ADF General discussion thread

[ADMk2]

Perhaps, but then again perhaps not. The linked article is dated 5 May 2023 and mentions a targeted work force of ~100, whilst also mentioning that the current workforce is only ~60. The fact that current plans involve a 50% increase in the facility's workforce beyond what is currently is suggest quite a few things to me and none which I would consider unexpected or unusual for what I understand is essentially a new facility.

That, coupled with the article also mentioning that the first export orders are now coming out of the facility would suggest to me that the facility is now finally starting to produce enough munitions to have some 'surplus' production capacity, with likely even more available in the future once the facility is fully staffed and running.

When one also takes into account the publicly unknown size and status of the ADF's 155 mm munitions warstocks, one adds an additional layer of demand to determining whether or not such an ordnance factory could have been producing ordnance intended for the Ukraine earlier.

As it stands, I suspect the only way that AusGov could have gotten things further along than they currently are, is if AusGov had started the processes which led to the factory being established even earlier, and this would likely have required that AusGov recognize the need and value in having such a facility sooner than actually happened. IMO it is worth noting that the Rheinmetall NIOA project office to oversee the construction of the new facility in Maryborough QLD opened in Nov 2019, well before the (current) Russian invasion of Ukraine. Given that time would have been required get the munitions factory site selected, or even an agreement to establish a jointly owned facility before the ~two years of construction to build the facility, one would likely be looking at least as far back as 2018 for when things started happening. If nearly a year after the facility was finished and first started operations, the workforce is still only about 60% of planned, then it will likely be another year before the facility is fully staffed. If one wished that the facility was, now, fully staffed and operational, initial planning for the facility would probably need to have started by 2016. I really do not see anyone having been able to predict the current state of things back in 2016.

It should be noted that NIOA Rheinmetall only produce forged shells at Maryborough. Ammunition ‘cases’ effectively. We do explosive fills at Mulwala and we do a bit of primer manufacturing and so forth.

The major issue, is that Australia doesn’t produce modular charge systems nor fusing systems, especially the valuable PGK guided fuses. We buy that stuff ourselves through FMS.

What we can supply on the “artillery” ammunition front in reality therefore is virtually nothing, unless we can source the remainder of the kit from other suppliers.

The 105mm ammunition in the recent package was different. It was one piece ammunition. They could be supplied and fired (so long as not life expired) almost immediately with no outside support. Not to mention we have no need of them ourselves of course, no longer having anything to fire them from…

 

[Bob53]

The first of the new Abrams won’t arrive until 2024. The last around 2026 on current timelines.

We don’t have enough to meet our own needs as it is (hence the larger buy).

In no way can we deliver Abrams any time soon without compromising our own capability substantially.

We couldn’t run 8 short till next year?

 

[ADMk2]

We couldn’t run 8 short till next year?

Why would we send 8? Would we not send a whole squadron’s worth at least?

We have 42x tanks deployed in our tank squadrons at present, with additional tanks allocated to the school of armour and a small rotational element.

Because the tank squadrons are (presently) dispersed we need additional tanks to support the dispersed squadrons (hence the order for 75x as opposed to the 59 we operate now) with remote ‘pools’ to draw on to maintain availability.

Our new tanks start arriving in 2024. Not sure what date, nor what the delivery schedule looks like but they will take time to work up and be deployable within units.

The USMC just retired 400+ tanks of more or less the same standard as our piddly 59. With only 116 of these sold to Poland, I rather think there are far better options for Ukraine to acquire Abrams than raiding our already miniscule fleet.

There is a substantial amount of stuff in the Australian military sales catalogue we ‘could‘ give them if we wanted to, instead of trying to flog it off that wouldn’t impact our current capability. Equipment and platforms such as ASLAV’s, Bushmasters, Hawkei, mortar systems, anti-armour systems, night fighting equipment, comms kit and so on, that would make substantial improvements to Ukrainian forces.

But that doesn’t seem to be a priority for our Government.

 

[Stampede]

A good overview of our future Strike Missile inventory in The Strategist by B Perrett.

A guide to Australia’s planned strike missiles | The Strategist

Australia is planning to acquire a remarkable variety of strike missiles—weapons designed to hit distant surface targets. They will differ in capabilities and will variously be carried by aircraft, ships and trucks. Despite the differences, ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Worth a look.


Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

A good overview of our future Strike Missile inventory in The Strategist by B Perrett.

A guide to Australia’s planned strike missiles | The Strategist

Australia is planning to acquire a remarkable variety of strike missiles—weapons designed to hit distant surface targets. They will differ in capabilities and will variously be carried by aircraft, ships and trucks. Despite the differences, ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Worth a look.


Cheers S

Fairly basic really and a couple of minor errors or lack of knowledge depending on when it was written.

For example it is confirmed that RAAF has ordered the AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER. It is not ambiguous. DSCA as well is not an order. It is a simple US legislative notification that a certain security assistance partner has requested to acquire some specific defence articles. It is not an “order”.

Actual orders are often (but not always) listed on the DoD Contracts website, the RAAF order for that particular missile for example is listed there.

 

[Boatteacher]

Something to consider re: kit Australia could send to Ukraine. As much as one might wish for Australia to provide more support and material to Ukraine, one needs to consider both what Australia's strategic concerns are, particularly between now and ~2030, as well as what the limitations are on or of Australian defence industry.

For example, think about Australian 155 mm ordnance. How large are Australian warstocks of 155 mm munitions, and what condition are the warstocks in? How large does the ADF want or feel it needs to be, particularly if a potential conflict in the region were to break out?

From the manufacturing side of things and especially for defence kit which is not really something which can be produced for speculation on later sales, manufacturers really are not going to 'just build' munitions, they are going to build to fulfill orders. If one were to look at the ADM article linked to a few posts back on the Rheinmetall NIOA munitions facility, then one would realize a few fairly significant things. First, the overall facility was apparently designed to produce up to 100k projectiles p.a. at full-rate production whilst running multiple shifts. Secondly, the total projected workforce is ~100, but right now the facility is only at ~60% staff. This is significant because without a large enough staff, there just will not be sufficient bodies to be able to carry out all the production and QA/QC functions needed to run across multiple shifts and meet the planned high production numbers. IMO not much would be gained in attempting a stress test until such a facility was much closer to being fully staffed as well as having production reach full rate.

My reaction was similar to this.
Yes, the announced package was largely a lot of old left overs (thinking the M113's)
But among contributing countries, I feel Australia's position is presently the most strategically uncertain.
We've historically maintained a defense spending (as I understand it) as a % of GDP ahead of many Europen countries and yet we now find ourselves needing to dig even deeper.
As much as I believe the outcome in Ukarine is important, we have semi-active issues closer to home that maybe make it more appropriate for us to let others carry the heavier burden of this one.

 

[Stampede]

I do wonder what additional military equipment the ADF could actually send to assist the war effort in Ukraine.
Most of Army's equipment is either old, short in numbers or needed here?
Navy have nothing to contribute.
The RAAF needs all its assets and the Classic Hornet proposal while having some merit is not getting of the ground for a reason.
Speculate what that is ..............................probably many layers to that answer.

So I hear we should send X,Y Z.

Ok, what does that look like?


Curious S

 

[knightrider4]

I do wonder what additional military equipment the ADF could actually send to assist the war effort in Ukraine.
Most of Army's equipment is either old, short in numbers or needed here?
Navy have nothing to contribute.
The RAAF needs all its assets and the Classic Hornet proposal while having some merit is not getting of the ground for a reason.
Speculate what that is ..............................probably many layers to that answer.

So I hear we should send X,Y Z.

Ok, what does that look like?


Curious S

In short, we have nothing of value to give. I fail to see how a glorified 4wd ie Hawkei brings anything of value to the table let alone 60 year old MII3 death traps. I guess it highlights just how miniscule our combat power is particularly land. The Australian Army would be lucky to last 48 hours in the high intensity combat being witnessed in Ukraine. The joke of it all is the press deriding giving Ukraine 60 year old M113's but no one bats an eye lid when our boys have to ride in them for the forseeable future.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

In short, we have nothing of value to give. I fail to see how a glorified 4wd ie Hawkei brings anything of value to the table let alone 60 year old MII3 death traps. I guess it highlights just how miniscule our combat power is particularly land. The Australian Army would be lucky to last 48 hours in the high intensity combat being witnessed in Ukraine. The joke of it all is the press deriding giving Ukraine 60 year old M113's but no one bats an eye lid when our boys have to ride in them for the forseeable future.

I cannot help but think there is a little too much negativity flowing through since the government released the Defence Strategic Review.

It's not accurate to say what Australia has given, or pledged to give, is not of value. Besides the political value, the Hawkei, the Bushmaster, and even the M113 all provide some value to Ukrainian forces, at least in terms of being protected against artillery fragments and small arms fire. Yes, you wouldn't deploy them in an assault on a prepared Russian position where you might encounter tanks, IFVs and bountiful ATGMs. But Ukraine is vast. The lines not necessarily static. And liberal use of artillery is being made,.

As for how the Australian Army would fare, well it is clearly not set up to fight such a conflict. It's stating the obvious but we don't have a long land border with another nation, with open ground that is rather perfect for armoured warfare. As for how long they would last in such a conflict, you could make a similar claim about most militaries throughout the world, even some that are part of NATO. In the rather fanciful scenario that we were to be able to deploy, say, a brigade-size task force to fight in Ukraine, I would say that such a force could hold its own. It would be deficient in a few areas, but likely still more capable that an average force of the same size of either adversary. Still, a silly thought experiment really.

People are batting their eyelids at the fact the M113 continues in Australian service. The current government hasn't torn up plans to replace it; they've just decided, from the looks of things, to go back to one mechanised battalion instead of three. That was what we had until the now superseded Plan Beersheba, which, let's be honest, was about maintaining like forces to sustain deployments in places such as Afghanistan. Now, everything is being reorientated to our own region and the most likely scenarios in which we may need to deploy forces to protect our interests.

There is reason for disappointment at the lack of investment, at how slow some defence acquisitions have occurred, at how some have been terribly botched, at the constant restructuring, lack of clarity of purpose, and so on and so forth. I just think the above is an example of people getting a little too negative, though I share the sense that our government(s) must do better for our forces.

 

[ADMk2]

In short, we have nothing of value to give. I fail to see how a glorified 4wd ie Hawkei brings anything of value to the table let alone 60 year old MII3 death traps. I guess it highlights just how miniscule our combat power is particularly land. The Australian Army would be lucky to last 48 hours in the high intensity combat being witnessed in Ukraine. The joke of it all is the press deriding giving Ukraine 60 year old M113's but no one bats an eye lid when our boys have to ride in them for the forseeable future.

Australian Military Sales catalogue 2023 lists tons of stuff we could deliver almost immediately that would provide very good service for Ukraine.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/Australian-Defence-Sales-Catalogue-2023_3.pdf

Armoured vehicles, soft-skin vehicles, truck systems, mortar systems, anti-armour weapons, small arms, ammunition, night fighting equipment, communications equipment, medical kit, logistical support systems, ration systems, deployable shelters, signature management systems, ballistic armour systems, load carrying kit, un-manned aviation systems, EW kit. The list goes on and on.

But that would require someone to bear the cost, which is the principal speed-bump here…

 

[seaspear]

Does the Australian army still have ASLAV,S it may consider sending to Ukraine these being amphibious may be of use

 

[Stampede]

Australian Military Sales catalogue 2023 lists tons of stuff we could deliver almost immediately that would provide very good service for Ukraine.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/Australian-Defence-Sales-Catalogue-2023_3.pdf

Armoured vehicles, soft-skin vehicles, truck systems, mortar systems, anti-armour weapons, small arms, ammunition, night fighting equipment, communications equipment, medical kit, logistical support systems, ration systems, deployable shelters, signature management systems, ballistic armour systems, load carrying kit, un-manned aviation systems, EW kit. The list goes on and on.

But that would require someone to bear the cost, which is the principal speed-bump here…

Some good ideas.

Capability is more than just heavy vehicles that provide a photo opp.

Thanks S

 

[Redlands18]

Does the Australian army still have ASLAV,S it may consider sending to Ukraine these being amphibious may be of use

There is currently 22 vehicles in the sales catalogue provided above by @ADMk2 above, why they are not being looked at, no idea?

 

[knightrider4]

Australian Military Sales catalogue 2023 lists tons of stuff we could deliver almost immediately that would provide very good service for Ukraine.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/Australian-Defence-Sales-Catalogue-2023_3.pdf

Armoured vehicles, soft-skin vehicles, truck systems, mortar systems, anti-armour weapons, small arms, ammunition, night fighting equipment, communications equipment, medical kit, logistical support systems, ration systems, deployable shelters, signature management systems, ballistic armour systems, load carrying kit, un-manned aviation systems, EW kit. The list goes on and on.

But that would require someone to bear the cost, which is the principal speed-bump here…

But we have very limited numbers of all these things except trucks. We would be better off giving them cash and they can then purchase what they require from those that actually have useful numbers of said equipment to sell.

 

[knightrider4]

I cannot help but think there is a little too much negativity flowing through since the government released the Defence Strategic Review.

It's not accurate to say what Australia has given, or pledged to give, is not of value. Besides the political value, the Hawkei, the Bushmaster, and even the M113 all provide some value to Ukrainian forces, at least in terms of being protected against artillery fragments and small arms fire. Yes, you wouldn't deploy them in an assault on a prepared Russian position where you might encounter tanks, IFVs and bountiful ATGMs. But Ukraine is vast. The lines not necessarily static. And liberal use of artillery is being made,.

As for how the Australian Army would fare, well it is clearly not set up to fight such a conflict. It's stating the obvious but we don't have a long land border with another nation, with open ground that is rather perfect for armoured warfare. As for how long they would last in such a conflict, you could make a similar claim about most militaries throughout the world, even some that are part of NATO. In the rather fanciful scenario that we were to be able to deploy, say, a brigade-size task force to fight in Ukraine, I would say that such a force could hold its own. It would be deficient in a few areas, but likely still more capable that an average force of the same size of either adversary. Still, a silly thought experiment really.

People are batting their eyelids at the fact the M113 continues in Australian service. The current government hasn't torn up plans to replace it; they've just decided, from the looks of things, to go back to one mechanised battalion instead of three. That was what we had until the now superseded Plan Beersheba, which, let's be honest, was about maintaining like forces to sustain deployments in places such as Afghanistan. Now, everything is being reorientated to our own region and the most likely scenarios in which we may need to deploy forces to protect our interests.

There is reason for disappointment at the lack of investment, at how slow some defence acquisitions have occurred, at how some have been terribly botched, at the constant restructuring, lack of clarity of purpose, and so on and so forth. I just think the above is an example of people getting a little too negative, though I share the sense that our government(s) must do better for our forces.

If the Australian Army is not set up for high intensity combat its not much of an army is it? Realistically what army chooses the level of intensity it fights at. Although to be fair Australia is a master of token deployments in relatively benign AOR's. I honestly struggle to think of an adversary that Australia could hold its own let alone overcome save perhaps some pacific island nations and even then it would stretch the logisitic train to breaking point. Our war stocks of muntions of all types are so small they would be exhausted very quickly. We would run out of ammo well before we lost the will to fight.

 

[south]

If the Australian Army is not set up for high intensity combat its not much of an army is it? Realistically what army chooses the level of intensity it fights at. Although to be fair Australia is a master of token deployments in relatively benign AOR's. I honestly struggle to think of an adversary that Australia could hold its own let alone overcome save perhaps some pacific island nations and even then it would stretch the logisitic train to breaking point. Our war stocks of muntions of all types are so small they would be exhausted very quickly. We would run out of ammo well before we lost the will to fight.

I’m not sure anyone should be surprised. The British Army has similar concerns about their ability to sustain anything remotely near what the Ukraine Armed Forces are having to sustain, and they’re about 2.5x the size of the Australian Army (for consistency this ratio extends, more or less, to a manpower comparison of the RN/RAF vs RAN/RAAF as well).

A standing Army of 30k people, with the overhead of training, log, acquisition and other governance tasks is always going to have a poor tooth-tail ratio.

 

[ADMk2]

But we have very limited numbers of all these things except trucks. We would be better off giving them cash and they can then purchase what they require from those that actually have useful numbers of said equipment to sell.

150x 81mm mortars for sale.
Unknown number of ASLAV’s for sale, but “squadron’s + worth” are for sale.
We literally have hundreds of Bushmasters and Hawkeis in storage doing nothing,
We have an entire Army‘s worth of Carl Gustav M3 anti-armour weapons that are removed or are being removed from service, replaced by the M4 model.
We have dozens of defence industry manufacturers that supply useful capability with 3-6 month delivery timeframes that aren’t being contracted to deliver anything.

We can’t equip the entire Ukrainian Army but even just based on what we are trying to sell, we could supply a LOT more than we are.

The financial decision is not to however. The decision is instead to mouth useless platitudes about “punching above our weight” as usual...

 

[ADMk2]

Some good ideas.

Capability is more than just heavy vehicles that provide a photo opp.

Thanks S

Is it?

That’s possibly why we send training teams. Why these platforms come with a full collection of spares, tools, training systems and so forth, To enable the capability to be employed, not just photo-graphed.

 

[knightrider4]

150x 81mm mortars for sale.
Unknown number of ASLAV’s for sale, but “squadron’s + worth” are for sale.
We literally have hundreds of Bushmasters and Hawkeis in storage doing nothing,
We have an entire Army‘s worth of Carl Gustav M3 anti-armour weapons that are removed or are being removed from service, replaced by the M4 model.
We have dozens of defence industry manufacturers that supply useful capability with 3-6 month delivery timeframes that aren’t being contracted to deliver anything.

We can’t equip the entire Ukrainian Army but even just based on what we are trying to sell, we could supply a LOT more than we are.

The financial decision is not to however. The decision is instead to mouth useless platitudes about “punching above our weight” as usual...

Wouldn't mind one of those 81's for myself!

 

[Anthony_B_78]

If the Australian Army is not set up for high intensity combat its not much of an army is it? Realistically what army chooses the level of intensity it fights at. Although to be fair Australia is a master of token deployments in relatively benign AOR's. I honestly struggle to think of an adversary that Australia could hold its own let alone overcome save perhaps some pacific island nations and even then it would stretch the logisitic train to breaking point. Our war stocks of muntions of all types are so small they would be exhausted very quickly. We would run out of ammo well before we lost the will to fight.

Again, way too negative, along with superficial. High intensity, as in combined arms armoured warfare, as seen in Ukraine, is not suited to our near-region. There were no US armored divisions deployed to the Pacific theatre of WW2 for a reason. This term "high intensity" is somewhat of a misnomer. I'm sure the soldiers fighting at Long Tan - on both sides - would not have regarded that battle as lacking in intensity. What adversary does Australia realistically face at this point in time? I'm sure our war stocks would be insufficient. Same as they would be for other nations. Yep, lots of investment needed to strengthen our defence forces, but much of what you're offering here is hyperbole.