ADF General discussion thread

[StingrayOZ]

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.

Australia is a long way from China and its not the 1940's. We won't see lumbering bombers directly overhead of our east coast cities, carpet bombing. If China strikes it will be with long range missiles. They will be aiming for military targets with long range precision weapons.

Frankly China targeting Australia is not a very effective way to fight a war against the US. Every expensive long range weapon the fire at us would have been better deployed against the US.

Australia is more likely to be at the front of cyber attacks and pressuring our supply lines. This costs China basically nothing. In comparison. The world is very unprepared for war. We are hype interconnected, with globalised supply lines. A ship stuck in a canal can bring global trade to a halt for weeks. Pipeshut down caused mass panic buying in the US..

Fistfights and long queues as fuel shortage sparks tensions in US

Fistfights and long queues are reported at petrol stations in the south-eastern United States as people panic over a fuel shortage sparked by a cyber attack last week.

www.abc.net.au

We saw mass panic buying with COVID that started to frey into civil disorder. Over things, that weren't even in shortage. Like toilet paper. These would be nothing compared to a global war, rationing and actual targeting of supply lines and disruption from a hostile force. The stoic calm of the 1940's is long gone.

SES and RFS integration. Well we need to invest more in the RFS and SES anyway. We don't even have a permanent fleet of fire fighting aircraft and lease from the northern hemisphere. We are ill prepared for climate change and even smaller weather changes during drier hotter periods or wetter periods.

 

[Boagrius]

Given that the greatest threat to our territory probably comes from cruise and ballistic missiles (mainly aimed at our north) I would submit that our investment in IAMD is a step in the right direction. Between NASAMS and AIR 6502 Ph1-3 (MRGBAD + BMD/C-HGV) we will have the basis of what we need to protect our national assets. Granted, it won't be enough as currently planned, but we are literally building this from a standing start. I very much doubt you can go from a handful of MANPADS to a fully fleshed out IAMD setup overnight.

 

[SMC]

SES and RFS integration. Well we need to invest more in the RFS and SES anyway. We don't even have a permanent fleet of fire fighting aircraft and lease from the northern hemisphere. We are ill prepared for climate change and even smaller weather changes during drier hotter periods or wetter periods.

The SES actually has it's roots back in the old civil defence days of the 50's and 60's and I can't see the need to pivot back to that. All of the emergency services are well versed in the all hazards approach and a response to a missile attack would be no different than response to a building collapse or building fire, (with the exception to nukes). While there are local arrangements of support between ADF bases and Emergency Service Organisations (ESO's), broadly speaking ESO's look after the general public and ADF looks after it's own.

 

[foxdemon]

Australia is a long way from China and its not the 1940's. We won't see lumbering bombers directly overhead of our east coast cities, carpet bombing. If China strikes it will be with long range missiles. They will be aiming for military targets with long range precision weapons.

Frankly China targeting Australia is not a very effective way to fight a war against the US. Every expensive long range weapon the fire at us would have been better deployed against the US.

Australia is more likely to be at the front of cyber attacks and pressuring our supply lines. This costs China basically nothing. In comparison. The world is very unprepared for war. We are hype interconnected, with globalised supply lines. A ship stuck in a canal can bring global trade to a halt for weeks. Pipeshut down caused mass panic buying in the US..

Fistfights and long queues as fuel shortage sparks tensions in US

Fistfights and long queues are reported at petrol stations in the south-eastern United States as people panic over a fuel shortage sparked by a cyber attack last week.

www.abc.net.au

We saw mass panic buying with COVID that started to frey into civil disorder. Over things, that weren't even in shortage. Like toilet paper. These would be nothing compared to a global war, rationing and actual targeting of supply lines and disruption from a hostile force. The stoic calm of the 1940's is long gone.

SES and RFS integration. Well we need to invest more in the RFS and SES anyway. We don't even have a permanent fleet of fire fighting aircraft and lease from the northern hemisphere. We are ill prepared for climate change and even smaller weather changes during drier hotter periods or wetter periods.

Australia is a long way from China for an amphibious assault, but no so far for long range missiles and bombers. Don't forget they also have SSNs with cruise missiles. A single SSN launched cruise missile strike could take out Williamstown base and all those pretty F-35s in a single night.

Ideally the defense establishment would set aside a few personnel to study the issue, possibly with intern help on historical research. This analysis would lay out the range of risks and set a basis for building a plan. I don't think resources need to be great. Just having the analysis and a plan, plus some basic organisation in the regional command HQs to coordinate emergence services, civil defense and whatever other civilian assets that are available, would be a huge improvement on no preparation at all. Much of the physical stuff can be done relatively quickly. Having enough firefighter/construction worker/paramedics is an issue and we will have to raise units with these skills in the even of war. But they don't need weapons training. Might be a good target for conscription., since training is fast and they won't get under the feet of the regulars.

Anyway, my point is the nation needs to plan for the basics. This also includes having enough supplies.

Here's a good interview with Tony Abbot, touching on some of these issues:

 

[aussienscale]

Australia is a long way from China for an amphibious assault, but no so far for long range missiles and bombers. Don't forget they also have SSNs with cruise missiles. A single SSN launched cruise missile strike could take out Williamstown base and all those pretty F-35s in a single night.

Ideally the defense establishment would set aside a few personnel to study the issue, possibly with intern help on historical research. This analysis would lay out the range of risks and set a basis for building a plan. I don't think resources need to be great. Just having the analysis and a plan, plus some basic organisation in the regional command HQs to coordinate emergence services, civil defense and whatever other civilian assets that are available, would be a huge improvement on no preparation at all. Much of the physical stuff can be done relatively quickly. Having enough firefighter/construction worker/paramedics is an issue and we will have to raise units with these skills in the even of war. But they don't need weapons training. Might be a good target for conscription., since training is fast and they won't get under the feet of the regulars.

Anyway, my point is the nation needs to plan for the basics. This also includes having enough supplies.

Here's a good interview with Tony Abbot, touching on some of these issues:

And what makes you think this is not already the case ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Australia is a long way from China for an amphibious assault, but no so far for long range missiles and bombers. Don't forget they also have SSNs with cruise missiles. A single SSN launched cruise missile strike could take out Williamstown base and all those pretty F-35s in a single night.

Ideally the defense establishment would set aside a few personnel to study the issue, possibly with intern help on historical research. This analysis would lay out the range of risks and set a basis for building a plan. I don't think resources need to be great. Just having the analysis and a plan, plus some basic organisation in the regional command HQs to coordinate emergence services, civil defense and whatever other civilian assets that are available, would be a huge improvement on no preparation at all. Much of the physical stuff can be done relatively quickly. Having enough firefighter/construction worker/paramedics is an issue and we will have to raise units with these skills in the even of war. But they don't need weapons training. Might be a good target for conscription., since training is fast and they won't get under the feet of the regulars.

Anyway, my point is the nation needs to plan for the basics. This also includes having enough supplies.

Here's a good interview with Tony Abbot, touching on some of these issues:

IIRC anymore has mentioned an amphibious invasion of Australia. Why would the PRC want to do that? There are other and far less costly ways of removing Australia's abilities to contribute to the war. I wouldn't be to concerned about it at the moment because there are other items needing to be addressed before you can get into specifics.

However a comprehensive National Security Strategy that is all of government and includes resilience has to be formulated. Until that is done you can't really write an ADF specific defence strategy. Otherwise things are siloed and / or forgotten, which may lead to important items being missed and / or linkages not made between organisations.

 

[spoz]

Anyone know if the blue book is still being maintained, or was that one of the casualties of the kumbaya 90s?

 

[Arclighy]

Apologies if anyone has already commented on this, but amongst the AUKUS announcement last week, the Australian PM effectively decoupled defence spending from GDP percentage. When asked by a reporter at the press conference about defence spending and percentage of GDP he stated, "I haven't indicated any percentages and I'm not, we're not going to have future targets expressed in those terms. Our defence investment will be in response to the need and the capability requirements that are identified to address the many issues we have to and what this partnership produces for us. And so we will meet it there. But what I'm saying is it's more than where it is now and it will continue to be." (Transcript of Press Conference) So there it is in black and white, future defence spending increases on a what is needed basis. That in itself is a huge shift in thinking from Canberra. It underlines the seriousness and concern the Australian Government has with regards to the threats from the CCP and the changing nature of the regional security environment.

 

[Redlands18]

Apologies if anyone has already commented on this, but amongst the AUKUS announcement last week, the Australian PM effectively decoupled defence spending from GDP percentage. When asked by a reporter at the press conference about defence spending and percentage of GDP he stated, "I haven't indicated any percentages and I'm not, we're not going to have future targets expressed in those terms. Our defence investment will be in response to the need and the capability requirements that are identified to address the many issues we have to and what this partnership produces for us. And so we will meet it there. But what I'm saying is it's more than where it is now and it will continue to be." (Transcript of Press Conference) So there it is in black and white, future defence spending increases on a what is needed basis. That in itself is a huge shift in thinking from Canberra. It underlines the seriousness and concern the Australian Government has with regards to the threats from the CCP and the changing nature of the regional security environment.

Yes I did see that.

 

[John Newman]

Apologies if anyone has already commented on this, but amongst the AUKUS announcement last week, the Australian PM effectively decoupled defence spending from GDP percentage. When asked by a reporter at the press conference about defence spending and percentage of GDP he stated, "I haven't indicated any percentages and I'm not, we're not going to have future targets expressed in those terms. Our defence investment will be in response to the need and the capability requirements that are identified to address the many issues we have to and what this partnership produces for us. And so we will meet it there. But what I'm saying is it's more than where it is now and it will continue to be." (Transcript of Press Conference) So there it is in black and white, future defence spending increases on a what is needed basis. That in itself is a huge shift in thinking from Canberra. It underlines the seriousness and concern the Australian Government has with regards to the threats from the CCP and the changing nature of the regional security environment.

Actually the ‘de-linking’ of Defence spending and GDP happened back when the 2016 DWP was released.

The Government set up a funding model with projected spending for the following 10 years.

The Government was planning for actual dollar amounts, per year, independent of GDP:

2016 Defence White Paper | Defence

2016 Defence White Paper

www.defence.gov.au

Not new news.

Cheers,

 

[SMC]

Deleted in light of the post by John Newman

 

[John Newman]

Deleted in light of the post by John Newman

Sorry mate, did I steal your thunder?

The quick and the dead, ha ha!

Cheers,

 

[SMC]

Sorry mate, did I steal your thunder?

The quick and the dead, ha ha!

Cheers,

Not quite, but your facts made my post irrelevant

 

[John Newman]

Not quite, but your facts made my post irrelevant

No prob.

The thing I like about the current funding model is that funds can be allocated independent of GDP fluctuations.

Potentially under the former funding model, if GDP fell, there was the potential for cuts to a project, or a whole range of projects.

Another important Government policy (this has been in force for a long time), is the “no loss, no win” policy when it comes to currency fluctuations.

If a project goes over budget, due to negative currency fluctuations, the Government tops it up.

If on the other hand a project goes under budget, due to positive currency fluctuations, the Government returns the underspend to general revenue.

Eg, no win, no loss.

Cheers,

 

[foxdemon]

And what makes you think this is not already the case ?

Given such a plan would involve informing the public of their expected participation, I felt it likely that no planning had been done. By if I am wrong, please enlighten me in regard to the defense establishment's preparations for attacks in the advent of war. You don't need to tell me anything secret, but I should point out that the defense establishment, and the government in general, would be making a big mistake if they think they can spring this matter on the public at the last minute. That would be a recipe for panic.

People need to know why we are doing this, what is their part/role, and they need the training, organisation and equipment to fulfill those roles. This gives them a sense of control and purpose during dangerous times. Surely, after the recent pandemic emergency, the importance of the establishment carefully guiding the public and keeping them informed has been sufficiently well highlighted that the establishment will address such matters in a timely fashion in future emergencies.

 

[foxdemon]

IIRC anymore has mentioned an amphibious invasion of Australia. Why would the PRC want to do that? There are other and far less costly ways of removing Australia's abilities to contribute to the war. I wouldn't be to concerned about it at the moment because there are other items needing to be addressed before you can get into specifics.

However a comprehensive National Security Strategy that is all of government and includes resilience has to be formulated. Until that is done you can't really write an ADF specific defense strategy. Otherwise things are siloed and / or forgotten, which may lead to important items being missed and / or linkages not made between organisations.

I mentioned an amphibious invasion as an example of power projection that would be effected by the distance involved, taking a long time and a lot of effort. In that case, Australia could be said to be a long way from China. In contrast,long range air delivery systems cover the same distance in a short time with little effort. The form of attack will be kinetic strikes with such long range weapons, bombers and missiles. Also naval assets, of which I mentioned SSNs. But surface ships are also capable of launching long range land attack missiles. Both and very mobile platforms.

The point here is that, given China's modern capabilities, it is a mistake to think that Australia is safely out of reach. We are not. However, China has many more weight of munitions in shorter ranged systems, so it can reasonably be said that Australia is less vulnerable than Japan or Taiwan. At least until China establishes bases in the South Pacific, anyway.

Anyway, following o from this, my argument is that we really should make preparations for the eventuality of such an attack, particularly given facilities in Australia will now be major staging posts for any attempted defense of Taiwan or the SCS. I would say it is negligent for the Australian establishment to not do this.

Regarding one of @StingrayOZ 's points, he mentions it will not be like WWII. I have been thinking about this and the concept at issue here is total war versus limited war. I am taking a worst case scenario approcah so I aruge we need to prepare foreth worst, hence plan for everything up to and including total war. The alternative would be to cite such mattes as China's own declared policy of limited war (but things do then to escalate out control), nukes limited war. etc.

 

[aussienscale]

Given such a plan would involve informing the public of their expected participation, I felt it likely that no planning had been done. By if I am wrong, please enlighten me in regard to the defense establishment's preparations for attacks in the advent of war. You don't need to tell me anything secret, but I should point out that the defense establishment, and the government in general, would be making a big mistake if they think they can spring this matter on the public at the last minute. That would be a recipe for panic.

People need to know why we are doing this, what is their part/role, and they need the training, organisation and equipment to fulfill those roles. This gives them a sense of control and purpose during dangerous times. Surely, after the recent pandemic emergency, the importance of the establishment carefully guiding the public and keeping them informed has been sufficiently well highlighted that the establishment will address such matters in a timely fashion in future emergencies.

Many different scenarios are continually planned for, exercised, and simulations run, that is what Defence does. And not just internally, other Government agencies and civil agencies all have contingencies in place.

As far as informing the public, what do you suggest here ? Generally speaking the public is deliberately ignorant at best. What national expectation do you think we need to inform the public about and train them for what ?

 

[ngatimozart]

I mentioned an amphibious invasion as an example of power projection that would be effected by the distance involved, taking a long time and a lot of effort. In that case, Australia could be said to be a long way from China. In contrast,long range air delivery systems cover the same distance in a short time with little effort. The form of attack will be kinetic strikes with such long range weapons, bombers and missiles. Also naval assets, of which I mentioned SSNs. But surface ships are also capable of launching long range land attack missiles. Both and very mobile platforms.

The point here is that, given China's modern capabilities, it is a mistake to think that Australia is safely out of reach. We are not. However, China has many more weight of munitions in shorter ranged systems, so it can reasonably be said that Australia is less vulnerable than Japan or Taiwan. At least until China establishes bases in the South Pacific, anyway.

Anyway, following o from this, my argument is that we really should make preparations for the eventuality of such an attack, particularly given facilities in Australia will now be major staging posts for any attempted defense of Taiwan or the SCS. I would say it is negligent for the Australian establishment to not do this.

Regarding one of @StingrayOZ 's points, he mentions it will not be like WWII. I have been thinking about this and the concept at issue here is total war versus limited war. I am taking a worst case scenario approcah so I aruge we need to prepare foreth worst, hence plan for everything up to and including total war. The alternative would be to cite such mattes as China's own declared policy of limited war (but things do then to escalate out control), nukes limited war. etc.

I happen to think @StingrayOZ is incorrect in his reasoning that a future war between the PRC and the US and its allies will be different to the WW2 Pacific War. My reasoning is that the geophysical features haven't changed and the same strategic problems that the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy faced in the Pacific still face the PRC. How to destroy or incapacitate the US naval, ground, and air forces in the Pacific. What is different is the technology.

I also believe that a limited war is a fools belief. Neither nation will accept any battlefield setback and in their minds its victory or nothing. The US doesn't know how to accept defeat, even though it has been defeated. That's a cultural thing and it's to do with the myth of American exceptionalism. It goes against the myth that they can lose wars. Unlike the CCP, the US leadership's weakness is a sensitivity to excess casualties and the CCP knows this. So did the Imperial Japanese Army and the Taliban, amongst others.

Like I said Australia doesn't have to be invaded. There are other ways for an enemy to force Australia to bend the knee without having to invade. With or without American intelligence facilities on Australian soil, Australia will still be a strategic target because of its location. WW2 showed that with the Japanese trying to sever Australia's links with the US so that it couldn't be used as a base for American build up to recover lost territory. That's exactly what happened. So long range missile attacks, attempts to enforce an air and sea blockade etc., are just as effective.

You have to prepare for the worse and hope for the best.

 

[Hone C]

As far as informing the public, what do you suggest here ? Generally speaking the public is deliberately ignorant at best. What national expectation do you think we need to inform the public about and train them for what ?

If crisis or war comes | Resilience First

First appearing on the National Preparedness Commission's website, Ed Persson, an Executive Assistant with the Commission has turned his knowledge of Sweden’s preparedness measures into lessons for the UK in an emergency.

www.resiliencefirst.org

Sweden's preparedness measures are one possible example worth considering. In 2018 the government published a manual "If crisis or war comes" and distributed it to every household, detailing centralised planning, and giving advice and guidance. It forms part of Sweden's Total Defence concept, and covers a range of scenarios from war to supply disruptions and national disasters.

The publication communicates government roles and responsibilities while emphasising individual and household measures that add to national resilience and social cohesion.

I believe some of the Baltic States have similar guidance in place.
Ideally such resilience measures would form part of an overall national security strategy, as several members here have talked about extensively.

 

[aussienscale]

If crisis or war comes | Resilience First

First appearing on the National Preparedness Commission's website, Ed Persson, an Executive Assistant with the Commission has turned his knowledge of Sweden’s preparedness measures into lessons for the UK in an emergency.

www.resiliencefirst.org

Sweden's preparedness measures are one possible example worth considering. In 2018 the government published a manual "If crisis or war comes" and distributed it to every household, detailing centralised planning, and giving advice and guidance. It forms part of Sweden's Total Defence concept, and covers a range of scenarios from war to supply disruptions and national disasters.

The publication communicates government roles and responsibilities while emphasising individual and household measures that add to national resilience and social cohesion.

I believe some of the Baltic States have similar guidance in place.
Ideally such resilience measures would form part of an overall national security strategy, as several members here have talked about extensively.

Let me rephrase my question to this particular quote:

"People need to know why we are doing this, what is their part/role, and they need the training, organisation and equipment to fulfill those roles"

I was more interested in what "training, organisation and equipment" he believes we need to do, supply and organise for the public ? what is @foxdemon suggesting here ?

Yep you could send out a nice little glossy booklet, the vast majority of the public would not give a rats and toss it straight into the bin !