ADF General discussion thread

[Stampede]

Irian Jaya is a major problem. To support it's independence would strain already "off" relations with Indonesia at a time when America wants us both involved with China - as indicated by how relatively closely we worked together at last year's RIMPAC. Not supporting independence serves as only an inconvenience to South Pacific nations which would have West Papua independent. It's a struggle, but the latter is more in Australia's interests as it does not push it's limits.

Climate change is already set to cause a potential refugee nightmare from South Asia with a lack of water leading into famine, conflict and other situations beyond the means of the UN to handle. Refugees would likely try to make their way to Australia, which when compared would be a far greater challenge than the refugee problem only a few years ago. Good time for those OPVs then.

If PNG did become a failed state and create a second refugee "front" North of Queensland, then we are staring down one big problem. This is in addition to the disappearance of smaller Pacific Island nations and growing climate change effects here.

Apologies for the tangent from PNG and Irian Jaya, but it seems pertinent - especially considering discussion a while back of a defence budget above 2% of GDP and the creation of a "border force" several years ago.

Is Asia facing a coming water crisis? - 2018 - IIASA

Thanks Buffy9

All fair questions and yes Irian Jaya will always be on the radar for Australia.
The challenge for us is the balancing act of Appeasing Jakarta, supporting the interests of the South Pacific nations and doing what is "morally responsible"
All in all a complicated web where not everyone can be a winner.
This is a sad appraisal and not fair to those nations that are small!!!
Australia will always be mindful of Indonesia's size both in geographically and population.
Add to the mix that country's forecast growth in GDP and the buying potential that brings and I suggest Canberra will not want to alienate such an important neighbour.
This will also be the challenge for Oceana
Irian Jaya and the South pacific nations will need to be mindful of what to ask for and what to expect from a nervous Australia in the decades ahead.
The region is changing both near and far and Australia will increasingly become a smaller global player.
Given that Indonesia's population is 7 times the size of Oceania, Jakarta will get priority.
As for climate change with associated food and water scarcity in the region.
Well we are still a rich nation so we will just have to do the best we can to help.

Appease Jakarta and assist the South Pacific nations.

I'm open to any alternative ideas

Regards S

 

[SteveR]

Appease Jakarta and assist the South Pacific nations.

I'm open to any alternative ideas

Regards S[/QUOTE]

Blame JFK for this. Back in 1960 he wanted to counteract Communist influence in Indonesia, particularly with their President Sukarno. The compromise was to give up any realistic insistence of independence for what was then a melanesian nation that had never been part of the malay populated Javanese empire. Cold War Realpolitik prevailed and now Papua, PNG and Australia live with the consequences.

 

[buffy9]

Appease Jakarta and assist the South Pacific nations.

I'm open to any alternative ideas

Regards S

The sad part is it might not be worth it to liberate the province. A large percentage of the population (perhaps more than half) is now ethnically Indonesian with any liberation certain to spawn an INTERFET x5 scenario with pro-Indonesian militia wanting to remain a part of Indonesia. That's if a referendum even leads to independence.

Not to even go over the civil conflict between ethnic Indonesians and Melanesians. An ethnic cleansing I'd rather not have to see in my lifetime.

I think what we can do is push to give greater autonomy or greater humanitarian oversight in the region. The TNI and POLRI (as well as BAM?) frequently carry out less than liberal acts in the region, particularly in the highlands where the separatists are more widespread.

A push for greater autonomy or humanitarian oversight could appease the South Pacific nations and improve Australia's regional image - not necessarily within ASEAN, but definately within the Pacific Forum and the UN. I imagine something in the league of police/military observers with cultural exchange or economic opportunities in exchange as a bargaining tool.

This being said, Indonesia is nationalised and could take offense to any such push as it did back before INTERFET. Even the UN has a lack of willpower regarding West Papua, probably due to Indonesian commitments to the organisation:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjADegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw30Zn10ZdVgIqpI5hsdXFpI

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QqQIIVigBMAg&usg=AOvVaw1w4a_9YREQzknV2UylaHUe

It would be well worth it in the long run as West Papua would remain a part of Indonesia, denying too much Chinese influence whilst reducing the volatile nature of New Guinea as a whole. The only question is are both governments willing to make the stretch.

EDIT:

As a side note, just found this piece on Australian fuel storage requirements perhaps being too low. An interesting read, particularly with a lot of short term political stuff surely coming up in the next few months.

https://amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/10732978?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-23/government-accused-of-doing-little-to-improve-fuel-security/10732978

 

[Stampede]

Appease Jakarta and assist the South Pacific nations.

I'm open to any alternative ideas

Regards S

Blame JFK for this. Back in 1960 he wanted to counteract Communist influence in Indonesia, particularly with their President Sukarno. The compromise was to give up any realistic insistence of independence for what was then a melanesian nation that had never been part of the malay populated Javanese empire. Cold War Realpolitik prevailed and now Papua, PNG and Australia live with the consequences.[/QUOTE]

Thanks SteveR

My understanding was that the newly independent country of Indonesia claimed the existing territories of their former Dutch masters. True Indonesia should at Independence read Java as this was the dominant region and centre of power then and now for this colony / nation.The subsequent rebellions within Indonesia show the sense of independent identity to a region that is not Java centric.In affect the boundaries of Indonesia make no sense other than they have developed over time and being forced to comply to a central authority. Originally under the Dutch and later having transferred that baton of leadership to the current Javanese based state in Jakarta.
Decades of strong and ruthless leadership coupled with trans migration programs have altered the mix of people across the country and has had some limited success in binding it together.
West Papua was a late addiction to the Dutch colonial empire in the 1920's being short lived with the Japanese occupation during WW11 and given a short respite after the war.
The newly Independent Nation of Indonesia was as hungry as its former masters to regain and expand territory if opportunity presented itself.
Dutch west Papua while culturally and ethnically different to the Javanese was bought into the fold and the consequences of which we live with today.


Regards S

 

[ASSAIL]

I think it is an idea that is worth exploring. But let’s not assume success.

The PFL is controlled by 12 governments with one vote each, regardless of size or contribution. As a consequence, they might not agree to cooperate with us.


Let’s look at our policy objectives and think about how realistic they are.


1/ join to take the financial burden of NZ - 100% chance of success

2/ employ more Pacific Islanders in shipping industry jobs - 100% chance again?

3/ fill gaps in our ship building program with the odd merchant ship - if we subsidised it, 75% chance?

4/ get maintenance done in Australia - only happen if the gov subsidised it. Currently China and SG get the contracts

5/ ships available in wartime to support military operations - I rather expect many of the other governments involved might not be so keen on this idea.


So we need to decide how high to set our sights. It would be better to have merchant marine capacity under direct national control.

I think we should give it a try but it might turn out only object 1 and 2 are achievable. If we added more ships to the fleet, in excess of minimum capacity, we really would want them available in emergencies. How wise is it to spend our money here? Best to feel out the possible to start with.

I nearly chokes on my cornflakes this am when I heard Bill Shorten espousing Australian owned and manned ships trading with the world.
Apparently the idea was forcefully put to him by the MUA and they expect some action from a new Labor government.

Listening to his rhetoric forced me to simply ask one question, what commercial enterprise would be stupid enough to invest in such a deal? They would go broke within a year.
God forbid, the days of state owned shipping may be upon the taxpayer once again.

 

[ngatimozart]

I nearly chokes on my cornflakes this am when I heard Bill Shorten espousing Australian owned and manned ships trading with the world.
Apparently the idea was forcefully put to him by the MUA and they expect some action from a new Labor government.

Listening to his rhetoric forced me to simply ask one question, what commercial enterprise would be stupid enough to invest in such a deal? They would go broke within a year.
God forbid, the days of state owned shipping may be upon the taxpayer once again.

We've had a Labour govt here since October 2017 and have had more industrial action in the last 12 months than in the previous 9 years. Unions wanting payback on their investment. I can't see the logic of Australian (or NZ) state owned & crewed shipping companies being able to operate in the global shipping market and survive. Bankrupt the country in quick time. That was shown forty odd years ago and if anything has the competition is far more ruthless.

 

[foxdemon]

I nearly chokes on my cornflakes this am when I heard Bill Shorten espousing Australian owned and manned ships trading with the world.
Apparently the idea was forcefully put to him by the MUA and they expect some action from a new Labor government.

Listening to his rhetoric forced me to simply ask one question, what commercial enterprise would be stupid enough to invest in such a deal? They would go broke within a year.
God forbid, the days of state owned shipping may be upon the taxpayer once again.

I think there is an opportunity to build a profitable shipping line, though not in quite the form that the MUA would envision.

Robot Ghost Ships to Extend Miner's Technology Drive to Seas

If the Commonwealth wanted ships under our flag, they better jump in quick.

But such bulk robotic freighters aren’t ideal for logistic support on campaign. Those little freighters with built in cranes that the PFL has are prefect. Maybe the DMS maritime should operate some suitable cargo ships as per the UK RFA?

 

[t68]

This is interesting its more about the Russian federation mainly, I'm a complete noob when it comes to computers and technology I can do very basic things.

But looking at this test the Russians are about to do is this very difficult and what are the implications if say Australia unplugged from the net to guard against cyber warfare in times of high tensions

Russia plans to 'unplug' from internet

 

[buffy9]

This is interesting its more about the Russian federation mainly, I'm a complete noob when it comes to computers and technology I can do very basic things.

But looking at this test the Russians are about to do is this very difficult and what are the implications if say Australia unplugged from the net to guard against cyber warfare in times of high tensions

Russia plans to 'unplug' from internet

Also not a tech guy, but the implications could be grave for social and business organisations. It would depend on how reliant we are on the Internet for day to day running of the country, which I'm not in any position to speculate.

That being said it could be worth it to prevent excess damage to the nation as a whole should a "WMD cyber tool" be utilised against us. A few days of disconnect may be better than a total "national bricked" scenario.

Russia to disconnect from the internet as part of a planned test | ZDNet

Another link on the topic, from a tech site.

 

[foxdemon]

Marcus Hellyer has an interesting article on ASPI.

All shipshape? Defence’s budget update | The Strategist

It seems the defence budget is being squeezed by the exchange rate. Ship building and ICT is being prioritised while unspecified capital projects are being delayed, according to Marcus’ analysis.

There might be a pork barrel factor in favouring ship building, but naval power is the slowest force to build up. So pushing it ahead isn’t too silly as the other services can be expanded fasting if needed.

It does concern me that the P-8s aren’t also being favoured, as we really need a greater MRA capacity. Poseidon’s aren’t cheep. Fly away price is actually quite a bit more than an F-35. Then there is all the extra crew. Alas, there is a lot of ocean to cover and the RAAF just doesn’t have enough. And there is a need for the latest naval mines, anti ship missiles and assorted drones.

The ICT bit is not surprising. My work is in ICT in a government department. Extensive legacy infrastructure makes new projects increasing complex. Solving this problem means writing the book that other instructions around the world will read. But where does the idea of an Australian advantage in informationalised warfare stand?

Given the exchange rate issues and the ICT issues, it is time to talk about increasing defence spending. It would be dangerous to spend too little and cut back on vital air power and the contempory weapons needed to fight a air-sea war.


But let’s compare with US spending.

Defense Budget Request Seeks to Balance Current, Future Needs > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Article

The US budget isn’t quite so heavily skewered toward naval spending. Perhaps it should be?

Future trends reveal problems.

U.S. Defense Spending: The Mismatch Between Plans and Resources

Operations and personnel are increasing as a proportion at the expense of R&D. Not a good thing given the major threat is a high tech maritime conflict. America appears to be over committed, with too large a land force. Another issue is the political difficulty of closing bases.


Thoughts?

 

[ngatimozart]

Marcus Hellyer has an interesting article on ASPI.

All shipshape? Defence’s budget update | The Strategist

It seems the defence budget is being squeezed by the exchange rate. Ship building and ICT is being prioritised while unspecified capital projects are being delayed, according to Marcus’ analysis.

There might be a pork barrel factor in favouring ship building, but naval power is the slowest force to build up. So pushing it ahead isn’t too silly as the other services can be expanded fasting if needed.

It does concern me that the P-8s aren’t also being favoured, as we really need a greater MRA capacity. Poseidon’s aren’t cheep. Fly away price is actually quite a bit more than an F-35. Then there is all the extra crew. Alas, there is a lot of ocean to cover and the RAAF just doesn’t have enough. And there is a need for the latest naval mines, anti ship missiles and assorted drones.

The ICT bit is not surprising. My work is in ICT in a government department. Extensive legacy infrastructure makes new projects increasing complex. Solving this problem means writing the book that other instructions around the world will read. But where does the idea of an Australian advantage in informationalised warfare stand?

Given the exchange rate issues and the ICT issues, it is time to talk about increasing defence spending. It would be dangerous to spend too little and cut back on vital air power and the contempory weapons needed to fight a air-sea war.


But let’s compare with US spending.

Defense Budget Request Seeks to Balance Current, Future Needs > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Article

The US budget isn’t quite so heavily skewered toward naval spending. Perhaps it should be?

Future trends reveal problems.

U.S. Defense Spending: The Mismatch Between Plans and Resources

Operations and personnel are increasing as a proportion at the expense of R&D. Not a good thing given the major threat is a high tech maritime conflict. America appears to be over committed, with too large a land force. Another issue is the political difficulty of closing bases.


Thoughts?

Isn't it election year for you fullas? If so, my thoughts are that the GOTD will be keeping its powder dry and saving its money to cover its voter bribes, which is SOP for pollies of all stripes. However my opinion is somewhat biased when it comes to pollies.

 

[ASSAIL]

Isn't it election year for you fullas? If so, my thoughts are that the GOTD will be keeping its powder dry and saving its money to cover its voter bribes, which is SOP for pollies of all stripes. However my opinion is somewhat biased when it comes to pollies.

I listened to Bernie Sanders this am and his spending programme aims at achieving their funds by decreasing spends in a number of areas but in particular Defence.
If he makes it through the Primaries and gets the Democratic nomination the future for US Defence spending could be dereadfully bleak.
I don’t know the system well enough but many commentators say that if Bernie got the previous nomination he would have beaten Trump in a canter so the threat is existential.
Please excuse mods, totally OT but could you move it to a more suitable thread or ditch if you think the politics are too partisan.

 

[buffy9]

I listened to Bernie Sanders this am and his spending programme aims at achieving their funds by decreasing spends in a number of areas but in particular Defence.
If he makes it through the Primaries and gets the Democratic nomination the future for US Defence spending could be dereadfully bleak.
I don’t know the system well enough but many commentators say that if Bernie got the previous nomination he would have beaten Trump in a canter so the threat is existential.
Please excuse mods, totally OT but could you move it to a more suitable thread or ditch if you think the politics are too partisan.

If Bernie does reduce spending drasticly then that would be further evidence to the uncertainty of America's commitment to the region/alliance. This would maybe push for additional defence spending in Australia's context, especially if say MRF-D is withdrawn.

We're pretty lucky with the alliance because of Pine Gap. The role this plays in ECHELON and many other major intelligence systems is a strong enough reason to keep the US involved in the region. I'm actually of the idea that this is the reason for the deployment of MRF-D to the city: US wanting to protect major port of entry threatening Pine Gap, but AS wanted to move 1 BDE down to Adelaide. But I digress.

Any major reduction in defence spending would see a wave of uncertainty, more so than Trump's own wave. This is because there is an actual reduction in spending, as opposed to potential commitment in the case of NATO. I have no idea how Bernie sees America's grand strategy, but if he is ambitious enough he could seek to rework it - depending how much he wants all his social programmes.

Only time will tell.

 

[John Fedup]

He is 77 now and would be 80 by the end of his first year in office so that is a big obstacle. He missed his chance. Lots of other anti-defence candies that will be coming forth to run however.

 

[ngatimozart]

He is 77 now and would be 80 by the end of his first year in office so that is a big obstacle. He missed his chance. Lots of other anti-defence candies that will be coming forth to run however.

Age is no real barrier in the US John. Reagan was 70 when he became president and 79 when he left the White House, so whilst Sanders is at the upper end of Reagan's age, Sanders apparently still has all his marbles, and is quite capable.

 

[John Fedup]

The huge influx of young Democrats are likely looking for a younger candidate than a guy who will start his first term at 79 despite his apparent current good health, just my opinion and I guess will stop any further derailing on this thread now.

 

[foxdemon]

Isn't it election year for you fullas? If so, my thoughts are that the GOTD will be keeping its powder dry and saving its money to cover its voter bribes, which is SOP for pollies of all stripes. However my opinion is somewhat biased when it comes to pollies.

Both major parties have been talking up their defence management creds. Of course, pollies are good at talk.

One interesting passage from the Hertitage Foundation article under the solution section, regarding increasing FMS:

As a first step in this overall process, the Senate should consider two pending treaties that would exempt the United Kingdom and Australia, the two most reliable U.S. allies, from various restrictions.

So maybe Australia would have access to stealth bomber technology?

There is talk in some circles of SSNs and aircraft carriers. All these would be useful from a military viewpoint. The issue isn’t access so much as figuring out how to pay for them. Even large powers struggle to pay for those capabilities. I think Australia will be forced to explore drones and other robotic systems due to insufficient resources for the top shelf stuff.

 

[John Fedup]

Can’t remember where but I read an article about the possibility Israel acquiring US bombers however apparently there are restrictions on strategic bombers that don’t allow Russia or the US to sell to third parties. The US may have internal restrictions as well. The US has not exported bombers since WW2.

 

[MickB]

Can’t remember where but I read an article about the possibility Israel acquiring US bombers however apparently there are restrictions on strategic bombers that don’t allow Russia or the US to sell to third parties. The US may have internal restrictions as well. The US has not exported bombers since WW2.

It has been some years, but both the Tu16 and the Tu22 were exported by Russia.
Both were classed as strategic bombers in their day.

 

[John Fedup]

Interesting, seems to contradict the article I read. How long ago and where were they exported to? Perhaps the Russia/US agreement was after this sale?