Its an interesting one.
Seeing the goodies that are in the shop window and actually walking into the store to make a purchase is the unknown.
I think I'd look for other goodies at a different shop.
Cheers S
Certainly some interesting things.
However, it is only showing one part of the story. It isn't the complete DFR and will be more involved than just bits from AUKUS. So I would assume an AUKUS announcement of big things like Submarines, aircraft, missiles. Then a few weeks later the DFR on the changes and details in other areas.
I would temper indications of assessment as finality in acquiring. But the current environment in the US and in Australia is telling. There are big cards on the table. I do wonder what the complete picture looks like.
However, it is only showing one part of the story. It isn't the complete DFR and will be more involved than just bits from AUKUS. So I would assume an AUKUS announcement of big things like Submarines, aircraft, missiles. Then a few weeks later the DFR on the changes and details in other areas.
I would temper indications of assessment as finality in acquiring. But the current environment in the US and in Australia is telling. There are big cards on the table. I do wonder what the complete picture looks like.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
About all Australian can do towards any B-21 purchase at present is sign on as a development Partner like we did with the JSF program in 2002. Best case scenario even then would not see us get aircraft before 2035 and would definitely need bipartisanship support from the LNP.
Its about future acquisition, its certainly an interesting project and certainly one I think we should watch closely. It would make sense to base B21 in Australia, I'm just not sure if Australia should pay for it, given it would be a huge cost and possibly involve disbanding parts of the ADF to fund it.
If you are giving up the existing Air force or the Army of the Navy for B21's, I am not sure how popular that would be, and LNP would likely find legitimate concerns across the whole political spectrum.
But there are also more details to this. If the US does replace the 6 B52's with ~12-24 B21 and base them in Australia and offers a token cost type arrangement and share basing and development aspects, well, maybe. Its hard to make a call on a platform that is still in development, that isn't exactly clear about the cost and capability of, and how and where the US intends to use it. I certainly think we should be apart of it, its one of those Airforce programs where I think Australia could lobby on key capabilities that sit between Airforce and Navy. So a B21 with Naval strike capability for example. Both the USAF and USN have 6th gen planes in development and are very sensitive about eating someone elses lunch or someone having the great idea to merge programs. IMO the B21 is different, clearly a bomber, clearly not operating off carriers, clearly not a P8. But would definitely be useful as a maritime strike platform.
I would imagine the LNP are pretty aware what is going on. I think there are generally and genuinely high level of bipartisan support for this. Its too important to fuck up. Marles is deeply involved, is senior, is/seems competent and has a good relationship with Dutton. The Americans will want consensus in Australia, they are putting their bits on the line too.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Gentlemen, I would point out this is the US Congress directing the DoD to conduct the study. Not the Executive branch nor DoD itself.
This is Congress inserting themselves into AUKUS because they were not initially invited.
This is Congress inserting themselves into AUKUS because they were not initially invited.
All it shows is what Defence, Government and other agencies and allies do all the time, keep all options open, investigate and ask questions, never discount anything, that is their job.
If they were not looking at such things, asking the questions of our partners and allies, then we are in some trouble. Many many things have been looked at, evaluated, checked and cross checked and never made the light of day !!
The Defence review is now in the governments hand.
Expect announcements very soon. But it may take several weeks before a comprehensive announcement.
Expect announcements very soon. But it may take several weeks before a comprehensive announcement.
So last chance to speculate.
According to The Australian (only available to subscribers) announcements over the next few weeks will include three new air warfare destroyers and at least six new corvettes. It is also tipping that Australia will be joining Britain in its SSN(R) progam.
It will also push for fast tracking acquisition of long ranged unmanned platforms and boosting Australia's other long range strike capabilities.
However on the downside the army will recieve less IFVs and perhaps not recieve any tanks.
Most of that speculation seems in line with rumours that have been floating around for the last few months.
According to The Australian (only available to subscribers) announcements over the next few weeks will include three new air warfare destroyers and at least six new corvettes. It is also tipping that Australia will be joining Britain in its SSN(R) progam.
It will also push for fast tracking acquisition of long ranged unmanned platforms and boosting Australia's other long range strike capabilities.
However on the downside the army will recieve less IFVs and perhaps not recieve any tanks.
Most of that speculation seems in line with rumours that have been floating around for the last few months.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The address to the National press Club I think is the first real talk / answer fest for the year.
I maybe wrong, but I think it will be broad ranging speech across those subjects government want pursue.
One of those subjects no doubt will be the strategic environment we live in today and the prompt that defence needs must be addressed with some urgency.
The public will need feeding the importance of defence spending and I suspect an increase in funding going forward.
With interest rates going up eroding the household budget ,with many who are renting doing it tough and many other social challenges to be met, spending money on defence will need to be sold.
I'm guessing tomorrows speech will promote, but not detail the Defence Strategic Review.
We'll find out tomorrow.
Cheers S
PS - if the the DSR does come out tomorrow your welcome to can this post
Some sectors have already been hit to some extent with job losses. At least recruitment in certain areas they've been pushing (i.e. cyber security roles) may become a little easier.
I've not heard much of job losses in infra projects or trades, however I wouldn't be surprised to see some greenfield projects losing funding.
It feels bad talking about job losses in a positive light, but for anyone struggling to find workers it's good news. I expect some of the contractors to be the ones seeing the opportunities first.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
First thing that has come out is, the DSR will be released sometime before the May Budget.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Hopefully not immediately before the budget...
It may make more sense to release it after more details of the SSN program have been released by all AUKUS parties. It also may give more time to make decisions and classify certain details.
Hopefully major decisions are not kept on hold much longer. I'm getting anxious after seeing how some of the AS4 are doing in Ukraine...
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Talked a lot about building stuff in Australia, mentioned the loss of the Car industry and flow on effects for engineers etc, and using Defence for getting that back, certainly sounds like the IFV program may be safe.
Says the SSN decision is very much a 3-way Industry based decision profiting all 3 members.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
I only got to listen to a few snippets of it before work took over, only caught the part about plans for a major cyber conference coming up (prescient when looking at the enormous cyber breaches over the past few months). A little bit of focus on manufacturing does sound good though.
Will give it a full listen soon rather than reading about it. Hopefully something interesting comes out of Avalon in the next week or so, as well.
Can be watched on Youtube apparently.
IN FULL: PM Anthony Albanese discusses national security, AUKUS and nuclear submarines | ABC News
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese discusses the Government's nuclear submarines project, AUKUS collaboration and national security, in his first address to the...
www.youtube.com
Last edited:
What does the team here think of some of the suggestions for the ADF by the writers at defence connect? Defence Connect’s DSR priorities for delivering ‘impactful projection’
I note non nuclear ICBMs get a mention by 2 of the contributors.
I note non nuclear ICBMs get a mention by 2 of the contributors.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,659
The article mentions IRBM's, intermediate range ballistic missiles kitted with some sort of soft-kill anti-electronics warhead. Elsewhere the article mentioned ICBM's, though I have doubts that the claim that Israel operates ICBM's is accurate. The ICBM section also failed to note that the players fielding ICBM's are also nuclear powers, and it is the potential for nuclear warheads fitted to ICBM's that make them so potent. The implication in that section seemed to be that in order for Australia to be, or be considered a "major player" on the world stage, ICBM's were required. The inclusion of such ideas honestly caused me to stop reading the rest of the article, and I considered it's inclusion indicative of an article not really worth bothering to read.
There is an enormous elephant in the room which gets overlooked every time someone suggests standing up or potentially using ballistic missiles that are anything other than short-ranged. The elephant being the potential that an inbound ballistic missile or warhead a nuclear device and not a conventional or other sort of munition. If Australia were to suddenly start fielding land-based ballistic missiles which could potentially hit mainland China as far north as Shanghai if launched from the far north, then mainland China would need to consider the potential that any such missiles might have nuclear warheads. Any actual launch by Australia of such ballistic missiles could trigger a nuclear counterstrike by the PRC, because they could not afford to wait to see if inbound Australian missiles were nukes or not.
The mouse by the elephant in the room is that whilst Australia has at times had longer-ranged strike than others, Australia has never AFAIK really had a strike capability able to hit farther from Australia than SE Asia. In short, IRBM's would really only be for use vs. one potential adversary, that adversary could also field a potentially devastating response, and short of a first strike at the start of a major conflict, would not provide a great capability.
There is also the very real matter of the sort of detection and tracking capabilities which would be needed in order for Australia to have useful data on potential ballistic missile targets. Unless the missiles themselves were intended to disrupt, disable or destroy electronics and electrical systems across broad areas, so that precision targeting data was not required. However, due to the potential impact of mass disruption or destruction of electrical systems over broad areas, that is the sort of threat which would reasonably prompt a nuclear response. I do not see much value in Australia standing up a weapon system of such limited utility, especially when doing so could cause Australia to have nuclear weapons pointed back at it.
It very much has the feel of an idea which people have come up with and raised, without actually bothering to think through the potential implications
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Well the 8 Nations Mr Dougherty mentioned all fit nuclear warheads to their ICBMs, but he fails to mention what warheads he is fitting. Firing Ballistic missiles armed with only conventional warheads at a nuclear armed country is not the brightest idea, see @Todjaeger post above.
Why bother fitting "Hobart payload modules" to Hobarts to double the number of VLS cells to 96? Would require a fairly large hull plug and a major re-design, just as well build Flight III Burkes.
Personally, I would rather see the RAN get 4 Flight III Burkes than 6 more Hobarts, same number of VLS Cells, same crew requirements, more room for upgrades.