ADF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Australia will go to the Polls on 21 May, so from here on in Defence announcements will only be Election promises except for things like further support for Ukraine.
On that note.

Not aimed at anyone in particular. Keep Australian partisan politics out of any discussions. The Moderators will have little tolerance for it.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
This May 9 march that is coming up.
Can any service person be called in to do that ? Or are they parade ground troops?
It looks pretty specialist to me.
Do you think Vlad has the pro's left or is going to be really fun to watch this time?
Sorry? the ADF is marching on the 9th of May?
Have the feeling you may have the wrong thread.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The 12 MH-60R and 29 AH-64E selected by Australia over the last year will be delivered from 2025 in a plan announced today by the PM and DEFMIN. Nothing at this stage on the planned Blackhawk buy.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The news about the Romeos is very welcome; particularly the number. Six Taipans for Navy was never enough, nor even in the day we had them in the utility role was 8 Sea Kings; not that we had that many for long. And that was with less decks. 12 should give a flight to each LHD with a couple left over for AORs or whatever. And one training pipeline will be very welcome.

I’ll leave the Army to talk about the Apaches but another piece of possibly little appreciated news from that is that all our combat helos stand fast the Chinooks will now use (variants of) the same engine (assuming the Army don’t go RR like the Brits, and I’m sure they won’t). The Romeos use -401s and the others -701s, but there is a lot of interchangeability; plus you can rebuild a 401 into a 701 and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

Mikeymike

Member
Interesting article posted by ADM today. Not sure if all the examples they use are relevant as some of these projects definitely had concerns but does seem to show a pattern where negative press is generated that is later used to justify a change in direction, whether it is a cancellation or replacement with a sole source acquisition.

Also seems to acknowledge that the Attack class program was progressing as well as you could expect and most of the major issues raised were not real or created/exaggerated by poor media coverage.

If the project was progressing as well as the below section suggests then it really puts how the government dealt with the cancellation and change to nuclear in poor light which could have been handled a lot better in regards to handling the relation with Naval Group and France.
“The updated program cost estimate is $46.4 billion in 2016 constant dollars, which remains within the original acquisition cost estimate of $50 billion in 2016 constant dollars announced at the outset.

“Naval Group work collaboratively with Defence since then to achieve substantial progress, and there are no extreme program strategic risks.”

On 31 August, Moriarty responded: “[This] is a reflection of… the good working relationship that you and your team has established with Naval Group and LMA. I will ensure that the good progress to date is part of the advice we take to Government, and you will hear that message repeated in the 2+2 [Ministerial Consultations] with France.”
Also sorry if this is not right place for this, Wasn't sure if here or the RAN thread was better suited as overall article covers whole ADF projects but focuses on Attack.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Somehow think the Attack story came from Naval; that article does not represent the views of the situation I was hearing at the time. They are currently negotiating with the CoA; it is in their interests to portray themselves as blameless while painting the other side as inherently evil.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Somehow think the Attack story came from Naval; that article does not represent the views of the situation I was hearing at the time. They are currently negotiating with the CoA; it is in their interests to portray themselves as blameless while painting the other side as inherently evil.
True but there is also a lot of backgrounding by corporate entities to portray their competition in a bad light. Elements in Raytheon were backgrounding Canberra against ASC on the AWD project with the aim of being appointed prime contractor to "sort" things out, it backfired and Navantia were contracted to take over management of the shipbuilding side, which made life even more challenging for Raytheon.

One of the reasons Austal keep getting work is they get good press, even when they screw up. There is a lot of marketing and politics behind the scenes that leads to some dubious decisions. That said, I was continually warned off Naval group because of various management and personnel problems. They broke a lot of good people.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The news about the Romeos is very welcome; particularly the number. Six Taipans for Navy was never enough, nor even in the day we had them in the utility role was 8 Sea Kings; not that we had that many for long. And that was with less decks. 12 should give a flight to each LHD with a couple left over for AORs or whatever. And one training pipeline will be very welcome.

I’ll leave the Army to talk about the Apaches but another piece of possibly little appreciated news from that is that all our combat helos stand fast the Chinooks will now use (variants of) the same engine (assuming the Army don’t go RR like the Brits, and I’m sure they won’t). The Romeos use -401s and the others -701s, but there is a lot of interchangeability; plus you can rebuild a 401 into a 701 and vice versa.
Potentially not only big savings in parts commonality but also training and moving personnel across platforms. Believe it or not, an Airbus employee, once speculated re-engining the Tigers with T700s.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
A interesting article in today's The Strategist from Bob Moyse


He probably not a fan of the Pacific Support Ship and other things.

Cheers S
 

Morgo

Active Member
A interesting article in today's The Strategist from Bob Moyse


He probably not a fan of the Pacific Support Ship and other things.

Cheers S
i agree with him. I don’t understand what the point of it is and what role it’s supposed to fill.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
If I wanted a vessel that could secretly deploy and recover AUVs or lay undersea submarine detecting sensors while at the same time using the cover story that it was a Pacific Support Vessel then this ship would be close to perfect.

It has a moon pool and a crane capable of recovering and placing equipment several kilometres underwater. In fact that was its previous job.

But as an actual PSV it would be somewhat wanting.
 

Morgo

Active Member
Dear Mods ….. are we allowed to talk about the election now?

If so, does anyone have any informed, dispassionate, non partisan views on how Marles’ approach may differ from Dutton’s?

If not, I retract my post!
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
We cannot be certain that Marles will be DEFMIN, the only reason there was any Swearing in today is so Albanese and Wong are able to attend the Quad summit in Tokyo as PM and Foreign Minister, Marles was actually sworn in as Employment Minister but all the Ministers sworn in today are handling multiple portfolios until a full cabinet swearing in happens next Wednesday. We will know next Tuesday who is doing what after the Labor Caucus meeting.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not aimed at anyone in particular.

As the rules state, politics can only be discussed WRT defence policy and procurement. Any parochial or partisan political posts will not be acceptable.

Edited to clear confusion.
 
Last edited:

Morgo

Active Member
As the rules state, politics can only be discussed WRT defence policy and procurement. Any parochial or partisan political posts will not be acceptable.
Oh I fully understand and am supportive. My question is only to the extent that the change in Government may change the overall size of the funding envelope and the priorities therein.

No value judgements will be coming from me on the above. I completely understand that, relevant as they are, those are exogenous factors for the purposes of discussions here.

A budget update is coming next month which should be revealing.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Oh I fully understand and am supportive. My question is only to the extent that the change in Government may change the overall size of the funding envelope and the priorities therein.

No value judgements will be coming from me on the above. I completely understand that, relevant as they are, those are exogenous factors for the purposes of discussions here.

A budget update is coming next month which should be revealing.
I have edited it so that it is clear that I wasn't aiming it at you.

I fear that you fullas on NZ's West Island take things a bit literally - Kiwi ducks for cover :D

Yes the Budget update will be interesting and we will se where the new govts defence priorities lie. I really hope that the era of back biting factional blood letting and spills are over so that the country will have stable government.
 

Morgo

Active Member
I have edited it so that it is clear that I wasn't aiming it at you.

I fear that you fullas on NZ's West Island take things a bit literally - Kiwi ducks for cover :D

Yes the Budget update will be interesting and we will se where the new govts defence priorities lie. I really hope that the era of back biting factional blood letting and spills are over so that the country will have stable government.
Ha ha don’t worry my hide is pretty thick mate, just trying to keep the peace with the trigger happy mods from the sheep appreciation society off our east coast. ;)

My sense is that it’ll be business as usual covered up by some window dressing to make it look like a new approach. But we will see.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Just to state the obvious most long term defence projects need to survive several changes of government. In Australia’s case we do have a reasonably bipartisan approach to defence matters.

That isn’t to say that there won’t be changes to future procurement programs. No doubt there will be continual budgetary pressures and unwanted governmental interference but I think most established programs will blunder along as usual.

It is also more important than ever for Australia to maintain good relations with its allies so I don’t see any major changes in our defence policy in the foreseeable future.

I could be wrong of course but I just don’t see any indication that Australia’s overall defence posture is going to change anytime soon.
 
Top