ADF General discussion thread

[Armchair]

But what would we even spend it on?

If you look at the maximum amounts in the Defence Integrated Investment Plan
2024 Integrated Investment Program you can see a range of around A$90bn in the minimum and maximum investment over 10 years. Even with current plans it is not a huge stretch to see where more money could go without adding new unplanned programs.

In my view the public versions of the current plans for the Australian Army and (to a lesser degree) the RAAF won’t provide enough mass for the Australian government to have sustainable options in the face of plausible contingencies (and uncertainties created by the political circumstances in the US which had not materialized at the time of the DSR). The readiness and resilience and logistic support of the ADF are also questionable. Australia probably needs new plans that will cost more. SammyC’s suggestions are a good start.

 

[hauritz]

Ironically if the US were to back away from providing SSNs for Australia our defence spending would drop. None of that money being allocated to the nuclear subs will automatically be reallocated elsewhere. In fact it could put the entire AUKUS program in doubt.

 

[Volkodav]

What to spend $40B on?

Infrastructure, training and competitive salaries for all the additional trades, technical and engineering personnel it is so hard to recruit and retain.

In the US defence workers are among the highest paid and government defence workers higher than industry, well there's a model we can adopt.

Worried about unions? Easy, improve pay and conditions to the point that workers don't feel like they are being ripped off, i.e. trade qualified shipbuilders doing hot, dirty work in all sorts of weather being paid less than an assistant or junior insurance broker or clerk.

Recognise, for the first time since the structural changes to our economy during the successive mining booms and the end of large scale automotive manufacturing, that people who make things, especially those who do the skilled physical work on mega projects, are worth more to the economy than clerks, sales people, admin people with our without an MBA.

This will save us money on major defence projects in the long run, easily to the point that we could build one or two extra ships for the same batch price.

Realigning wages will encourage people back into trades and engineering, especially if there are apprenticeships and cadetships paying decent wages to get the qualification, then a decent pay jump upon qualification to get them to stay.

Once the infrastructure and workforce is in place productivity improvements will improve value for money, reduce unit costs and permit the government to build more for a given budget.

Older equipment can be replaced with new instead of poor value for money major upgrades and life extensions. This increased scale and frequency of production will again improve efficiency.

Regular introduction of new equipment will increase lethality and capability.

Selling still good older stuff will make long-term, end of life disposal someone else's problem, put money back in the kitty, and increase the capabilities of the nations we sell to.

New equipment is easier to maintain, has less down time for maintenance and upgrade and, in general a lower in-service support profile, therefore requiring fewer in-service support personnel.

 

[SammyC]

Ironically if the US were to back away from providing SSNs for Australia our defence spending would drop. None of that money being allocated to the nuclear subs will automatically be reallocated elsewhere. In fact it could put the entire AUKUS program in doubt.
View attachment 53412

Some interesting data Hauritz, first time I've seen the actual breakdown by callender period. A standout is the contingency, at 33% of the overall program, that is very large, particularly when the costs represent the upper bound estimates. That's kind of like contingency on contingency. I think this program is well funded.

Financially I suspect the tripple Virginia acquisition represents a small component of this expenditure, say $20B and it should be a well defined value (little uncertainty). The rest is infrastructure and people required for both the Virginia and AUKUS, plus the SSN in country build. So from this perspective I suspect it will not impact the rest of the program from a fiscal perspective.

Operationally it would be more difficult, with a gap of in the order of a decade if we do not have Virginias.

I'm still in the glass half full group when it comes to the Virginias. There are some promising signs about US SSN construction and maintenance from recent times. Some of the investments over the last few years are starting to come to fruition.

As a backup, we better be sure the Ghost Shark is going to be kick arse.

 

[Lolcake]

40 Bn, i can name a few.

Increased salaraies are a no brainer. Would be the only way to grow our armed forces.

A massive investment in Air/ballistic missile defence: Patriots and have discussions with the israeli's RE Arrow 4 and 5

Larger SSN fleet is also an obvious option. 10-12 SSNs

Larger domestic manufacturing capability that could include hypersonics cruise missiles to equip our subs and a new fleet of guided warfare destroyers (perhaps work with the JAPS on ASEV)

Massive investment in drone and drone defence manufacturing capabilty.

MILSAT

Massive new fleet of Gen 6 fighters. Plus associated base hardening and strategic logistic chain reinforcement (fuel, access etc)

 

[hauritz]

The US insistence that Australia spend more on defence isn't all that straight forward. I have heard that the US is questioning whether or not we are willing to fund a fleet of SSNs. The response they have got is basically that they have been funded and if necessary more funds would be made available in the future. The Trump administration telling Australia that we need to spend an arbitrary amount of the GDP on defence is meaningless without knowing how that money is to be spent.

My own opinion is that we should spend more on defence but working out exactly what that money needs to be spent on is complex. The simple answer of more of everything isn't all that straight forward. For example I could say we need more than 8 SSNs but that project is already funded out to the 2050s. Any additional submarines would mean extending the production line out to the 2060s which would have little impact on our current level of defence spending. Same could be said about building more Hunters, Mogamis or whatever. Even if this equipment could be delivered quickly there is the whole manpower issue to deal with.

My actual priority would be to train the workforce and build the infrastructure. Boosting salaries is a great way to get people to move away from arts courses and back into engineering, the trades and the ADF.

The government needs to start bulk ordering domestically built equipment. Drones, missiles, or whatever. We need that sovereign capability and the best way of doing that is to make sure they get plenty of work.

Future capabilities will have to be determined through future reviews which, if history is any guide, will be a drawn out process.

 

[Wombat000]

Re extra funding, it’d be nice to have a reasonable attrition and surge reserve.
Establish training and logistics infrastructure.
Be able to supply the East Coast if supply is limited to the West (visa-versa etc).