ADF General discussion thread

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
IMHO this is most definitely a good thing.

We should be avoiding going an bombing anyone - particularly somewhere as far away as mainland China.

Regards,

Massive
I would have thought that the place that Aegis Ashore might make sense is HMAS Stirling. This is the home of our only truly strategic asset and is the most important to defend.

Not an advocate - I feel that a mobile system, in the Patriot class and likely operated by the RAAF, acquired in regiment strength, would be a better solution.

Regards,

Massive
Agree on all counts. To my mind the existing Aegis Ashore concept is a good fit for countering the more limited capabilities of Iran or NK, but probably inadequate when dealing with the PRC going forward. I have advocated for a mobile Aegis Ashore system here in the past, but understand that the technical challenge and cost of such a system could be prohibitive, especially in the context of existing time constraints. There is an interesting piece on a dis-aggregated approach to AA (that might be more relevant to Aus, especially around Darwin/Tindal etc) here:


Re: Stirling, it is well and truly out of the reach of PLARF conventional BM, so any iteration of Aegis Ashore would surely be wasted there. The primary airborne threat would be LACM, and even then it would have to be ship or sub launched. Agree that a mobile system based around Patriot, possibly with an inner IFPC-esque layer would be ideal, alongside elevated sensors like those described in the article above. That said, our resources are not infinite, so we will see what comes to pass. Would suggest that NASAMS could help here, but I suspect it will be "busy" supporting Army maneuver.
 
Last edited:

Massive

Active Member
The deterrence we're striving for is regional, to make incursions into our own back yard either not worth the trouble, or at least expensive enough to give pause. Submarines in particular give us reach, the rest though are aimed at making "close" approach further from our coast to buy time and (hopefully) support, and to make actual continental incursion tough enough to require a huge logistical effort along long external lines which are mostly under threat.
Exactly.

My additions to this would be:

+ Sufficient maritime strike capability to make close approach costly
+ Sufficient land power to require any aggressor to bring a prohibitively large (and heavy) force with significant sustainment requirements
+ Land power structured in such a way to generate significant friction fro any aggressor - force multipliers critical here (know where they are and the ability to strike in response to that information)

As discussed in previous posts (and I know there are others that don't agree) - I think of our strategy as one that prioritises continental defence (risk = low probability, extremely high impact) over other national interests (higher probability, low impact). Other national interests would need to be met with the forces designed largely for continental defence.

Regards,

Massive
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I don't know about a brigade-sized lift /tangible being a deterrent to potential adversaries there is only one semi-realistic adversary in the whole Indian-Pacific region. In any form of real shooting war, every man, woman and offensive item in Australia might just slow them down for a day or two, why compete in that race (when we a happy to sell them most of what the want).

The security of Australia is tied to the pacific security in general, preventing a pacific refugee situation, stopping outside political and financial influence, maintaining employment and saving the fishing from exploitation. A fleet of 3 JSS design Pacific support, HDR & outreach ship for the RAN/Dfat (Joint funded) and 4 medium amphibious ships (Sea Transport's SLV design?) Army/Dfat (Joint funded), and more MQ-4C Tritons. The JSS design has 70% lane/stores capacity of HMAS Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of the old HMAS Success AOR.

The IMHO real focus should be on preventing a security/shooting situation:
1) Climate change disasters and refugees = HDR Ship, economic support, otherwise it will become an internal AUST/NZ issue
2) Foreign political, economic and fishery exploitation influence in the south pacific creating a defacto "22 dash line" ie: Solomons/Vanuatu = consistent outreach via HDR Ship/s, economic support, otherwise again it will become an internal AUST/NZ issue
3) Fixed and relocatable Anti-Sub sound Surveillance fields, around the South Pacific and East Indian ocean = New subs and UUV ASAP
4) Increase in ASW and southern ocean fisheries surveillance and enforcement (aerial and on the water) = Southern ocean capable fisheries & patrol vessels and MORE MQ-4C Tritons
5) Increased investment in JORN over-the-horizon radar
6) Investment in a Naval Base at Lombrum and a shared Aust/NZ UAV landing strip/port in the central Pacific
Let's deal with your 22 dash line. It would involve significantly more than just a defence involvement. It would require a whole of government approach from both governments and significant investment in all of the South Pacific Island nations. We'd have to out spend the Chicoms in investment there. I do not think that there is the political will to undertake such an investment and even if they did they would be wanting to put conditions on it, which may not be acceptable. So both Australia and NZ would have to weigh up the price that they are willing to pay for a 22 dash line. You also have to remember that such a thing is not enforceable under international law once outside of EEZ boundaries.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
And EEZs are not territorial seas which, under international law, extend only 12 miles from the baseline. Even if that is drawn drawn around an archapelagic nation like Indonesia (which then encloses a considerable amount of sea as internal waters and may be China’s desired end game with the 7 dash line) the territorial sea, where a nations laws are enforceable, doesn’t cover much of the Pacific. Plus, there are exceptions to the ability of a nation to even control some parts of its internal waters - internationally recognised straits such as PNG’s China Straits come to mind - so unless you want to override international law, and control by force, a 22 dash line would be pretty unenforceable; and even then, given the size of the area involved, would be a non trivial challenge.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
And EEZs are not territorial seas which, under international law, extend only 12 miles from the baseline. Even if that is drawn drawn around an archapelagic nation like Indonesia (which then encloses a considerable amount of sea as internal waters and may be China’s desired end game with the 7 dash line) the territorial sea, where a nations laws are enforceable, doesn’t cover much of the Pacific. Plus, there are exceptions to the ability of a nation to even control some parts of its internal waters - internationally recognised straits such as PNG’s China Straits come to mind - so unless you want to override international law, and control by force, a 22 dash line would be pretty unenforceable; and even then, given the size of the area involved, would be a non trivial challenge.
Yes the EEZ isn't territorial, but under the UNCLOS nations still have control of the resources from the ocean surface down within the EEZ. Furthermore the nations also have control of any resources beneath seafloor on the continental crust. The EEZ position is why the PRC has been pushing its fictitious 9 dash line claim. It's about resources, not national territorial limits.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
The EEZ is the responsibility of the littoral state from whose baselines it extends. In the South Pacific, that will never be China unless they physically conquer the island nations. Of course, they may seek to put themselves in a position where they could coerce the littoral state into providing all the contained resources to China, or to otherwise do China's bidding - but that is a diplomatic, not a military, matter for Australia and New Zealand. Alternatively, China might be given "most favoured nation" (or some equivalent) status by the littoral state to enable them to access the resources; abut again, dealing with that if it is seen as a problem is a diplomatic issue.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, certainly; but it’s unlikely that’s why they’d want to control the South Pacific,; that would seem likely to be more about access denial.
Why not because it sits athwart the SLOC between Australia / NZ and North America. However they will also be after the protein in the waters within the region and points south and west as they have depleted protein resources closer to home. It's a very important concern to the CCP because it needs to ensure continuity of food security in order to protect its own position and power. It's an avid student of history and is highly aware of incidences where food shortages have lead to rebellions and sometimes overthrowing of rulers. We must remember when dealing with the PRC, PLA, PLAN, PLAAF, etc., that there is always a political context to everything. Nothings done without CCP approval at some level.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The EEZ is the responsibility of the littoral state from whose baselines it extends. In the South Pacific, that will never be China unless they physically conquer the island nations. Of course, they may seek to put themselves in a position where they could coerce the littoral state into providing all the contained resources to China, or to otherwise do China's bidding - but that is a diplomatic, not a military, matter for Australia and New Zealand. Alternatively, China might be given "most favoured nation" (or some equivalent) status by the littoral state to enable them to access the resources; abut again, dealing with that if it is seen as a problem is a diplomatic issue.
Yep, it would require a diplomatic response from Australia and NZ, but are they willing to expend the resources to prevent a PRC diplomatic and commercial control of island nation resources?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Construction of the Osborne North Naval Shipyard has been completed, reported in ADM today.
This is the yard to be leased to BAE for the Hunter build programme.
Let’s hope it runs as smoothly as those computer generated images showed over a year ago.


http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/osborne-south-shipyard-completes-construction?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ADM Headlines - 13 Oct 2020&utm_content=ADM Headlines - 13 Oct 2020+CID_34935dccf5200bb4d0e97ab9eb64fdbf&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=Osborne South shipyard completes construction
I remain frustrated with the paucity of information provided by defence (and ANI) about this project and the Arafura class OPV. A few images and announcements from defence would let folk know what their defence budget is going on.

On a side issue can I suggest the subject of the impact of EEZ's etc go under the ADF geopolitical tread ... it seems more suited as the factors have a wider impact than just the RAN. I also suggest that the mechanism of determining territorial seas and EEZ's for coastal states who are archipelagic states needs to be considered in this discussion. Article 46 of UNCLOS is relevant


.... it makes quite a difference and a lot of pacific states can apply this rule.
(PS: I am not recommending Wikipedia as a definitive source on this)

The attached image provides an indication of the application of article in respect the baseline ... even before you start looking at territorial sea and EEZ.

1602555669685.png

 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Yes, dealing with archipelagic states has been a reality for the RAN for many years; Indonesia, the Phillipines, PNG and many others in our area claim it (and we don't dispute that although we sometimes argue about the way they draw their baslines) but it does mean that virtually any deployment up top has to pass through one. A number encompass international straits (which don't have to be in an archipelago; Bass Strait, the China Straits, Cook Strait, Sunda and Lombok in Indonesia, Suarigao in the Phillipines and many others exist in our area) and/or designated sea lanes, which have special and differing rules.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I remain frustrated with the paucity of information provided by defence (and ANI) about this project and the Arafura class OPV. A few images and announcements from defence would let folk know what their defence budget is going on.
I don't under stand, its good news, its on time (AFAIK) its on budget (AFAIK), and it shows a more positive future for local industry and the wider commitment to defence. The OPV's are apparently moving along quite nicely as well. Why keep good news secret?
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I don't under stand, its good news, its on time (AFAIK) its on budget (AFAIK), and it shows a more positive future for local industry and the wider commitment to defence. The OPV's are apparently moving along quite nicely as well. Why keep good news secret?
And...we’re still waiting for some official recognition from Navy PR that NUSHIP Supply has arrived in Australia!
Maybe Premier McGowan is correct in locking out the rest of Australia as it seems the West is on another planet beyond recognition from the East.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
And...we’re still waiting for some official recognition from Navy PR that NUSHIP Supply has arrived in Australia!
Maybe Premier McGowan is correct in locking out the rest of Australia as it seems the West is on another planet beyond recognition from the East.
Closest thing I have seen mate was a FB post by the Defmin 2 days after she had arrived :(
 

DDG38

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Apologies for the shitty image quality, was walking around Sydney harbour today and spotted a Whiskey Project boat in the wild. :p I noted that when they cranked it the bow was raised significantly out of the water at high speed, not sure what the visibility would be like for the driver. (photo by me)
20201022_183459.jpg
 

Joe Black

Active Member
And...we’re still waiting for some official recognition from Navy PR that NUSHIP Supply has arrived in Australia!
Maybe Premier McGowan is correct in locking out the rest of Australia as it seems the West is on another planet beyond recognition from the East.
I'm in WA, we have been living an "almost normal" live since June. Still waiting for the Phase 5, an totally reopening, but it is not hard to pretend that Covid doesn't exist in WA, and almost certainly not in Perth.

Can't wait to see the new OPV being rolled out from the Civmec yard. I should drive round Henderson. Lots of activities with Austal building the new Cape class for RAN, BAE doing the AMCAP on the Anzac frigates, and Civmec building the 3rd Arafura OPV.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Apologies for the shitty image quality, was walking around Sydney harbour today and spotted a Whiskey Project boat in the wild. :p I noted that when they cranked it the bow was raised significantly out of the water at high speed, not sure what the visibility would be like for the driver. (photo by me)
View attachment 47742
I vaguely recall this project,

I notice it says designed by the user for the user i'm not into boats but doesn't look too user friendly to me



There is a video within the link for those intrested
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'm in WA, we have been living an "almost normal" live since June. Still waiting for the Phase 5, an totally reopening, but it is not hard to pretend that Covid doesn't exist in WA, and almost certainly not in Perth.
My sister is a nurse up in Port Hedland and she's said that there have been some crew off the ore ships quarantined in the town with Covid-19 whilst they recover.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
My sister is a nurse up in Port Hedland and she's said that there have been some crew off the ore ships quarantined in the town with Covid-19 whilst they recover.
Yes, this was news a week ago. Like NZ, Australia takes ill crew ashore and quarantine them during treatment and recovery. Two more international ships crew have been added to Queensland figures today, but they are reported as in quarantine rather than community

oldsig
 
Top