ADF General discussion thread

[John Fedup]

I can't see us lifting spending above 2% without a shooting war breaking out. We have a serious demographic crisis looming that I don't think we've budgeted for. I got my Tax Return "how government spends my tax dollar" letter the other day and the percentage of old age pension, disability pension and general health care expenses (related to an aging population) is startling. The media hyped "dole bludgers" barley rank a show in the gov expenses in comparison. I think in 10 years time we are going to have to really fight to keep our 2% defence commitment where it is sadly. Perhaps I'm just alarmist but I see trouble coming.

Australia is not the only country facing the demographic crisis. Most Western nations have this problem as the boomer generation starts receiving their pension benefits. China and Japan have this issue as well although for different reasons.

 

[John Fedup]

John it could be deleterious to his health if he insults some of the tribes in PNG. They tend to take such things very seriously.

Well he certainly knows how to step in it.

 

[Redlands18]

Australia is not the only country facing the demographic crisis. Most Western nations have this problem as the boomer generation starts receiving their pension benefits. China and Japan have this issue as well although for different reasons.

I suspect Australia & New Zealand will be heavily involved in the Security operation for this Summit, PNG doesn't have the resources for a Op of this magnitude so he should be well protected

 

[ASSAIL]

John it could be deleterious to his health if he insults some of the tribes in PNG. They tend to take such things very seriously.

Don’t worry about the tribes it’s the urban thugs (rascals) that should have him worried.
I guess PNG is the one place close to Oz that believes Political Correctness is seeking a source for the largest bribe.

 

[Massive]

Personally I don’t think there is any justification for an enduring defence expenditure above 2%. Even now, the threat just isn’t there. However, because we are behind the 8-ball in so many areas, there may be justification for a temporary injenction of funds above that amount, until the appropriate capability baseline is reached.

Strongly agree on this.

2% plus moves above to fill capability gaps.

The threat would need to be existential to sustain something above that and it is hard to see at present.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

introduce an armed MALE UAS (which is well overdue) etc etc.

This does seem a strange miss.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Todjaeger]

John it could be deleterious to his health if he insults some of the tribes in PNG. They tend to take such things very seriously.

That or they might just have him over, for dinner of course...

This does seem a strange miss.

Regards,

Massive

Regarding the MALE, I believe the RAAF have had personnel embedded with USAF units which operate the MQ-9 Reaper. From my POV in addition to building up personnel who are experienced in operating such a capability, doctrine needs to be developed on how such a capability could, should, and would be used, as well as potential ROE's. IMO all that should be fairly well along before serious consider should be made to spending the coin needed to raise such a capability. Just the 2013 flyaway cost for an MQ-9 Reaper was about USD$17 mil. per UAV. Naturally the costs for all the associated components to make the UAS (ground control station, comms links/relays, UAV hangars, parts, training, etc.) would be much higher and require a committed investment by the ADF.

 

[Raven22]

Regarding the MALE, I believe the RAAF have had personnel embedded with USAF units which operate the MQ-9 Reaper. From my POV in addition to building up personnel who are experienced in operating such a capability, doctrine needs to be developed on how such a capability could, should, and would be used, as well as potential ROE's. IMO all that should be fairly well along before serious consider should be made to spending the coin needed to raise such a capability. Just the 2013 flyaway cost for an MQ-9 Reaper was about USD$17 mil. per UAV. Naturally the costs for all the associated components to make the UAS (ground control station, comms links/relays, UAV hangars, parts, training, etc.) would be much higher and require a committed investment by the ADF.

I don’t think any of that is an excuse for not having armed UAS yet. As you say, we have people trained on Reaper, we operated Heron in Afghan for five years, and we’ve had hundreds of people participate in every step (bar, perhaps, actually pulling the trigger) of the deliberate and dynamic targeting processes by UAS on ops. In fact, we probably have more corporate knowledge about operating armed UAS than some nations currently operating armed UAS. If we don’t know enough now to obtain the capability, then we never will.

The fact that the RAAF currently operate exactly zero UAS of any stripe is pretty close to a scandal.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don’t think any of that is an excuse for not having armed UAS yet. As you say, we have people trained on Reaper, we operated Heron in Afghan for five years, and we’ve had hundreds of people participate in every step (bar, perhaps, actually pulling the trigger) of the deliberate and dynamic targeting processes by UAS on ops. In fact, we probably have more corporate knowledge about operating armed UAS than some nations currently operating armed UAS. If we don’t know enough now to obtain the capability, then we never will.

The fact that the RAAF currently operate exactly zero UAS of any stripe is pretty close to a scandal.

But has the ADF developed or adopted any doctrine for armed UAS operations?

Or for that matter made any of the infrastructure changes or upgrades which would realistically be required to enable and sustain larger/long-endurance UAS (armed or not) operations?

Absent an agreed upon doctrine on how armed UAS would be used by the ADF, I could see how resources could be mis-used or squandered (like a call for fire support resulting in both artillery and armed UAS responding) or even worse, the possibility of a blue on blue engagement.

Armed UAS can certainly have a place in the ADF OrBat, but I honestly have no problem with Australia taking things slowly in terms of adopting armed UAS, particularly given how some of the ADF capabilities are being changed and transformed.

 

[oldsig127]

If we don’t know enough now to obtain the capability, then we never will.

The fact that the RAAF currently operate exactly zero UAS of any stripe is pretty close to a scandal.

I suggest that at least a part of the reason why can be found in some of the response to the announcement of the Triton capability. The usual suspects started ramping up the nonsense about impersonal robots in the sky murdering innocent babies out of the blue and questioning why we needed such a capability at such expense, especially to infringe on our northern neighbours all the way to China and why couldn't the money instead be spent on refugees and such like and so forth and so on.

At least the Triton could be justified to those voices by suggesting they could be used to look for whalers and not halt refugees, check the weather for signs of climate change and save whales instead of rich yachties, but an armed UAS is a lot harder sell. I think what we have is a strategy to buy unexceptionable capacity first and allow familiarity to over-ride suspicion. Meanwhile, in the background gather training and real world experience. Then let the politicians loose on something achievable.

oldsig

 

[Raven22]

How is a lack of doctrine or infrastructure an excuse? If we waited until we had doctrine and infrastructure in place before we bought a new capability, we would never get anything new. After all, the Growler purchase was announced just five years ago and the RAAF have somehow managed to muddle their way through the introduction to service, despite having never had an EW capability before. That is a far more complicated capability than a UAS, even an armed one.

This is hardly a new problem after all. Australia has been operating alongside large coalition UAS for at least the last 15 years, and been looking at them with envious eyes the entire time. The RAAF gained a minimal capability 10 years ago, in the Heron, then retired it a couple of years ago without even a whisper of a replacement. You can hardly pretend there is a coherent plan to develop a capability when the RAAF gave up what capability they already had without any replacement at all.

 

[Raven22]

I suggest that at least a part of the reason why can be found in some of the response to the announcement of the Triton capability. The usual suspects started ramping up the nonsense about impersonal robots in the sky murdering innocent babies out of the blue and questioning why we needed such a capability at such expense, especially to infringe on our northern neighbours all the way to China and why couldn't the money instead be spent on refugees and such like and so forth and so on.

Can you point out these usual suspects please? I don’t remember any such response.

At this very moment there is Australian personnel in a coalition HQ with target engagement authority over armed UAS. Over the last few years they haven’t been shy about using that authority, with full approval of everyone in the chain of command and government leadership. The RAAF have been dropping bombs with manned aircraft in that same environment, with the odd miss that has killed non-combatants, without anyone getting too excited about it.

The evidence doesn’t support that our decision makers are so weak that a few comments on Twitter are the reason they wouldn’t buy the most heavily tasked capability in the western world.

 

[Todjaeger]

How is a lack of doctrine or infrastructure an excuse? If we waited until we had doctrine and infrastructure in place before we bought a new capability, we would never get anything new. After all, the Growler purchase was announced just five years ago and the RAAF have somehow managed to muddle their way through the introduction to service, despite having never had an EW capability before. That is a far more complicated capability than a UAS, even an armed one.

This is hardly a new problem after all. Australia has been operating alongside large coalition UAS for at least the last 15 years, and been looking at them with envious eyes the entire time. The RAAF gained a minimal capability 10 years ago, in the Heron, then retired it a couple of years ago without even a whisper of a replacement. You can hardly pretend there is a coherent plan to develop a capability when the RAAF gave up what capability they already had without any replacement at all.

I am not at all pretending that there is a coherent plan to develop a UAS/armed UAS capability for the ADF, quite the opposite actually. I am suggesting that the ADF seems to lack a coherent plan to develop/achieve such a capability, and that this lack of a coherent plan and everything such a plan would cover, is why the ADF currently lacks an armed MALE UAS capability.

With respect to Growler and EW operations... Yes, the RAAF has never operated such a capability like the Growler can have, but it has a wealth of experience (and resources/infrastructure) operating fast jets, fighters, and Hornets which are very similar to the Super Hornets/Growlers. This means that there is a pool of RAAF personnel who are either already able to operate and maintain the Growler, or can be run through a conversion course to enable them to do so. Similarly the RAAF has training streams already in place so that new pilots and ground crew can be trained to operate and support the Growler as they join the RAAF and go through training. Yes, the personnel are still learning (and developing the doctrine and conops) for the EW capabilities of the Growler, but that is something which takes time and experience, and the RAAF is able IMO to work towards that because other areas involved in operating the Growler the RAAF is already able to cover.

 

[old faithful]

What's everyone's opinion on the P.C push on the ADF at the moment?
Will it effect the operational ability in the long run? Is it even relevant?

 

[ASSAIL]

There is an excellent editorial in the Jul-Sep issue of the Navy League of Australia’s magazine NAVY. It’s a regular byline called “From the Crowsnest” by Aeneas and it discusses this very topic with particular reference to the RAN.
I don’t have a subscription but I do buy the magazine so unfortunately I can’t link the piece.

It lists three existential and interlinked crisis currently effecting the RAN.
The first is a crisis in senior leadership which is illustrated by the fact that by the time General Campbell completes his term Navy will not have had a CDF for 20years. The question is why? Why are Army and RAAF Chiefs being selected ahead of Navy and what is Navy doing to position it’s future leaders to compete for the position in 2022?
Navy has systemic gapping in its recruitment targets but it is also aiming for success in gender diversity in inclusion and recruitment. It’s KPIs for success will be:
- The number of women recruited is at or above the number required to meet the participation targets, initially 25% for Navy increasing to 35% this year.
- women remain in recruitment pathways at rates comparable to men.
-and women’s satisfaction with the recruitment process is comparable to that of men.
It then discusses the the huge disparity of deaths, 98.5% men and wounded in Afghanistan and asks the question, what effect does this disparity in burden sharing have on morale and on what empirical grounds do these KPIs show that the ADF will be a better fighting force?

This links to the second crisis Navy may be facing, recruitment and retention.
If these gender based KPIs are to be met and understanding that retention rates are higher for men the only way these KPIs can be met and noting the tokenism and the impact upon morale for both sexes, the only way the increase in Naval complement can be met is to recruit 55% females for the next 14 to 15 years! And all this before addressing the elephant in the room - that by the 2030s Navy need a complement of 20,000 to crew their new fleet.

The third crisis deals with how our sovereign shipbuilding is hardly sovereign however I disagree that this is a crisis, those who read the article can make up their own minds.

He considers the way these crisis; senior Navy ADF appointing, crewing Navy and sovereign capability over the future fleet, are connected all come down to strategic leadership competence, confidence and knowing how to conceive, conceptualise, build and crew a navy that can think and fight win.His final words “Australia is at risk of creating a perfectly ethical ADF potentially incapable of securing and defending its own walls”

I think that this is a particularly gloomy interpretation of what is occurring however surely it’s rime to closely study the demographics of the recruiting and retention statistics and tailor the gender policy so that there will be no future gaps in those who “subordinate ourselves to the political professional elites who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that we provide and who would never consider picking up a weapon, and keeping a vigil, or standing a lonely watch.

 

[Redlands18]

Australia has a new PM whether that means new Defmins we will have to wait and see but the new PM was a ally of the old one so maybe no change.

 

[t68]

Australia has a new PM whether that means new Defmins we will have to wait and see but the new PM was a ally of the old one so maybe no change.

Things could change sooner than we think Turnbull as far as I know has resigned effective immediately, which mean a bi-election. If they don’t keep the seat and goes to an independent they have to get them inside to govern.

Turnbull throwing the baby out with the bath water, only shows he was only loyal to himself egotiscal bastard all that money on a bi- election when we have to go to the polls by 19 May 2019 at the latest

 

[ngatimozart]

Things could change sooner than we think Turnbull as far as I know has resigned effective immediately, which mean a bi-election. If they don’t keep the seat and goes to an independent they have to get them inside to govern.

Turnbull throwing the baby out with the bath water, only shows he was only loyal to himself egotiscal bastard all that money on a bi- election when we have to go to the polls by 19 May 2019 at the latest

We have a no politics rule, so stear clear of it and that also includes bad mouthing individual pollies. You have been around here long enough to know that.

 

[oldsig127]

Australia has a new PM whether that means new Defmins we will have to wait and see but the new PM was a ally of the old one so maybe no change.

Leaving the politicians themselves out of it, instability in government is highly likely to trip up ongoing projects as portfolios are shuffled and new incumbents try to stamp their authority on their department.

My crystal ball suggests that a change of minister followed by another change in six months would *really* drag out the submarine project for example if not derail it entirely. Anyway, no politics, which is a good rule to prevent partisan shipfights (so to speak) and helps maintain our generally collegial debate, but takes out a key plank in discussing strategic issues.

oldsig

 

[Stampede]

Leaving the politicians themselves out of it, instability in government is highly likely to trip up ongoing projects as portfolios are shuffled and new incumbents try to stamp their authority on their department.

My crystal ball suggests that a change of minister followed by another change in six months would *really* drag out the submarine project for example if not derail it entirely. Anyway, no politics, which is a good rule to prevent partisan shipfights (so to speak) and helps maintain our generally collegial debate, but takes out a key plank in discussing strategic issues.

oldsig

The change in leadership will probably see some ministers come, go or get moved around.
Will be interesting if the current defence team of Marise Payne and Christopher Pyne stay in their current positions.
Suggest keeping the status quo as stability is needed in this department. Given there may be a change in government next year with corresponding cabinet leadership change I hope we leave defence as is.

Regards S