ADF General discussion thread

[spoz]

Are you sure? Things change and never assume that Australia is universally loved by PNG or other Melanesian or Polynesian nations. We in NZ need to be reminded of that too in our dealings with the Island nations. It didn't stop Fiji from accepting Russian military aid. In fact with the Bougainville peace negotiations, the rebels didn't want any Australian involvement at all because Australia was seen as the bad guys. It wasn't until the talks at Burnham Army Camp near Christchurch in NZ that they really accepted Australian involvement. So what happens when Bougainville gains its full independence and the PRC arrive with an open cheque book?

Bougainville is not representative of PNG in that respect.

However, there is no doubt that we sometimes take PNG for granted, and also sometimes patronise them and offend them in other ways. But none of those things, or the PNG versions in reverse, negate what is the real national interest of both countries. They may well posture around some of that, and of course people have been known to make mistakes in international relation (and indeed PNG occasionally does something it knows will annoy Australia just to make a point) but the basic relationship is still excellent.

 

[Boagrius]

You're only considering the RAAF's land based reach in countering such a threat. It is well and truly clear the RAN would have to have a role to play if a threat at such range presented itself against us...

No doubt about that, although we're still waiting on the weapons that would allow them to make a direct contribution - I'm thinking Tomahawk, SM-6 and LRASM here. Failing that I suppose they could also just cut the base's supply lines with a SAG or two and a couple of SSGs...

 

[ADMk2]

No doubt about that, although we're still waiting on the weapons that would allow them to make a direct contribution - I'm thinking Tomahawk, SM-6 and LRASM here. Failing that I suppose they could also just cut the base's supply lines with a SAG or two and a couple of SSGs...

That was my thinking, in Australia’s context, strike at beyond 5000k from our own shore, is likely to only ever be contemplated by the RAN, or in extremis perhaps, SOCOMD.

As noted above, the budget allows for design solutions to integrate ESSM Blk II, SM-6 and Tomahawk Blk V capabilitie into the AWD’s as a starting point. I’m sure the Hunters and “hopefully” the so-called Attack Class follow suit, obviously not with SM-6 etc, but with a very robust, land attack capability…

The acquisition of land based missiles I think capable of such a strike, even conventionally armed, would quite probably always be politically impossible for us, if not financially prohibitive…

 

[Boagrius]

Yep, I think I have mentioned to you before that I'd hope to see a VLS installed on the Attacks, if not in the first tranche then in subsequent tranches. 8 torpedo tubes helps in the interim, but it's no substitute. The other option that I think could be extremely promising is manned-unmanned teaming the Orca UUV with our SSGs. Fill the latter to the gills with LACM and you remove the vulnerability during launch for the precious crewed platform.

In terms of land based missiles that could reach as far as Kiribati, I agree it seems out of the question now. That said, the thought of the RAN buying Tomahawks seemed unthinkable even 5 years ago. With a continued deterioration in the strategic outlook and the appearance of weapons like LRHW, things could all change quite quickly...

 

[Boagrius]

*Typo in the above. Should say "fill the former (Orca) with LACM."

 

[ngatimozart]

Bougainville is not representative of PNG in that respect.

However, there is no doubt that we sometimes take PNG for granted, and also sometimes patronise them and offend them in other ways. But none of those things, or the PNG versions in reverse, negate what is the real national interest of both countries. They may well posture around some of that, and of course people have been known to make mistakes in international relation (and indeed PNG occasionally does something it knows will annoy Australia just to make a point) but the basic relationship is still excellent.

That may be so, but then Bougainville will not be PNG will it? And it may have a completely different world view vis a vis those who supported its enemy, PNG, and those who didn't. There's a lot of bad blood between the two. Don't forget feuds there can be intergenerational and it's still tribal politics. Don't presume that this will progress along like a western European type of arrangement because it won't. Both the PNG and Bougainvillean politics and cultures are totally different to anything that the western world understands.

The only reason that the peace process succeeded at all was because of a group of unarmed RNZN sailors, mostly Māori, male and female with a couple of guitars, who went ashore and gained the trust of the rebels by using Māori cultural practices. The idea for that came from within the ship. If they had followed SOP and sent armed parties ashore with officials being pompous, there would've been a bloodbath.

 

[spoz]

And I would agree that if/when Bougainville separates from PNG then we have what could only be described as a rogue actor in our area. OTH, my experience (admittedly now 20 years old) is that Bougainvillians, including their leadership of that time are fine with Australia one-on-one; where they have a problem is when PNG is also involved; or if you mention Rio Tinto. Although “leadership” is an interesting concept there, they really have a number of semi autonomous groups based on geography that really don’t get on rather than a central leadership with one agenda.

Mind you, Aropa or Wakunai would need significant upgrading to become a place from which you could base numbers of large aircraft (I don’t think Boku exists any more), but of course it would be perfectly possible to do that; and then certainly it would be a significant threat to NE Australia, Noumea, or Fiji

 

[t68]

Sometime ago we talked about fuel security here in Australia, seems someone has finally taken notice to a degree, not sure what the prospects of Caltex is because of the demerger between Chevron and Ampol. Chevron has bought out Puma fuel brand

Me-thinks it would have been better to nationalize the refinery and tell them to GTFO if they plan to close. Might be a bit simplistic on my part

Last remaining oil refineries urged to stay in Australia with $2 billion fuel security package (msn.com)

I wonder what it would take for Kurnell & Rosehill to refine fuel again, BP WA just closed should not be too much to get it up and running again

@t68

Acronyms such as GTFO do not assist your argument and are unnecessary. Suggest you refrain in the future. There are complications with nationalising assets and then trying to operate them and I suggest this is the reason a package has been offered.

alexsa

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia has a complicated relationship with the Pacific. However, while annoying the government of day is often a favorite past time (as many a state government does within Australia), it doesn't mean they want a different security partner, or want to throw chaos into the wind and effectively made decisions that put them in military opposition to Australia. They just want to be heard, considered and supported. There is an awaking within Australia we need to do better in our own region, and perhaps the global diplomatic issues are not where we should put our efforts and resources, when we have local and regional issues to address, under contest. Bougainville and Caledonia are two hotspots examples where the status quo may not go forward and will need to be managed closely.

There are plenty of places where Kiwi diplomacy can be more effective. Australia can't do it by itself, as a sovereign second party NZ can fill those gaps and manage those concerns without contradiction. It should never be a singular entity doing all the heavy lifting.

In other news there has been some analysis of the budget.

Defence budget climbs to $44.6 billion | The Strategist

The 2021–22 budget was a ‘no surprises’ one for Defence. The government set out its plan in the 2016 white paper, reaffirmed it in last year’s defence strategic update and is now providing Defence with ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I see we finally above 2%. The previous magical goal.
I see flight hour costs of SH are being pushed very high, while efforts are made to show flight hour costs of F-35's are impossibly low.

There is a developing gaps between capability arriving post 2030 and the needs of the 2020's. There might be a focus on getting things that can FOC within the 2022-2030 period. Things that can be integrated into existing platforms (weapons or sensors) or additional existing platforms.

AFR claims a $10 billion underspend in defence. So there may be some money for these type of things, as the big project move along and de-risk and underspend.

 

[John Newman]

AFR claims a $10 billion underspend in defence. So there may be some money for these type of things, as the big project move along and de-risk and underspend.

So the ALP Opposition makes a claim of a $10B underspend since the 2016 DWP and the AFR reports it? Surprise surprise, not.

Somehow I don’t think there is a bucket with a spare $10B sitting in it.

There are a number of reasons, including exchange rate fluctuations, as I’ve always understood it, the Government has a ‘no loss, no win’ policy for Defence acquisitions. If a project cost more because of exchange rates, it’s topped up from general revenue, or if a project costs less, the savings go back to general revenue, no loss, no win.

Projects are delayed, doesn’t mean that the budget allocation for that project stops being allocated, it just rolls forward.

Projects are cancelled and new projects emerge.

For example, the 2016 DWP had money allocated for two additional KC-30A, two additional C-17A, and a dedicated long range search and rescue capability, but by the 2020 Strategic Update those three projects were cancelled.

I’d rather have the Government budget more than less, imagine if there was a $10B overspend? The screams from the ALP would be even louder!

Cheers,

 

[StingrayOZ]

Its not so much a bucket, as a buffer. If you add the buffers you get to a number. $10b is the number they came up with but that certainly doesn't mean there is a bucket with that much in it. Yes, pour water over that right away.

But as project progress, and track within budget, then the de-risking and resourcing gets freed up. Space, money and capability for new projects. Yes, I don't think anyone should be critical of government for this situation. Currency strength is also quite strong at the moment.

But I wonder if some of those cancelled/on hold projects might be re-assessed. Or if new smaller projects could step in. Particularly in the 2023-2030 region. Force multipliers and extra war fighting capacity.

Short term things, that are mostly acquisition costs only. Weapons, sensors, etc.

 

[t68]

Came across this which is something I applaud, its all well and good supporting against racism and others whom identify as non heterosexual but it does not belong in the workplace by all means show your support outside of work hours.

But on a side note for an old bloke like me who doesn't give a toss what people do in there own private lives I find it hard to keep up with all the new acronyms for what would normally just be called a Gay or lesbian its quite confusing to know what on earth they are talking about half the time

‘We are not pursuing a woke agenda': Dutton bans special morning teas at Defence after IDAHOBIT (msn.com)

 

[JohnJT]

Came across this which is something I applaud, its all well and good supporting against racism and others whom identify as non heterosexual but it does not belong in the workplace by all means show your support outside of work hours.

But on a side note for an old bloke like me who doesn't give a toss what people do in there own private lives I find it hard to keep up with all the new acronyms for what would normally just be called a Gay or lesbian its quite confusing to know what on earth they are talking about half the time

‘We are not pursuing a woke agenda': Dutton bans special morning teas at Defence after IDAHOBIT (msn.com)

LGB is a tricky acronym for defence. It can either mean Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual, or it could mean Laser Guided Bomb. Any mix up between the two could be disastrous.

 

[Sideline]

Or entertaining depending on your viewpoint - Laser Guided Bisexual

sorry I'll shut up now

@Sideline Some people. There's always one isn't there that has just got to. I don't know . What are we going to do with you? We could give you a thrashing but both you and Preceptor might enjoy it, and we definitely can't have that.

Ngatimozart.

 

[ngatimozart]

LGB is a tricky acronym for defence. It can either mean Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual, or it could mean Laser Guided Bomb. Any mix up between the two could be disastrous.

Jeez mental images. The vivid imaginations of veterans will be working overtime on this now.

 

[ConcernedNow]

Hi All,
This is my first post. I served in the Army Reserve in the mid-1980s and have followed with great interest Defence Talk for many years and respect and appreciate the views/opinions/knowledge of the many serving defence professionals and others on this forum. The reason I chose the moniker ConcernedNow is my deep concern about a likely global conflict during the 2020s and the similarities with the 1930s. I have read with great interest Jim Molan’s views that the 4 current threats to global peace are Communist China, Russia, Iran and North Korea and his view that although they do not necessarily have formal alliances between themselves, they are supportive of each other both economically and militarily and they will act opportunistically to achieve their territorial and strategic objectives. As
I class North Korea a vassal state of Communist China and when (I don’t believe it is an if) Communist China moves against Taiwan I strongly suspect Xi Xinping will order North Korea to move against South Korea in order to create a 2 front major war which the United States and Allies will find extremely difficult to combat against. The outcome of that 2 front war would be extremely uncertain. I would also assume Russia and Iran would act opportunistically at that time but Australia will be primarily concerned with the Indo-Pacific. I note the US Indo-Pacific commander earlier this year stated before Congress his assessment that Communist China would be in a position to launch an invasion of Taiwan within 6 years and they are building their military forces and training for that eventuality. I also note that Peter Jennings (ASPI) and Jim Molan in recent months have indicated war is possible (perhaps even likely) in the timeframe of the next 3-5 years.

In light of the above, I note Peter Dutton has asked the Defence Department to identify short term and medium term capability projects/upgrades for the RAN which I fervently hope implies a within 5 year time frame. I assume the recently announced towed array sonar upgrade for the ANZAC class frigates falls within this 5 year timframe. Now to my main questions.
(1) Assuming we are operating within a 5 year timeframe before conflict is upon us what are the projects identified within the 2020 Defence Strategic Update which can be brought forward or even expanded?
(2) Now that Defence expenditure is above the 2% GDP target (I understand it to be 2.09% of GDP in the recently announced 2021/22 Fed Budget) is it possible to assume the Fed Govt no longer has an upper limit on Defence Expenditure and is now operating on a ‘Whatever it takes’ basis?
(3) In light of question (2) is it likely the Fed Govt will bring forward the $4.5-$6.7billion Additional Air Combat Capability in the 2020 DSU slated to start in 2025 (which appears to be far too late) to next years budget? Can that additional air combat capability be the exercising of the option to purchase the additional 28 F35A aircraft to equip an additional air combat squadron? Is It possible for the RAAF to re-equip and re-activate No. 76 Squadron ( as it was up until 1973) at Pearce Airbase north of Perth as an operational air combat squadron utilising the additional F35As with permanent rotating flights through the Curtin and/or Learmonth Bare Bases? I understand 76 squadron is currently a training squadron so another training unit would need to be raised to undertake these duties? I also understand their would be a requirement for large infrastructure works to be undertaken at Pearce Airbase and likely Curtin and Learmonth Bare bases?
(4) I note Jim Molan’s comment when the purchase of the 29 Apache Attack helicopters to replace the Army’s 22 Tiger Attack helicopters was announced that Australia really needs at least 50 Apaches if we are serious about building capability that is sustainable in a peer to peer conflict. In light of this observation I believe Australia really needs more of everything we currently operate and we need it within the next 5 years to achieve sustainability in a peer to peer conflict. As such, is their a possibility we can order additional Super Hornets (24 would be my target to equip a second additional air combat squadron which would also cover additional training requirements)? Is it possible for this second additional Super Hornet squadron to be based at Tindal Air base in NT with associated infrastructure base upgrades?
(5) Is it possible Australia to purchase an additional 12 Growlers (I note the 2021/22 budget has allocated funding to purchase a replacement Growler for the one lost in that accident to maintain fleet of 12) to increase the fleet to 24 within the current 6 squadron?
(5) In light of the more of everything we currently possess and within the next 5 years constraint is it possible we could fund the purchase of 6 additional P8A Poseiden aircraft to take the fleet to 20 aircraft utilising the current squadron in SA? I chose 20 as that was the number of P3c Orions we had in our fleet although I understand some were tasked for duties other than anti-submarine/ anti-surface warship duties?
(6) Is it also possible we could purchase an additional 12-24 MH-60R Romeos to bolster the RANs anti-submarine capabilities and this complements the additional P8A Poseidon’s in point (5)? I understand this would require significant infrastructure works at Nowra Naval Air Station? I understand our 2 LHDs can now operate the Romeo so operating 4-8 Romeos from each LHD would bolster that capability when that capability is required?

I have many more questions but I think that is enough for the moment!

 

[oldsig127]

Hi All,
This is my first post. I served in the Army Reserve in the mid-1980s and have followed with great interest Defence Talk for many years and respect and appreciate the views/opinions/knowledge of the many serving defence professionals and others on this forum. The reason I chose the moniker ConcernedNow is my deep concern about a likely global conflict during the 2020s and the similarities with the 1930s. I have read with great interest Jim Molan’s views that the 4 current threats to global peace are Communist China, Russia, Iran and North Korea and his view that although they do not necessarily have formal alliances between themselves, they are supportive of each other both economically and militarily and they will act opportunistically to achieve their territorial and strategic objectives. As
I class North Korea a vassal state of Communist China and when (I don’t believe it is an if) Communist China moves against Taiwan I strongly suspect Xi Xinping will order North Korea to move against South Korea in order to create a 2 front major war which the United States and Allies will find extremely difficult to combat against. The outcome of that 2 front war would be extremely uncertain. I would also assume Russia and Iran would act opportunistically at that time but Australia will be primarily concerned with the Indo-Pacific. I note the US Indo-Pacific commander earlier this year stated before Congress his assessment that Communist China would be in a position to launch an invasion of Taiwan within 6 years and they are building their military forces and training for that eventuality. I also note that Peter Jennings (ASPI) and Jim Molan in recent months have indicated war is possible (perhaps even likely) in the timeframe of the next 3-5 years.

In light of the above, I note Peter Dutton has asked the Defence Department to identify short term and medium term capability projects/upgrades for the RAN which I fervently hope implies a within 5 year time frame. I assume the recently announced towed array sonar upgrade for the ANZAC class frigates falls within this 5 year timframe. Now to my main questions.
(1) Assuming we are operating within a 5 year timeframe before conflict is upon us what are the projects identified within the 2020 Defence Strategic Update which can be brought forward or even expanded?
(2) Now that Defence expenditure is above the 2% GDP target (I understand it to be 2.09% of GDP in the recently announced 2021/22 Fed Budget) is it possible to assume the Fed Govt no longer has an upper limit on Defence Expenditure and is now operating on a ‘Whatever it takes’ basis?
(3) In light of question (2) is it likely the Fed Govt will bring forward the $4.5-$6.7billion Additional Air Combat Capability in the 2020 DSU slated to start in 2025 (which appears to be far too late) to next years budget? Can that additional air combat capability be the exercising of the option to purchase the additional 28 F35A aircraft to equip an additional air combat squadron? Is It possible for the RAAF to re-equip and re-activate No. 76 Squadron ( as it was up until 1973) at Pearce Airbase north of Perth as an operational air combat squadron utilising the additional F35As with permanent rotating flights through the Curtin and/or Learmonth Bare Bases? I understand 76 squadron is currently a training squadron so another training unit would need to be raised to undertake these duties? I also understand their would be a requirement for large infrastructure works to be undertaken at Pearce Airbase and likely Curtin and Learmonth Bare bases?
(4) I note Jim Molan’s comment when the purchase of the 29 Apache Attack helicopters to replace the Army’s 22 Tiger Attack helicopters was announced that Australia really needs at least 50 Apaches if we are serious about building capability that is sustainable in a peer to peer conflict. In light of this observation I believe Australia really needs more of everything we currently operate and we need it within the next 5 years to achieve sustainability in a peer to peer conflict. As such, is their a possibility we can order additional Super Hornets (24 would be my target to equip a second additional air combat squadron which would also cover additional training requirements)? Is it possible for this second additional Super Hornet squadron to be based at Tindal Air base in NT with associated infrastructure base upgrades?
(5) Is it possible Australia to purchase an additional 12 Growlers (I note the 2021/22 budget has allocated funding to purchase a replacement Growler for the one lost in that accident to maintain fleet of 12) to increase the fleet to 24 within the current 6 squadron?
(5) In light of the more of everything we currently possess and within the next 5 years constraint is it possible we could fund the purchase of 6 additional P8A Poseiden aircraft to take the fleet to 20 aircraft utilising the current squadron in SA? I chose 20 as that was the number of P3c Orions we had in our fleet although I understand some were tasked for duties other than anti-submarine/ anti-surface warship duties?
(6) Is it also possible we could purchase an additional 12-24 MH-60R Romeos to bolster the RANs anti-submarine capabilities and this complements the additional P8A Poseidon’s in point (5)? I understand this would require significant infrastructure works at Nowra Naval Air Station? I understand our 2 LHDs can now operate the Romeo so operating 4-8 Romeos from each LHD would bolster that capability when that capability is required?

I have many more questions but I think that is enough for the moment!

All things are possible. The government might pull out the required billions from other government responsibilities or just go further into debt, and the opposition parties and Australians who will lose something might not complain and chuck them out of government.

We might find a way to get trained crew and support personnel and facilities at a moments notice.

Or it could just be a fantasy fleet.

oldsig127

 

[hairyman]

The US, Britain, Israel, and other countrie have the F35, but rely on other aircraft for their air to air duties. The US has F22 and F15, israel and others have the F15, Britain has the Eurofighter. Is this a weak point in the RAAF's capabilities?

 

[Boagrius]

The US, Britain, Israel, and other countrie have the F35, but rely on other aircraft for their air to air duties.

I think you'll find this to be untrue. They use the F35 for air to air duties as well, just as they have with its predecessors. I suspect ever more of this mission will fall to the F35 in the future, as non-stealthy 4th gen aircraft increasingly struggle to find relevance in the face of modern IADS capabilities.

 

[ConcernedNow]

All things are possible. The government might pull out the required billions from other government responsibilities or just go further into debt, and the opposition parties and Australians who will lose something might not complain and chuck them out of government.

We might find a way to get trained crew and support personnel and facilities at a moments notice.

Or it could just be a fantasy fleet.

oldsig127

Thank you for your reply oldsig127. The reason I am looking at these possibilities is also in light of Jim Molan’s comment earlier this year that he has confidence the ADF would win the initial 1-2 major battles but the ADF does not have the size and numbers of equipment and munition war stock to sustain a peer to peer conflict beyond the first couple of battles. The ADF currently does not possess sustainability in peer to peer conflict and would cease to exist as a viable war fighting organisation after the first couple of major battles. Molan’s comment about acquiring 50 apaches rather than the 29 currently ordered implies a view (which I agree with) the ADF require more of everything we currently operate and led me to my questions about acquiring more of current equipment which could be available for combat operations within 5 years. I don’t see any point talking about aircraft carriers, F35bs, B21s, nuclear powered submarines as they are all unrealistic in the next 3-5 years and for many years after (If ever). Any comments about the Attack class submarines I also class as irrelevant as they are 2030s capability and we will be going to war (if it does occur in the next 3-5 years) with our 6 Collins class subs, 8 Anzacs and 3 Hobart Class with some Arafura class mine countermeasures and 2 LHD etc.

Your comment about funding implies a win-lose scenario which I believe no longer necessarily applies in the pandemic world of economics (I am not a believer in Modern Monetary Theory as eventually debt needs to be managed to a sustainable level of GDP over time).The size of the Fed Govt‘s debt funded expenditure on pandemic policy initiatives implies if the Fed Govt decided to increase defence spending to for example 3% per annum (an approx $20 billion per annum increase in defence expenditure) it would be funded through an increase in Fed Govt debt obligations. I understand training sufficient numbers of pilots, maintainers etc and build the supporting infrastructure required within the next 3-5 year timeframe would be a significant challenge but this pandemic has displayed what is achievable when Govts are not constrained by short-term arbitrary debt targets when confronted with an existential crisis. Communist China is becoming more belligerent and confident it could prevail in a peer to peer contest with the United States in a conflict over Taiwan. Greg Sheridan’s interview with Oriana Skylar Mastro in yesterday’s Weekend Australia was exceptionally disturbing in the context of Communist China’s growing military confidence and capabilities.