ADF General discussion thread

MickB

Active Member
It could take a decade or more to implement any of the findings from the review. If the review does support the already expressed government view that we need a bigger fleet made up of smaller ships then all that does is trigger another review to determine exactly what capabilities will be required from this new ship. Once that is determined then you have go through the tendering stage which would take several years. Then you go though the contract phase and so on. All this before you even get to the construction stage.

Of course if there is a change of government or even a change in leadership of the current government you could see all that work thrown out.

When Albo is deposed as PM after the voice referendum fails (yes I am tipping that) you could see a complete change of policy from his successor.

Nothing is written in stone. Until the Champaign bottle is cracked against the bow of any new ship I remain sceptical as to the outcome of any review being delivered.
I assume you mean Rudd and Gillard all over again.
 

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
It could take a decade or more to implement any of the findings from the review. If the review does support the already expressed government view that we need a bigger fleet made up of smaller ships then all that does is trigger another review to determine exactly what capabilities will be required from this new ship. Once that is determined then you have go through the tendering stage which would take several years. Then you go though the contract phase and so on. All this before you even get to the construction stage.

Of course if there is a change of government or even a change in leadership of the current government you could see all that work thrown out.

When Albo is deposed as PM after the voice referendum fails (yes I am tipping that) you could see a complete change of policy from his successor.

Nothing is written in stone. Until the Champaign bottle is cracked against the bow of any new ship I remain sceptical as to the outcome of any review being delivered.
We're not supposed to talk politics in this forum and this is why. As someone who knows politics, this is, respectfully, a nonsense take. Albo isn't going anywhere. The referendum is his "fight the good fight" moment with the party faithful. No one credible within Labor is going to hold its inevitable defeat against him. His - and Labor's - polling is so strong you wouldn't bet anything against him still being in the Lodge after the next election.

I share your scepticism of the latest review, but I guess we can only but wait and see.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
We're not supposed to talk politics in this forum and this is why. As someone who knows politics, this is, respectfully, a nonsense take. Albo isn't going anywhere. The referendum is his "fight the good fight" moment with the party faithful. No one credible within Labor is going to hold its inevitable defeat against him. His - and Labor's - polling is so strong you wouldn't bet anything against him still being in the Lodge after the next election.

I share your scepticism of the latest review, but I guess we can only but wait and see.
Said post falls within the bounds of allowable politics because it pertains to ongoing defence policy and procurement.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The 17th of 22 planned Guardian class Patrol Boats and the 4th to be gifted to PNG has been delivered.
This programme is highly effective in creating Australian strategic influence with our Pacific neighbours, it has been a long term success storey which has an unfortunately low profile with the Australian public.
Austal Delivers 17th Guardian-class Patrol Boat - Naval News
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The 17th of 22 planned Guardian class Patrol Boats and the 4th to be gifted to PNG has been delivered.
This programme is highly effective in creating Australian strategic influence with our Pacific neighbours, it has been a long term success storey which has an unfortunately low profile with the Australian public.
Austal Delivers 17th Guardian-class Patrol Boat - Naval News
At the moment Australia is providing unarmed patrol vessels but it could be beneficial for us to provide more capable armed vessels further down the track. The Chinese fishing fleet militia has been known to play it pretty rough and ready in the South China Sea and we may have to prepare to deal with incursions into our region.

It takes a lot of the pressure off us if regional nations can help deal with these grey zone incursions.
 

TScott

Member
I'm sure some will be able to answer this.

At what line is drawn with the ANZUS treaty and conflict?

I understand the ANZUS treaty was triggered with 9/11 as it was considered an attack on US soil.

If US Navy assets are attacked by Hezbollah/Iran, at what point does an attack on internationally based US assets trigger the ANZUS treaty, does it need to be on home soil? Is it a declaration of war for a global conflict, or something simpler?
 

At lakes

Well-Known Member
I'm sure some will be able to answer this.

At what line is drawn with the ANZUS treaty and conflict?

I understand the ANZUS treaty was triggered with 9/11 as it was considered an attack on US soil.

If US Navy assets are attacked by Hezbollah/Iran, at what point does an attack on internationally based US assets trigger the ANZUS treaty, does it need to be on home soil? Is it
 

At lakes

Well-Known Member
As far as I know ANZUS is nothing more than consultation only there is nothing in it that states Brush the dusk off ya muskett.

i could be wrong but that was my belief
 

Armchair

Active Member
As far as I know ANZUS is nothing more than consultation only there is nothing in it that states Brush the dusk off ya muskett.

i could be wrong but that was my belief
Yes that is correct in formal terms. NATO and ANZUS were invoked (NATO on Sep 12 IIRC). Consultation under ANZUS was easy for Australia as the PM was in Washington.
In practical terms speaking to the PM was the key step for a Westminster style government such as Australia, the PM (preferably after appropriate advice and cabinet meetings) can effectively decide to go to war (they might be rolled by their party room or lose an election after the event).
 

the road runner

Active Member
I do recall a number of Defense pros commenting on ANZUS when Australia went to East Timor.
The jist of the issue was Australia was low on sea lift and a tiff broke out between Australia and the USA regarding the USA sending a sea lift/transport ships... A few stern political words were had and US Navy finally gave in under ANZUS?
I recall GF mentioning this
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I do recall a number of Defense pros commenting on ANZUS when Australia went to East Timor.
The jist of the issue was Australia was low on sea lift and a tiff broke out between Australia and the USA regarding the USA sending a sea lift/transport ships... A few stern political words were had and US Navy finally gave in under ANZUS?
I recall GF mentioning this
I would not of thought there would be any obligation under AZUS re Timor. We we’re not under attack. maybe some strong request took place for assistance but no obligation here I think.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Correct; there was no involvement of Anzus in Timor. Other processes were used to involve the US; and there was no tiff over transport resources - but there were issues of availability.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Haven't seen this article posted yet, and in light of the usual enthusiastic debate about Australia buying more ships, vehicles and aircraft, I hope this provides some reality to those discussions (this confirms a lot of anecdotal data I've heard from still serving friends in all 3 services and the sometimes critical recruitment issues they're facing across job categories) :
(article sourced via Defence subscription)
"Shrinking military ‘threatens capability'
By Ben Packham,
The Australian
Thursday 19th October 2023
The Australian Defence Force is shrinking, with uniformed personnel numbers falling more than 3400 under target last financial year in a threat to the nation's planned military overhaul.
Defence's latest annual report reveals that despite a bipartisan commitment to expand the ADF, the uniformed workforce contracted by 1161 personnel in 2022-23 to 58,642.
The combined army, navy and air force workforce was 5.5 per cent smaller than Defence's 62,000 target, as Australians shunned ADF recruiting efforts for other opportunities in the nation's overheated jobs market.
The shortfall comes amid the most challenging strategic circumstances in generations, and raises questions over Defence's ability to deliver promised new capabilities, including nuclear powered submarines and advanced missile systems.
Defence analyst Marcus Hellyer said Defence was “treading water” when it needed to be adding 1000 personnel a year to hit its target of an extra 18,500 people by 2040.
“It's hard to see them getting the workforce where they need it to be, outside of a major conflict awakening the patriotism of young Australians,” Dr Hellyer said. “Nothing is impossible but what Defence has been doing over the last seven years hasn't been working.
“It is not just a recruitment issue - it is a retention issue, too.”
The department's annual report, tabled in parliament on Wednesday, revealed the ADF separation rate - the proportion of personnel leaving the force each year - stood at 11.1 per cent.
The rate has historically sat within the 8-10 per cent range.
HDespite falling well short of its workforce growth target, Defence rated its performance on “attracting and retaining talented and skilled people” as “partially achieved”.
The report also revealed the huge salaries reaped by senior Defence public servants and commanders, with the Chief of the Defence Force Angus Campbell and department secretary Greg Moriarty on total remuneration packages of more than $1.06m.
Former bureaucrat Kathryn Campbell, who quit her AUKUS advisory position in July after being adversely named by the Robodebt royal commission, earned more than $835,000 in salary and superannuation. Her total package was worth more than that of her boss, Director-General of the Australian Submarine Agency Jonathan Mead, whose total remuneration sat at about $707,000.
The department's annual report revealed Defence had to hand back $670m to Treasury at the end of the financial year because it was unable to spend it.
The underspend equated to about 1.3 per cent of Defence's total funding of $50.4bn.
The fall in ADF personnel numbers comes as the government prepares to implement a new $400m retention scheme from next year, offering $50,000 bonuses to personnel approaching the end of their mandatory service period if they agree to stay another three years.
Defence has also appointed a new three-star chief of personnel to try to stem the force's falling numbers.
The Albanese government backed the Coalition's target to increase the Defence workforce to 100,000 by 2040, including ADF personnel and public servants. The hoped-for personnel boost, which equates to 18,500 extra people above baseline growth, is integral to Defence's capability plans.
“That was not a number that somebody just scratched their chin and said ‘I think that's about right',” Dr Hellyer said.
“Those people by and large are mapped on to new activities in the investment program, such as setting up the nuclear submarine enterprise. They are essential to the plan. So if you don't have those people, you can't operate and sustain those military capabilities that you are acquiring.”
One of the biggest workforce challenges that the department faces is the recruitment of new submariners."
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Perhaps Australia should consider conscription for a select few? In Norway in 2021 13% of young boys and girls were called in to serve the country. Since only a fraction is called in, they normally select among those that meet some basic criteria in terms of fitness, etc. and also have a motivation to serve their country. It is mandatory so if someone refuse, well they still have to go. But it's my understanding this rarely happens these days since so few are called in, and the war in Ukraine also highlighted the importance of the armed forces also in Norway. The length is currently 12 or 16 months, depending on specific roles. Verneplikten i utvikling - Folk og Forsvar
 

Armchair

Active Member
Perhaps Australia should consider conscription for a select few? In Norway in 2021 13% of young boys and girls were called in to serve the country. Since only a fraction is called in, they normally select among those that meet some basic criteria in terms of fitness, etc. and also have a motivation to serve their country. It is mandatory so if someone refuse, well they still have to go. But it's my understanding this rarely happens these days since so few are called in, and the war in Ukraine also highlighted the importance of the armed forces also in Norway. The length is currently 12 or 16 months, depending on specific roles. Verneplikten i utvikling - Folk og Forsvar
interesting Suggestion.
The issue of conscription has been deeply controversial in Australia each time it has been introduced or contemplated. It would be unattractive (in the absence of looming war) for the current centre-left government given the historical political fault lines relating to the Vietnam War. The current centre-right opposition has very, very low support in the 18-24 demographic and probably hopes to return to government in 2028 (it is unlikely to regain power before then). I can’t see conscription as a vote winner and it would be immediately party political as those most likely to be conscripted are those most likely to be opposed to the political group that would introduce it. I Can’t see that as a recipe for a successful and happy expanded defence force.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
I have suggested it before, but big tax breaks, incremental with time served, would definitely help, without hurting the economy. It would be a drop in the ocean so to speak. Decrease income tax for service personnel. Simples.
Or increase wages. Same same.

The reality is that Defence is struggling to recruit people because the labour market is so strong and people have many options.

Wait until a good recession comes along and watch applicant numbers soar.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Leave everything else in place and bring back the DFRB. This will have two effects straight up, it will make it worthwhile staying for twenty years, and it will provide a pool of trained qualified people, in their thirties and forties who can afford to work for APS wages because they will have their pensions.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
But it's not same same really. Tax breaks in increments. 4 years = ? % 10 years = +%? and so on. Pay increases with CPI as well.
Also have like "duty free" purchase program for big ticket items, allow salary sacrifice for home buyers, those sort of incentives. Nurses here in the NT get allowable salary sacrifice for home buyers, it's a great incentive for staff retention.
Agree about recession.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
But it's not same same really. Tax breaks in increments. 4 years = ? % 10 years = +%? and so on. Pay increases with CPI as well.
Also have like "duty free" purchase program for big ticket items, allow salary sacrifice for home buyers, those sort of incentives. Nurses here in the NT get allowable salary sacrifice for home buyers, it's a great incentive for staff retention.
Agree about recession.
Not so sure about a recession. Yes, applications would increase but falling revenues would mean delays or cancellations on major projects and shrinking inventories on kit in order to fund social benefits. Pollies will always divert funds for electoral survival. Depends on how severe and long the recession is of course.
 
Top