Jura The idiot
General
sorry I'm late here
thought you might like these:
(I found them on a Russian forum LOL)
Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
sorry I'm late here
thought you might like these:
(I found them on a Russian forum LOL)
Lethe
Captain
Australia could acquire a Ford-class aircraft carrier and all the usual statements could be trotted out about it: "provides unprecedented capability", "world-class technology", etc. etc. None of it would detract from the fact that such an acquisition would be foolhardy in the extreme.
The same applies to many other of Australia's actual acquisition programs. Nobody questions that e.g. the C-17 is an excellent aircraft in its own right, but rather the costs and opportunity costs of operating it in the context of national resources and requirements. Instead of a handful of C-17s we could've had more A330 MRTTs, more C-130Js, and more C-27Js, reinforcing those critical (and critically under-resourced) capabilities. Instead of vanity LHDs that we can't even afford to properly outfit, let alone escort and employ effectively, we could've had a couple more freaking Air Warfare Destroyers.
If all you're interested in is pretty photos of shiny toys then the ADF is a roaring success story. As an Australian, my interest in the national defense extends rather beyond that, and I make no apologies for it.
Last edited:
As is your example...in the extreme.
But these are your opinions, Lethe. You have an elected government. That government reflects the will of the people. If they step outside of that to the point of the people being disastified, the people will replace them.
It swings both ways.
Clearly there are things in the US going on that I do not agree with. But SD is not the place to voice those political issues.
When the day is done, Australia is getting what its government, which has been elected by the people, is giving it.
Here on SD we focus on the systems that are being implemented and discuss their specific technical, specifications, capabilities, and use...not what "should" have been had government officials only done things differently...particularly as one member or the other sees it. You can see how that would lead to a free for all, can't you? That's not what we are about.
That is all.
See my above. Clearly, here on SD, we are interested in far more...as is attested by our longevity, our reputation, and the content of the site. It is for you to decide if you want to be a part of that accoridng to SD rules.
No one is asking you to apologize.
Just trying to good naturedly point out how SD operates.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
Yes it is, Jura.
The US and Australia hold these exercises regularly, and this year, for the first time, Japan was invited to participate as well.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Infantry Weapons
Australia ready to sign EF88 Austeyr rifle contract
Julian Kerr, Sydney - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
06 July 2015
The ADF will start receiving about 30,000 new EF88 Austeyr 5.56 mm rifles in 2016. Source: Thales
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) will begin taking delivery in 2016 of about 30,000 new EF88 Austeyr 5.56 mm rifles under an AUD100 million (USD75 million) contract to be signed later this month, a Department of Defence (DoD) spokesman confirmed to IHS Jane's on 7 July.
The contract, to be signed with Thales Australia, follows second pass approval announced on 6 July by Defence Minister Kevin Andrews for expenditure of AUD467 million under Project Land 125 Phase 5C.
The EF88 (E for Enhanced) will replace the Austeyr F88 which, with various modifications, has been in service with the ADF since 1988.
Andrews said in a statement that the rifles would cost an estimated AUD100 million and would be manufactured by Thales Australia at its small arms facility in Lithgow, New South Wales.
They would improve the ADF's close combat and general combat capability by upgrading the ergonomics of the current weapon and increasing the mounting options for ancillary devices.
The DoD spokesman said the Thales contract would be signed before the end of July for "about" 30,000 EF88s.
First deliveries under the new contract would take place in 2016, although some EF88s from low-rate initial production approved by the government in September 2014 had already been received for derisking activities.
The balance of the approved expenditure would be applied to the acquisition of a broad range of targeting and surveillance ancillaries for the EF88, solicitation for which was already under way.
The EF88 is a near total redesign of the 70's vintage Steyr AUG
Zool
Junior Member
If this is true, then the upcoming 2015 White Paper will have any references of an F-35B deployment strategy aboard the LHD's removed:
Plans to equip the HMAS Canberra and another Navy assault ship with F-35 fighter jets were derailed by technical difficulties and the high cost involved, sources say.
by John Kerin
Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.
Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35 Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones.
The first of the assault ships was completed last year and commissioned into the Navy in November as HMAS Canberra.
But defence officials conceded to a Senate estimates committee late last year that the jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars.
Defence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.
But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".
"There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."
'BETTER WAYS TO SPEND THE MONEY'
The white paper, which lays down the Abbott government's 20-year vision for defence – including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist – is expected to be released next month.
The Prime Minister's proposal would have brought Australia into line with the United States, Britain and a number of other nations that plan to operate F-35s from their assault ships.
The F-35B version of the joint strike fighter is being built for the US Marines and British forces to replace their British-built Harrier jump jets.
The Spanish Navy's version of the troop transport assault ship, which utilises the same underlying design as the Royal Australian Navy's troop assault ship, is equipped to carry Harrier jump jets.
Mr Abbott announced in April last year that Australia would buy an additional 58 conventional take-off and landing versions for the Royal Australian Air Force at a cost of $12 .4 billion, bringing the number of orders to 72.
But the RAAF version was not suitable for the troop transport assault ships, which would have required the purchase of extra fighters to equip the ships. And the radar-evading stealth fighter program has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, as well as software issues with the F-35B – the worst-afflicted version of the aircraft.
In an independent report on the jump jet proposal, defence think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned that the purchase of aircraft and ship modifications would involve "multibillions of dollars".
Analysts Richard Brabin-Smith and Dr Benjamin Schreer also warned in the report that the cost was unjustified and could also "raise unrealistic expectations" that Australia was adopting a "much more muscular strategic posture" in the region.
"The cost-benefit analysis is not in favour of developing [the assault ship-jump jet proposal]," the paper said.
"The scenarios in which the capability would be realistically required and make an important impact are operationally vague at best.
"The 2015 defence white paper should not announce a decision or intention to acquire jump jets for the ADF… there are likely better ways to spend the money."
From this article it is clearly a budgetary issue. Probably dealing more with the cost of the aircraft themselves.
The technical side is not a major hurdle as the Spanish designed these ships to have a STOVL fixed wing air component...and they themselves will have them
IMHO, this is short sighted because it would provide the Australians with a significant capability. But they are the ones who have to decide if they want or can afford that capability...not some naval enthusiast sitting in Idaho. LOL!
The technical side is not a major hurdle as the Spanish designed these ships to have a STOVL fixed wing air component...and they themselves will have them
IMHO, this is short sighted because it would provide the Australians with a significant capability. But they are the ones who have to decide if they want or can afford that capability...not some naval enthusiast sitting in Idaho. LOL!
kwaigonegin
Colonel
That's a damn shame... A nice carrier like that with no teeth! From experience usually the first go around is by far the most telling. If no birds go on this ship, odds are it'll never have them going forward.
I'm always surprised that the bean counters are shocked when someone tells them how much it cost to operate jets off ships.
Do these fools not take those things into account when they signed the contract for aircraft carriers?
Brumby
Major
There is a major difference in my view to that of the Spanish and that is they had the STVOL component in mind from inception. The report seems to suggest that the necessary modification to the Australian vessels will be technically challenging and cost prohibitive.
- Status