ADF General discussion thread

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
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!
G'day and welcome. To reply to your statements/questions in order.

1- some items may potentially be able to be brought forward but these will be smaller simpler items that can be acquired quickly because they have a low build time frame and are readily available, which items I don't know and won't even try and guess as that is all it will be.
2- while nothing has specifically been stated under the current geopolitical environment I wouldn't put it past them to have the budget 2% as a minimum and willing to spend what ever else as needed.
3- this one partly folds into 4. The 28 options are just that, options. Either they will order more F-35's in either A's or B's or they may upgrade the Shornet if the believe a potentially worthwhile aircraft is around the corner. We could order and potentially gain those aircraft in that time but it will mean the retirement of the Shornet.
4- while we would all want more Apaches it comes to cost but even more importantly manpower specifically trained man power. Going from 22 to 29 is a big increase in percentage terms, nearly 32%. But going from 22 to 50 is over 127% increase which is a big increase in trained personnel. As for a second Shornet squadron I do not see that happening. The RAAF for a long time has maintained circa 100 combat aircraft and If you want the full fleet of 100 35's, and 48 Shornets you are pushing manpower past breaking point. Was around a decade ago we had manpower constraints with our aircraft as we lacked enough pilots for the hornets wanting to increase that by 40,%+ will make it worse.
5a- doubling the growler fleet runs into same issues as 3 & 4. Not counting the fact that the growler is starting to show its age some what and the point of the program was to get the next generation of them.
5b- We had 19 of them, one was apperantly converted to an EP3, others upgraded to AP3C's and 2 of those 18 used for SIGNIT so only 16 for ASW. We have 12 P-8's with 2 on order and upto 7 Tritons. So numbers wise we are well covered
6- this would be a worthwhile investment if again crew can be trained up.

At the end of the day easy enough to buy anything we want, but just comes down to personal to operate and sustain them.

Between all the services and our geopolitical climate a solid argument could be made for increased numbers in everything almost but at that point you could be looking at a personal increase anywhere from 50-100%.

Things we want to potentially speed up would be decision on the 28 F-35 options be acquire them or upgrade the Shornets to block 3, acquire the 12th growler, extra Romeo's, etc but I don't see an increase in actual numbers in any great amount at least in 3-5 years as they have flow on needs, more combat aircraft means more tankers, if deployed abroad also means more cargo aircraft etc etc
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
Welcome to the forum @ConcernedNow We look forward to your contributions. We do have a set of rules that all members are required to follow and you are advised to familiarise yourself with them. A lengthy post with questions that cover a lot of ground. Hopefully we can provide some answers to all of them.
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.
I would be somewhat cautious in claiming that North Korea is a vassal state of of the PRC. Certainly Kim Jong Un wouldn't see it that way and I think that as much as Beijing may wish it was so, they do have some problems with their fraternal socialist comrades across the border. Kim Jong Un does annoy them regularly.

Your second point about the PRC being in a position to launch an invasion of Taiwan. The PLA have never performed a large opposed amphibious invasion involving forces of three or more divisions,which is what would be required to be landed on Taiwan. They also have a significant voyage to sail to get those ground forces there. It's not something that you can really hide especially when the target is blindingly obvious. The military risk of failure is high for any force experienced in such activities. For an inexperienced force, especially a virgin force, the military risk of failure is extremely high. In the case of the PRC the political risk of such a failure for the CCP would be close to catastrophic, because it would show the PLA personnel, especially the lower ranks, and the masses that the CCP is not infallible. Therefore such an invasion must be successful, and six years is a somewhat to soon for an invasion of Taiwan. However it doesn't mean that they cannot isolate Taiwan by other means and a blockade by sea and air is very feasible and far less risky politically for the CCP.
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?
No because there is no justication at all for such a measure. Here you are talking about a war economy and at the present point in time Australia is not at war with anyone.

The second point is that the Australian economy couldn't sustain such an expenditure long term. It is the iron ore exports, mostly to the PRC which is really sustaining your economy at the moment. The PRC are actively looking for alternative sources and once they find them, your iron ore exports will drop dramatically. Your iron ore exports are replaceable. So you have to allow for that in the long term.

Third point is that Australia is being very bellicose about the PRC, far more than the US was under Trump and this raises the question of why? What's Australia trying to gain by deliberately provoking the PRC? Or is this an inferiority complex in that its trying to show the US and the world that its tougher than the US? Yes there most definitely are problems with the PRC, but there are other ways of dealing with them too. You don't have to get the fighting boomerang out each time you get cranky with them. So you have to assess and analyse the issues and reasoning behind this bellicosity. Who's driving it? And why? What's in it for them?
(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?
First of all, it comes down to funding. Is the money actually available? The government has its hands full with a global pandemic at the moment. Secondly, even if the money was immediately made available, is the capacity available to deliver the capabilities earlier? Thirdly, if the capabilities can be delivered earlier, does the ADF have the capability and capability to induct them, bring them to IOC and finally FOC in a reasonable time frame without unduly negatively impacting upon some or all of its other activities.

Part 1 of 2
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Part 2 of 2.

QUOTE](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?
50 AH-64E Apaches? Pray tell how are you going to pay for and crew the extra 21 helos? The flyaway cost is just one part of it. There is the Term Of Life Cost that covers every cost associated with the aircraft during its service with the ADF, and that adds up. Next the air and ground crews - they don't grow on trees and take years to fully train at huge expense. The same can be said for the extra Super Hornets. IIRC they are only being retained for a yet to be determined period of time.
[QUOTE(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?[/QUOTE]
See my point above re: cost. Also I believe 12 is the optimal number. These are a highly specialised aircraft and even the USN operates small numbers of them.
(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?
IIRC the RAAF will be operating 15 P-8A Poseidon aircraft. These aircraft are far more advanced than the P-3C that the RAAF operated and they are operated differently to the Orions. Secondly, the RAAF are acquiring the MQ-4C Triton UAV that operates in conjunction with the Poseidon. Thirdly, the RAAF is also acquiring the MQ-9B SeaGuardian as well. Fourthly, the RAAF is acquiring five G550 Electronic Warfare aircraft.
(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!
The current MH-60R Romeo fleet is deemed adequate, however given that the number of combatant flight decks will increase over time it maybe prudent to acquire some more. But 24 is far to many and again it comes down to costs and crews. The highest cost centre in any military is personnel so when you start increasing personnel numbers willy nilly, the associated costs escalate correspondingly.

I hope that this helps.
 
Last edited:

ConcernedNow

New Member
Thankyou Ngatimozart for your reply and for your consideration of my questions. It was very detailed and in some ways made me even more concerned than before I read your reply. I do not agree with your statement Australia is being belligerent towards Communist China. I believe it is the other way around and the pandemic has enabled the true face and intentions of Communist China to be on display. It is no friend of Liberal Democracies and the political class in Australia now realise we had far too much economic and social contact with Communist China. Economic decoupling and social decoupling is now well under way in Australia ironically in no small part thanks to Communist China’s trade sanctions imposed upon Australia as part of its chosen antagonist behaviour towards Australia. Australia’s economy is booming and the political class and business class now realise Australia actually does not need Communist China as much as was assumed pre-pandemic for the simple fact we have found other export markets out of necessity. Communist China needs Australia‘s high quality Iron Ore and cannot access the volume and quality of product from any other nation (including Brazil where Vale has no date identified when full production will resume due to dam failures, regulatory oversight and the pandemic impacting the workforce).

In terms of your comments regarding military equipment they were very detailed and made me even more concerned. It suggests that Jim Molan’s comments that he is confident the ADF would win the initial 1-2 major battles in a peer to peer conflict but lack the size, numbers in equipment and war munitions stock to continue beyond the initial couple of battles in major peer to peer conflict to remain a viable war fighting organisation even more pertinent. In my reply to Oldsig127 I suggested the Fed Govt could possibly increase defence expenditure to 3% of GDP (equivalent to an additional approx $20 billion per annum) from the current budget’s 2.09% funded through increased debt obligations to fund. I went into that further in that reply. I do not believe 3% of GDP is a War Economy for the simple reason that during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s Australia’s defence budget was regularly at or above 2.7% of GDP with the stated Fed Govt target during the 1980s being 3% of GDP. That was not considered a War Economy I simply believe the ADF needs more of everything of our current equipment very quickly and if we keep to the current level of ADF size, equipment numbers and war munitions stock then we are essentially undefended at a time when a timeframe of 3-5 years to a potential peer to peer conflict is upon us. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments upon the increased impacts upon training, expansion of infrastructure, increased cost burden etc. I found your comments about additional numbers for the Growler very interesting and defer to your expertise. I realise there are hypotheticals in the above defence expenditure increase but if the warning time for potential peer to peer conflict is 3-5 years then surely now is the time to open the spigots rather than wait until it is too late. If the RAAF do not require more than 12 Growlers then that is expenditure not required which could be directed to other areas such as additional Super Hornets. One additional question I do have is can the proposed Hypersonic Missile Capability be carried in the bomb bay of the F35A or are we far too early in the design of that capability?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
(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?
Mate,

Without going into the details of your very extensive, and very expensive, equipment shopping list, there is the matter of the very large Elephant in the room...

Budget, yes spending is now above 2% of GDP, but....

You have to go back to the 2016 DWP, and the recent 2020 Strategic Update to find the answer.

Basically what the Government did with its 10 year forward spending projections (in both those documents) was to ‘de-link’ Defence spending from GDP, in other words it set out the plan and set the appropriate yearly amount of dollars in each of those years to achieve the goal, it didn’t open Treasury doors for an open slather ‘whatever it takes’ approach.

To do what you’ve suggested the Government would have to find three new very large buckets of money for additional equipment, additional sustainment and additional manpower, all on top of what’s been planned and budgeted for.

Sorry, not going to happen, it’s a pipe dream.

Cheers,
 

ConcernedNow

New Member
G'day and welcome. To reply to your statements/questions in order.

1- some items may potentially be able to be brought forward but these will be smaller simpler items that can be acquired quickly because they have a low build time frame and are readily available, which items I don't know and won't even try and guess as that is all it will be.
2- while nothing has specifically been stated under the current geopolitical environment I wouldn't put it past them to have the budget 2% as a minimum and willing to spend what ever else as needed.
3- this one partly folds into 4. The 28 options are just that, options. Either they will order more F-35's in either A's or B's or they may upgrade the Shornet if the believe a potentially worthwhile aircraft is around the corner. We could order and potentially gain those aircraft in that time but it will mean the retirement of the Shornet.
4- while we would all want more Apaches it comes to cost but even more importantly manpower specifically trained man power. Going from 22 to 29 is a big increase in percentage terms, nearly 32%. But going from 22 to 50 is over 127% increase which is a big increase in trained personnel. As for a second Shornet squadron I do not see that happening. The RAAF for a long time has maintained circa 100 combat aircraft and If you want the full fleet of 100 35's, and 48 Shornets you are pushing manpower past breaking point. Was around a decade ago we had manpower constraints with our aircraft as we lacked enough pilots for the hornets wanting to increase that by 40,%+ will make it worse.
5a- doubling the growler fleet runs into same issues as 3 & 4. Not counting the fact that the growler is starting to show its age some what and the point of the program was to get the next generation of them.
5b- We had 19 of them, one was apperantly converted to an EP3, others upgraded to AP3C's and 2 of those 18 used for SIGNIT so only 16 for ASW. We have 12 P-8's with 2 on order and upto 7 Tritons. So numbers wise we are well covered
6- this would be a worthwhile investment if again crew can be trained up.

At the end of the day easy enough to buy anything we want, but just comes down to personal to operate and sustain them.

Between all the services and our geopolitical climate a solid argument could be made for increased numbers in everything almost but at that point you could be looking at a personal increase anywhere from 50-100%.

Things we want to potentially speed up would be decision on the 28 F-35 options be acquire them or upgrade the Shornets to block 3, acquire the 12th growler, extra Romeo's, etc but I don't see an increase in actual numbers in any great amount at least in 3-5 years as they have flow on needs, more combat aircraft means more tankers, if deployed abroad also means more cargo aircraft etc etc
G'day and welcome. To reply to your statements/questions in order.

1- some items may potentially be able to be brought forward but these will be smaller simpler items that can be acquired quickly because they have a low build time frame and are readily available, which items I don't know and won't even try and guess as that is all it will be.
2- while nothing has specifically been stated under the current geopolitical environment I wouldn't put it past them to have the budget 2% as a minimum and willing to spend what ever else as needed.
3- this one partly folds into 4. The 28 options are just that, options. Either they will order more F-35's in either A's or B's or they may upgrade the Shornet if the believe a potentially worthwhile aircraft is around the corner. We could order and potentially gain those aircraft in that time but it will mean the retirement of the Shornet.
4- while we would all want more Apaches it comes to cost but even more importantly manpower specifically trained man power. Going from 22 to 29 is a big increase in percentage terms, nearly 32%. But going from 22 to 50 is over 127% increase which is a big increase in trained personnel. As for a second Shornet squadron I do not see that happening. The RAAF for a long time has maintained circa 100 combat aircraft and If you want the full fleet of 100 35's, and 48 Shornets you are pushing manpower past breaking point. Was around a decade ago we had manpower constraints with our aircraft as we lacked enough pilots for the hornets wanting to increase that by 40,%+ will make it worse.
5a- doubling the growler fleet runs into same issues as 3 & 4. Not counting the fact that the growler is starting to show its age some what and the point of the program was to get the next generation of them.
5b- We had 19 of them, one was apperantly converted to an EP3, others upgraded to AP3C's and 2 of those 18 used for SIGNIT so only 16 for ASW. We have 12 P-8's with 2 on order and upto 7 Tritons. So numbers wise we are well covered
6- this would be a worthwhile investment if again crew can be trained up.

At the end of the day easy enough to buy anything we want, but just comes down to personal to operate and sustain them.

Between all the services and our geopolitical climate a solid argument could be made for increased numbers in everything almost but at that point you could be looking at a personal increase anywhere from 50-100%.

Things we want to potentially speed up would be decision on the 28 F-35 options be acquire them or upgrade the Shornets to block 3, acquire the 12th growler, extra Romeo's, etc but I don't see an increase in actual numbers in any great amount at least in 3-5 years as they have flow on needs, more combat aircraft means more tankers, if deployed abroad also means more cargo aircraft etc etc
Thankyou Vonnoobie for your reply. Your analysis of service personnel requirements including training is rather depressing. I sincerely hope you are incorrect and that Peter Dutton can get the Defence Department (Public Service and ADF) cracking from what appears to me a leisurely peace time pace to a war preparation contingency pace. I do hope the 3-5 year timeframe put forward by Jim Mplan and Peter Jennings is incorrect as I look at my children.
 

ConcernedNow

New Member
Mate,

Without going into the details of your very extensive, and very expensive, equipment shopping list, there is the matter of the very large Elephant in the room...

Budget, yes spending is now above 2% of GDP, but....

You have to go back to the 2016 DWP, and the recent 2020 Strategic Update to find the answer.

Basically what the Government did with its 10 year forward spending projections (in both those documents) was to ‘de-link’ Defence spending from GDP, in other words it set out the plan and set the appropriate yearly amount of dollars in each of those years to achieve the goal, it didn’t open Treasury doors for an open slather ‘whatever it takes’ approach.

To do what you’ve suggested the Government would have to find three new very large buckets of money for additional equipment, additional sustainment and additional manpower, all on top of what’s been planned and budgeted for.

Sorry, not going to happen, it’s a pipe dream.

Cheers,
Thank you John for your reply. Is it too much to hope the Fed Govt next year will outline another Defence update just as the 2020 DSU outlined a further deterioration since the 2016 DWP and jettisoned the 10 year warning time? I believe our security environment is deteriorating rapidly even since the July 2020 DSU. I do hope you are wrong but there are many defence professionals and other experienced people on this site who I suspect agree with you and who I respect that believe what we currently possess and have on order is as good as it gets. We need a shock to get us out of this peace time thought bubble.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Thank you John for your reply. Is it too much to hope the Fed Govt next year will outline another Defence update just as the 2020 DSU outlined a further deterioration since the 2016 DWP and jettisoned the 10 year warning time? I believe our security environment is deteriorating rapidly even since the July 2020 DSU. I do hope you are wrong but there are many defence professionals and other experienced people on this site who I suspect agree with you and who I respect that believe what we currently possess and have on order is as good as it gets. We need a shock to get us out of this peace time thought bubble.
Mate,

Let’s assume the Government made an announcement tomorrow that Defence spending will increase to the 3% of GDP that you’ve suggested.

So instead of the planned $44.6B for the 2021-2022 financial year, it is upgraded to $66.9B, and increased for subsequent years too.

How easy, or hard, will it be to spend that amount?

You can’t go down to Parramatta Road here in Sydney (where all the car yards are) and rock up to the ‘Super Duper Defence Equipment Yard’ and get what you want.

Do you think you can find a salesman and say “I’ll have five of those, ten of those and two dozen of them and a truckload of spares and weapons too” and then say “by the way I also need a few thousand fully trained ADF personnel, can you can supply them?” and also say, “I also need the base infrastructure updated and a shed load of factories and skilled people to sustain it all”, and “can I have it all delivered by next Friday??”.

Defence is having a hard enough time to spend its yearly allocation as it stands now (for a variety of reasons), how then will it spend another $20+ billion each year too?

Again, it’s a pipe dream, sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s fantasy land.

Maybe you can explain how all this money can be effectively spent? I can’t.

Cheers,
 

t68

Well-Known Member
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.

Peer to peer engagement, even if the RAN doubled its current capacity I seriously doubt we would be in any better position out 1st tier Surface Combatants fleet would in theory be 18 Hunters, 6 Hobart's its certainly not the 1940's anymore where replacement ships can be built quick, the current requirements to build modern ships quickly is just to great.

I firmly believe that it will come down to a surprise attack on our and other fleets within our sphere of allies and the RAN/RAAF will be the priority targets on any attack on Australian soil, its not just the ships themselves but repair facilities fuel storage and any satellite constellation for comms and etc

The Chinese cant give the US time to prepare for war, it has to be quick and decisive blow the Chinese cannot give the US time like Saddam Hussein gave the Americans, I think you can also rule out any help from the South Koreans as they will have there own hands full with the North Koreans, the Japanese will also be in disarray as they will have to the strategic bases in Japan, Singapore and Australia can be handled quite easily by sub launched missiles on its strategic bases, I think it will come down to what happens in Europe does Russia take advantage

The Chinese certainly have the numbers to do a lot of damage in the opening hours of the next war if its what they do, it would take the US years to rebuild and would they have the appetite to continue
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
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!
G'day and welcome. To reply to your statements/questions in order.

1- some items may potentially be able to be brought forward but these will be smaller simpler items that can be acquired quickly because they have a low build time frame and are readily available, which items I don't know and won't even try and guess as that is all it will be.
2- while nothing has specifically been stated under the current geopolitical environment I wouldn't put it past them to have the budget 2% as a minimum and willing to spend what ever else as needed.
3- this one partly folds into 4. The 28 options are just that, options. Either they will order more F-35's in either A's or B's or they may upgrade the Shornet if the believe a potentially worthwhile aircraft is around the corner. We could order and potentially gain those aircraft in that time but it will mean the retirement of the Shornet.
4- while we would all want more Apaches it comes to cost but even more importantly manpower specifically trained man power. Going from 22 to 29 is a big increase in percentage terms, nearly 32%. But going from 22 to 50 is over 127% increase which is a big increase in trained personnel. As for a second Shornet squadron I do not see that happening. The RAAF for a long time has maintained circa 100 combat aircraft and If you want the full fleet of 100 35's, and 48 Shornets you are pushing manpower past breaking point. Was around a decade ago we had manpower constraints with our aircraft as we lacked enough pilots for the hornets wanting to increase that by 40,%+ will make it worse.
5a- doubling the growler fleet runs into same issues as 3 & 4. Not counting the fact that the growler is starting to show its age some what and the point of the program was to get the next generation of them.
5b- We had 19 of them, one was apperantly converted to an EP3, others upgraded to AP3C's and 2 of those 18 used for SIGNIT so only 16 for ASW. We have 12 P-8's with 2 on order and upto 7 Tritons. So numbers wise we are well covered
6- this would be a worthwhile investment if again crew can be trained up.

At the end of the day easy enough to buy anything we want, but just comes down to personal to operate and sustain them.

Between all the services and our geopolitical climate a solid argument could be made for increased numbers in everything almost but at that point you could be looking at a personal increase anywhere from 50-100%.

Things we want to potentially speed up would be decision on the 28 F-35 options be acquire them or upgrade the Shornets to block 3, acquire the 12th growler, extra Romeo's, etc but I don't see an increase in actual numbers in any great amount at least in 3-5 years as they have flow on needs, more combat aircraft means more tankers, if deployed abroad also means more cargo aircraft etc etc
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Good day folks

This discussion needs to be couched in the terms of reality. The point has been made that buying or building new kit is not easy given the complexity. (And before anybody suggests it buying second hand kit is not always a great option if it is overtaken by technical developments).

The point has also been made we need the servicemen and women to operate this gear. Even with automation given the suggested increases in gear the numbers of service personnel would have to increase (which is a challenge) and be trained (yet another challenge).

Can we ensure any suggestions take this into account. The current increase in defence spending is backed by statements and these give an indication of the strategic situation that defence has identified. I am not saying these is always right but they are a good starting point for discussion. Can we please keep this in the bounds of reality and posters try to justify some of the suggestions ... claims made!

Finally as noted by others
1. North Korea is certainly not a vassal state of China and South Korea is no push over ....

2. If China undertakes a surprise attack on the US that will most result in something beyond the ability of Australia to respond..... even if we doubled defence expenditure.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Just to add to @alexsa post above, if the PRC did undertake a surprise attack against the USA, the American response would most likely be devastating and involve nuclear weapons. They have never forgotten Pearl Harbour and they will respond accordingly to a surprise attack from a peer nation state.
 

ConcernedNow

New Member
Mate,

Let’s assume the Government made an announcement tomorrow that Defence spending will increase to the 3% of GDP that you’ve suggested.

So instead of the planned $44.6B for the 2021-2022 financial year, it is upgraded to $66.9B, and increased for subsequent years too.

How easy, or hard, will it be to spend that amount?

You can’t go down to Parramatta Road here in Sydney (where all the car yards are) and rock up to the ‘Super Duper Defence Equipment Yard’ and get what you want.

Do you think you can find a salesman and say “I’ll have five of those, ten of those and two dozen of them and a truckload of spares and weapons too” and then say “by the way I also need a few thousand fully trained ADF personnel, can you can supply them?” and also say, “I also need the base infrastructure updated and a shed load of factories and skilled people to sustain it all”, and “can I have it all delivered by next Friday??”.

Defence is having a hard enough time to spend its yearly allocation as it stands now (for a variety of reasons), how then will it spend another $20+ billion each year too?

Again, it’s a pipe dream, sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s fantasy land.

Maybe you can explain how all this money can be effectively spent? I can’t.

Cheers,
Hi John, I appreciate where you are coming from but the contrarian point of view is what the ADF currently possess and what is planned for the ADF over the next 3-5 years in terms of personnel, equipment, infrastructure and munitions war stock is just inadequate and embarrassingly so. When Jim Molan says we need more of everything and the ADF is only capable of winning the first 1-2 major battles before it effectively ceases to operate as an effective war fighting organisation due to lack of personnel, lack of equipment and lack of munitions stock then I would expect it is the Defence Department’s job and the responsibility of senior officers of the ADF to push hard for more of everything. If that is not occurring then I would say the Defence Department and the senior officers of the ADF are negligent in their responsibility to adequately prepare for the defence of Australia in a potential peer to peer conflict in the next 3-5 years. My job is not to get the money for a sizeable expansion in the ADF or to get the Defence Department to get off its backside and move quickly on acquisitions and other expansion plans but the leisurely almost comical pace Defence is moving at seems to me the mistakes of the late 1930s are again being repeated. We are sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the US will save us rather than taking responsibility for our own defence. The US maybe otherwise preoccupied in dealing with Communist China and Russia and North Korea and Iran at the same time. To say the Defence Department is finding it all too hard to spend the money would indicate to me we have the wrong people in the job.
 

ConcernedNow

New Member
Good day folks

This discussion needs to be couched in the terms of reality. The point has been made that buying or building new kit is not easy given the complexity. (And before anybody suggests it buying second hand kit is not always a great option if it is overtaken by technical developments).

The point has also been made we need the servicemen and women to operate this gear. Even with automation given the suggested increases in gear the numbers of service personnel would have to increase (which is a challenge) and be trained (yet another challenge).

Can we ensure any suggestions take this into account. The current increase in defence spending is backed by statements and these give an indication of the strategic situation that defence has identified. I am not saying these is always right but they are a good starting point for discussion. Can we please keep this in the bounds of reality and posters try to justify some of the suggestions ... claims made!

Finally as noted by others
1. North Korea is certainly not a vassal state of China and South Korea is no push over ....

2. If China undertakes a surprise attack on the US that will most result in something beyond the ability of Australia to respond..... even if we doubled defence expenditure.
Hi Alexsa, point 2 above I agree with and it is a nightmare scenario which I do not rule out. In terms of point 1 above I would very much disagree with you that North Korea operates independently of Communist China. It’s existence economically and militarily is entirely dependent upon Communist China. That is what I mean North Korea is a vassal State. The head of the US Indo-Pacific command said (I believe to Congess earlier this year) that Communist China is training for a military intervention in the Korea peninsula in addition to preparing for an invasion of Taiwan. That is why I believe there is every chance Xi Xinping will put enormous pressure on North Korea to attack South Korea simultaneously to an invasion of Taiwan in order to tie up US forces and South Korean forces in Korea and force the US to fight a 2 front war. Jim Molan earlier this year said the US now only has the capacity to fight one major war at any one time and there was no certainty the US would win that war. If I was Communist China that would be the strategy I would follow and it gives the US a difficult choice - Save Taiwan or Save South Korea. We will know soon enough.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Hi John, I appreciate where you are coming from but the contrarian point of view is what the ADF currently possess and what is planned for the ADF over the next 3-5 years in terms of personnel, equipment, infrastructure and munitions war stock is just inadequate and embarrassingly so. When Jim Molan says we need more of everything and the ADF is only capable of winning the first 1-2 major battles before it effectively ceases to operate as an effective war fighting organisation due to lack of personnel, lack of equipment and lack of munitions stock then I would expect it is the Defence Department’s job and the responsibility of senior officers of the ADF to push hard for more of everything. If that is not occurring then I would say the Defence Department and the senior officers of the ADF are negligent in their responsibility to adequately prepare for the defence of Australia in a potential peer to peer conflict in the next 3-5 years. My job is not to get the money for a sizeable expansion in the ADF or to get the Defence Department to get off its backside and move quickly on acquisitions and other expansion plans but the leisurely almost comical pace Defence is moving at seems to me the mistakes of the late 1930s are again being repeated. We are sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the US will save us rather than taking responsibility for our own defence. The US maybe otherwise preoccupied in dealing with Communist China and Russia and North Korea and Iran at the same time. To say the Defence Department is finding it all too hard to spend the money would indicate to me we have the wrong people in the job.
You appear to be referencing Jim Molan in all, or most, of your posts, correct?

I would suggest that he is not the all knowing God figure he believes himself to be.

Anyway, I’ve made my points and reasons why, obviously you have differing opinions.

Good luck.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hi Alexsa, point 2 above I agree with and it is a nightmare scenario which I do not rule out. In terms of point 1 above I would very much disagree with you that North Korea operates independently of Communist China. It’s existence economically and militarily is entirely dependent upon Communist China. That is what I mean North Korea is a vassal State. The head of the US Indo-Pacific command said (I believe to Congess earlier this year) that Communist China is training for a military intervention in the Korea peninsula in addition to preparing for an invasion of Taiwan. That is why I believe there is every chance Xi Xinping will put enormous pressure on North Korea to attack South Korea simultaneously to an invasion of Taiwan in order to tie up US forces and South Korean forces in Korea and force the US to fight a 2 front war. Jim Molan earlier this year said the US now only has the capacity to fight one major war at any one time and there was no certainty the US would win that war. If I was Communist China that would be the strategy I would follow and it gives the US a difficult choice - Save Taiwan or Save South Korea. We will know soon enough.
Right that's enough. It appears that you are pushing a particular political viewpoint and are not listening to what people are saying. These people happen to know what they are talking about. When Moderators start getting complaints from defence professionals and highly respected members about you, we get very cranky and today you have managed to annoy three Moderators, two of who are grumpy ones.

Your next couple of posts will determine your future on here. Think very carefully. Consider this a formal warning.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Hi Alexsa, point 2 above I agree with and it is a nightmare scenario which I do not rule out. In terms of point 1 above I would very much disagree with you that North Korea operates independently of Communist China. It’s existence economically and militarily is entirely dependent upon Communist China. That is what I mean North Korea is a vassal State. The head of the US Indo-Pacific command said (I believe to Congess earlier this year) that Communist China is training for a military intervention in the Korea peninsula in addition to preparing for an invasion of Taiwan. That is why I believe there is every chance Xi Xinping will put enormous pressure on North Korea to attack South Korea simultaneously to an invasion of Taiwan in order to tie up US forces and South Korean forces in Korea and force the US to fight a 2 front war. Jim Molan earlier this year said the US now only has the capacity to fight one major war at any one time and there was no certainty the US would win that war. If I was Communist China that would be the strategy I would follow and it gives the US a difficult choice - Save Taiwan or Save South Korea. We will know soon enough.
As others have mentioned, Kim isn’t exactly predictable and although NK is extremely dependent on China’s support, number one priority for Kim is survival and anything China wants that threatens that will be refused. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is extremely risky and while a simultaneous attack on SK might help with the amphibious assault on Taiwan, it more than likely increases the chances of a nuclear response from the US if SK was in serious trouble from the North. Even setting aside the direct military response, China would face massive trade restrictions and allied subs would be unleashed against any Chinese asset that floats IMO. China might have a large modern navy but it lacks blue water experience and the combined might of the USN, Japanese, SK, Australia, other Asian allied navies and NATO allies surpasses China by a wide margin. Xi isn’t stupid, a Taiwan invasion at present is very risky and the resulting fallout can’t be countered conventionally and the alternative is suicidal for all involved.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Good day folks

This discussion needs to be couched in the terms of reality. The point has been made that buying or building new kit is not easy given the complexity. (And before anybody suggests it buying second hand kit is not always a great option if it is overtaken by technical developments).

The point has also been made we need the servicemen and women to operate this gear. Even with automation given the suggested increases in gear the numbers of service personnel would have to increase (which is a challenge) and be trained (yet another challenge).

Can we ensure any suggestions take this into account. The current increase in defence spending is backed by statements and these give an indication of the strategic situation that defence has identified. I am not saying these is always right but they are a good starting point for discussion. Can we please keep this in the bounds of reality and posters try to justify some of the suggestions ... claims made!

Finally as noted by others
1. North Korea is certainly not a vassal state of China and South Korea is no push over ....

2. If China undertakes a surprise attack on the US that will most result in something beyond the ability of Australia to respond..... even if we doubled defence expenditure.

Yep agree, that was my point in relation to the ADF doubling the RAN/RAAF depending on the engagement if China were to make a move against Taiwan or other factor may not guarantee the desired result,we are just far to small a player to be other than a token involvement in a engagement that will be heavy and bloody. I think with the rise of the long range missile threat the ADF might be more inclined to make preparations to try and protect the strategic infrastructure in place now whilst improving our readiness

As for SK is not that it with being a push over, more over they will have other priories if the Chinese do decide to make a move in relation to NK as will the US if it has to engage China directly militarily
 

ConcernedNow

New Member
Right that's enough. It appears that you are pushing a particular political viewpoint and are not listening to what people are saying. These people happen to know what they are talking about. When Moderators start getting complaints from defence professionals and highly respected members about you, we get very cranky and today you have managed to annoy three Moderators, two of who are grumpy ones.

Your next couple of posts will determine your future on here. Think very carefully. Consider this a formal warning.
Right. That is very blunt. We disagree with each other but that is democracy and the wonders of free speech. I accept that many people on this site see that the 2020 DSU is the plan up to the year 2030 and if a war breaks out in 3-5 years the ADF will not be getting any meaningful adjustment to that plan. I wish that was not the case but that is reality it appears. I have no political barrow to push beyond protecting my nation Australia in a world where the strategic environment appears to be deteriorating rapidly. I don’t believe anyone can sensibly deny the world security environment is deteriorating at anything but a very fast pace. I wish NZ would be further down the road in expanding and modernising their military because our 2 nations need each other. Together we are stronger but divided we are weaker. I believe Communist China perceives a weakness in NZ and is trying to take advantage of that. That perceived weakness may not actually be reality but it seems to me Communist China believes it to be the case. I feel Australia is further down the road of understanding the true nature and objectives of Communist China than NZ but correct me if that is not the situation. That is my opinion. I respect Jim Molan and the service he has given to Australia but I accept that experts in many fields are sometimes blind to what is in front of them until it is too late. I suppose we will all know within 5 years if these posts are just noise or prescient. By the way it is not much fun in lockdown Victoria. Many people are struggling. Cheers.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I can relate to Victoria, Ontario has been in and out of lockdown since Xmas. Toronto might start to reopen early June.
 
Top