This article is about the USMC basing in Australia and some other Defence White Paper things.
A few points:
-USMC basing will cost Australia around $1.6B for various facilities/support.
---This money will come from an already lowered Defence budget.
---How much effect would Australia have if it invested $1.6B into its' own Army?
-If this is so important, why doesn't Australia have more joint systems with the U.S? For example the Super Hornets and some other things are joint with the U.S. Navy and USMC. Instead of buying more Super Hornets, Australia could buy Yankee and Zulu helicopters and convert its' C-130J aircraft into KC-130J Harvest Hawks like the USMC.
-The Author mentions the importance of new Boeing P-8s but has not a clue of the value one can get from upgraded P-3s not unlike the kind New Zealand uses.
-Much of this white paper effort ignores the fact that if Australia was going to base U.S. forces, the better idea would be a base for Virginia class nuke subs to visit (re: item 6 in this post). These subs could rotate in and out. Not a fan of that? Nothing says regional deterrence like rotational tours for U.S. tankers and F-22s.
I do wish I could have confidence in the next Defence White Paper, and/or the people that compose it.
8 comments:
Hi Eric.
Why entertain buying UH-1Y (at around $20million) when the ADF Blackhawk fleet could be upgraded to the a common modification standard (apparently now at about 4 different levels)? And the Huey II virtually equates to UH-1Y capability so upgrading remaining ADF UH-1H in storage for $2million per airframe and acquiring those intended to be shed by the RNZAF would boost vital battlefield utility helo capacity, which will not be adequately provided by MRH90.
As for AH-1Z ($31million); I cannot see the capability as necessary (or Tiger) if Blackhawk and Iroquois were refurbished. This would enable provision of the more versatile gunship capability a la UH-60L DAP and an upgraded Huey II Bushranger version. Better to go down this cost-effective track with armaments suited to intimate close air support and let the Air Force provide heavier firepower.
RAAF C-130 airlift assets are being unwisely diluted and converting some C-130J to a 'Harvest Hawk' style configuration would only exacerbate this deficiency. Better to rescind disposal of C-130H and refurbish them as NZ is doing, then convert for Special Operations roles.
Heartily concur with refurbishing the P-3s - again like the Kiwis - and drop the P-8 notion, which would diminish LRMP resources and not be affordable anyway considering the budgetary outlook over the next decade.
Australia really needs Global Hawk/Triton so we can better see and hear what is going on in our region. I see that as being a vital part of an adequate deterrence capability and complementary rotational deployment of US submarines and F-22s seems very worthy of consideration. The JSF and RAN submarine expansion program could foreseeably soak up too much of constrained defence expenditure over the next decade.
Checking the Bios of 4 key staff at ASPI who are peddling defence related info via various media; none of them have any military background, just highly paid Public Service roles.
I agree. My solutions seem lavish but much less than the big Vegas spenders in Defence.
I figure the Army is worth it. Yankee would be real nice. Zulu real nice if we could find the money. Certainly conversion of old airframes where practicable should be the order of the day.
Also, I am a bit concerned that Global Hawk may have some other sustainment issues that might not make it what we hoped it would be.
"Yankee would be real nice. Zulu real nice if we could find the money. Certainly conversion of old airframes where practicable should be the order of the day."
The -1Y and -1Z were sold to the Pentagon as a supposed bargain based on conversion of old airframes.
They were not a bargain, at the end of the day. While the resulting frames are capable, they are by no means inexpensive.
Anonymous; refurbishment of twin-engine UH-1N airframes (that model being performance limited) was the original intention but the UH-1Y Super Huey evolved as a new build with a 533mm cabin extension. That is partially why the combined AH-1Z/UH-1Y program for the Marines was pretty expensive. Debatable whether the twin-engine UH-1Y is a better performer than the single engine Huey II.
Scroll right through the imagery at this link to see the extent of airframe/electrical refurbishment of UH-1H airframes in the Huey II upgrade and a bunch of new major components are also added; virtually reborn platforms at cost of only $2million: http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=197344
The enhanced performance of the Huey II perpetuates the original utility helo concept of a light agile and cost-effective battlefield support platform. The Super Huey is twin-engine, much heavier like the Blackhawk and about same cost. Having built a slightly longer cabin for the UH-1Y, there now seems potential to make that platform single engine a la Huey II to reduce weight, complexity and costs. Perhaps a remote possibility.
Nothing like the expense of the MRH90 and Tiger.
And they actually work, and can be maintained in the field.
Bushranger,I see in the White paper even the C 130J is for the chop,as is Richmond.
Hi Anonymous May 3, 3:25PM.
DWP2013, Sections 8.92/8.93 are of concern. Having frivolously shed the upgradable C-130H, 2 more C-130J have been cancelled on the basis that an extra C-17 compensates and the C-27 will provide some additional capacity.
Seems to me that somebody sitting at a desk in Canberra, without any appreciation of what types of capability were/are best suited for near proximity regional operations in the high DA mountainous wet tropics, is just number crunching overall airlift payload capacity.
Ironically, re-engined RAAF Caribou have been found necessary in Afghanistan yet people in Canberra are in denial regarding the necessity of that STOL capability in our near northern environment. Methinks we are only getting the C-27 because the USAF does not want them.
Note also that much future planning really reduces the numbers of platforms in service. This is happening with the disastrous Helicopter Strategic Master Plan, the airlift fleet and intended for LRMP. Consider how that will affect on-line availability in a scenario where much of platform maintenance is outsourced.
An irksome theme throughout the latest White Paper is over-emphasis on employment of military platforms for humanitarian purposes. Putting a Canberra class aircraft carrier to sea will hardly be a quick reaction capability, let alone the cost.
Re bases; we have lived near Williamtown since Year 2000 and the whole Port Stephens region is increasingly becoming a dormitary area for people working within a 100 kilometre radius of Newcastle. Development is ongoing not far from Williamtown and the civil airport infrastructure is being progressively expanded. My guess is that both Richmond and Williamtown might eventually cease to become military and Air Force facilities at Amberley and Townsville expanded.
DoD has in effect undermined military capacity through shedding proven platforms that could be cost-effectively optimised. And of course, operating costs of more complex types will soar, inhibiting available flying hours.
It is inevitable in my view that all of the Services will have to shrink further due to realistic budgetary constraints in coming decades.
Post a Comment