:31 pm
Playing right into the CCP’s hands  ::)

The fact that the US didn’t re-open its Solomon Islands embassy is a factor in the CCP gaining a foothold in our backyard. Hopefully, a new US embassy and Scotty keeping his mouth shut will reverse the CCP’s gains.

And we wouldn’t get much of a missile base for the paltry amount of aid we give the Solomons … not that a missile base would present much of a threat.
We cant compete with the handouts or the build China will offer in terms of infrastructure, the Chinese Renminbi has bought the Solomon islands off and thats the bottom line. Doesnt matter if it was the LP or ALP they were never going to fork out what the Chinese were offering in money and toys. The only hope was the USA showing some interest and its clear they have given up and conceded the Solomons to China and dont give a flying feck about their mates down under which doesnt bode well for Taiwan's future. Sogavare has looked after his own future and is just a puppet of China now and has sold out his people, good luck trying to vote him out next election thats if they ever have one.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 30, 2022, 04:35:15 pm
We cant compete with the handouts or the build China will offer in terms of infrastructure, the Chinese Renminbi has bought the Solomon islands off and thats the bottom line. Doesnt matter if it was the LP or ALP they were never going to fork out what the Chinese were offering in money and toys. The only hope was the USA showing some interest and its clear they have given up and conceded the Solomons to China and dont give a flying feck about their mates down under which doesnt bode well for Taiwan's future. Sogavare has looked after his own future and is just a puppet of China now and has sold out his people, good luck trying to vote him out next election thats if they ever have one.
Getting infrastructure off China is like buying all your stuff at Venture, it's cheap plastic filled crap that'll crumble and turn to rubbish before it's a decade old!
 
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on April 30, 2022, 04:39:31 pm
Getting infrastructure off China is like buying all your stuff at Venture, it's cheap plastic filled crap that'll crumble and turn to rubbish before it's a decade old!
 
Yep its like compounded chocolate vs the real stuff, problem is the kids will eat the compounded if its free....
 
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on April 30, 2022, 04:50:07 pm
Yep its like compounded chocolate vs the real stuff, problem is the kids will eat the compounded if its free....
China will build bridges, freeways and roads in Solomons that won't have any road base, it will look great when new but all the crap shortcuts are hidden under the surface for nobody to see.

Just like Shanghai or Beijing where new bridges or roads barely last a decade before being rebuilt.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 30, 2022, 05:58:41 pm
Over $240 million p.a. is not paltry .... stuff them.  Ingrates

$156M in the 2021-22 budget, down from $179M in 2014-15. 

I think that we're now at $265M in aid to Ukraine in 10 weeks, and that's money well spent.  Ukraine's not in our backyard though.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on April 30, 2022, 06:05:07 pm
We cant compete with the handouts or the build China will offer in terms of infrastructure, the Chinese Renminbi has bought the Solomon islands off and thats the bottom line. Doesnt matter if it was the LP or ALP they were never going to fork out what the Chinese were offering in money and toys. The only hope was the USA showing some interest and its clear they have given up and conceded the Solomons to China and dont give a flying feck about their mates down under which doesnt bode well for Taiwan's future. Sogavare has looked after his own future and is just a puppet of China now and has sold out his people, good luck trying to vote him out next election thats if they ever have one.

In fact, according to the Lowy Institute, China's aid to Pacific nations is dwarfed by Australia's.  However, we have significantly reduced our aid to the Solomon Islands and the CCP has stepped in to fill the gap.

The US has announced that it will be re-opening its embassy in the Solomons after a 29 year absence.  I suspect that they realised that the "deputy" isn't up to the job.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on April 30, 2022, 06:47:47 pm
The USA announced they were sending a delegation over about a day before Sogavare and his Chinese friends announced they were buddies for life, great timing...not. In fact this started back in 2019 when Sogavare was visiting China and cooking up this whole scheme. His people were rioting back home and wanted him out especially when he cut ties with Taiwan( well there is a surprise, wonder who told him to do that?) so its not like ScoMo and USA didnt know what was coming but did nothing about it.
We are not talking matching aid etc they are building roads, airports, have their grubby hands over the retail industry, resource extraction and have even promised a big Sports Stadium. He wants China to shore up his political and personal future and has sold out the Solomons  as payment.
The USA embassy will have a nice view of those shiny J-20's  taking off from that new airstrip..
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: capcom on April 30, 2022, 07:35:43 pm
The CCP will get their pound of flesh and then some ... Sogavare will pay dearly for his treachery
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on June 08, 2022, 01:06:58 pm
I've copied this from the China thread:

As for the anti-nuclear sub protestors, I've no interest in the anti-nuclear parrots. In any case, the tell that the deal was done happened straight after the election, when labour announced the purchase of missiles that are useless when housed on a conventional platform. If the platform cannot loiter indefinitely the missiles are worthless, so it's a huge tell the deal will proceed.

The ADF has selected the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS)  as its long-range, rocket artillery system.  This was initially proposed in the 2016 White Paper and was confirmed by the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and Force Structure Plan.  Essentially a commitment of the previous Government but Labor has undertaken to honor defence procurement commitments (as well as adding its own).

HIMARS is a light multiple rocket launcher developed in the late 1990s for the United States Army, mounted on a standard Army M1140 truck frame.  As the name suggests, it is a highly mobile system that is able to "shoot and scoot", thereby evading counter battery fire.  In addition to a range of warheads, HIMARS is capable of firing the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). Australia has an MoU  with the US for the development of the PrSM weapon.

HIMARS is a state of the art weapon system that will address a serious gap in our defence capability.  It is perfectly suited to our conditions and will integrate seamlessly with current and future defence materiel.

HIMARS, and the older MRLS, are tipped to give Ukraine an edge in its artillery duels with Russian forces.  Russian missile launchers have a shorter range and lack the mobility of the US and UK missile systems.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-the-us-and-uk-missile-systems-which-will-challenge-russias-artillery-dominance-184479

Poland has just ordered 500 HIMARS.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on June 08, 2022, 02:19:32 pm
I've copied this from the China thread:

The ADF has selected the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS)  as its long-range, rocket artillery system.  This was initially proposed in the 2016 White Paper and was confirmed by the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and Force Structure Plan.  Essentially a commitment of the previous Government but Labor has undertaken to honor defence procurement commitments (as well as adding its own).

HIMARS is a light multiple rocket launcher developed in the late 1990s for the United States Army, mounted on a standard Army M1140 truck frame.  As the name suggests, it is a highly mobile system that is able to "shoot and scoot", thereby evading counter battery fire.  In addition to a range of warheads, HIMARS is capable of firing the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). Australia has an MoU  with the US for the development of the PrSM weapon.

HIMARS is a state of the art weapon system that will address a serious gap in our defence capability.  It is perfectly suited to our conditions and will integrate seamlessly with current and future defence materiel.

HIMARS, and the older MRLS, are tipped to give Ukraine an edge in its artillery duels with Russian forces.  Russian missile launchers have a shorter range and lack the mobility of the US and UK missile systems.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-the-us-and-uk-missile-systems-which-will-challenge-russias-artillery-dominance-184479

Poland has just ordered 500 HIMARS.
Russian nukes have good mobility, their Sarmat 2's are very mobile and if Vlad is out gunned with the conventional weaponry he will up the stakes imo...
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on June 08, 2022, 02:40:32 pm
Australia is in the business or procuring long range Tomahawk missiles that are capable of being launched from submarines using CLS(Capsule Launch System) as well as Destroyers via VLS(Vertical Launch System).

After the election Labour confirmed this interest, the nuclear submarines are going ahead I think it's almost guaranteed, perhaps the only thing that might interfere are potential developments in naval robotics(drones whether surface or submarine). The big advantage is not cost, because you just spend as much by purchasing more, the big advantage is not needing resupply so they can stay on station virtually indefinitely, so I suspect these will also be some sort of nuclear based system using the newer compact nuclear pebble bed reactors that are about the size of a commercial fridge. Submarine drones aren't what people think of when they think about drones, these things are likely to be some significant fraction of the size of a normal submarine, and set to autonomously follow surface patrols until required to deploy. Think of vessels in the 30m to 50m class.

The other thing about a submarine drone, they don't need a lot of voids inside for crew, so they can be built to resist the deepest reaches of the crust. In effect sitting invisible on the bottom somewhere until required to come to launch depth. Turns out courtesy of Australia's long history of extreme location mining, we are overloaded with experts capable of designing systems for autonomous operation.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on June 09, 2022, 12:37:40 pm
Sadly, there is another example of poor defence procurement.

Australia has two Canberra Class Amphibious Assault Ships, also known as Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs).  On paper, the two LHDs provide the ADF with one of the most capable and sophisticated air-land-sea amphibious deployment systems in the world.  The 27,000 tonne LHDs are the largest ships in the RAN and are  able to land a force of over 1,000 personnel by helicopter and water craft, along with all their weapons, ammunition, vehicles and stores.

The first issue with our LHDs is that, although they are capable of embarking Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft, they are only equipped with rotary wing aircraft.  This means that any opposed landing would have to be carried out without air cover.  Our LHDs were designed in Spain and Spain is currently the only other operator of this class of ship.  Spain's Amphibious Assault Ship, Jaun Carlos, is equipped with the AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft and/or the F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft making it a far more potent defence asset.

The second issue came to light when HMAS Adelaide lost power while on a humanitarian mission to Tonga.  The Canberra class vessels have azimuth propulsion pod systems that are more commonly used on passenger vessels.  It seems that the seawater cooling system became blocked by volcanic ash and the diesel generators overheated and shut down.  That doesn't bode well for operations in a hostile environment.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on June 09, 2022, 12:42:06 pm
Russian nukes have good mobility, their Sarmat 2's are very mobile and if Vlad is out gunned with the conventional weaponry he will up the stakes imo...

Russian artillery, both conventional and missile, is being outgunned now.  The link I posted above shows Russian footage of a TOS-1A Thermobaric Weapon System coming under counter-battery fire.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on June 09, 2022, 03:18:43 pm
Spain's Amphibious Assault Ship, Jaun Carlos, is equipped with the AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft and/or the F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft making it a far more potent defence asset. That doesn't bode well for operations in a hostile environment.
Wouldn't the LHD's be capable of launching the F-35B, if we procure some?

Interestingly, it seems the F-35B is the only variant that seems to be delivering any sort of service reliability, but I suspect we'd be going down the Loyal Wingman drone route for air cover, these drowns aren't just for air combat but can be flown from any CAC platform, but of course they are some way off.

Flying in combat against a drone is bound to be a little unnerving, you usually expect an opponent to have some degree of self-preservation, but you can think of drones basically as the autonomous version of a Kamikaze pilot. Then the battle comes down to whoever has the biggest budget!
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on June 09, 2022, 05:28:31 pm
Wouldn't the LHD's be capable of launching the F-35B, if we procure some?

Interestingly, it seems the F-35B is the only variant that seems to be delivering any sort of service reliability, but I suspect we'd be going down the Loyal Wingman drone route for air cover, these drowns aren't just for air combat but can be flown from any CAC platform, but of course they are some way off.

Flying in combat against a drone is bound to be a little unnerving, you usually expect an opponent to have some degree of self-preservation, but you can think of drones basically as the autonomous version of a Kamikaze pilot. Then the battle comes down to whoever has the biggest budget!

Yes, our LHDs are designed specifically for STOVL aircraft; helicopters don't use the ski-jump ramp over the bow.  However, the  F-35B isn't on our shopping lists and it would take a major change of direction to address that ... or a defence minister with some idea of force projection and the necessity of air superiority.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on June 09, 2022, 06:06:45 pm
Russian artillery, both conventional and missile, is being outgunned now.  The link I posted above shows Russian footage of a TOS-1A Thermobaric Weapon System coming under counter-battery fire.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/01/ukraine-war-russia-donbas-weapons-00036156

Russia have the edge now and virtually have taken the Dombas and I dont see that being returned, its become a game of long shelling artillery and Russia are just slowly raising the area to the ground. I watched a news report last night that had Ukraine down to some fairly ancient artillery and are desperate for the promised delivery of some new more advanced weaponry from the West to stay in the fight. Reports are Putin is down to his last few months given his health issues but as I suggested even with a ceasefire and withdrawal I think the Russian hierarchy even without Putin will want the Russian speaking Dombas area as its pay off for ending the war.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on June 23, 2022, 03:34:39 pm
https://au.yahoo.com/news/putin-threatens-deploy-satan-ii-114405801.html
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 09, 2023, 01:01:12 pm
I'm curious to find out what people think about the procurement of 3 to 5 Virginia Class(USA) and up to 7 Astute Class(UK) nuclear subs.

To me it's a no brainer for a country like Australia with it's massive coastline to be heading down this route, the new submarines have serious capabilities, far beyond those of the more conventional.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 13, 2023, 10:22:00 am
I'm curious to find out what people think about the procurement of 3 to 5 Virginia Class(USA) and up to 7 Astute Class(UK) nuclear subs.

To me it's a no brainer for a country like Australia with it's massive coastline to be heading down this route, the new submarines have serious capabilities, far beyond those of the more conventional.

We should have gone for nuclear submarines instead of the Collins class but better late than never.  If I remember correctly, K Rudd proposed obtaining nuclear subs in 2010 … but you can’t rush these things 🙄

I understand that the Aussie-built subs will be the Astute class replacements rather than the current Astute class.

There was some talk about us getting a couple of Astute class subs as an interim measure and to help the Brits with their defence budget (a bit like Melbourne-Collingwood and Grundy). There would have been merit in that arrangement in that there would be commonalities across the Astute class and their replacements.  Having a submarine fleet with both Virginia class and Astute replacement class vessels is not the most efficient option in terms of crew training and flexibility.  There will be commonality with reactors and, presumably, weapons and systems, so some Virginia experience should be transferable.

Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Baggers on March 13, 2023, 10:50:22 am
I'm curious to find out what people think about the procurement of 3 to 5 Virginia Class(USA) and up to 7 Astute Class(UK) nuclear subs.

To me it's a no brainer for a country like Australia with it's massive coastline to be heading down this route, the new submarines have serious capabilities, far beyond those of the more conventional.

Sad but true, Spotted One. Should have been done long ago.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on March 13, 2023, 11:30:11 am
I used to know a guy who was high up in logistics for the Navy. He suggested the Collins subs did really well in joint exercises with the US Navy as they ran very silently when submerged. The Yanks had problems trying to locate them.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 13, 2023, 11:58:37 am
I used to know a guy who was high up in logistics for the Navy. He suggested the Collins subs did really well in joint exercises with the US Navy as they ran very silently when submerged. The Yanks had problems trying to locate them.

Yes, that’s true and a Collins class sub managed to “kill” a USN carrier on exercise.  However, the Collins class are unreliable and require more maintenance than sea time.

Astute or Virginia class subs are equally stealthy and outperform the Collins class in terms of reliability, range, speed and weaponry.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Baggers on March 13, 2023, 03:25:50 pm
Come a long way since the 'O' class subs we sailed with! I entertained the thought of becoming a submariner but way back then there was a maximum height of 5'10"... no cigar for moi. Heightism?
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 13, 2023, 03:34:48 pm
There will be commonality with reactors and, presumably, weapons and systems, so some Virginia experience should be transferable.
My understanding is that they will all be using the same Rolls Royce reactors, so if true in that regard they are pretty compatible.

I wonder if there is more to the spread of solutions than just economics and good will, there might be some advantages in communications / interoperability, and there might be issues related to future technologies as well.

There were similar issues behind the JSF choice, the JSF's ability to be quickly reconfigured to suit joint operations was a much higher priority for Australia than buying the F22 and having the best superiority fighter.

You are only as good as your allies.

PS; I read somewhere the Astute class replacement is going to have some crazy endurance and reach capabilities, which seem to be ideal for Southern Ocean operations. As well as something in Submarine operations that will be akin to the JSF Loyal Wingman program.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 13, 2023, 04:26:51 pm
Speaking about helicopters ...

Back in 2004 the Howard government decided to replace Navy Seahawks and Army Blackhawks with the NHIndustries MRH90 multi-purpose helicopters, known as Taipan in Australian service.  While it may make sense for both services to use the same helicopter (although six of the RAN helicopters are navalised), the defence department argued strongly against the MRH90 and recommended more Blackhawks.

The Taipan has been a disaster with ongoing reliability problems so bad that the ADF was forced to hire commercial helicopters.  On top of that, a Taipan's operating cost runs out at $48K per hour.

Despite lobbying from the French government, the Australian government has decided to ditch the MRH90s and replace them with Seahawks and Blackhawks.  We're not exactly back where we started because the new helicopters are current models and quite an advance on those the MRH90s replaced.

Then there's the Eurocopter Tiger Armed Recce Helicopter.  It's another example of an existing design reconfigured to meet Australian conditions and operating requirements.  After considerable delays in getting the Tigers airworthy and operational, ongoing issues and the realisation that they couldn't perform the role that they were purchased for, the ADF is going to replace them with AH64E attack helicopters.  An "off the shelf" purchase that will provide the ADF with a far more reliable and capable aircraft.

We don't have a huge defence budget but we do need reliable and capable defence assets.  Blowing dollars on the wrong helicopters and being forced to replace them well before their anticipated service life is just p1ssing our defence budget away.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on March 14, 2023, 04:14:18 pm
Buying nuclear submarines is like “buying a house in Italy” as it will end up costing “at least double of what you thought it was going to cost”....30 years@ 200 Billion is the figure quoted.
"And how could anyone actually put a final figure on something that is 30 years out with a new submarine as part of it – it just doesn’t stack up".
“What we’re actually looking at is rising the level of GDP for national defence spending from two to about three per cent, or at least two and a half per cent.
“These are huge numbers and yet the Albanese government hasn’t shown any way it intends to be able to pay for this in the next three years or the next 15 years.”.. says The Australian’s National Editor Dennis Shanahan.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 14, 2023, 05:05:12 pm
“These are huge numbers and yet the Albanese government hasn’t shown any way it intends to be able to pay for this in the next three years or the next 15 years.”.. says The Australian’s National Editor Dennis Shanahan.
Shanahan knows as well as anybody else that the budget figures are in today dollars, not the 2050 dollars.

As with any major purchase or infrastructure project, it seems expensive at the time, but decades later it'll seem cheap and we won't be able to work out why it didn't happen earlier.

When I was a munchkin opponents claimed the Westgate Bridge was a luxury item the state could not afford, now we are replicating it with tunnels and people are claiming the tunnels are too expensive and a bridge would be a cheaper option.

Didn't I hear something on radio the other day about a bridge across Port Phillip Heads or Westernport Heads, aka the Bay Ring Road? Somebody claimed it was too much at estimated $90B, seems cheap today! :o
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on March 14, 2023, 05:42:39 pm
Shanahan knows as well as anybody else that the budget figures are in today dollars, not the 2050 dollars.

As with any major purchase or infrastructure project, it seems expensive at the time, but decades later it'll seem cheap and we won't be able to work out why it didn't happen earlier.

When I was a munchkin opponents claimed the Westgate Bridge was a luxury item the state could not afford, now we are replicating it with tunnels and people are claiming the tunnels are too expensive and a bridge would be a cheaper option.

Didn't I hear something on radio the other day about a bridge across Port Phillip Heads or Westernport Heads, aka the Bay Ring Road? Somebody claimed it was too much at estimated $90B, seems cheap today! :o
Unfortunately I dont see China waiting 30 years to do what they want to do next ie Taiwan and building military infrastructure on the many pacific islands they will probably control. You also have to ask what we build will it still be relevant? and the question asked was where is the money coming from? I guess more taxes given Albanese has already broken an election promise and is fiddling with franking credits again and superannuation.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on March 14, 2023, 06:00:49 pm
Those billionaires always seem to cop the short end of the stick, don’t they?
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Baggers on March 14, 2023, 07:35:32 pm
Unfortunately I dont see China waiting 30 years to do what they want to do next ie Taiwan and building military infrastructure on the many pacific islands they will probably control. You also have to ask what we build will it still be relevant? and the question asked was where is the money coming from? I guess more taxes given Albanese has already broken an election promise and is fiddling with franking credits again and superannuation.

You can bet that with the signing of this pact that the Yanks will start subs patrolling our northern and eastern waters almost immediately... just not announced as that would be unwise. The whole package is a defense strategy... with plenty of time to change or add to our 'order.' Not difficult to imagine that a tri-nation sub base will likely be built on the east coast... Mackay, Coffs?
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 14, 2023, 07:46:19 pm
Unfortunately I dont see China waiting 30 years to do what they want to do next ie Taiwan and building military infrastructure on the many pacific islands they will probably control. You also have to ask what we build will it still be relevant? and the question asked was where is the money coming from? I guess more taxes given Albanese has already broken an election promise and is fiddling with franking credits again and superannuation.
These projects always evolve, how we pay for it will vary in time, and what gets delivered will also change.

The announcement is an intent, not a specification.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 14, 2023, 10:50:10 pm
The CPC’s strident response to the announcement and their frantic representations to the IAEC suggest that the AUKUS agreement has hit the target.

It’s a huge commitment but it’s a long term investment with significant returns.  Interestingly, the government has chosen to highlight the cost while stressing the timeframe.

What it does mean is that our defence budget must be targeted well and avoid cost over runs and focus on necessary assets rather than desirable materiel.  That should result in fewer MBTs, IFVs and CRVs in favour of SP artillery, HIMARs, and UAVs.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Gointocarlton on March 14, 2023, 11:08:55 pm
Serious question, could one of you ex Navy/Military dudes explain to a layman (moi) how such a huge investment on Subs make us safer/stronger defensively? I would have thought state of the art bombers, fighters and aircraft carriers would be the go.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 15, 2023, 02:57:03 am
Serious question, could one of you ex Navy/Military dudes explain to a layman (moi) how such a huge investment on Subs make us safer/stronger defensively? I would have thought state of the art bombers, fighters and aircraft carriers would be the go.

We have state of the art multi-role aircraft but their range is limited.  There aren't many specialised bombers in production these days and the US operates their bombers from Australian bases.

Aircraft carriers are expensive and very vulnerable to attack.  You would need a naval task force to protect your carrier from enemy submarines, aircraft, missiles, etc.  Losing your carrier(s) to enemy action would be devastaing. That's why there are very few genuine aircraft carriers in service; USA - 11, France - 1, Italy - 2, Japan -2, China - 2, UK - 2, India - 1, Russia - 1, Spain -1.  Technically, we could convert our two helicopter carriers to aircraft carriers but, apart from requiring new aircraft, that would mean more surface ships and submarines for protection.

Nuclear subs have virtually unlimited range and are stealthy.  They carry torpedoes, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, underwater drones, miniature submarines, special forces; all of which can be deployed while undetectable.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Gointocarlton on March 15, 2023, 06:48:41 am
We have state of the art multi-role aircraft but their range is limited.  There aren't many specialised bombers in production these days and the US operates their bombers from Australian bases.

Aircraft carriers are expensive and very vulnerable to attack.  You would need a naval task force to protect your carrier from enemy submarines, aircraft, missiles, etc.  Losing your carrier(s) to enemy action would be devastaing. That's why there are very few genuine aircraft carriers in service; USA - 11, France - 1, Italy - 2, Japan -2, China - 2, UK - 2, India - 1, Russia - 1, Spain -1.  Technically, we could convert our two helicopter carriers to aircraft carriers but, apart from requiring new aircraft, that would mean more surface ships and submarines for protection.

Nuclear subs have virtually unlimited range and are stealthy.  They carry torpedoes, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, underwater drones, miniature submarines, special forces; all of which can be deployed while undetectable.
Thanks DJ. For context, from a weaponry point of view, how much does sub carry? I know nuclear subs can stay submerged for months at a time and can be virtually undetectable, but what sort of weapons payload can they carry compared to say a surface battleship?
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 15, 2023, 08:01:33 am
Thanks DJ. For context, from a weaponry point of view, how much does sub carry? I know nuclear subs can stay submerged for months at a time and can be virtually undetectable, but what sort of weapons payload can they carry compared to say a surface battleship?
The Subs we are proposing to build are massive, almost twice the size of Collins Class, the new boats are more like underwater destroyers. Collins Class is < 80m(<3000t), Astute or Virginia Class is > 100m(>7000t).

I read a barrage of anti-sub rhetoric in the papers and on the conversation over the last few days. They all bash away at the same line, claiming that they will be redundant long before they are delivered, but it's so far from the truth it's not funny. A Sub is a stealth platform, at depth exposing them is like finding an angry needle in a haystack, it's seen you long before you saw it and you have to take a risk to pick it up or get stung.

So Subs are most useful at creating clear defendable zones that your other surface vessels can safely transit, like having SOS, Southby, Doull, Weiters, McKay and Hickmott setup a D50 zone that sets English and Harmes free to sprint up field.

Once you have the reliable platform, you can set it up with whatever you want.

btw., By the time these Subs are ready for service, they'll be capable of deploying vertical launch hypersonic missiles, even as non-nuclear they are going to be superiority weapons.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Baggers on March 15, 2023, 08:13:32 am
Thanks DJ. For context, from a weaponry point of view, how much does sub carry? I know nuclear subs can stay submerged for months at a time and can be virtually undetectable, but what sort of weapons payload can they carry compared to say a surface battleship?

David's answer and the Spotted One's were really thorough, GTC, and spot on.

Comparing subs to surface ships is can be misleading as their roles are quite different.

Surface ships are far more vulnerable to air attack. Subs are more a strategic stealth vessel - they can arrive near (within kms or 100s of kms) a target undetected, launch their payload, then FO. They are also used as support for surface ships, patrolling waters hundreds of kms around said vessels, undetected.

Surface vessels and aircraft can be detected with modern equipment from a considerable distance... subs, not so much. Used effectively subs can be on your doorstep before you realise.



Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Lods on March 15, 2023, 10:26:20 am
The way things are going we'll be lucky to see 2025, let alone 2050, without a full scale conflict.
The world will be a very different place by 2050.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 15, 2023, 11:21:23 am
There is some argy bargy today about "high level nuclear waste" from Subs, how are we going to deal with this "huge problem", what can we do to manage it safely, the claim is there are "no answers" to those questions and "the risk" in a country like Australia is "too high", so the Subs should be banned!

The reality is this.

Even from an old fashioned nuclear reactor, the high level waste is a very very small percentage of the total waste. Typically less than 5% older plants, for more modern plants less than 3% and for the next generation systems it is expected to be less than 1%. But what does that mean for the amount of high level waste?

Well I don't know about Subs as this they are need to know, but a gigawatt nuclear plant produces about 2L coke bottle of long term radioactive waste every year, of that less than 5% is "high level waste", so a bit more than a cap full or two from a 2L bottle. But a gigawatt nuclear plant is about 200x larger than the nuclear reactor on a Sub, so by ratio we are probably talking about some annual high level waste the size and volume of a postage stamp! That is ignoring the fact that the Sub reactors are far more advanced than power plants, and I suspect are probably more efficient simply because of the size and space constraints.

Much of what the public and media label as waste are unused materials surrounding the waste, much of that waste gets reprocessed/recycled and reused, the actual waste left over by volume after the reprocessing is very very small. You always get those images of pools full of pallets of nuclear waste, deathly glowing blue, but that isn't all waste in the pools, the pools keep the waste and unused material in a safe state (i.e, not irradiating the workers and building) as it cools enough to be reprocessed. For a Sub there might be something similar to those pools, but perhaps the size of a 200L drum.

btw.; Water is such an effective barrier at stopping most radiation, that there are long term plans / proposals to collect and clad space craft with ice as a solution to protect astronauts from solar or interstellar radiation.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Baggers on March 15, 2023, 11:26:24 am
The way things are going we'll be lucky to see 2025, let alone 2050, without a full scale conflict.
The world will be a very different place by 2050.

Fingers crossed that the deterrent strategy keeps the peace.

Makes a sad comment about we humans that this is needed.

I think most nations know that any nuclear attack is suicide and will likely end with many, many millions perishing... instantly, then slowly from radiation exposure illnesses... then even starvation, disease etc.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on March 15, 2023, 11:40:52 am
The way things are going we'll be lucky to see 2025, let alone 2050, without a full scale conflict.
The world will be a very different place by 2050.
Xi has locked himself in as China's main man now for the rest of his life and he will be in his 90's around the time we get our subs so the Chinese pathway of expansion is expected to continue.
China are expected to commence building more nuclear subs and surveillance vessels/ aircraft to counteract the AUKUS plans so I'm sure the military participants will be bumping into each other more often and causing some political spats.
Got to feel sorry for Taiwan who are now in more danger as China will escalate their plans in the South China sea and probably feck up world trade and try and sink the Western economies into more misery to put pressure on military spending.
Nuke subs are just chess piece ballistic missile launching platforms you can deploy at higher speeds and hide a bit better, hopefully common sense prevails and we dont get too many of them hovering around our country.
The way China build stuff we are more likely to get one sink or explode off our shores and create a nuclear waste disaster.....
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 15, 2023, 11:41:36 am
Deuterium is needed for reactors, it doesn't just grow =on trees where is that coming from?

Well actually, it sort of does grow on trees, just under water trees! Deuterium and heavy water is naturally occurring in the ocean, about 30g for every cubic meter of seawater, not much more than a capful again, but there are a lot of cubic meters in the ocean, enough for thousands or millions of years even with out future efficiency gains.

There is that link again, the desalination plant / nuclear energy synergy. Deuterium can be refined as a by-product of large scale desalination operations, in fact years ago once they had worked out what they were doing they realised they actually have to remove the deuterium as too much in drinking water becomes toxic to life!
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 15, 2023, 11:44:24 am

China are expected to commence building more nuclear subs and surveillance vessels/ aircraft to counteract the AUKUS plans so I'm sure the military participants will be bumping into each other more often and causing some political spats.
I don't think AUKUS has anything to do with China's plans, they are on a full speed ahead expansionist policy already.

For political purposes China might use AUKUS as the excuse, but it's a pretty weak excuse.

From what I hear coming out of China's mainland they are going to be flat out avoiding an internal rebellion over the coming decades, so it's likely they'll pick some fights to act as a distraction for disgruntled youth / citizens. At the moment Xi relies on the ignorance of the rural isolated and a lack of transparency to the leveraging of overseas Chinese by threatening friends and family back home. Having other politicians carted off on live TV is about creating fear.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Thryleon on March 15, 2023, 01:37:34 pm
The current theory is that we have t minus 5 years for China to make a meaningful move against Taiwan before that action will yield ridiculously bad results, or the importance of Taiwan to vanish (its all about a patented chip that is only produced there).

The USA is attempting to build a factory capable of producing this particular chip, but is about 5 years away of being able to replicate the importance of Taiwan.  Until then, they are a single point of failure and it will make the global chip shortage look like a walk in the park, if anything happens before then.

What does this mean for us?  Well, it depends.  Taiwan and the south china sea, is more easily defended whilst Taiwan is independent because there are two chokepoints that we can currently keep the Chinese Navy in and stop them from reaching out.  This is why the uproar occurred about ports in the Pacific and China owning them because they were effectively capable of launching military operations from outside this choke point. 

We are truly on the precipice of something happening if the rumours are to be believed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6sCsOdqXQw


Who knows for sure.  Interesting time to be alive.  We have had the technological revolution since 1997 (when you think how far technology has grown, the fact we now fly around the world frequently, satellites, computers, mobiles etc, it really did all change then), 9/11, the middle eastern conflicts (Syria, Lybia), the crimean annexation, a pandemic, a couple of GFC's and now it appears we are staring at world war 3 not far away.

FFS, you think we could have at least pinched a flag in that time (I thought Id end up on a comedic note at least).
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 15, 2023, 01:54:09 pm
I have a lot of respect for Paul Keating, he basically worked miracles that kept Hawk in power.

However, he does have a blind spot, and it's in his trust for his Chinese compatriots. Keating seems to entertain the idea that the personal goodwill he experiences from his Chinese colleagues will be extended to all and sundry by default, but the truth about that misconception is seen in how China's elite treat many of it's own citizens let alone visiting foreigners. There are groups of people in China treated with less respect by Chinese authorities than the livestock traded in a wet market.

People still disappear off the street daily, families and friends are threatened to gain leverage, overseas citizens get abducted or threatened.

If you are a foreigner, you won't even get a fair trial, so whatever you do if visiting do not slip up!
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 22, 2023, 02:33:31 pm
Thanks DJ. For context, from a weaponry point of view, how much does sub carry? I know nuclear subs can stay submerged for months at a time and can be virtually undetectable, but what sort of weapons payload can they carry compared to say a surface battleship?

The last battleship, USS Missouri (displacement 58,000 tons), was decommissioned in 1992 (after featuring in "Under Siege").  The latest USN aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R Ford (displacement 112,000 tons), is by far the largest ever warship and it carries an enormous payload of aircraft and their munitions as well as surface to air missiles and other air defence weapon sustems.  After the aircraft and heicopter carriers, the next largest warship would be a Kirov class cruiser (displacement 28,000 tons). 

The USS Zumwalt (displacement 16,000 tons) is a stealth destroyer with the very latest suite of weapons and defensive systems.  It carries 2 X 155mm guns, 2 X 30mm close defence weapon systems, 80 vertical launch cells for a range of missiles including Tomahawks, two helicopters and three UAVS with their own weaponry.

Virginia class submarines displace 10,000 tons and have four 21" torpedo tubes and 12 vertical launch tubes for missiles.  They would carry 25 torpedoes and 40 missiles.  The Virginia class launch tubes can also support future payloads such as autonomous vehicles, AIM-9X surface-to-air missiles and hypersonic boost-glide missiles.  Astute class submarines displace 7,000 tons (the same as our Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyers) and have six 21" torpedo tubes and carry 38 torpedoes and missiles, all launched via the torpedo tubes.  Our Collins class submarines displace around 3,400 tons and carry a mix of 22 torpedoes and missiles or 44 sea mines all deployed via six 21" torpedo tubes.

Our Hobart class destroyers have 1 X 5" gun, 1 X Phalanx and 2 X 25mm close defence weapon systems, 48 missile launch cells, two torpedo tubes, and one helicopter.

Basically, the Astute and Virginia class submarines are much larger that the Collins class and can carry a significantly greater weapons payload.  Neither can carry anywhere near the weaponry of an equivalently sized surface warship but they can carry their weapons much further and for much longer and can strike targets without being detected.

Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Thryleon on March 22, 2023, 03:30:10 pm
I visited the USS Missouri last year.  Looks like it would be fine for use if required. 

Possibly obsolete in modern warfare, but last saw active duty in Afghanistan and has been around for a long time.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on March 22, 2023, 03:40:35 pm
Fortunately, the USS Missouri was able to dodge and weave around the Taliban’s fleet of cruise and anti-ship missiles.

PS: It was decommissioned before the invasion of Afghanistan. It was involved in the 1st Gulf War. It hasn’t moved under its own power since 1992.

But even in the Gulf War, the ability of the Iraqis to target US ships was pretty much eliminated soon after hostilities began. The USS Missouri would be good to have if we want to declare war on Tonga but it would provoke hilarity rather than shock and awe if it were deployed against a country with a decent military.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Lods on March 22, 2023, 04:40:35 pm
Fortunately, the USS Missouri was able to dodge and weave around the Taliban’s fleet of cruise and anti-ship missiles.

PS: It was decommissioned before the invasion of Afghanistan. It was involved in the 1st Gulf War. It hasn’t moved under its own power since 1992.

But even in the Gulf War, the ability of the Iraqis to target US ships was pretty much eliminated soon after hostilities began. The USS Missouri would be good to have if we want to declare war on Tonga but it would provoke hilarity rather than shock and awe if it were deployed against a country with a decent military.

We can still use it for surrenders. 😉
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Mav on March 22, 2023, 04:45:39 pm
If we surrender to Tonga, I’ll be very upset (although the odds the bookies would offer on that result could make it a windfall).
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on March 22, 2023, 05:39:01 pm
If we surrender to Tonga, I’ll be very upset (although the odds the bookies would offer on that result could make it a windfall).
Tonga have been buddying up with China so you would probably be surrendering to Xi and the Missouri would be used to make  LDV's and GWM vehicles, be a lot better build quality than the rubbish they produce now.....
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Lods on March 22, 2023, 07:23:04 pm
I'm sure Tonga will be a valuable member of the United States of Oceania.....once we convince them. ;)  :D
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 22, 2023, 08:57:27 pm
Tonga have been buddying up with China so you would probably be surrendering to Xi and the Missouri would be used to make  LDV's and GWM vehicles, be a lot better build quality than the rubbish they produce now.....
The public must not confuse the corruption and misdirection of the Tongan Politicians with the attitude of the Tongan public, the gold doesn't flow downhill and like Fijians most Tongan locals don't care for it anyway!

There is a massive hatred in most Pacific Islands for the way the Chinese poorly treat the environment and also show such disrespect for the local cultures.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Baggers on March 23, 2023, 08:25:25 am
The public must not confuse the the corruption and misdirection of the Tongan Politicians with the attitude of the Tongan public, the gold doesn't flow downhill and like Fijians most Tongan locals don't care for it anyway!

There is a massive hatred in most Pacific Islands for the way the Chinese poorly treat the environment and also show such disrespect the local cultures.

Although democracy aint perfect, it beats the cr@p out of what these nations have. I wonder how long Fijian, Tongan, Chinese and Russian bosses would last in a fair, democratic election with other (better?) options to choose from. Hard to see that, in particular, Xi and Vlad, are representative of the populace.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 23, 2023, 10:50:35 am
I visited the USS Missouri last year.  Looks like it would be fine for use if required. 

Possibly obsolete in modern warfare, but last saw active duty in Afghanistan and has been around for a long time.

Afghanistan is a bit far from the ocean for any warship Thry 🙂

“Mighty Mo” was re-commissioned twice over its 50 year career, the last time for the invasion of Iraq.  Its main guns and cruise missiles could strike targets well inside Iraq.

One of Mighty Mo’s achievements was providing the backdrop for Cher’s ‘Turn back time’ music video.  The sight of Cher’s naked, tattooed buttocks straddling one of the 16” guns upset many conservative Americans and excited many teenage boys 🙂
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 23, 2023, 10:57:43 am
Fortunately, the USS Missouri was able to dodge and weave around the Taliban’s fleet of cruise and anti-ship missiles.

PS: It was decommissioned before the invasion of Afghanistan. It was involved in the 1st Gulf War. It hasn’t moved under its own power since 1992.

But even in the Gulf War, the ability of the Iraqis to target US ships was pretty much eliminated soon after hostilities began. The USS Missouri would be good to have if we want to declare war on Tonga but it would provoke hilarity rather than shock and awe if it were deployed against a country with a decent military.

My cousin was a petty officer on HMAS Sydney in the Gulf War.  He was on anti-aircraft watch and radar detected 100s of aircraft approaching the allied fleet; the sh1t was about to hit the fan!  Fortunately, the aircraft changed direction and headed for Iran.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: LP on March 23, 2023, 11:01:29 am
My cousin was a petty officer on HMAS Sydney in the Gulf War.  He was on anti-aircraft watch and radar detected 100s of aircraft approaching the allied fleet; the sh1t was about to hit the fan!  Fortunately, the aircraft changed direction and headed for Iran.
I know someone in the ADF who is a specialist in foreign policy and political analysis, listening to him talk it's amazing just how big of a part that "not being drawn into a conflict" plays in modern military leadership training. The commanders have to do this is real time.

The public in the meantime are thinking, "Shoot them down, why didn't they shoot them down?"

That example is exactly why a country like Australia needs a serious fleet of Subs.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Baggers on March 23, 2023, 11:37:30 am
My cousin was a petty officer on HMAS Sydney in the Gulf War.  He was on anti-aircraft watch and radar detected 100s of aircraft approaching the allied fleet; the sh1t was about to hit the fan!  Fortunately, the aircraft changed direction and headed for Iran.

What branch was your cousin in?

My grandfather was an engineering officer on the Sydney that was sunk! He drafted off before that tragedy, fortunately, and took up a post on the Australia (I think, might have been Hobart).
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: Thryleon on March 23, 2023, 03:02:27 pm
Afghanistan is a bit far from the ocean for any warship Thry 🙂

“Mighty Mo” was re-commissioned twice over its 50 year career, the last time for the invasion of Iraq.  Its main guns and cruise missiles could strike targets well inside Iraq.

One of Mighty Mo’s achievements was providing the backdrop for Cher’s ‘Turn back time’ music video.  The sight of Cher’s naked, tattooed buttocks straddling one of the 16” guns upset many conservative Americans and excited many teenage boys 🙂


Yep I mis-remembered what we told on board and it was the gulf war.  (I swear I heard them say it saw active duty in the 90's and even support in the 2000's somewhere too).

A great accomplishment for a very old war ship irrsepective, and an impressive thing nonetheless.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 23, 2023, 11:31:30 pm
What branch was your cousin in?

My grandfather was an engineering officer on the Sydney that was sunk! He drafted off before that tragedy, fortunately, and took up a post on the Australia (I think, might have been Hobart).

My uncle served on the Sydney during the Korean War.  One of my earliest memories is the Sydney docking in Melbourne after hostilities ended.  My uncle was a CPO who specialised in aircraft maintenance but was also a master mariner and was the skipper of the Victorian research vessel Delphinus after his navy service. 

His son was also a CPO who served with distinction in the Gulf War.  I’m not sure what branch he was in but he was responsible for anti-aircraft defence.  He was court martialled for refusing to pass two female sailors who were unable to pull back the cocking handle of a .50 cal MG.  Basically, the captain ordered him to pass them and he refused.

My late brother, a Wing Commander in the RAAF, defended him and won the case.  Of course, my cousin’s career was stuffed and he left the navy.  He’s now a dog handler who works across a range of enforcement/corrections roles.
Title: Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins
Post by: DJC on March 23, 2023, 11:34:43 pm
Our fleet of Taipan helicopters is grounded again after one ditched during anti-terrorist exercises.

The sooner they’re replaced, the better!