ADF General discussion thread

[aussienscale]

Well France has thrown the toys out of the cot and I suspect the baby with the bath water too !!

Australia tries to calm diplomatic bust-up with France over submarine deal

France said it was immediately recalling its ambassadors to Australia and the US after Australia scrapped a...

www.9news.com.au

Edit: Will just add, interesting nothing mentioned of or action taken against the UK ?

 

[Volkodav]

Well France has thrown the toys out of the cot and I suspect the baby with the bath water too !!

Australia tries to calm diplomatic bust-up with France over submarine deal

France said it was immediately recalling its ambassadors to Australia and the US after Australia scrapped a...

www.9news.com.au

Edit: Will just add, interesting nothing mentioned of or action taken against the UK ?

The thing everyone is missing is SEA 1000 was tracking like every other major acquisition involving major french companies. They over promised, under delivered, and it cost much more than advertised.

When questions were asked and issues raised, no solutions were forthcoming and they started backgrounding against those raising the issues, lobbying to silence or remove the doubters.

There was no cooperation, rather malicious compliance, using their interpretation of contract to get out of doing what they were actually contracted to do.

In the US they would have been audited and the acquisition overturned long ago with the prime being sued.

 

[meatshield]

Fortunately Australia as amble sun intensive waste lands for solar farms. I have noticed significant patches of farm land in southern Ontario being sacrificed for solar generation, a bad move. Because of green subsidies for renewal energy, many farmers can make more money than growing crops.

Solar has a capacity factor of low 20% mark and wind isn't much better at low 30%. The myth of the green solution to our power needs is creating an unstable grid. Recently when there was a number of coal power station outages in Queensland, solar farms had to be taken offline due to their inability to control frequency.

 

[Volkodav]

Solar has a capacity factor of low 20% mark and wind isn't much better at low 30%. The myth of the green solution to our power needs is creating an unstable grid. Recently when there was a number of coal power station outages in Queensland, solar farms had to be taken offline due to their inability to control frequency.

Interesting you mention QLD as they have benefitted from the batteries in SA preventing major load shedding after coat power station outages, giving back up GTs time to spool up.

It appears no matter what baseload you are talking, batteries are providing added resilience to the grid.

 

[meatshield]

Interesting you mention QLD as they have benefitted from the batteries in SA preventing major load shedding after coat power station outages, giving back up GTs time to spool up.

It appears no matter what baseload you are talking, batteries are providing added resilience to the grid.

Batteries are very good for Frequency control, But they don't last long. As for SA, if the interconnect to the rest of the Eastern Australia goes down (and it has) they are in a world of hurt.

 

[Wombat000]

SA is a nett exporter of energy.
bringing this back to the ADF,
I suggest that it’s in the nations strategic interest to harvest renewables potential.

instead of vulnerable regional energy production nodes, renewables have potential to feed users on-site/localised areas at their source.
supported stability by local batteries.
we already have an appreciation of whether it might be cloudy on a particular day, unlike random fuel intensively facilitated coal based failures.

dreaming of nuclear power, because we are not interested in actual solutions only convenient ideological methods, does anyone know the actual projected cost of a nuclear plant v the actual cost/time overruns of current builds?
how many new build nuclear plants have stalled construction?

 

[ngatimozart]

Time to bring the discussion back to the ADF. If you wish to discuss the benefits of nuclear energy vs wind vs solar energy, feel free to do so on its own thread. But not this one.

 

[meatshield]

SA is a nett exporter of energy.
bringing this back to the ADF,
I suggest that it’s in the nations strategic interest to harvest renewables potential.

instead of vulnerable regional energy production nodes, renewables have potential to feed users on-site/localised areas at their source.
supported stability by local batteries.
we already have an appreciation of whether it might be cloudy on a particular day, unlike random fuel intensively facilitated coal based failures.

dreaming of nuclear power, because we are not interested in actual solutions only convenient ideological methods, does anyone know the actual projected cost of a nuclear plant v the actual cost/time overruns of current builds?
how many new build nuclear plants have stalled construction?

Coal power stations have a capacity factor of 85 to 97% for a given year. Replacing that with renewables is delusional.

Folks ….. some advice has been given and this discussion is NOT to continue in this tread. If you want to discuss this please start a new thread in the off topic area. If the discussion continues I will delete the offending post.

The announcements were very clear that the building of SSN’s did not mean a domestic nuclear power industry was to be developed so this is off topic.

Alexsa

 

[meatshield]

Time to bring the discussion back to the ADF. If you wish to discuss the benefits of nuclear energy vs wind vs solar energy, feel free to do so on its own thread. But not this one.

Apologies, I was typing when this was written.

 

[hairyman]

Oh goody, I can get back to the F22 idea. Which of course is only a goer if the Yanks decide they want some more. Failing that, can we jump on the B21 bandwagon, or even the Tempest, but we do need an aircraft that is more threatening than the F35 and F18 mix.

@hairyman YOU HAVE BEEN ON HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THE F-22 IS NOT A STARTER BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN MANUFACTURED FOR NIGH ON 8 - 10 YEARS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. IF YOU BRING IT UP ONE MORE TIME EVER YOU WILL BE PENALISED. I AM STARTING TO THINK THAT YOU MIGHT BE A TROLL. PROVE ME WRONG. 6 demerit points for 3 months.

 

[MrConservative]

Oh goody, I can get back to the F22 idea.

No. Please don't. The reasons have been well traversed.

Which of course is only a goer if the Yanks decide they want some more.

At this stage they don't. So it is wishing to win lotto territory.

Failing that, can we jump on the B21 bandwagon,

I doubt the US at this point has even contemplated that or not, so it is pointless to even consider it.

or even the Tempest, but we do need an aircraft that is more threatening than the F35 and F18 mix.

Fair enough, should OZ buy into that very costly long term programme, that is slightly more plausible now this week than last with respect to the above propositions. Or wait until NGAD which few know what is actually happening.

 

[John Newman]

Oh goody, I can get back to the F22 idea. Which of course is only a goer if the Yanks decide they want some more. Failing that, can we jump on the B21 bandwagon, or even the Tempest, but we do need an aircraft that is more threatening than the F35 and F18 mix.

Why would you want to bring up F-22? Why?

It’s dead, finished, kaput, no more.

 

[foxdemon]

AUKUS has caused a stir with the SSN issue. But it seems to me that the real issue is the intended increase in US military operations from Australia.

Details on this link

US to ramp up military presence in Australia

So Australia is to become a 'fall back' base of power projection for the USA, given Japan and S Korea are very exposed. A consequence of this is that in the event of hostilities in East Asia, China will have no choice but to target at least military infrastructure in Australia, due to the threat of US power being project from those bases.

Now, I am not going to declare whether is situation is good or bad. Too be honest, I can't see that Australia really has any choice but to become a base of power projection against China, given the threat China has come to represent to limited government in all East Asia. We either do our part with the other Asian democracies or get used to the idea of grovelling in the mud before an absolutist government. There really isn't any choice.

My question to Australian defense professionals is, in light of the fact that we are now a militarily worthwhile target, what is your plan to cope with strategic attacks on targets in Australia?

 

[Redlands18]

AUKUS has caused a stir with the SSN issue. But it seems to me that the real issue is the intended increase in US military operations from Australia.

Details on this link

US to ramp up military presence in Australia

So Australia is to become a 'fall back' base of power projection for the USA, given Japan and S Korea are very exposed. A consequence of this is that in the event of hostilities in East Asia, China will have no choice but to target at least military infrastructure in Australia, due to the threat of US power being project from those bases.

Now, I am not going to declare whether is situation is good or bad. Too be honest, I can't see that Australia really has any choice but to become a base of power projection against China, given the threat China has come to represent to limited government in all East Asia. We either do our part with the other Asian democracies or get used to the idea of grovelling in the mud before an absolutist government. There really isn't any choice.

My question to Australian defense professionals is, in light of the fact that we are now a militarily worthwhile target, what is your plan to cope with strategic attacks on targets in Australia?

I think we really need to wait out and see what comes out later this week, Morrison, Biden and Johnson are supposed to be meeting in the US later this week as part of the UN Leaders gathering, we may get a better idea then.

 

[Todjaeger]

AUKUS has caused a stir with the SSN issue. But it seems to me that the real issue is the intended increase in US military operations from Australia.

Details on this link

US to ramp up military presence in Australia

So Australia is to become a 'fall back' base of power projection for the USA, given Japan and S Korea are very exposed. A consequence of this is that in the event of hostilities in East Asia, China will have no choice but to target at least military infrastructure in Australia, due to the threat of US power being project from those bases.

Now, I am not going to declare whether is situation is good or bad. Too be honest, I can't see that Australia really has any choice but to become a base of power projection against China, given the threat China has come to represent to limited government in all East Asia. We either do our part with the other Asian democracies or get used to the idea of grovelling in the mud before an absolutist government. There really isn't any choice.

My question to Australian defense professionals is, in light of the fact that we are now a militarily worthwhile target, what is your plan to cope with strategic attacks on targets in Australia?

TBH Australia has had involvement in US projects for decades that would have presented "worthwhile" targets for nations hostile to the US dating back to the Cold War. Pine Gap comes to mind, as do some of the tracking stations for elements of the US space programme.

 

[Volkodav]

Anyone worrying about Australia becoming a target, we were already a target. We were seen as a soft touch, a western democracy that could be used as a example to small and medium nations what happens if you don't tow the line.

 

[foxdemon]

Anyone worrying about Australia becoming a target, we were already a target. We were seen as a soft touch, a western democracy that could be used as a example to small and medium nations what happens if you don't tow the line.

Claiming we were always a target if fine but it doesn't answer my question. What thought has the defense establishment put into preparing for attacks on target in Australia?

Back in the cold war, the Pacific was a secondary theater after Europe. Today the Pacific is the primary theater. NATO countries took preparation for being attacked very seriously in those cold war days, given they were the front line. Back then, we could be more complacent, being so far from the action.

Now that the reverse is true, shouldn't we take preparation as seriously as NATO countries did in the cold war? After all, nationalist media in China is calling for direct attacks on Australia. Furthermore, from a theoretical point of view, China is compelled to attack targets in Australia now, if a war over Taiwan breaks out. So what analysis and plans have been prepared for attacks, whether conventional or otherwise, on targets in Australia?

Will active defenses be rolled out as a solution, once the public realises they might get bombed? I'm sure that option will hit all the right boxes in defense industry. Or should we have a comprehensive plan covering passive measures, civil defense and the need to secure public acceptance of the need to fight a war. Active defense only goes so far. Dispersal, hardening, decoy, camouflage, damage control and recovery, and the national will to accept suffering, are what is needed to be successful in coping with air/missile attacks on Australia. A Civil defense corps, with emergency service integration and the regional army commands in control of civil defense responses to attack, is what we need. This is so we can recover capabilities ASAP after attacks unless the enemy uses much greater qualities of munitions to achieve their objectives. This will, hopefully, lead to the enemy overtaxing their capacity and failing in their objectives elsewhere. Does that make sense to you? Same concepts as air field defense.

So we need to analyse the issue and make a plan for this. What progress has the defense establishment made in this regard?

 

[Milne Bay]

Claiming we were always a target if fine but it doesn't answer my question. What thought has the defense establishment put into preparing for attacks on target in Australia?

Back in the cold war, the Pacific was a secondary theater after Europe. Today the Pacific is the primary theater. NATO countries took preparation for being attacked very seriously in those cold war days, given they were the front line. Back then, we could be more complacent, being so far from the action.

Now that the reverse is true, shouldn't we take preparation as seriously as NATO countries did in the cold war? After all, nationalist media in China is calling for direct attacks on Australia. Furthermore, from a theoretical point of view, China is compelled to attack targets in Australia now, if a war over Taiwan breaks out. So what analysis and plans have been prepared for attacks, whether conventional or otherwise, on targets in Australia?

Will active defenses be rolled out as a solution, once the public realises they might get bombed? I'm sure that option will hit all the right boxes in defense industry. Or should we have a comprehensive plan covering passive measures, civil defense and the need to secure public acceptance of the need to fight a war. Active defense only goes so far. Dispersal, hardening, decoy, camouflage, damage control and recovery, and the national will to accept suffering, are what is needed to be successful in coping with air/missile attacks on Australia. A Civil defense corps, with emergency service integration and the regional army commands in control of civil defense responses to attack, is what we need. This is so we can recover capabilities ASAP after attacks unless the enemy uses much greater qualities of munitions to achieve their objectives. This will, hopefully, lead to the enemy overtaxing their capacity and failing in their objectives elsewhere. Does that make sense to you? Same concepts as air field defense.

So we need to analyse the issue and make a plan for this. What progress has the defense establishment made in this regard?

I think that the short answer to your question is simply.... little to none.
Civil defence is largely in the hands of volunteers - RFS and SES come to mind, and many of these are retirees.
The health system is stretched covering the current covid outbreaks, and the ambulance service is also currently stressed
As for active defence - it has not been a necessary part of planning in Australia simply because it was always assumed we would do any fighting away from these shores.
Your questions are timely.
Will we see any productive answers in the near future - I doubt it
MB

 

[ADMk2]

Claiming we were always a target if fine but it doesn't answer my question. What thought has the defense establishment put into preparing for attacks on target in Australia?

Back in the cold war, the Pacific was a secondary theater after Europe. Today the Pacific is the primary theater. NATO countries took preparation for being attacked very seriously in those cold war days, given they were the front line. Back then, we could be more complacent, being so far from the action.

Now that the reverse is true, shouldn't we take preparation as seriously as NATO countries did in the cold war? After all, nationalist media in China is calling for direct attacks on Australia. Furthermore, from a theoretical point of view, China is compelled to attack targets in Australia now, if a war over Taiwan breaks out. So what analysis and plans have been prepared for attacks, whether conventional or otherwise, on targets in Australia?

Will active defenses be rolled out as a solution, once the public realises they might get bombed? I'm sure that option will hit all the right boxes in defense industry. Or should we have a comprehensive plan covering passive measures, civil defense and the need to secure public acceptance of the need to fight a war. Active defense only goes so far. Dispersal, hardening, decoy, camouflage, damage control and recovery, and the national will to accept suffering, are what is needed to be successful in coping with air/missile attacks on Australia. A Civil defense corps, with emergency service integration and the regional army commands in control of civil defense responses to attack, is what we need. This is so we can recover capabilities ASAP after attacks unless the enemy uses much greater qualities of munitions to achieve their objectives. This will, hopefully, lead to the enemy overtaxing their capacity and failing in their objectives elsewhere. Does that make sense to you? Same concepts as air field defense.

So we need to analyse the issue and make a plan for this. What progress has the defense establishment made in this regard?

Short answer: none.

We have enjoyed the luxury of niche military contributions to operations of choice since WW2 and mistakenly believed these deployments, are the only likely defence requirement we’ll ever have. Hence why our force structure has remain largely unchanged for decades, hence why it has been consistently under-funded, and hence why we artificially cap the size and capability of our forces.

More significantly cost, difficulty and the lack of political desire, are the reasons we have no nation wide strategy for what our nation would do if we were actually attacked by a peer (let alone greater nation).

 

[John Fedup]

Australia is hardly alone in not adapting its defence status. This applies to most western democracies for the reasons you mention and lets face, the US has been sidetracked with its war on terror for the last 20 years. Military power is dependent on economic power and China’s now is the world’s factory accounting for 40% of total manufacturing. They can outspend and output more defence kit now. The debt levels of many democracies are another problem for expanded defence expenditures….and then there is COVID.