What will DCP06 bring

[cherry]

Just want to get some discussion going on what people might think the new Australian Defence Capability Plan 2006-16 might bring with it. I personally think that we will finally see a solution to the embattled AIR9000 helo project with the decision to purchase further MRH-90s to replace the Blackhawks, more MRH-90s to replace the Seakings, 12 upgraded Blackhawks and a further purchase of Chinooks. We may also see the purchase or lease of either C-17 or A400M in the near future. For the Army, I envisage Remote Weapon Stations ordered for Abrams, ASLAV, M113, and Bushmaster. Possibly an MLRS system to supplement the new howitzers and a new ground based air defence system futher down the track. ???????????

[machina]

What do you think would be a feasible purchase of chinooks, what sort of price?

And how would the remote weapon station affect the interior of the a Bushmaster?

[cherry]

It all depends on which way a purchase is approached. If they are to replace the Caribou then I would replace them with a tit-for-tat buy (14), but if the Caribous were replaced with another fixed wing platform then I would personally like to see at least another 10 Chooks bought. ADF may want to operate them from the new LHD as well so a marinised capability in the Chooks may also be desirable (I know the UK has had problems introducing this capability but perhaps we can learn from their mistakes). So basically I would like to see at least another 10 chinooks purchased, I think this would be around the $1B mark?????

[cherry]

Now it's time to find out. The DCP public version has been released and can be downloaded at the following link:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/dcp.cfm

[Aussie Digger]

Answer to the topic: nothing much new or exciting...

Land 17 Artillery replacement to be deferred by 3 years. Hopefully the 155mm ammunition replacement project continues in the meantime and we get new ammo and precision guided munitions for our existing assets...

Land 19 RBS-70 replacement/upgrade announced. Sounds like we'll get a new system, but only one and not complementary short/medium ranged systems.

AIR-9000 Phase - 8 new anti-submarine/anti-surface warfare helo's. I'd hazard a guess at NH-90 being a "shoe-in" but MH-60R has to be a good chance as well, particularly if our current Seahawks could be re-manufactured to that standard.

Psychological warfare production capability: new psychological warfare ops capability.

[cherry]

Bugger all in there really. Disappointing I must say. What do you think SEA1100 will bring and in what form?
There was no mention of anything additional such as more javelins, more C-130J, more bushmasters, more chinooks, no further phases of LAND17, no all-terrain vehicles, no VSRAD for ANZACs, and no UAV capability for the Armidales like rumours have been suggesting. All in all, very little new stuff. I am flabbergasted!:(

[Aussie Digger]

Bugger all in there really. Disappointing I must say. What do you think SEA1100 will bring and in what form?
There was no mention of anything additional such as more javelins, more C-130J, more bushmasters, more chinooks, no further phases of LAND17, no all-terrain vehicles, no VSRAD for ANZACs, and no UAV capability for the Armidales like rumours have been suggesting. All in all, very little new stuff. I am flabbergasted!:(

I can't understand why they bothered really. There's bugger all in there that's different to 04-14 DCP, except for some things being deferred (Land 17) and none of GF's hints as to additional capability.

The ANZAC radar upgrade has already been announced for instance AND funded yet all of a sudden they are talking it up as a "new" capability.

Load of crap. The CEA-FAR/CEA-MOUNT upgrade was announced when ASMD got 2nd pass approval. What's the big deal now???

[scraw]

I can't understand why they bothered really. There's bugger all in there that's different to 04-14 DCP, except for some things being deferred (Land 17) and none of GF's hints as to additional capability.

The ANZAC radar upgrade has already been announced for instance AND funded yet all of a sudden they are talking it up as a "new" capability.

Load of crap. The CEA-FAR/CEA-MOUNT upgrade was announced when ASMD got 2nd pass approval. What's the big deal now???

When I was reading it and not seeing the rumoured things I couldn't help but think we'd be continuing the tradition of ad hoc announcements of purchases, witness the C-17's and NH-90s.

Besides, even if they did have a plan, DMO, Tenix or ADI would be sure to ferg it up quick smart anyway ;)

[Cootamundra]

I can't understand why they bothered really. There's bugger all in there that's different to 04-14 DCP, except for some things being deferred (Land 17) and none of GF's hints as to additional capability.

Good point AD. I was underwhelmed I must say. But GF has seemed pretty sure that we have a number of announcements still to come. I tried to clarify over T5C but he pointed out that his numbers were correct just the platform had changed :D

At the moment we have a couple of solid 'rumours' going;
1. KC-130Js
2. More Chooks
3. Upgraded C-130Hs for SpecOps (mind you this maybe the H upgrade listed in the DCP
4. Battlefield transporters - what kind and how many who knows but the Spartan keeps getting mentioned

If you read this gf what's your take?!

If not, then we'll all have to continue to speculate :laugh

I must say I was MOST disappointed about the Arty upgrade getting pushed back (again) I thought we were ready to move forward on that one. We've firmed up the numbers/mix (i.e. Air portable + SP), why push it back?:mad:

[cherry]

So much for a hardened and networked army. There is nothing in there that even contributes to hardening our army. Gen Leahy is full of it. Our army will still be the poor cousins. Another reason not to join the ADF.

[Aussie Digger]

So much for a hardened and networked army. There is nothing in there that even contributes to hardening our army. Gen Leahy is full of it. Our army will still be the poor cousins. Another reason not to join the ADF.

Agree completely. I'd like to see some substance to these claims. The only hardening to the Army that is occuring that I can see is 3RAR becoming mechanised and this is only being achieved by stripping 3/4 Cav Regt of it's M113AS3/4's and 7th Brigade of it's Bushmaster IMV's. The Reserve is also being stripped of any actual COMBAT capability...

Maybe they should call it "hardening and Networking 1 Brigade" as the rest of Army is being shafted...

[robsta83]

Do you all think its a space for but not with devlopment plan like our ANZACS, To condense it:
A2A refuelling 5 planes enough for what a Squadron on a ferry mission to the US?

Wedgetails 6, Enough for a contiunued presence in a certain area with the capability of refuellers

22 LRH enough for a difference but really in a deployed situation minus maitenance etc,

59 M1A1's I mean really not quite a regiment is it,

etc etc.....
As I've said its been said before in many different threads, but perhaps the strategy is have a basic established capability in all areas that present a highly capable modern Armed Forces minus a paratrooper force:( yet if war should come rely on a 1 year or so not War like happened in '39 to allow for purchasing equipment leasing stuff etc. I guess its easier than having nothing at all and it does elimanate a long lead in time but..........

[cherry]

I guess with the lack of new projects in the DCP that the possibility of purchasing something like the Raven or Skylark UAV that our forces are supposedly trialling will not be happening. I think the Chief of Army has a lot to answer to.:sniper

[Aussie Digger]

I guess with the lack of new projects in the DCP that the possibility of purchasing something like the Raven or Skylark UAV that our forces are supposedly trialling will not be happening. I think the Chief of Army has a lot to answer to.:sniper

Skylark has already been purchased, why would they trial it now? It's deployed with both the Al Muthana taskgroup and the specwarops taskforce in Afghanistan...

[cherry]

Only 10 Skylark UAV platforms were purchased, and 4 Raven systems for SOF. I thought this was the trial. The budget must be tighter than I thought. Our army are so 'hardened and networked" now with those 14 systems. Lookout enemies of Australia!!!!!!:D

[Aussie Digger]

Well were only getting 4 systems for the TUAV, with a system consisting of 4x air vehicles, so yes, the budget IS tight.

The Government is giving us some decent kit, but only in small quantities, enough to give us good capability for limited deployments and that's about it...

[cherry]

Perhaps the Australian Army can be called "the Hardened, networked and miniaturised army!" My heart goes out to our soldiers who are undermanned and poorly equipped.

[alexsa]

Is there any truth to the suggestion the some ex-QANTAS A330's may be coming the RAAF's way. If so is this in in the DCP?

[cherry]

Is there any truth to the suggestion the some ex-QANTAS A330's may be coming the RAAF's way. If so is this in in the DCP?

Not a hope in hell of this happening! I wouldn't be expecting any additional purchases of anything that's not in the current Defence (Lack of) Capability Plan. Our military leaders are determined to keep the ADF 30-40 years behind everyone else. We might as well just join forces with NZ. Like I have previously said, why would anyone want to join the ADF when they are scaling back numbers of platforms, replacing current capability with less platforms that only maintain capability rather than increasing it, and taking far too long to decide how they will under-equip our soldiers. Any rumours you hear of additional purchases are simply that.....rumours.

[Whiskyjack]

Not a hope in hell of this happening! I wouldn't be expecting any additional purchases of anything that's not in the current Defence (Lack of) Capability Plan. Our military leaders are determined to keep the ADF 30-40 years behind everyone else. We might as well just join forces with NZ. Like I have previously said, why would anyone want to join the ADF when they are scaling back numbers of platforms, replacing current capability with less platforms that only maintain capability rather than increasing it, and taking far too long to decide how they will under-equip our soldiers. Any rumours you hear of additional purchases are simply that.....rumours.

On the bright side (if you look very carefully) some platforms are better than none and having a core groups trained in there use will allow for rapid expansion should there worth be proved, or the situation demand it.

[Aussie Digger]

Perhaps the Australian Army can be called "the Hardened, networked and miniaturised army!" My heart goes out to our soldiers who are undermanned and poorly equipped.

Welcome to the realities of life in the ADF. We have ALWAYS been that way. Ill-equipped and under resourced by a Government that has the resources, but would rather spend it on short term pork-barrelling.

We are always the poor cousins, compared to other forces. I wouldn't exactly go so far as to say we are 30-40 years behind (except in certain capabilities ie: M113 and Artillery) but we are certainly lacking in a lot of areas, particularly with the ability to sustain military deployments.

I would say we are a lot better off nowadays than we were 10 years ago. For instance, my regiment in 1999 had 1x single pair of night vision goggles for the entire Regiment. Each soldier now has NVG's as part of his standard equipment schedule.

Items such as handheld thermal imagers, ground surveillance radars, 40mm grenade launcher attachments, Javelin anti-armour weapons etc, were simply a dream 10 years ago. Even our reserve units are mostly equipped with such now.

Items such as personal role radio's etc simply didn't exist in army 10 years ago. Every soldier in an infantry section (now for higher readiness units and later for reserve units) are equipped with such, providing better SA.

Things are better Cherry, but there IS long way to go...

[cherry]

Please forgive my ramblings, I am angry! The Government are awash with cash at the moment and they are spending little of this on the ADF. The new DCP was nothing more than a political stunt by our pollies and the defence leaders.

On the bright side (if you look very carefully) some platforms are better than none and having a core groups trained in there use will allow for rapid expansion should there worth be proved, or the situation demand it.
The thing about this is that if a situation comes up where it demands more equipment, what hope have our troops got of getting it. It takes our Government years to ponder a decision which is generally the wrong decision, it then takes years to build the equipment, and then of course all of the delays that are usually experienced with any ADF procurement. There simply is no competence there to achieve a rapid procurement of equipment in emergencies.

[robsta83]

I think if we give it a bit of time for improvement not to much of course, however the Australian public aren't to keen or educated enough in these matters to allow a open defence budget.

With fuel prices high and people still grumbling about GST etc, to many more multi billion dollar defence purchases will start to make people agro, most of the public didn't know about planned purchases of C17's or the possibility of Helo replacment. Plus the AWD announcments and the Amphibs.

Not to mention the bad press concerning the JSF, Collins (still), Tigers and Seasprites. Now as has been discussed at length some of these are warranted alot of it is not, however the public see what the left leaning press give to them.

Indonesia is not seen as a threat I think basically cause any aggression should of taken place in East Timor,and the cross border incidents weren't reported or known released as much as took place as far as I can tell, and China as a threat if they were a threat then why are we moving ever clsoer to creating a FTA with them.

I think youre right in saying that the DCP06 is dissapointing but OTOH there is only so much you can sell to the public. We have seen a commital to sustained defence increases, and on top of that we have project funded in addition to budget areas. Don't get me wrong I am a strong proponent of Defence spending and regional responsibility however placed in context I think we are passing, but only just.

[Aussie Digger]

Please forgive my ramblings, I am angry! The Government are awash with cash at the moment and they are spending little of this on the ADF. The new DCP was nothing more than a political stunt by our pollies and the defence leaders.


The thing about this is that if a situation comes up where it demands more equipment, what hope have our troops got of getting it. It takes our Government years to ponder a decision which is generally the wrong decision, it then takes years to build the equipment, and then of course all of the delays that are usually experienced with any ADF procurement. There simply is no competence there to achieve a rapid procurement of equipment in emergencies.

I'll wait and see how M1A1 Abrams and C-17 go before passing judgement on "rapid procurement" issues. Certainly Javelin and Mk 19 40mm AGL were "rapidly" acquired for Afghan /Iraq in 2002/2003 and went smoothly. Other less public acquisitions seem to have gone smoothly too. The difference seems to be, "off the shelf" rapid procurement and "Australianised" procurements.

Even Wedgetail which has been trumpeted loudly as a "modern acquisition" proceeding well under Kinnaird has been a capability almost soley designed for Australia. For 6 bloody platforms. The radar and mission systems are brand new, the platform (737-800 IGW) has never been used for an AWAC system before and the whole lot has certainly never been integrated together before.

I am somewhat surprised that the problems have taken this long, not that there are problems. Every major defence development in the West these days seems to attract "software integration difficulties" and Australia is hardly unique. Look at the history of the F-22 or MR-4A Nimrod if anyone thinks Australia is alone with this problem...

Wedgetail should deliver an outstanding AWACS capability if it takes another 18 months to be delivered so be it. I have more confidence in Boeing completing and delivering the capability than any other Defence company I can think of, off-hand though...

This HAS to be a wake up call for Government. They simply have to start rejecting defence "modification" proposals and simply buy "off the shelf". I wouldn't mind betting this has serious effects on the AWD project...

I'd also like to see Government "punish" Defence Industries that are not delivering capability that they promise they can. Defence HAVE to start including significant liquidated damages clauses into their contracts. They have the purchasing power to do so.

Does anyone seriously think ADI or Tenix are going to withdraw from the Defence Industry scene if liquidated damages clauses are signficant? Course not. They're $billion dollar plus "a year turn over" companies. Million dollar fines will hurt their bottom line, not seriously impact their viability as a company...

[Capt. Picard]

OK fellas, lets be realsitic about this. The Govt. has maintained and increased the Defence Budget since it's time in office. As AD has mentioned, equipment to improve capabilities has been acquired.

You are not going to get a government to throw away endless billions on defence when education and health are everyday priorities that are still short of money. The defence budget is adequate for Australia right now. We'd all like to see more spent because we are interest in defence, but there is a limit.

I am not keen to see a US or Chinese style military govt. abyss of billions. We spend what we can afford.

[Aussie Digger]

OK fellas, lets be realsitic about this. The Govt. has maintained and increased the Defence Budget since it's time in office. As AD has mentioned, equipment to improve capabilities has been acquired.

You are not going to get a government to throw away endless billions on defence when education and health are everyday priorities that are still short of money. The defence budget is adequate for Australia right now. We'd all like to see more spent because we are interest in defence, but there is a limit.

I am not keen to see a US or Chinese style military govt. abyss of billions. We spend what we can afford.

I don't agree with that. Australia CAN afford much more than it is willing to spend on defence. The primary capability we are short in is Infantry.

Government is not even sticking to it's White Paper 2000 commitment of 6x infantry battalion Groups, as 4RAR is now wholly considered a Specwarops unit and is not capable of deploying as an infantry battalion any longer.

IN addition to which, Governments lack funding is creating a lopsided defence force. 1 Brigade will be reasonably well equipped as a "medium" mechanised brigade and will have an adequate number of reasonably well equipped maneuvre elements.

3 Brigade will offer a reasonable light infantry brigade capability, though lacking in maneuvre elements now that 3RAR has been removed from it's OOB and lacking in firepower since it's APC capability has been removed and is to be replaced with Bushmaster IMV's only...

7 Brigade has some capable elements (6RAR, 2/14LHR and 1 Field/Medium Regt) but again lack of funding has created a situation where a part of this brigade is well equipped (Bushmaster, ASLAV, M198 - follow on SPG) but the other 2/3rds of the Brigade is equipped completely differently with less than acceptable equipment.

This is a direct result of under-investment. The original Bushmaster IMV planned buy of 350 vehicles would have been sufficient to fully equip this brigade. Government took the cheap option however and despite holding options on another 450 Bushmaster IMV's at the same price as existing one, which would be a massive boost for Australian Industry if taken up, is refusing to allow Army to acquire any more.

Instead these units will have to be equipped with a vehicle type through project Overlander and will necessarily be equipped with a different and less capable vehicle to other elements in the Brigade...

At least other brigades will be entirely equipped with the same (albeit lesser capability) vehicles. Similar problems occur right the way through Army, with units (besides the one actually deploying) stripped of capability every time an operational deployment occurs.

A similar thing occurs with Navy. RAN for instance doesn't have enough Phalanx CIWS to equip all it's vessels that are supposed to be equipped with same. AS such they are "rotated" amongst the vessels as required for operations and "simulated" during training exercises for vessels that don't have them. Fine I suppose for a peace time Navy, buit heaven forbid we should actually find ourselves in a short notice war where we actually take some losses.

The cupboards are so bare, there is nothing to replace any losses. This is a direct result of continuous funding shortages for ADF capability. Our present Government is as always simply maintaining the 1.9% GDP mantra. We are only getting funding increases in line with inflation. It's certainly little to brag about...

[Whiskyjack]

The cupboards are so bare, there is nothing to replace any losses. This is a direct result of continuous funding shortages for ADF capability. Our present Government is as always simply maintaining the 1.9% GDP mantra. We are only getting funding increases in line with inflation. It's certainly little to brag about...

Depends what side of the ditch you are on. :rolleyes:

[abramsteve]

IMO there are two ways we can look at this, only seeing negatives, or looking for the positives. Im probably more in favor of the latter...

The Defence buget has been increased every year since the current government took office, and looks set too. The fleet will be larger and more capabable than its ever been in the near future and the procurement (hopefully) of 100 JSFs is not a downsize. I wont comment on the Army and its equiptment status, as I know little of it, however I hate the idea of our troops being underequiped.


I 100% agree that the budget can and should be higher, there is no reason why health, education and defence should ever want for funding in this nation. But the reality is that they always will want more and better...

Lets be positive about this, it could be worse, we could be Kiwis...:)

[Aussie Digger]

Depends what side of the ditch you are on. :rolleyes:

True, but then we are being deployed to places like the Al Muthana province and Talil on potential "warfighting" duties. Again with units being deployed with severely deficient equipment or good kit, but kit designed for a completely different role...

ASLAV is designed as a recon vehicle yet it's pressed into service as personnel carrier, because of the continuing problems with M113 upgrade program. Again a funding issue. Government won't open the purse strings and simply buy an appropriate IFV/APC. Nope we'll spend $350m on geting 10 more years (maybe) out of M113.

It's ridiculous. If that money were spent on an off the shelf acquisiton we'd have had a decent IFV in-service in 5-6 years ago. Instead our M113's are deployed to Timor once more in the EXACT configuration they were in 1999...

7 years and nearly $300m and we are deploying the same vehicle with the same capability...

It's amazing that the anti-armour threat Australia apparently faces is sufficient to justify the acquisition of M1A1 Abrams, but the armour on the M113 which is to carry our precious few infantry men is sufficient???

The armour on the upgraded M113's is only designed to withstand HMG (12.7/14.5mm) and yet apparently we face an "increasingly lethal" anti-armour threat. Talk about a double standard...

Of course once again Australian Defence Industry has displayed it's amazing ability to completely ferg up a relatively simple upgrade program, but that's another topic...

[Capt. Picard]

AD I don't disagree that more money would be useful. The simple fact remains that education and health and other funding demands are important and ultimately provide for an economy that can support a strong defence force.

Largely we spend what we can afford right now. Further the more expensive capital equipment that is purchased now the less of it we will be able to provide operating funds when times are tough.

[Whiskyjack]

True, but then we are being deployed to places like the Al Muthana province and Talil on potential "warfighting" duties. Again with units being deployed with severely deficient equipment or good kit, but kit designed for a completely different role...

ASLAV is designed as a recon vehicle yet it's pressed into service as personnel carrier, because of the continuing problems with M113 upgrade program. Again a funding issue. Government won't open the purse strings and simply buy an appropriate IFV/APC. Nope we'll spend $350m on geting 10 more years (maybe) out of M113.

It's ridiculous. If that money were spent on an off the shelf acquisiton we'd have had a decent IFV in-service in 5-6 years ago. Instead our M113's are deployed to Timor once more in the EXACT configuration they were in 1999...

7 years and nearly $300m and we are deploying the same vehicle with the same capability...

It's amazing that the anti-armour threat Australia apparently faces is sufficient to justify the acquisition of M1A1 Abrams, but the armour on the M113 which is to carry our precious few infantry men is sufficient???

The armour on the upgraded M113's is only designed to withstand HMG (12.7/14.5mm) and yet apparently we face an "increasingly lethal" anti-armour threat. Talk about a double standard...

Of course once again Australian Defence Industry has displayed it's amazing ability to completely ferg up a relatively simple upgrade program, but that's another topic...

I agree with you completely, the M113, even upgraded is not close to the Bradley/Warrior/CV90, yet for $300m you could have 40+ of those type in service.

If there is nothing wrong with off the self and it is cheaper then that is the option to go for, local industry can still have the maintenance through the life of the vehicle.

Politics and the military are just not a good mix.

[machina]

What gets me is that 3RAR are supposed moving to Adelaide by 2011, and then they start using the M113's.

That being said I think defence funding and procurement choices have been pretty solid in the recent past. I think more chinooks would useful for so many ADF operations. 120mm mortars wouldn't go amiss, they mightn't get used alot but they're not that expensive and are so deployable. They just seem perfect for the ADF. Anyway, I suppose everyone has their wishes, but I don't think ADF has been too hard done by. Mainly by the incompetance of the modification programs.