ADF General discussion thread

[ASSAIL]

- 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.

It is not possible to build a protected harbour at CI.
CI is basically the top of a large sea mount so the gradient of the seabed surrounding the island plunges to great depth within a matter of tens of metres.
The small short jetty in Flyingfish Cove is incapable of being extended because of depth and is open to the swell.
Even the now destroyed phosphate loading facility was a series of moorings with cantilever cranes.
Google Image Result for https://i1.wp.com/josiahskeats.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IMG_6452-1.jpg?resize=697%2C465

 

[aviation_enthus]

It is not possible to build a protected harbour at CI.
CI is basically the top of a large sea mount so the gradient of the seabed surrounding the island plunges to great depth within a matter of tens of metres.
The small short jetty in Flyingfish Cove is incapable of being extended because of depth and is open to the swell.
Even the now destroyed phosphate loading facility was a series of moorings with cantilever cranes.
Google Image Result for https://i1.wp.com/josiahskeats.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IMG_6452-1.jpg?resize=697%2C465

Fair enough. Perhaps more reason to upgrade the airport and provide a better ability to supply the island.

I was aware it’s a sea mount but I didn’t realise it dropped off so quickly!

i-Boating : Free Marine Navigation Charts & Fishing Maps

fishing-app.gpsnauticalcharts.com

 

[vonnoobie]

If you were talking the Cocos Keeling islands then upgrades to enable naval and even increased aerial use would be achievable. Christmas island however would only be good for aerial assets though that being said to make it useful in a wartime scenario we would have to invest in a strategic stock being in place before hand as resupplying would be quite difficult and a strain on our logistics.

 

[buffy9]

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.

The DWP includes upgrades to facilities on the Cocos Islands to support P-8 operations. What exactly this includes has not been mentioned, to my knowledge.

"4.66 The Government will similarly upgrade RAAF Bases Edinburgh, Darwin,
Pearce, and Townsville and the airfield at Cocos (Keeling) Island to
support introduction of the new P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance
and response aircraft."

Building infrastructure and deploying fighters to the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island doesn't seem an efficient use of resources, particularly in regards to relations with Indonesia. Fighters, relative to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft, don't possess great range with the primary area of operations to be encountered when operating from CI being Java - the population centre of Indonesia.

Relations may be good with Indonesia currently, but this has not always been the case and situations can change. Having fighters within striking/patrol distance of Java can imply an intention to operate there and may be interpreted poorly. Having fighters forward based to more readily respond to contingencies in the region is maybe a good idea, but the cost of a fully fitted base and the political fallout may not make it an ideal use of resources under current circumstances.

A more economical solution is the use of Indonesian, Malaysian or Singapore airbases - there are many already fitted for fighter operations and it is easier diplomatically to propose joint (international) training on their turf, as it would not create a long-term threat close to their main island.

Creating a deep water harbour/facilities at CI or KI could be of interest - particularly if there is an intention to operate closer to the String of Pearl's and with South Asian partners - but again it also creates a long-term issue for Indonesia, which is a more vital partner to cooperate with. Creating such facilities would be significantly more expensive than a new/upgraded airport. There are also environmental concerns to be noted - people will get upset about a relatively untouched island being modified in such a large way. Again, access to partnered or allied nation naval bases is a more economical use of resources. If there is an intention to avoid them for whatever reason - there is a broad line of major bases stretching from Perth, to Diego Garcia to and to the Middle East region (including Djibouti).

I'd very much like to see maritime patrol and surveillance assets in the area. It demonstrates a willingness to monitor and protect that area of approach whilst also allowing for long ranged assets to reach out to the String of Pearls - noting that any RAN TG operating in the area, without Indian support, may require either the P-8 or MQ-4 to provide wide area surveillance and ASW capability.

For patrol vessels, they do not necessarily need a large port to function with CI already (unsure about KI?) allowing them to monitor that area for incursions by fishermen or refugees. If the Chinese or any other nation wants to threaten the islands for whatever reason, there are frigates and submarines based out of Fleet Base West to potentially oppose this.

Recommending stuff politically and diplomatically only works if both have something to gain and no ill intention is seen through it. Currently there are no exceptional risks to the islands being taken, nor would there be any threat to national security or sovereignty if such an event occurred. Fighters and major bases are not required, imo.

 

[aviation_enthus]

So given the issues with Christmas Island (developing the Port), let’s focus on Cocos Island.

I understand the comments regarding deployment of fighter aircraft there. In peacetime I don’t see it ever being required unless it was an exercise (possibly with Indonesia). It would also create tension with particularly Indonesia having a fighter/strike squadron appearing so close to Jakarta.

But during any sort of war involving combat in the Indian Ocean I think having at least basic facilities to deploy fighter aircraft would be a must. During WWII the first unit to arrive was Spitfires. This was due to the threat of attack from Japan (via Java). In any future war, a long range attack or bombardment from naval forces would have the potential to destroy any facilities there, unless there was fighters based there.

So if during peacetime the runway was improved, some small areas of dispersal parking was added, some sort of secure fuel storage, upgrade to the port to allow transfer of fuel to the airport (as a minimum) plus the addition of a stockpile of construction materials (gravel, sand, hardening agents etc) then this would be a good start. Basically something that can be relatively easily added to later.

 

[ngatimozart]

So given the issues with Christmas Island (developing the Port), let’s focus on Cocos Island.

I understand the comments regarding deployment of fighter aircraft there. In peacetime I don’t see it ever being required unless it was an exercise (possibly with Indonesia). It would also create tension with particularly Indonesia having a fighter/strike squadron appearing so close to Jakarta.

But during any sort of war involving combat in the Indian Ocean I think having at least basic facilities to deploy fighter aircraft would be a must. During WWII the first unit to arrive was Spitfires. This was due to the threat of attack from Japan (via Java). In any future war, a long range attack or bombardment from naval forces would have the potential to destroy any facilities there, unless there was fighters based there.

So if during peacetime the runway was improved, some small areas of dispersal parking was added, some sort of secure fuel storage, upgrade to the port to allow transfer of fuel to the airport (as a minimum) plus the addition of a stockpile of construction materials (gravel, sand, hardening agents etc) then this would be a good start. Basically something that can be relatively easily added to later.

All very well in theory, but how are you going to pay for it? Budgets are going to be real tight now and the ADF has far more important and funding priorities. I am aware of a project to upgrade runways for the P-8, but other infrastructure is a big spend when there are other and more urgent ADF infrastructure projects that require attention.

Yes it's worth looking at, but it has to compete with other funding priorities at the moment and in the immediate and medium future.

 

[buffy9]

I understand the comments regarding deployment of fighter aircraft there. In peacetime I don’t see it ever being required unless it was an exercise (possibly with Indonesia). It would also create tension with particularly Indonesia having a fighter/strike squad

It is not as though it has no value. Its more that, imho, the economic value of investing in a major base in that location is limited. The cost sunken into such a base could be used for other purposes (mine warfare, refineries, enablers, etc) whilst the regional fallout of threatening (intentionally or unintentional) Indonesia would reduce the value invested into the bases in the first place. If the situation in SEA was different, I'd say it would be a worthwhile investment.

But during any sort of war involving combat in the Indian Ocean I think having at least basic facilities to deploy fighter aircraft would be a must. During WWII the first unit to arrive was Spitfires. This was due to the threat of attack from Japan (via Java). In any future war, a long range attack or bombardment from naval forces would have the potential to destroy any facilities there, unless there was fighters based there.

I'm not familiar (currently) with the Battle of Java and Japanese/Allied thinking at the time, but at a glance Japan would gain little by taking either set of islands. Both islands could certainly have been modified for airbases, though the distances covered and overall isolation (disregarding Java) only hindered any chance of exploiting their positions.

Nowadays the thinking appears to be using both areas as forward bases for constabulary and surveillance operations. Increased PLAN activity along the String of Pearls and a push to engage more readily with Indonesia and India (both of which are relatively closer to the islands) has seen defence exploit both the long-range of the P-8 as well as the central position between West Australia and South Asia (in addition to proximity to SEA).

Long-range bombardment and blockade of the islands would be tactically bad, though it would hardly have any strategic value. Diego Garcia and West Australia are within range of their own long-range strike capabilities which could be carried out by fighters with air to air refuelling (AAR) or maritime patrol aircraft. Unless phosphorous became a strategically vital material, the loss of the islands can be taken (although it would put SEA at risk, as stated).

Likely threat actors are also unlikely to strike CI or the KI as a priority. As stated there are some major assets to deter any action, whereas there are likely far more pressing threats to the aggressor - as keeping the islands relatively isolated and undeveloped limits their strategic value, compared to Diego Garcia, Guam, the South China Sea artificial islands and in the future, Manus Island.

In terms of deploying fighters, I believe with our limited assets utilising bases (including modified civilian airports) throughout SEA would be a more economic and efficient means of deploying fighters. Java, which is closer to the Malacca Strait and the South China Sea, has a plethora of airbases and airports and the infrastructure ready to support them. If there is aggression occurring from any aggressor in these regions, Indonesia is likely to be interested themselves and would be more open to basing options. This is where increasing fighter cooperation with Indonesia could come in handy - as it would limit friction and increase interoperability in the event of such a situation.

So if during peacetime the runway was improved, some small areas of dispersal parking was added, some sort of secure fuel storage, upgrade to the port to allow transfer of fuel to the airport (as a minimum) plus the addition of a stockpile of construction materials (gravel, sand, hardening agents etc) then this would be a good start. Basically something that can be relatively easily added to later.

I don't know enough about the requirements to run an airport or an airbase. Considering some degree of similar geography, I might look into Diego Garcia and the requirements necessary for such facilities.

Apologies it it appears I'm ranting, have found myself with free time and geography/geography topics are interesting to talk about.

 

[aviation_enthus]

All very well in theory, but how are you going to pay for it? Budgets are going to be real tight now and the ADF has far more important and funding priorities. I am aware of a project to upgrade runways for the P-8, but other infrastructure is a big spend when there are other and more urgent ADF infrastructure projects that require attention.

Yes it's worth looking at, but it has to compete with other funding priorities at the moment and in the immediate and medium future.

Funding is always the issue with many things related to defence. There would be a competing capability that misses out instead. I guess I agree with you that it should definitely be looked at, especially if they can get some value out of upgrades for P-8/Triton ops in the future. My main addition to that is infrastructure is never cheaper than when it’s first done so for example spending extra to move additional materials for future upgrades would add little to the cost of any current plans.

As for WWII and Japan:

I don’t think they would’ve been particularly interested in taking the Cocos Islands. They regularly bombed it though. I guess this was to deny its use to the Allies.
Christmas Island was invaded but this was to secure the phosphate mine.

I think the main threat/benefit from particularly Cocos, comes from maritime patrol in the Indian Ocean. Plus it allows the launch of strike operations into parts of SE Asia. Depending on who holds the islands and what their intentions are would determine the likely uses.

For example:
- Australia: allows us to patrol our western SLOC and potentially assist the USA with control of the Indian Ocean (when combined with Diego Garcia). IF we had an enemy to the north coming down through Asia, it would also allow strike operations to be based there.

- foreign hostile power: if they already held most of SE Asia (or it was Indonesia) this would extend the range of any maritime strike capability potentially putting our SLOC at risk we’ll into the Indian Ocean. To retake these islands (and remove the threat) would require a reasonably large allocation of forces at a considerable distance from the Aus mainland (3000km from Perth). Of course the islands could be subject to airstrikes and not invasion but depending on the level of defence on the island this may only temporarily disrupt operations.

Again I agree with the funding VS capability debate. After all the money has to come from somewhere. But I think the islands (Particularly Cocos) represent a great opportunity AND threat in the event of a major conflict. They should not be forgotten about just because it’s to expensive or they’re so far away.

I’m firmly of the view that Japan never intended to invade Australia back in WWII. They were stretched already. But more importantly I don’t think the Australian mainland would need to be invade to force us to surrender. If our main SLOC were cut off and we were subject to a few major airstrikes to remove our airforce, I’m not sure how long Australia would stand up to the pressure. (The Japanese didn’t achieve this in WWII before they were forced back).

 

[spoz]

More than 30 years ago I was involved in examining the Cocos/Keeling Islands from a defence perspective. They are very steep to, and the lagoon is very shallow. Both the airfield and the “port” are on West Island, although a large proportion of the population are on the other side of the lagoon on Home Island. From a resupply perspective, getting bulk supplies of liquid, ie fuel, ashore is difficult - as is the case at Christmas the ship secures to buoys, which at Cocos are some distance off shore (and exposed to the north west) - and making it into a major (real) port would be nigh on impossible.

 

[ngatimozart]

@aviation_enthus From a purely surveillance point of view, you don't require a physical presence on either Island. You can undertake the broad area surveillance using space based sensors. If a hostile task force was in the region you would be able to detect it. Also Triton has significant endurance and doesn't necessarily require basing on either island, although like the P-8 it can stage through there.

We're in peace time at the moment. When war time comes, and it will, all bets are off and things will change, quickly. There's an old adage that the plan, no matter how good, only survives in its planned form until first contact with the enemy. Also the enemy works to their timetable not yours, and they play by their own rules, not yours.

 

[Stampede]

More than 30 years ago I was involved in examining the Cocos/Keeling Islands from a defence perspective. They are very steep to, and the lagoon is very shallow. Both the airfield and the “port” are on West Island, although a large proportion of the population are on the other side of the lagoon on Home Island. From a resupply perspective, getting bulk supplies of liquid, ie fuel, ashore is difficult - as is the case at Christmas the ship secures to buoys, which at Cocos are some distance off shore (and exposed to the north west) - and making it into a major (real) port would be nigh on impossible.

You can certainly get pretty good results at converting a very basic atoll into a functioning harbour and associated airstrip with supporting facilities.
The Chinese have certainly had some success with this in the South China Sea.
All you need is a F*%$ Tonne of money poured into the enterprise and a complete disregard for the local ecology of the region.

A balancing act of dollars, defence priorities and some respect for the environment.
A quick look at google maps will give some idea of the challenges for the Cocos / Keeling island group.
Upgrading of the Airstrip for the P-8 would be appropriate with some modest infrastructure support and do the same for Norfolk island.
Otherwise I think defence dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Regards S

 

[Todjaeger]

You can certainly get pretty good results at converting a very basic atoll into a functioning harbour and associated airstrip with supporting facilities.
The Chinese have certainly had some success with this in the South China Sea.
All you need is a F*%$ Tonne of money poured into the enterprise and a complete disregard for the local ecology of the region.

A balancing act of dollars, defence priorities and some respect for the environment.
A quick look at google maps will give some idea of the challenges for the Cocos / Keeling island group.
Upgrading of the Airstrip for the P-8 would be appropriate with some modest infrastructure support and do the same for Norfolk island.
Otherwise I think defence dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Regards S

For an atoll, yes. For a protruding seamount... it gets a bit more difficult. As it is, there are concerns that a number of the reclaimed/artificial islands in the SCS are subsiding into to sea. This introduces the possibility of needing to carry out constant engineering projects to prevent these islands from 'sinking' under normal conditions. I would also be quite interested to find out what the state of the islands become after an earthquake hits, or a tsunami caused by an earthquake, or a typhoon. I could easily see Mother Nature doing more damage to those structures faster than anything an attacking nation could do short of utilizing nuclear weaponry.

 

[Stampede]

For an atoll, yes. For a protruding seamount... it gets a bit more difficult. As it is, there are concerns that a number of the reclaimed/artificial islands in the SCS are subsiding into to sea. This introduces the possibility of needing to carry out constant engineering projects to prevent these islands from 'sinking' under normal conditions. I would also be quite interested to find out what the state of the islands become after an earthquake hits, or a tsunami caused by an earthquake, or a typhoon. I could easily see Mother Nature doing more damage to those structures faster than anything an attacking nation could do short of utilizing nuclear weaponry.

Yep..............I think nature will eventually win.



Regards S

 

[hairyman]

@hairyman TEXT DELETED. THAT POST WAS POLITICAL. YOU'VE BEEN ON HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THE RULES. 3 DEMERIT POINTS FOR 2 MONTHS FOR POSTING A POLITICAL POST.

NGATIMOZART

 

[t68]

From a defence perspective CI i can’t really put it into offensive perspective consider the distance from the mainland but it’s certainly something we would not want to spend to many $$ if we can defend it properly and if we can defend it properly we certainly don’t won’t to make it attractive to our potential enemy by giving it additional infrastructure that could be used against us.

Below is a analysis in the late 89’s how the perspectives have changed overtime would be interesting to evaluate, I haven’t read the whole report as yet but should make for interesting reading even if it’s outdated

http://sdsc.bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/2016-03/045_should_australia_plan_to_defend_christmas_and_cocos_islands_canberra_papers_on_strategy_and_defence_ross_babbage_74p_0731503899.pdf

 

[aviation_enthus]

From a defence perspective CI i can’t really put it into offensive perspective consider the distance from the mainland but it’s certainly something we would not want to spend to many $$ if we can defend it properly and if we can defend it properly we certainly don’t won’t to make it attractive to our potential enemy by giving it additional infrastructure that could be used against us.

Below is a analysis in the late 89’s how the perspectives have changed overtime would be interesting to evaluate, I haven’t read the whole report as yet but should make for interesting reading even if it’s outdated

http://sdsc.bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/2016-03/045_should_australia_plan_to_defend_christmas_and_cocos_islands_canberra_papers_on_strategy_and_defence_ross_babbage_74p_0731503899.pdf

That’s an interesting report, thanks for sharing.

Again it covers my main point above, regardless of current peacetime needs, the islands present a benefit or threat to Australia depending on who holds them.

Obviously it also depends on the direction the threat comes from, but given geography it’s most likely to come through our northern approaches.

I’m not advocating building a ‘Tindal Superbase’ on KI, merely pointing out the strategic value they offer in a defence of Australia type scenario. I agree with the report, they’re not worth defending at all costs. But by applying some well planned defences could require significant force to be taken by an enemy.

 

[vonnoobie]

Hmm so good and bad to upgrade both. Limitations in both as to how much we can do and limited budget to do it with. Is their any way they can be used to expand upon JORN's range and accuracy? Or simply if SHTF park a battery or two of anti air and anti ship missile launchers?

That spit balling aside was their any specific reason as to why CKI is used for the P3s and P8s rather then say CI? I am imagining it has to do with logistics but if not does have me wondering why we didn't use CI instead considering the larger usable space.

Cheers.

 

[SteveR]

That spit balling aside was their any specific reason as to why CKI is used for the P3s and P8s rather then say CI? I am imagining it has to do with logistics but if not does have me wondering why we didn't use CI instead considering the larger usable space.

Cheers.

CI has a bird problem with high risk of aviation bird strikes - remember the phosphate came from bird droppings. Also CKI was closer to the areas of allied interest i.e. the major shipping route linking Red Sea (and the Socotra Soviet fleet base)/Persian Gulf with the Malacca Straits and beyond to Soviet Fleet Base at Vladivostok.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the value in Cocos and Christmas is more than just another northern approach. It gives really significant coverage all over the Indian ocean.

China coming down and pummeling Christmas island doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless its part of a wider strike out of the whole region. Even then it would be way down on the priority list. At that point, there would be a whole lot more going on. Its not exactly an easy target for say China (or say India) to even reach. I also think China trying to hold it would be effectively impossible and a tremendous waste of resources. As mentioned, the same problems the Japanese had, they never really showed interest in holding them.

The value of these outposts are particularly useful during times of non-large scale conflict. They allow significant projection of power (light as it may be) tremendously further than would other wise be directly possible. They can monitor sea lanes and large sections of ocean. They can assist in securing sea lanes at tremendous distance away from the Australian mainland.

It is also a tremendous buffer to the mainland. Presence is a type of ownership and Australia has presence in the region. Any moves by any power to "take" or "inhibit" Australia's use would likely quickly form a coalition of surrounding nations would would quickly feel very threatened. That coalition would include nations like India and the US.

It also stops a great power pressuring smaller nations against say collaborating with Australia. Trying to shut down for eg. Butterworth or disrupt the relationship between Singapore (or any other regional ally) and Australia is fairly pointless. If regional diplomacy was to completely break down, then you might see a more significant presence at these islands, but that is a motivator to keep diplomacy active and pressure away from ending up with any nation taking or threatening unilateral actions.

JORN accuracy isn't really improve by more sites, that is not how it really works, and the islands aren't really ideal sites for that. You can always put more sensors there, but then its an obvious place to avoid. For the money you put there, it could be put to better use else where.

 

[Massive]

I also think China trying to hold it would be effectively impossible and a tremendous waste of resources.

IMHO this is the same for anyone, including the ADF.

Keeping any base supplied would be challenging given how contested resupply would be. Keeping it supplied for any meaningful tempo of air operations would be prohibitive.

As to the ADF basing defensive resources there - that would simply be isolating precious resources that would be quickly rendered ineffective and cut off.

Regards,

Massive