Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Time for a bit more budget accuracy regarding the two batches of SPGs:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Land.pdf

* Stage 1 has a budget allowance ‘range’ of $0.9b-$1.3b

* Stage 2 has a budget allowance ‘range’ of $1.5b-$2.3b

The ‘upper’ end budget of stage 1 is reasonably close to the ‘lower’ end budget of stage 2, true?

As to the actual manufacturing site, I assume that the infrastructure will be owned by Hanwha, not the Commonwealth (possibly there could be State or Federal funding to ‘assist’ in encouraging the infrastructure side of the project).

Anyway, back to the budget allowance/range for the two phases of project, you can’t do simple maths and just say X dollars budget, divided by Y assumed number of vehicles.

I sure don’t know what is, or isn’t, included in each batch, and we don’t know if batch 2 will be the same number of vehicles, which can also account for the large variation in the budget range.

The actual manufacturing site is going to be owned by Lindsay Fox and leased to Hanwha / Commonwealth…

Phase 2 includes a signiificant upgrade program for the phase 1 vehicles. Something I can only imagine along the lines of what the US Army are doing to the Paladin…

 

[John Newman]

Interesting to see if it would be possible to compress some of these project time frames where possible. At this point I would assume long range fires would probably be an off the shelf purchase. Or would that potentially be another Aussie build project.

Could the Government ‘compress’ time frames and bring forward the second phase of SPH? Sure, but they probably won’t.

The thing to remember is the Govt produces a budget each year, and projects a budget for following years too.

It gives Defence a ‘pie’ for this year, the pie has big slices and small slices, lots and lots of slices, all the slices have been allocated.

You can’t just take a slice from a future pie (that hasn’t been baked yet), and slip into this years pie, it doesn’t fit, something has to give.

So coming back to the beginning, if you move a capability forward, and don’t (or can’t) make the pie bigger, something else has to go.

What do you give up?

Many many years ago (in a previous life), I was in charge of a large capital expenditure budget (non defence related), each year I did my best to include the wish list of each department head and presented the draft budget to the power that be, some requests made it through, some didn’t.

In the coming year requirements changed at times, department heads would come to me and request something that wasn’t planned, and usually very expensive too.

I would present it to the powers that be, and if they thought it was necessary, I then had to find ways to cut other projects because the pie in front of me wasn’t getting bigger.

Anyway, always some winners and some losers too.

 

[Bob53]

Could the Government ‘compress’ time frames and bring forward the second phase of SPH? Sure, but they probably won’t.

The thing to remember is the Govt produces a budget each year, and projects a budget for following years too.

It gives Defence a ‘pie’ for this year, the pie has big slices and small slices, lots and lots of slices, all the slices have been allocated.

You can’t just take a slice from a future pie (that hasn’t been baked yet), and slip into this years pie, it doesn’t fit, something has to give.

So coming back to the beginning, if you move a capability forward, and don’t (or can’t) make the pie bigger, something else has to go.

What do you give up?

Many many years ago (in a previous life), I was in charge of a large capital expenditure budget (non defence related), each year I did my best to include the wish list of each department head and presented the draft budget to the power that be, some requests made it through, some didn’t.

In the coming year requirements changed at times, department heads would come to me and request something that wasn’t planned, and usually very expensive too.

I would present it to the powers that be, and if they thought it was necessary, I then had to find ways to cut other projects because the pie in front of me wasn’t getting bigger.

Anyway, always some winners and some losers too.

You can’t just take a slice from a future pie (that hasn’t been baked yet), and slip into this years pie, it doesn’t fit, something has to give.

So coming back to the beginning, if you move a capability forward, and don’t (or can’t) make the pie bigger, something else has to go.

What do you give up?

I understand how budgeting works but when there is unspent funds from other projects those funds can be reallocated/reshuffled into priority projects within the same financial year and adjustment is made into subsequent years. Project 1 $$ brought forward Project 2 $$ push back into time frame of project 1.....

I was only really thinking out loud as to wether we will see any shift in priority

 

[Todjaeger]

You can’t just take a slice from a future pie (that hasn’t been baked yet), and slip into this years pie, it doesn’t fit, something has to give.

So coming back to the beginning, if you move a capability forward, and don’t (or can’t) make the pie bigger, something else has to go.

What do you give up?

I understand how budgeting works but when there is unspent funds from other projects those funds can be reallocated/reshuffled into priority projects within the same financial year and adjustment is made into subsequent years. Project 1 $$ brought forward Project 2 $$ push back into time frame of project 1.....

I was only really thinking out loud as to wether we will see any shift in priority

These funds could potentially be reallocated, but there would also need to be enough appropriate personnel associated with whichever project would receive the unspent funds to make use of them. As I understand it, for at least some of the projects which have not spent all their allocated funding, part of the problem has been a lack of needed personnel that were appropriately qualified. I cannot speak to what qualities were/are lacking, or about some of the intricacies of Australian defence procurement, but I have gotten the impression that a lack of funding has not typically been a reason for projects to fall behind schedule.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Could the Government ‘compress’ time frames and bring forward the second phase of SPH? Sure, but they probably won’t.

The thing to remember is the Govt produces a budget each year, and projects a budget for following years too.

It gives Defence a ‘pie’ for this year, the pie has big slices and small slices, lots and lots of slices, all the slices have been allocated.

You can’t just take a slice from a future pie (that hasn’t been baked yet), and slip into this years pie, it doesn’t fit, something has to give.

So coming back to the beginning, if you move a capability forward, and don’t (or can’t) make the pie bigger, something else has to go.

What do you give up?

Many many years ago (in a previous life), I was in charge of a large capital expenditure budget (non defence related), each year I did my best to include the wish list of each department head and presented the draft budget to the power that be, some requests made it through, some didn’t.

In the coming year requirements changed at times, department heads would come to me and request something that wasn’t planned, and usually very expensive too.

I would present it to the powers that be, and if they thought it was necessary, I then had to find ways to cut other projects because the pie in front of me wasn’t getting bigger.

Anyway, always some winners and some losers too.

Is this P.U. Thinking. (Pre Ukraine)
Will the way capabilities are obtained completely change?
Projects that go on for years before even a decision is made let alone equipment entering service may be a thing of the past.
Scheduling expenditure and equipment purchases that wont happen for a decade. That is OK if you think you have no real need for that equipment.
Maybe nothing will change and in six Months everything has returned to normal.
But maybe Governments will be much more focused. What do we need if a conflict breaks out? What can we get into service quickly?

 

[buffy9]

Is this P.U. Thinking. (Pre Ukraine)
Will the way capabilities are obtained completely change?
Projects that go on for years before even a decision is made let alone equipment entering service may be a thing of the past.
Scheduling expenditure and equipment purchases that wont happen for a decade. That is OK if you think you have no real need for that equipment.
Maybe nothing will change and in six Months everything has returned to normal.
But maybe Governments will be much more focused. What do we need if a conflict breaks out? What can we get into service quickly?

If countries are selling or donating? A lot. Very quickly it would seem.

If they aren't? Not a whole lot currently. Hence the need to build up a defence industry across the board so we can produce our own stuff, which also has to be drawn from the pie or invested into from other sources.

Throwing a whole heap of money all at once may get all the equipment you want, but then you still can't produce it locally. Sustaining that (high-end) equipment and learning to use it will also take time, likely years for both. It will be quick, but it won't be immediate and the costs (to security and voters) may be higher than the boost in firepower achieved.

What can be produced quickly, if conflict breaks out nowish?

A lot of infantry equipment, protected B vehicles (40M, PMVs, etc), bombs, boats and supplies. It isn't ideal, but it is slowly being rectified with the premium that is being given for quality A vehicles, naval vessels, missiles and other systems (ATS, NASAMS, etc) that can be produced locally.

Looking ahead five or ten years of sustained, well managed projects, and Australia has a lot more platforms that it can produce and sustain locally, without dependence on a foreign nation. And the voters haven't subverted whichever government is in power.

Really, the industrial enterprise is an overarching project in its own right - it even has a minister dedicated to it.

In terms of Ukraine, it is still less than a week in. There is a close focus on the immediate region as it is currently, where the risk of conflict may yet still be remote. If certain countries are to take lessons to heart from what is happening in Ukraine currently - it is that military campaigns are difficult and costly affairs.

 

[ADMk2]

@dtr magazine have announced (as reported nearly 12 months ago by ADBR but then quickly pulled) Special Forces light helo project has been cancelled and bidders informed.

Instead 6th Aviation Regiment will be getting additional Blackhawks to those announced by Defmin Dutton to replace MRH-90.

Appears to be a squadron of 12x Special Operations configured Blackhawks (as yet unknown designation) with 40 odd Blackhawks going to 5 Aviation Regt and Army School of Aviation.

 

[Redlands18]

@dtr magazine have announced (as reported nearly 12 months ago by ADBR but then quickly pulled) Special Forces light helo project has been cancelled and bidders informed.

Instead 6th Aviation Regiment will be getting additional Blackhawks to those announced by Defmin Dutton to replace MRH-90.

Appears to be a squadron of 12x Special Operations configured Blackhawks (as yet unknown designation) with 40 odd Blackhawks going to 5 Aviation Regt and Army School of Aviation.

Not sure about that many Blackhawks going to 5 Avn and the School. 52 Blackhawks would be enough for 4 Sqns. At present I believe there is 2 Sqns of MRH-90s at 5 Avn and 1 Sqn at 6 Avn + the School. We may see 2xSqns of Blackhawks at 6 Avn, 1 Standard and 1 Specials.

 

[Gryphinator]

A few screenshots from Australian Defender regarding the new long range missile batteries. This one based on the Bushmaster with NSM. Australian & NZ Defender Australia's leading defence news and military history reporting

 

[Redlands18]

A few screenshots from Australian Defender regarding the new long range missile batteries. This one based on the Hawkei with NSM. Australian & NZ Defender Australia's leading defence news and military history reporting

It's actually mated to the Bushmaster Utility version, not the Hawkei. Launchers and Missiles of that size would not fit on a Hawkei.

 

[Gryphinator]

It's actually mated to the Bushmaster Utility version, not the Hawkei. Launchers and Missiles of that size would not fit on a Hawkei.

Edited. I did read before posting I promise

 

[rand0m]

This paints a pretty sad picture of the current state of our defence force if true.

Ukraine shows how bare is Australia's missile cupboard - Australian Manufacturing Forum

By Peter Roberts With governments round the world looking in their defence inventories to see what weapons or assistance they can send Ukraine, just what does Australia have sitting round that we could quickly send to the beleaguered nation? Turns out – not much. According to senior analyst at...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

 

[ADMk2]

This paints a pretty sad picture of the current state of our defence force if true.

Ukraine shows how bare is Australia's missile cupboard - Australian Manufacturing Forum

By Peter Roberts With governments round the world looking in their defence inventories to see what weapons or assistance they can send Ukraine, just what does Australia have sitting round that we could quickly send to the beleaguered nation? Turns out – not much. According to senior analyst at...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

He ignores the initial purchase of Javelin ATGW and other top up purchases of missile inventory, he ignores the fact that the timeline of manufacturing Spike LR2 is in accordance with the timeline of introduction of BOXER Block 2 vehicles (Block 1's don't have SPIKE LR2 integrated) so I wonder why exactly we'd have live SPIKE rounds being manufactured with nothing to fire them from?

He completely ignores our other anti-armour weapons capabilities in terms of M72A6, Carl Gustav M3 / M4 and Hellfire missiles...

So um? Yeah...

 

[Stormyaus]

Realise this is a bit outside of the current conversation, but with ARA units currently deployed on HADR ops in Tonga, in nursing homes, and on flood assist, it begs the question of how this is impacting training for the core role of the army… surely there comes a point where government needs to admit it can’t keep doing this without it being detrimental to our capacity to defend Australia and protect our interests.

You’d also think that this would be the perfect opportunity to call out the ARes to respond to a domestic disaster, particularly post-19/20 bushfires, but instead we’ve got what looks like a whole ARA brigade tasked.

 

[buffy9]

Realise this is a bit outside of the current conversation, but with ARA units currently deployed on HADR ops in Tonga, in nursing homes, and on flood assist, it begs the question of how this is impacting training for the core role of the army… surely there comes a point where government needs to admit it can’t keep doing this without it being detrimental to our capacity to defend Australia and protect our interests.

You’d also think that this would be the perfect opportunity to call out the ARes to respond to a domestic disaster, particularly post-19/20 bushfires, but instead we’ve got what looks like a whole ARA brigade tasked.

I'm positive the question of how this impacts our core role has been raised before - I believe it was already an issue raised by Defence when it was being pushed to do more HADR tasks.

I can fully understand Flood Assist and Tonga Assist, as well as the late Bushfire Assist as they are legitimate HADR scenarios, though it does need to be asked whether the number of people deployed is most efficient for the task being carried out.

Aged Care Assist strikes me as blatantly political however and far beyond the responsibilities of Defence. Many of these units when deployed do not have access to training infrastructure or equipment to train on - which imo leads to a gradual degredation of skills that then needs to be rectified upon returning to their unit however many weeks later.

 

[Sideline]

Given the environmental future that many of us can see coming, I would have thought that “Defense of the realm” would logically extend to response to environmental events that impact upon the safety of Australian citizens. While fully excepting that this is a bit of a paradigms shift within historical defense planning, I do think that Blind Freddy can see that more events, of significantly greater magnitude, are going to be directly affecting The Commonwealth of Australia and its citizens.

The fact that a record low pressure system, flood, fire is not holding an AK-47 does not make it just as dangerous to Australian citizens, and given the last 15 years of Australian flood/fire history it is 1000% more likely to happen than an invasion. I would’ve thought that this would make a ideal justification for extending, up skilling, reinforcing Australian defense forces.

Just because it is what you’ve always done,
doesn't mean it’s what you'll always need to do

 

[seaspear]

Working in the aged care industry an industry that struggles to keep its trained workers due to low pay levels and high work loads has more recently been the subject of a royal commission with a series of recommendations

https://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/final-report-recommendations.pdf

https://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2020-06/AHS.0001.0001.0001.pdf

These reports suggest that the government should bite the bullet and increase funding, I can't believe that highly qualified A.D.F forces should be involved as a strategy filling up skill shortages because of poor funding

I'm positive the question of how this impacts our core role has been raised before - I believe it was already an issue raised by Defence when it was being pushed to do more HADR tasks.

 

[buffy9]

While fully excepting that this is a bit of a paradigms shift within historical defense planning, I do think that Blind Freddy can see that more events, of significantly greater magnitude, are going to be directly affecting The Commonwealth of Australia and its citizens.

Climate change is most certainly a thing, now and certainly in the future. HADR is something we are being directed to do and, although not ideal for preparedness related to warfighting, is necessary.

My main issue is if the people being sent for domestic HADR are being used most efficiently - Bushfire Assist and now Flood Assist both require an ADF response, though a quality approach is better than a quantity approach.

The fact that a record low pressure system, flood, fire is not holding an AK-47 does not make it just as dangerous to Australian citizens, and given the last 15 years of Australian flood/fire history it is 1000% more likely to happen than an invasion.

Climate change will drive a greater need for HADR, which will influence the ADF regardless. Though there are other agencies that can perform this work - resources should be invested into these agencies rather than relying on a general duties workforce, relatively unspecialised with other responsibilities historically.

Emergency services and aged care organisations exist that can be expanded and equipped to better deal with the situations we are facing. There is also the issue of these organisations being a part of the community - whereas ADF, principally based across North Australia, isn't (on a general level, and excluding reserves).

HADR still occurs overseas where local emergency services may be under resourced for what they are facing, or where distance and geography prevent effective recovery or aid delivery. Tonga Assist, the Sulawesi tsunami and the mudslides in Timor (all in the past few years) reflect this. Australia has the domestic capacity to respond to natural disasters, though the ADF imho should not be the organisation first directed to do this (all things depending).

Domestic HADR isn't as great a potential issue as other tasks, such as the long-running COVID response or (especially) aged care. The cases have been made for these operations and forces directed, though these all have ambigious timeframes and draw attention away from the organisations specialised for these tasks. Aged care particularly also has political undertones, noting the Royal Commission on aged care, leading up to an election.

"Just because it is what you’ve always done,
doesn't mean it’s what you'll always need to do."

This is true. Though this begs the question as to why we are investing so greatly into Defence, citing the DSU and FSP. If conflict is now more likely to occur and less remote than it was ten years ago, then why are are so many personnel being deployed to resolve issues that can be resolved by better equipped state agencies, given funding and broad support.

I am fully behind Defence - but not every solution is a military one.

 

[Sideline]

YES

• Agree not every solution is a military one,
• Agree aged care was 100% political (both sides),
• Yes the COVID response was handled badly (Fed vs States, Left vs. Right) and
  Defence staff where only used because of lack of police manpower.
  

The Reality

But who else is going to fly, maintain enough disaster relief helicopters, have access to enough trucks and civil equipment?​

How many flying & maintenance hours are required to use water-bombing aircraft, not to mention small boat/rapid water​

training and sandbaggers and earth moving gear?​

Unless you want to significantly expand the SES or create some sort of local community civil/para-national defense organisation.​

BUT, If your going to spend that money wouldn't logic suggest that it would all be better to integrated into a common ADF/Federal pool,
so that the equipment, and trained personnel are available when the wind is blowing the other way (war) ?​

The Wrap

I don't care who or what service is created or expanded, something needs to be better manned and equipped to deal with
the situations we are and will be facing.

​

 

[buffy9]

YES

• Agree not every solution is a military one,
• Agree aged care was 100% political (both sides),
• Yes the COVID response was handled badly (Fed vs States, Left vs. Right) and
  Defence staff where only used because of lack of police manpower.

The Reality

But who else is going to fly, maintain enough disaster relief helicopters, have access to enough trucks and civil equipment?​

How many flying & maintenance hours are required to use water-bombing aircraft, not to mention small boat/rapid water​

training and sandbaggers and earth moving gear?​

​

Unless you want to significantly expand the SES or create some sort of local community civil/para-national defense organisation.​

BUT, If your going to spend that money wouldn't logic suggest that it would all be better to integrated into a common ADF/Federal pool,​

so that the equipment, and trained personnel are available when the wind is blowing the other way (war) ?​

The Wrap

I don't care who or what service is created or expanded, something needs to be better manned and equipped to deal with​

the situations we are and will be facing.​

​

​

A large centralised pool may not be necessary - I suspect it would depend on how willing people are to let go of federal or state funds.

It is besides the point though. Large-scale HADR will continue to require ADF support in the future. Funds should definitely be invested into state services for a more capable overall force due to worsening/more frequent disasters, but that is not to say the ADF will completely leave the scene.

My primary issue is whether the forces being deployed are based on numbers or based on quality. Sending combat or combat support units down in mass as general duties is not an efficient use of resources. That, combined with the aged care and covid operation, is part of a worrying trend where large numbers of Defence personnel are directed to fill the role of specialised agencies that can otherwise be better equipped to deal with the situation.