I don’t disagree with anything you have stated in relation to the AU experience and decision to retire and replace them. it’s all spot on. The questions were about how the dig a ditch and bury them decision was arrived at and executed so quickly and how that was a financially better option. Is leaving them in a shed for 12 -24 months costly? Why don’t they just show the numbers and articles like that in APDR will stop arising? The question re Ukraine is a bit loose as well.
Sorry are you a mod these days? Congratulations on the promotion. I posted an article on the matter. the horse may be dead in regard to the outcome. Agree on that. however I doubt the politics are quite finished with. If it’s something else triggering you here get over it.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Because, quite frankly, APDR deliberately ignores the official line and briefings if they don't mesh with his personal views. There are some pretty clear reasons why he used to, but no longer does, receive invites to R1 and R2. Take these specific questions that are 'unanswered':
If APDR was doing their job, they'd realise that these were answered (not for the first time) on 14 Feb in Senate Estimates. Let's have a look, shall we...
No one has. Let's see what MAJGEN King (who is the CASG 'owner' of all helicopters said on page 28:
There's some more comments before; but no one has decided yet on the best way forward. Taking the generic approach, CASG advises the Capability Manager (in this case, Chief of Army) when an asset becomes economically unsustainable, or is meeting the planned end of life. The CM considers from a capability point of view if the fleet can be disposed of, and if so, gives permission. CASG then disposes in the best way. Nothing special here.
Frankly, it's not your right to know that. Don't be upset, it's also not mine. They are commercial-in-confidence figures and will likely remain confidential until all disposal actions are complete. I know that of the four fleets I disposed of last year, final costs were treated confidentially until there was no longer assets in existence. But, if you wish justification, CA on page 27:
Quickly? They have been sitting there for six months since the decision was made to not reinstate them! MAJGEN King on p 23:
Now, stepping outside Senate Estimates, we find this article talking about an order for UH-60M being placed on or before 03 Feb 23. That means there was a MRH-90 replacement project in existence before Feb 23 (hell, noting Christmas and the like, before Oct 22) that had made it through Government approvals. I would suggest such a project started very soon after FSP 20, as the cost per flying hour was a key discussion point. So the disposal plan for MRH-90 has been in development since at least Oct 22....
Yup. The aircraft hasn't lived up to its glossy brochure and it's generally a drain on resources. Beyond that, CA on page 27:
and MAJGEN King on page 28:
A - there's a number of orgs that could have protested inaccuracy in the past month, especially NHI or Airbus. The NZDF is quoted specifically. No-one has. B - if there were people who wanted the whole helicopter, as soon as evidence comes out then two VSO will be found to have lied to the Senate. Do you honestly think that either would? Over a helicopter going out of service? C - there were other countries interested in Taipan in any shape or form, it was just the form was in bits, not a whole helicopter.
In this case, as the world fleet leaders, we are the experts in keeping the helicopter flying. I'd suggest if any nation asked, we'd recommend no. Unlike social media 'experts', when we donated to Ukraine we donated capabilities (kit, spares, ammo, training, the lot). Knowing what we know, why would we lump them with an MRH? Also, the specific UKR request comes on17 Dec, 6 weeks after disposal action commenced. Why would we hand over incomplete capability?
This is emotional claptrap. Defence offers advice to the Government, they can chose to take it or not. They have the final say and can step in at any time. Again, the Government directed the fleet be grounded permanently on 29 Sep; after that disposal action is in accord with their direction. They regularly question and clarify; neither side allows us much leash (as is correct), especially for the big stuff. Noting all the media claptrap about this, you don't think those mentioned have asked to see the figures? You don't think MAJGEN King and CA have personally walked them through the figures, dates and info? Ha - of course they have. And you think that advice differs from what was said in Estimates? Ha.
I'm sorry, but this whole MRH-90 deal needs a strong element of Frozen added. And APDR treated like the gossip mag it has become...
Last edited:
Tired of the natative that the same maintainers that keep the Blackhawks and Chinooks flying with few issues, somehow turn into gibbering morons at the very sight of a MH 90.
And that Ausgov and the whole ADF are part of some grand conspericy to hide this "fact".
A "fact" pushed by APDR who by some strange coincidence receives ad reveniue from Airbus.
Now there is a conspericy theory for you.
Curious where you the $4 billion price from.
I was always told in a free market the cost of an item is only as much as what someone is willing to pay for it.
As we have seen in the current market the price of a 2nd hand MH 90 is sweet F A.
SiVisPacemParaBellum
New Member
Germany's Budget committee will approve the acquisition of 123 sWaTrgInf (Boxer CRV) on the 20th of march.
They will be assembled in Australia.
They will be assembled in Australia.
Interesting discussion of the logistics around the US Army watercraft being used to build the pier in Gaza, especially the issues around sea keeping on long transits. Likely to be a big issue for us given the size of our region.
Given the number of similar but modern vessels we’re about to acquire this is going to be a really meaningful additional capability for the US when we’re acting with them.
Given the recruitment issues for Australian Defence Force, is it time to actively consider a Gurkha Unit, with the promise of citizenship after service?
I am serious in putting this forward.
Win/win situation as I see it.
It would have to be negotiated and agreed by the Nepalese Government before it could be implemented of course.
I am serious in putting this forward.
Win/win situation as I see it.
It would have to be negotiated and agreed by the Nepalese Government before it could be implemented of course.
Last edited:
And who's going to sign off on the rather large security issue involved with having non-Australian citizens having access to Defence systems, armouries, classified platforms etc etc if you dangle citizenship _after_ their initial service ? I can also foresee a sizeable PR/media issue when certain elements in Australian society gets wind of more foreigners coming into the country stealing jobs blah blah blah. Not saying the idea doesn't have merit, but not as simple as negotiating a simple agreement between us and the Nepalese government, vast policy issues involved as well.
I was thinking the same, and even poaching untapped NZ talent.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would imagine that Australia would still need to setup some sort of screening and/or selection system for non-Australian's to join the ADF, apart from whatever lateral transfer system exists where Kiwi, British, Canadian or American personnel can join the ADF.
One needs to remember that Australia is both a 5Eyes and ABCA nation and now AUKUS has been added as well. That means there is classified information potentially circulating that is not to be available to people outside of these organizations. Prior to Australia really being able to recruit and/or raise a Pacific Islands formation frameworks would need to be established for recruiting and selection, training, discharges, admin/legal, and likely a host of other things.
Yes, the Brits do have the Gurkhas, but the frame for this to function for the British Army has been in place for some time (albeit with changes having taken place over the years).
TBH I am not certain just how much value drawing personnel from S. Pacific islands would be to Australia. Consider for a moment that Australia has provided support to the Pacific Islands Forum in the form of patrol boats so that member nations can patrol their own waters and EEZ's to a degree. IIRC the original Pacific-class patrol boats, as well as the successor Guardian-class were designs to be easier to support and maintain by the various nations, and the RAN provides personnel for technical support. This suggests to me that some of the more technically demanding posts in the ADF would likely not posts that those who would might join such a scheme would really be appropriate for. I would imagine that those with the intelligence and/or technical savvy to qualify for higher education and/or work away from their homes, i.e. the best and brightest, would probably be seeking out opportunities to study overseas and not joining the ADF. This would likely leave non-technical roles being the primary areas available to Pacific Islanders and I suspect that these are also the roles that Australia also likely has less of a problem filling already.
There is also strategic considerations needing some thought as well, given how this could potentially impact the 'local' population of some of the Pacific Islands. Apart from PNG, none of the nations have a population over 1 mil. people and only a few of them have populations over 250k, whilst several do not even break 75k. Attempting to recruit even 100 personnel from a nation like Tuvalu, the Cook Islands or the Marshall Islands would amount to a significant number of people of certain age ranges and likely skill sets for these islands. It might just be my POV, but it would not be in Australia's interest to recruit Pacific Islanders to serve in the ADF, and in doing so wreck the societies in these same island nations by draining so many young, relatively fit and educated and people. At the same time, if one were to then decide to only draw in a few people from the various Pacific Islands, then that would not be enough to have any real impact upon ADF personnel numbers. If the number per nation was dropped to only 10 personnel per Pacific Island Forum member-states, that would only leave ~120 personnel being recruited for the ADF.
You blokes obviously don't know much about Pacific Island military forces. Coups, lawlessness, weapons theft and sale, running armed standover gangs targeting businesses, using defence force helicopters in bank heists, general mayhem, murder and frequent mutiny are just some of the fun you get to experience in our neighbourhood states bought to you by their armed security agencies. Throwing passports at the ADF's recruiting problems will not solve anything, just create new and far more serious problems.
Captain Matchbox
New Member
I think the ADF recruitment might be a bit too selective. Lower entry fitness standards, extend recruit school and get people to the fitness level required during basic training. There’s a lot patriotic young people that get deflated by the process. The ADF use to be great at developing people that struggled in society, we need to get back to giving people a chance.
Captain Matchbox
New Member
I’m not sure there’s a recruitment issue, 70-80k applicants a year, I think it’s a selection issue.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
And a stuffing people around issue. It's definitely a major problem that there's so much waiting for courses to begin. No easy solution but they have to recognise that people not willing to wait doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have been a good service member. They - the defence forces - are like any employer in existing in a competitive market.
protoplasm
Active Member
This is one of the major issues. Fix this and we'll have a huge boost in recruits. The majority of my senior students who express a desire to join the ADF who begin the process end up doing other things because they get stuffed around. While they are waiting for endless process #6 to happen they get a training offer from trade scheme X, and off they go, lost to the ADF forever. We have to be prepared to take on 12k school leavers in Jan, Feb and March each year, put them through basic and washout those who won't make it, finish training the rest. We have to be prepared to cop the cost of doing basic training with a LOT of recruits, to get the numbers at the other end that we need.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
For balance the US military actively recruits from its U.S. territories in the Pacific particularly Micronesia and American Samoa in Polynesia.
And these can be much smaller societies and are more spread out. Seems the US has made it work to some extent (including those recruited from the islands serving in Afghanistan and Iraq within the US military).
Micronesia:
www.uso.org
www.rnz.co.nz
American Samoa:
reservenationalguard.com
Reading between the lines of a post above it appears the concerns are with some Melanesian nations (rather than the Pacific Islands in a generalised sense?) and therefore is seen as a potential issue (for Australian recruitment) due to past and current tensions and instability (and thinking, cultural wise)?
If so ironically Australia has had the 'greatest' (direct) linkages with Melanesia historically (in terms of geography, political/economic dimensions and similar shared WW2 experiences) and is currently an area the Aust. Govt is seriously investing in to counter rising CCP influence by the establishment of security agreements and the development of bases for shared use etc.
I'm not making a judgment on actual recruitment as that is a political issue (with its pros and cons). But suggest as the ADF works more closely with the Melanesian nations such as PNG, Solomons, Fiji etc, presumably we will see more personel exchanges and efforts to integrate and align training to better reflect best practice and culture.
And these can be much smaller societies and are more spread out. Seems the US has made it work to some extent (including those recruited from the islands serving in Afghanistan and Iraq within the US military).
Micronesia:
For U.S. Military Recruits Living in Micronesia, Guam and other Pacific Islands, the Logistics of Enlistment Can be a Challenge
For potential military recruits living in remote areas of the Pacific and Micronesia, choosing to enlist entails an additional set of challenges for everyone involved in the process, including their families, making the USO's role at their closest MEPS location in Hawaii even more vital.
Film shines light on Micronesians in US military
A film documenting the journey of Micronesian soldiers in the US military raises awareness about the challenges they face on their return home.
www.rnz.co.nz
American Samoa:
Military service 'part of our makeup as a warrior people'
Capt. Soosoo Taulelei, a native of Malaeloa, American Samoa, says service in the U.S. military is a "generational tradition.
reservenationalguard.com
Reading between the lines of a post above it appears the concerns are with some Melanesian nations (rather than the Pacific Islands in a generalised sense?) and therefore is seen as a potential issue (for Australian recruitment) due to past and current tensions and instability (and thinking, cultural wise)?
If so ironically Australia has had the 'greatest' (direct) linkages with Melanesia historically (in terms of geography, political/economic dimensions and similar shared WW2 experiences) and is currently an area the Aust. Govt is seriously investing in to counter rising CCP influence by the establishment of security agreements and the development of bases for shared use etc.
I'm not making a judgment on actual recruitment as that is a political issue (with its pros and cons). But suggest as the ADF works more closely with the Melanesian nations such as PNG, Solomons, Fiji etc, presumably we will see more personel exchanges and efforts to integrate and align training to better reflect best practice and culture.
It's really the recruitment process that Is failing the Army.
I've said it before.
The process is way too long and drawn out.
A simple entry exam to test the candidates ability to learn.
A criminal back ground check.
A medical assessment.
An aptitude test.
A psych test.
Sign the contract, get on the bus.....
I've said it before.
The process is way too long and drawn out.
A simple entry exam to test the candidates ability to learn.
A criminal back ground check.
A medical assessment.
An aptitude test.
A psych test.
Sign the contract, get on the bus.....