ADF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

Military leaders warn we must prepare for a crisis worse than COVID-19

A confidential report commissioned by the Department of Defence predicted medical shortages, panic-buying and mass job losses a year before the COVID-19 outbreak.

www.abc.net.au

A year ago Australia's military planners prepared a report on Australia's vulnerabilities in a Global crisis.

The scenario is more about a Global Crisis which almost completely isolates Australia from the rest of the world. No fuel supplies, medicines, specialised chemicals, and other critical supplies. As bad as it is the current situation is nowhere near as bad as the scenarios assumed in this report. The conclusion would suggest that in such a scenario Australia would be just 3 months away from complete collapse.

Perhaps reports like this need to be more seriously considered. While globalisation has its benefits it clearly has a downside as well. A year ago I would have said the benefits outweigh the risks. Now I am reconsidering my position.

Globalisation like everything has its positives and negatives. I have seen the negatives in it from a strategic perspective for years, especially on the logistics side because it means you're are dependent upon very long llogistical tails which can be easily interdicted. It also means that you are dependent too much upon foreign nations for weapons and munitions. Yes missiles etc., are only built in certain countries, by specific vendors, but it may be in Australia's interest to license build the missiles and bombs etc., that it requires domestically.

 

[buffy9]

Coronavirus could see failed states on Australia's doorstep

As COVID-19 races around the world, infecting millions, it finds the vulnerable — and that includes whole nations too, writes Melissa Clarke.

abc.net.au

How an exodus of millions of Indonesians could fuel a COVID-19 disaster

The coronavirus pandemic could not have struck Indonesia at a worse time of year. But only in the past month has the Government granted powers to provincial leaders to impose their own restrictions on social movement. Here's why some health experts say they are too late.

abc.net.au

A few analysis articles in regards to the potential risks to the North of Australia. I'm weary the risk has been overstated and both nations are more resilient than most give them credit for, though it does bring up an interesting question as to whether the ADF will be able to respond.

Will the logistical and organisational improvements since INTERFET be able to handle any potential issues over such large areas? Obviously in addition to lifting and sustaining a potential stabilisation operation, concerns with regards to COVID and any potential Influxes of refugees could place far greater strain on wider ADF assets.

Additionally, could there by the potential for the widespread use of information operations to potentially quell unrest in such a populous and relatively connected country.

I think this topic has merit under current circumstances. Whilst I suspect there is more resilience in both countries and rural populations in general (at least by Western standards), it would certainly be a major security challenge should either (or both) occur.

 

[oldsig127]

It also means that you are dependent too much upon foreign nations for weapons and munitions. Yes missiles etc., are only built in certain countries, by specific vendors, but it may be in Australia's interest to license build the missiles and bombs etc., that it requires domestically.

Making some sort of start on that with the announcement that Varley will build the Rafael Spike LR2 in Australia for our Army and perhaps other buyers.

oldsig

 

[cdxbow]

I saw this about ADF developing a space sensors system, suitable for cubestats.

Funding boost for SA electronic warfare satellite project - InDaily

indaily.com.au

It seems a very appropriate project at this time, it could even be launched on NZ Rocket Labs Electron rocket, giving some independence from Northern hemisphere launch providers.

The ADF has been on a bit of a roll with many of it's projects. I know the loyal wingman is not yet even built, but it is the sort of project we should be doing and more importantly it's just the right time. Wedgetail turned out brilliantly after a difficult start.

From my admittedly superficial view, RAN projects seems to do the worst, but I'm guessing it's because it has the most politics involved, as there is large capital expenditure on construction locally and huge opportunity to pork barrel.

 

[Bob53]

Australia has been really dumb with some of the decisions over the past 15 years...allowing foreign companies to buy and then close refineries is one of them. We continually give the advantage to foreign interests. The Bellamy’s take over( though) not military related is a perfect example. When will we wake up and start listening to guys like Andrew Hastie?

 

[vonnoobie]

Australia has been really dumb with some of the decisions over the past 15 years...allowing foreign companies to buy and then close refineries is one of them. We continually give the advantage to foreign interests. The Bellamy’s take over( though) not military related is a perfect example. When will we wake up and start listening to guys like Andrew Hastie?

While we have made some stupid mistakes when it comes to refineries they have by and large been privately owned and in recent decades become less and less profitable. Simply they are too old and too small and unless government was willing to take them on them selves which they werent then you cant blame companies selling them and or scrapping them. To bring them up to scale would require a massive investment that no private company would do when they can do it for much cheaper.

When you actually look at the financials behind it it isn't a small investment. Cost of a new refinery you are looking at US$25,000 a barrel capacity (based on 2017 article Study projects cost of oil refinery at US$5B - Stabroek News ) so here in Australia would be $35,000 a barrel if not more (poor planning, unions, take your pick on what pushes the prices up). To make it competitive long term and have the capcity to supply all of our needs we would need to scrap the old tiny refineries (that is just what they are sorry) and build a million barrels of new capacity thus nothing short of $35 billion in investments. If we wanted the 100 odd million barrels of strategic reserve that too is a large investment. One of the cheapest ways to build and store that capacity is salt caverns which due to geological stuff I dont fully follow with natural hot and cold spots in the caverns keeps the oil moving around and good to be left down there for decades if need be but even those caverns (which you need the geological conditions to build them) cost around US$75 a cubic meter. 6.29 barrels of oil to a cubic meter thus rounded up 16,000,000 cubic meters of caverns.

All up to buy the oil at current prices and build the infrastructure we would have to make a $40 billion investment.

Dont get me wrong we need it but it has to be a big investment if we want it done right and just goes to show that the $94m oil purchase by morisson while good to see is nothing in the grand scheme, Its about 3 days worth of oil that we would have to wait about 2 weeks or more to get.

 

[oldsig127]

Australia has been really dumb with some of the decisions over the past 15 years...allowing foreign companies to buy and then close refineries is one of them.

That's not limited to Australia, globalisation has left many countries exposed. There will certainly be a lot of soul searching going on.

You have though, chosen a pretty poor example. IIRC and I may be wrong, all of the refineries that have been closed or converted to storage were built and owned by foreign companies, not sold to them - BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and Total.

oldsig

(Edit: Apologies Vonnoobie, I was interrupted while typing and sent this without ever seeing your post)

 

[Bob53]

I wasn’t so much referring to ownership but the location. Fuel wasn’t more expensive because it was refined in Australia. It was just less profitable or the facility was old and needed updating. The youngest refinery was built in 1965 ...it’s been updated along the way but not a modern facility. Sometimes governments need to act like a dictatorship when it comes to security and with fuel it still has to be shipped here refined or otherwise. So they could of put put a mandate on the minimum number of refineries in operation. In 2003 we had 8 refineries, we now have 4 with the bulk of our refined supplies coming from Asia,

 

[vonnoobie]

They could have but it would have hurt us in the business world as being a nation hard to deal with while also more then likely having those costs passed on to the consumer hurting the economy. All well and good a government saying the need X amount of local content but industry needs to be in place to achieve that at a reasonable cost or you pay a premium for it. Government dictating to public and private companies how much capacity they must have just won't work at all so it's either government invest in the infrastructure them selves with possibility to lease the assets out or we do nothing. We do need it but we need to be willing to spend the money and take on the debt that it will entail.

 

[Wombat000]

Interesting comments re fuel reserves etc.
i ‘get’ the reliance on fuels.
its the legacy system that we’ve all grown up with and love.
it facilitates our stereotypically urban society and powers the legacy coal generation that has previously put the lights on.

from a strictly strategic point of view, would we be better avoiding the constant fuel supply imperative v Battle of Atlantic-esque scenario by diversifying our fuel and power sources to not be so import reliant?

from a strategic point of view is the constant requirement for imported fuels our most basic Achilles heel?
ergo, would the argument for strategic resilience indeed be:
alternate fuelled/powered vehicles?
renewable power generated on site & disseminated throughout numerous nodes, as opposed to few centralised target power stations?

i get that change is progressive and accounting for petroleum based fuels will be needed for quite sometime.
in harsh times, some of what the nation holds might even go to the military, instead of allowing society to function?

from a purely strategic point of view, in the interim should we leave the fuel to the military and push for the community to transition from traditional fuels?

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting comments re fuel reserves etc.
i ‘get’ the reliance on fuels.
its the legacy system that we’ve all grown up with and love.
it facilitates our stereotypically urban society and powers the legacy coal generation that has previously put the lights on.

from a strictly strategic point of view, would we be better avoiding the constant fuel supply imperative v Battle of Atlantic-esque scenario by diversifying our fuel and power sources to not be so import reliant?

from a strategic point of view is the constant requirement for imported fuels our most basic Achilles heel?
ergo, would the argument for strategic resilience indeed be:
alternate fuelled/powered vehicles?
renewable power generated on site & disseminated throughout numerous nodes, as opposed to few centralised target power stations?

i get that change is progressive and accounting for petroleum based fuels will be needed for quite sometime.
in harsh times, some of what the nation holds might even go to the military, instead of allowing society to function?

from a purely strategic point of view, in the interim should we leave the fuel to the military and push for the community to transition from traditional fuels?

All very well and fine,but who's going to pay for the required infrastructure for the new motive power? How's going to work out in the outback? Who's going to pay to replace the entire civilian vehicle fleet? It's easily said, but very difficult to do especially when the technologies are expensive, and may not be suited to the Australian environment. For example if you go with electric vehicles, where are you going to get the extra generation capacity that will be required?

 

[Wombat000]

All very well and fine,but who's going to pay for the required infrastructure for the new motive power? How's going to work out in the outback? Who's going to pay to replace the entire civilian vehicle fleet? It's easily said, but very difficult to do especially when the technologies are expensive, and may not be suited to the Australian environment. For example if you go with electric vehicles, where are you going to get the extra generation capacity that will be required?

Agreed. I imagine it would be a transitional evolution. - nothing happens overnight.
its not unusual to see stories reported of industrial motivation being converted to electric power.
the internal combustion engine is already being phased out in Europe, major car manufacturers not further developing them. You won’t buy a new non-electric Toyota Ute in abt 5yrs.

in the end of the day, we are an island (archipelag, cos NZ is on the same path) We need CONSTANT feeding of fuel to make even just society function.
isnt the core business of strategic resilience its own very survival?
if that means we fuel ourselves then that’d be awesome - or we evolve to progressively negate the risk.

 

[Takao]

from a purely strategic point of view, in the interim should we leave the fuel to the military and push for the community to transition from traditional fuels?

Or - push the military away first. It's smaller, cheaper and reduces enormous numbers of tactical and logistical platforms. Guarantee me power for recharging electric vehicles and I replace every green platform tonight. It's just that much better....

 

[Wombat000]

Or - push the military away first. It's smaller, cheaper and reduces enormous numbers of tactical and logistical platforms. Guarantee me power for recharging electric vehicles and I replace every green platform tonight. It's just that much better....

I did consider that, and perhaps the military application may be some sort of innovation driver.
however at this stage in development cycles I get the impression that the military will be understandably reluctant to change much.
the military cannot afford to have vehicles off-line to recharge anything, when they could’ve otherwise simply refuelled.

perhaps in the end of the day there may be some form of hybrid or cross-pollination of concept, or even more tactical friendly fuel sources (eg: future evolved Hydrogen may be packaged and act similarly to liquid fuels today?)

the biggest drain tho is the community, which with be a phenomenal competitive drain on fuel v military applications.
the community sector may hold the fertile ground in self sustainment of fuel and power options.
this is relevant now, because technology is actually making these things happen now.
would it not be simply stupid not to exploit these technologies for strategic resilience?

 

[ngatimozart]

I did consider that, and perhaps the military application may be some sort of innovation driver.
however at this stage in development cycles I get the impression that the military will be understandably reluctant to change much.
the military cannot afford to have vehicles off-line to recharge anything, when they could’ve otherwise simply refuelled.

perhaps in the end of the day there may be some form of hybrid or cross-pollination of concept, or even more tactical friendly fuel sources (eg: future evolved Hydrogen may be packaged and act similarly to liquid fuels today?)

the biggest drain tho is the community, which with be a phenomenal competitive drain on fuel v military applications.
the community sector may hold the fertile ground in self sustainment of fuel and power options.
this is relevant now, because technology is actually making these things happen now.
would it not be simply stupid not to exploit these technologies for strategic resilience?

When the brown smelly stuff hits the quickly rotating object the govt can go back to WW2 practice and ration petrol and diesel. Then listen to the whinging that will occur.

I remember a story an old timer told me about 40 years ago. He lived in a farming area outside of Auckland and one of the local farmers was a bit cannier than most. In 1937 he had visited pomland and could clearly see that war was coming, so upon his return home he started buying 5 gallon tins of petrol each week and storing them in his hay shed. He knew that when the war eventuated, that petrol would be rationed. By the time the war arrived and petrol rationing started he had a goodly supply of petrol in his hay shed, enough to last him the war because he was careful in using it. It did give him some advantages in that he was able to pursue the lady of his dreams who became his wife.

Couldn't do that today because the health and safety police would be having kittens over it, if they found out.

 

[buffy9]

The way the economy is looking after this, I wouldn't expect people to be keen on taking on the hybrid or electric car market anytime soon. The military could be an innovator sure, but there are more important things in the budget at the moment that would hinder consideration for alternative fuel/energy. A better option for a military with a budget is to wait for the market to develop to the point where such technology is economical.

That said I would argue for developing a longer term plan for transitioning away from high oil use. It serves well to not be totally dependent on outside sources in times of conflict, with the Strait of Hormuz already a significant enough security concern to warrant interest in the area. There may be some short term interest in infrastructure following COVID, but cutting demand for oil is not as easy as investment in infrastructure and industry - there are a lot of concerns and a lot of challenges that need to be addressed.

Throw in some long term planning and action and I am in, though with current global circumstances I don't see this happening. Australia has the benefit of not being an oil consuming behemoth like some countries - this should be exploited.

 

[Raven22]

Couldn't do that today because the health and safety police would be having kittens over it, if they found out.

i think your biggest problem would be that petrol only lasts a couple of years at most, so it would be worthless before the war even started.

 

[t68]

i think your biggest problem would be that petrol only lasts a couple of years at most, so it would be worthless before the war even started.

There is a fuel stabiliser that can be added to the fuel to help it last 12 months, I have heard it has to be done every 12 months but no idea if it really works as I have never done it. A number of people must have been doing it as there is a shortage of fuel stabiliser available

Also heard that because of the downturn in aviation the majors who produce jet fuel have been burning it off as no one is useing large amounts of it. It might be down to strict storage time for jet fuel I imagine

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia still has four refineries. While probably not enough to keep the whole economy moving in a war, its a significant amount. Storage doesn't last for ever particularly for refined ready to use fuels.

We certainly have plenty of energy, just not as oil. We could convert many vehicles to natural gas or LPG. TBH we are probably better off focusing on moving buses and trucks to natural gas, improving rail, encouraging better fuel usage. We also produce Ethanol and biodiesel, while small amounts currently in a war time situation, many vehicles can run on E85.

We could also produce hyrdocarbons from coal, which might have a bit of a longer term future, if fuel oil decreases, this could provide a way to source lubricants, tars, etc.

Fuel degrades with time. E10 is useless very quickly as it absorbs water, you shouldn't put it in anything that you are going to let sit for more than a week or two. Its illegal to put into aircraft and not recommended for boats. Water is a constant problem for fuels. humidity in the air can condense out over temperature changes and water causes lots of problems. The octane rating tends to decrease with time. For diesel the lower sulfur content tends to shorten life more than what was historically the case, as the sulfur has a biocide property.

Its questionable to have massive fuel storage far away from a refinery.

Given the low price of oil and the glut and the long term future, building more refineries probably isn't a realistic solution. Australia really doesn't have any new nearby oil fields unless we go down the expensive (and now probably unprofitable and environmentally damaging) fracking process. Even then I don't think we have enough water to start fracking..

Australia has a relatively small military. The oil use is not that significant compared to the economy. The recent COVID19 situation shows that in some situations, Australians can work from home and significantly reduce their fuel use. Domestic travel can be limited and that along a few other restrictions would allow all the jet fuel we would ever need for our military.

Ultimately if our oil supply is cut off from the middle east, Singapore and the US, we have a much bigger problem than oil supply. It would mean we are losing a global war.

Personal storage of fuel doesn't really make a whole lot of sense..

How Much Fuel Can I Store at Home? What Are the Risks? — Auto Expert John Cadogan

Here's a cautionary tale about the amount of energy packed into common liquid hydrocarbon fuels - and why you need to be immensely careful with them if you store even a small quantity of petrol - say five litres - in the home (say for the mower). At 11.28am, Saturday 12 August 2000, a m

autoexpert.com.au

Inside a house its usually 5 litres, inside a garage its usually 25L, inside a shed away from houses/boundary its up to 250L (rural location etc). 25L won't get people through a normal week driving two cars. Even if you had 100L, you are still probably talking about a few weeks for many suburbanites. Preppers generally don't even bother try hording fuel. It is probably easier to gasify wood (for say a generator) or go solar or go without etc.

 

[aviation_enthus]

Back to the original topic at the start of this thread: the Cocos Islands upgrades.

Perhaps this question puts into context the importance they should hold in Australian defence planning:


What would Australia’s SLOC look like if Cocos/Christmas Islands were held by a foreign power at war with Australia?



They provide a significant opportunity for maritime patrol to extend well into the Indian Ocean by which ever country holds them at the time.

For this reason alone Australia should provide no doubt that they’re ours and we intend to hold them. With this in mind a few upgrades (over 10-20year time frame) should be carried out:

- Cocos Is airport should be rebuilt to have parallel runway and taxiway strong enough for up to 777/747 weights. Political argument for it could be along the lines of P-8 patrols but also allowing its use as an entoute alternate for civil airliners between the ME/India and Australia (there are currently very limited options in that area).

- when the above work is carried out, a reasonable amount of work is conducted to enable extensions to taxiways or dispersal parking stands to be built in the future. This could be as simple as extra land reclamation or transporting additional materials to the island and leaving a stockpile.

- Christmas Island airport should also be upgraded in a similar fashion. A more important requirement for CI would be building a port capable of handling larger ships (or just a protected harbour). Again this is something that has significant defence benefit but can be ‘sold’ as a civilian project.

A few years after these things have happened and Indonesia in particular are comfortable with the idea the following could be done.

- deployments of P-8’s and other maritime patrol capabilities to either island with the intention of exercising with the Indonesians.

- deployment of RAAF fighters to one island and Singapore AF to the other. This exercise could be used for both sides. RAAF to gain experience defending the islands and the SAF to practice defending a small island similar to theirs.

- the RAAF could also use CI or Cocos to carry out an exercise with the Indonesians closer to their territory. This would again depend on our relationship at the time.

Once/if these exercises became semi regular or even repeated 2-3 times the excuse could then be used to upgrade the facilities again to allow extended deployment of forces to the islands. Again these should cover hard to build (long lead time) items like secure fuel storage or hardened ammunition storage. The work should again cover extra space for additional facilities to be built and/or a material stockpile for future construction.

I think there is a threat to Australia if we don’t show an ability or desire to hold these islands. However the primary impediment I can see to further development of these islands in peacetime would be political. Indonesia would be obviously concerned and to a lesser extent China. That’s why the political element and subsequent exercises would be critical to ‘lowering the temperature’ on any military threat from this work.