latest ADF funding

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18546243%255E31477,00.html
" Defence minister gets more money

March 21, 2006 DEFENCE Minister Brendan Nelson has cleared the way for decisions to purchase the joint strike fighter and air warfare destroyers worth billions of dollars, after winning approval for a 3 per cent budget increase.

According to The Australian newspaper, the increase - about $600 million a year in defence spending, which is expected to reach $20 billion by 2010 - is expected to be announced in the May Budget. The funding commitment that extends beyond 2010 will help the Defence Department plan its purchases without the threat of having to cancel or defer long-planned major equipment purchases, the newspaper said.
Without a significant funding increase, a range of capital equipment projects expected to be included in the new 2006-2016 defence capability plan would be unaffordable.
The newspaper said according to senior government sources, supplementary budget funding was also likely for some high-tech equipment projects that were experiencing cost increases well beyond the rate of inflation.

Defence plans to spend at least $6 billion on new warships and $12 billion on up to 100 new joint strike fighter aircraft over the next decade."


I'm not getting too excited at the moment. I have no idea if this is a meaningful increase or not. Is it likely to include the C-17 purchase costs?
I notice that the JSF (air 6000) price tag is now quoted as 12 billion. Previously I've seen 16 billion and beyond bandied about. Is the air 6000 budget quietly shrinking?

Plus the commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq probably have to come out of that budget as well.

Just how much of it translates into new hardware remains to be seen. But I've got this cynical feeling slowly coming over me.


rb

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not getting too excited at the moment. I have no idea if this is a meaningful increase or not. Is it likely to include the C-17 purchase costs?

I notice that the JSF (air 6000) price tag is now quoted as 12 billion. Previously I've seen 16 billion and beyond bandied about. Is the air 6000 budget quietly shrinking?

Plus the commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq probably have to come out of that budget as well.

Just how much of it translates into new hardware remains to be seen. But I've got this cynical feeling slowly coming over me.


rb

well, if you were going to cast bets, I'd be doing it with other peoples money - there are quite a few things on the plate that have yet to be announced. Both RAAF and RAN have some announcements over the next 2 months. Not sure about army - but they've been tagged for extras as well. These are all "over and above" existing plans.

I think we're about to announce more platform changes than ever before - and its about time as we're hitting block obsolesence on a number of platforms.

 

[alexsa]

well, if you were going to cast bets, I'd be doing it with other peoples money - there are quite a few things on the plate that have yet to be announced. Both RAAF and RAN have some announcements over the next 2 months. Not sure about army - but they've been tagged for extras as well. These are all "over and above" existing plans.

I think we're about to announce more platform changes than ever before - and its about time as we're hitting block obsolesence on a number of platforms.

In respect of the navy can we expect anything new or radically different from those items that are already under consideration (AWD, LHD etc)?

The Sea king replacement in regards to a training/utility Helo would have to be one possible contender I guess as would afloat support.

 

[Supe]

In respect of the navy can we expect anything new or radically different from those items that are already under consideration (AWD, LHD etc)?

The Sea king replacement in regards to a training/utility Helo would have to be one possible contender I guess as would afloat support.

I want to see more numbers. It's great that ADF gets some new platforms but they never seem to be in quantity. I am not arguing for Cold War equipment stock levels, far from it but only (and I harp on about it) 59 tanks?? 22 Tigers? 12 Armidales? Recent purchases suggest a bare minimum mantra.

I don't see any credible threats to Australia but that can change. If you're running too lean, you run the risk of getting into serious strife that no matter how much money is thrown around, will not bail you out.

Doctrine drives requirements and I'm just wondering if the ADF will be suitably 'geared' up in the coming years?

If you don't think the ADF is geared up adequately - what should be on the table if funds were available? I am not talking wishlists or prestige projects here but a genuine wish to discuss whether recent and proposed future platforms are enough in terms of numbers. Eg: could Australia do with more Subs? Additionally, I'd appreciate just how these numbers are determined?

 

[knightrider4]

Funding.

I would like a firm commitment on JSF numbers, a credible SAM system beyond the RBS-70, enough tanks to fully equip an armoured brigade and enhanced with TUSK and canister rounds. As for the navy I would like the ANZACS to be capable of firing SM-2 missles and I cant understand why this cant be achieved relatively cheaply once the the phased array radars and illuminators are installed. The entire medium helo transport fleet rationalised with the MRH-90 and greater efforts for recruitment to target kids while still in high school. When it comes to numbers manpower will be the deciding factor.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I would like a firm commitment on JSF numbers, a credible SAM system beyond the RBS-70, enough tanks to fully equip an armoured brigade and enhanced with TUSK and canister rounds. As for the navy I would like the ANZACS to be capable of firing SM-2 missles and I cant understand why this cant be achieved relatively cheaply once the the phased array radars and illuminators are installed. The entire medium helo transport fleet rationalised with the MRH-90 and greater efforts for recruitment to target kids while still in high school. When it comes to numbers manpower will be the deciding factor.

How many Tanks in an armoured brigade? I know that the British Army only has 44 C2s in a regiment and one regiment in a brigade. Given the 59 M1s, that would seem about right. Given the experiances in Iraq I am still not convinced that the upgraded M113 is what the 2 mech battalions need.

 

[knightrider4]

Funding

Excuse my ignorance. Then the formation of a second armoured brigade should be pursued particularly if the force is to be sustained for any length of time. As for the M113 upgrade you are spot on a big mistake I believe to pursue the project further although it is probablt too far gone now to cancel it. Maybe Land 400 can be bought forward???

 

[Supe]

and greater efforts for recruitment to target kids while still in high school. When it comes to numbers manpower will be the deciding factor.

There's a recent Senate hansard (defence portfolio pdf) on recruitment and the gist of it was that it's not numbers that are the problem but retaining/recruiting those with valued skills. While 'implanting' the idea of service in the ADF can start at senior High School leve, the ADF should probably be focussing more on those at the Uni level. Then there are the trades sector which Australia is also having a shortage - this might be the best area to target those in High School.

Excerpt:

Air Chief Marshal Houston—

The problem really relates to the higher skill areas where we need a certain level of education before people can undertake very demanding technical training or education—

Senator MARK BISHOP—For skilled work?

Air Chief Marshal Houston—Yes, training to become highly skilled in electronics or information technology or an area such as that.

Senator MARK BISHOP—Let me understand you. In private industry we tend to generically run on unskilled, semiskilled and skilled labour. They were the three broad generalisations when I was in another place. What you are saying to me is that you have particularly major problems in the skilled areas. Correct me
if I am wrong, but I hear you saying that, at the moment, in what I would consider to be either unskilled or semiskilled entry level areas—private drivers, labourers and those sorts of areas—you are not having any trouble recruiting at the moment?

Air Chief Marshal Houston—I would put it this way: I think there is less trouble at the lower end; the higher end is where we have the biggest challenge. But I would ask my experts to perhaps elaborate on your question.

 

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}the ADF should probably be focussing more on those at the Uni level. Then there are the trades sector which Australia is also having a shortage - this might be the best area to target those in High School.

Excerpt:

funny you should say that
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18583549%255E601,00.html
"NEWS
Army to get elite reserves
Steve Lewis and Patrick Walters
March 24, 2006
AUSTRALIA'S Defence reserves will be bolstered and their pay improved as part of a budget plan costing hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the army's fighting capability.

A new "elite" group of about 3000 highly trained reservists will receive special funding, as the Howard Government moves to tackle a military recruitment crisis. The move will reverse a 1996 Coalition decision to scrap the "Ready Reserve", established by the former Labor government to supplement the regular Australian Defence Force in overseas operations.
In a big win for new Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, the Government will announce plans to provide a range of salary perks to reservists for the first time. These are likely to include healthcare and superannuation.
The Government is also considering waiving university fees for "high-readiness" reservists, who would spend up to two years in full-time training.
The minister, who has taken direct responsibility for personnel policy, will also boost special allowances for regular Defence personnel in areas where there are shortages of technical specialists.
Senior government sources have told The Australian Defence will be a big winner when Treasurer Peter Costello hands down his 11th budget on May 9.
While Dr Nelson has secured several billion dollars in additional funding to buy military equipment, the budget will also include a range of measures to boost the attractiveness of the Defence Force as a career for young people.
"There's a big focus on trying to attract larger numbers (into the military)," one source said.
Dr Nelson is particularly keen to attract university-level entrants and the May budget is expected to offer generous incentives to achieve that goal.
The Government has been forced to act because of a steady decline in the number of young people joining the Defence Force and former regular Defence personnel choosing to serve in the reserves. This has forced the Government to consider plans to relax health criteria for officer recruits, as The Australian revealed last December.
The budget is expected to include funding to establish a High Readiness Reserve of about 3000 troops. Members will receive a higher level of training and better pay.
In return, they are expected to be ready within about 30 days to be deployed to trouble spots around the world, or to help in military clean-ups following natural disasters.
The Government is effectively reviving the Ready Reserve as the regular army finds itself stretched in a range of overseas deployments.
The number of reservists has been falling in recent years, despite the higher profile given to the military and higher spending on personnel, which accounts for about 40 per cent of Defence expenditure.
The reserves cost about $1 billion a year to run but do not contribute significantly to lifting the operational effectiveness of the regular Defence Force.
Official government figures show the number of reserves fell from 22,154 to 21,968 in the 12 months to June 30 last year. Anecdotal evidence suggests some units have struggled to attract a single recruit in the past year.
Strong employment conditions and changing demographics are blamed for the lack of new recruits willing to sign-up either on a full-time basis or as reserves.
Prime Minister John Howard promised a "fundamental review" of reserve remuneration arrangements at the 2004 election.
This included consideration of financial and non-financial aspects, education support, "milestone recognition" and even some "tailored" remuneration packages.
Currently, reservists receive tax-free pay, but their conditions lag behind those provided by other military powers, such as the US.
The big boost for personnel came as Dr Nelson also won approval to lift Defence spending by 3 per cent in real terms from 2010, clearing the way for decisions on the purchase of billions of dollars worth of military equipment, including the joint strike fighter and air warfare destroyers.
A 3 per cent increase would add about $600 million a year to annual Defence spending, which is expected to total $20 billion by 2010."

rb

 

[Aussie Digger]

Excuse my ignorance. Then the formation of a second armoured brigade should be pursued particularly if the force is to be sustained for any length of time. As for the M113 upgrade you are spot on a big mistake I believe to pursue the project further although it is probablt too far gone now to cancel it. Maybe Land 400 can be bought forward???

An armoured brigade in the NATO sense comprises 2x mechanised infantry battalions and 2x Tank regiments.

What we will have is a mechanised brigade. The difference is essentially - mechanised is infantry heavy, armoured is tank heavy.

In relation to the M113 upgrade program, here is the core problem as I see it. 1 Brigade is STILL soldiering on with M113A1's. These are completely obsolete and completely unusable in any environment with any significant threat whatsoever.

The M113As3/4 program will go a long way to rectifying this problem, particularly in relation to it's armoured protection, mobility and "liveability" for the digs. Firepower (specifically the lack thereof) will remain a problem, however Army can probably live with it for the next few years. The M113AS3/4's will have roughly the same firepower as the ASLAV-PC variants and greater firepower than the Bushmaster IMV's (even the DFSW variant), yet no-one complains about these platforms.

On top of this, roughly $250 million has already been spent on this project (as of the time of writing the ANAO report into the project) and this design of vehicle is in it's absolute final stages of testing with the design confirmed. If the project were to proceed 5/7 RAR would have it's first company of vehicles by December 06 (16 vehicles worth) and could start working towards and IOC.

If it were to be canned in favour of a more capable vehicle, 1 Brigade and 5/7 in particular would face the situation where they would entirely lack a deployable capability for a higher level warfare scenario for many more years to come. This capability is supposedly 1 Brigade's role, yet it's platforms are letting it down.

My opinion is for the M113 program to continue and have the vehicles built as quickly as possible and get the kit to the operators, in case it's ACTUALLY needed.

THEN start up Land 400 in look for a better vehicle. With at least a marginally capable vehicle in the inventory there will be no pressure on DMO, to "get it right" in a hurry. They can take their time and truly explore the options...

My other options for Army, is a capable "medium range" SAM system, to help form a layered air defence system between RAAF and the existing GBAD system, rationalise our helo fleets, ala the original AIR 9000 plan, increase our numbers of chooks and Tigers and acquire a half decent "B" vehicle for our reserve forces that can be equipped with a reasonable armour/firepower package to go some way to ensuring they can muster an operational capability if needed.

An enhanced Perentie type capability, is NOT the way to go IMHO. If we're going to have forces, they might as well be somewhat useable... I remember a time when we used to ride in "Mogs" all over the place. Then the OH&S "revolution" came along and we couldn't travel more the 15k's inside them as it was "too" dangerous. Made a mockery of using them as gun tractors for Arty units, but they still did...

 

[RubiconNZ]

Meh

The latest announcement of the High Readiness forces seem to me jsut a renaming of what they have been planning and talking for awhile, besides what are they going to equip them with or do you think this is just for the Defence Department to more easily use reserves to plug the gaps in recruitment shortages? Or maybe another 300 Bushmasters are on the cards to give them back to the 7th Brigade, after they were so cruelly yoinked away with the HNA scheme. Yeah i don't quite understand while the ADF hasnt commited to any medium range air defence something like SLAMRAAM / CLAWS would be nice, on that not does anyone think the main reason that the ADF barring the F111 hasn't got any long range offensive defensive/ weapons is not to annoy neighbours in the area, I mean its not like the US wouldn't sell most items to the ADF, systems such as Patriots,Tomahawks, greater stand off weapon systems not that the JASSM, that announcement still annoyed the Malaysian Govt of the time, (I'll look for the article) or do you think now it will be a watch this space the AWD will come with TAC IV's.

 

[Supe]

Army to get elite reserves

What's so 'elite' about them?

 

[knightrider4]

Reserves

Not a great deal just smaller force of high readiness 30 days to move forces to bolster OS deployments.

 

[seantheaussie]

Army to get elite reserves

What's so 'elite' about them?

For other nations who have reserve units in being absolutely nothing. For Australia with reserve units for WWIII at 30-40% manning & underequipped, fully manned, trained & equiped reserve units sure as hell are elite.

 

[cherry]

I want to see more numbers. It's great that ADF gets some new platforms but they never seem to be in quantity. I am not arguing for Cold War equipment stock levels, far from it but only (and I harp on about it) 59 tanks?? 22 Tigers? 12 Armidales? Recent purchases suggest a bare minimum mantra.

I don't see any credible threats to Australia but that can change. If you're running too lean, you run the risk of getting into serious strife that no matter how much money is thrown around, will not bail you out.

Doctrine drives requirements and I'm just wondering if the ADF will be suitably 'geared' up in the coming years?

If you don't think the ADF is geared up adequately - what should be on the table if funds were available? I am not talking wishlists or prestige projects here but a genuine wish to discuss whether recent and proposed future platforms are enough in terms of numbers. Eg: could Australia do with more Subs? Additionally, I'd appreciate just how these numbers are determined?

I agree with the sentiment that ADF have purchased platforms such as Abrams, Tiger, MRRT, Wedgetail all in numbers that may possibly see us left short in times of crisis but, I must also say that I think that once these platforms are all introduced into service then hopefully with time it may prove that more platforms need to be purchased. So effectively, I believe that a "wait and see" with time approach is the way to go with these such things.

In terms of the upcoming DCP (whenever the hell it is released), I am hoping there are some things over and above what is already planned for over the coming years for ADF.

Starting with RAN, hopefully the decision to add a UAV ability from the AWD, ANZACs, the new LHD and sealift ships, something such as the Firescout would be ideal. In addition to this, fitting TacTom to the AWD will also go towards the long range strike ability lost with the retirement of the F-111. And of course the ageing Seakings will most likely be replaced by 6-8 MRH-90 helos.

The RAAF will hopefully persuade government to purchase the STOVL F-35B to be operated from land and the new LHDs. And as mentioned before, from the left over C-130H airframes, hopefully the SASR will have a dedicated number of MC-130 and AC-130U for special ops support.

And for Army, I would like to see all fighting vehicles (ASLAV, M113, Bushmaster and Abrams) upgraded with a RWS. With the purchase of SPH for LAND 17, I would like to see this supplemented with MLRS, ASLAV based 120mm mortars and towed lightweight 155mm howitzers. And finally, a medium range anti-air system such as MEADS is also required.

Wishful thinking I know, but what else can you do?

 

[Supe]

@alexsa:

I've seen rumours of an AC-130 (gunship) floating about on the web. I can see the case for an MC-130H but I can't imagine ADF ever procuring an AC-130 though - does ADF really need one? Ditto to MLRS. For the sorts of roles Australia has been deployed on, an MLRS while a unique and worthy capability doesn't seem to sit well within the current needs that present operations are dictating. I may be wrong but an MLRS infers use in high intensity type conflicts. Surely upgrades to artillery will see ADF right in this regard?

As for a wait and see and a possible increase in numbers of tankers/wedgies I hope your thoughts on this are bang on.

 

[Cootamundra]

@alexsa:

I've seen rumours of an AC-130 (gunship) floating about on the web. I can see the case for an MC-130H but I can't imagine ADF ever procuring an AC-130 though - does ADF really need one? Ditto to MLRS. For the sorts of roles Australia has been deployed on, an MLRS while a unique and worthy capability doesn't seem to sit well within the current needs that present operations are dictating. I may be wrong but an MLRS infers use in high intensity type conflicts. Surely upgrades to artillery will see ADF right in this regard?

As for a wait and see and a possible increase in numbers of tankers/wedgies I hope your thoughts on this are bang on.

I've seen the same sort of commentary re; the AC-130s. Personally I reckon they would be a great addition and I believe (but only from I've read) that the push is coming from the AUSSOCOM who are interested in some of the old C-130 H's which according to some (and obliquley referred to by DefMin Nelso) will be kitted out for specific SPEC OPs use (2-4 aircraft). I've heard that the SAS would then like 2 more to be kitted out for close air support, in essence to become AC-130s. We'll see I suppose

 

[RubiconNZ]

Huon Deactivated

I double posted, whoops deleted they extra one if MOD could delete this, it would be nice.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Huon Deactivated

By Michael Brooke
Volume 49, No. 4, March 23, 2006
Navy News


The first of the RAN’s six locally-manufactured Huon-class coastal minehunters, HMAS Huon (LCDR Milton Treeby), was deactivated in a ceremony conducted at HMAS Waterhen (CMDR G.W. Ker) recently.

LEUT Steve Noakes, XO Huon, told Navy News that Huon was deactivated as part of the force structure changes announced in the Defence Capability Review in 2003.

“Huon will be kept in a preserved state for a period of four-years by ADI on behalf of the DMO,” he said.
LEUT Noakes said Huon would be handed over to DMO on March 31.

The ship is capable of being brought back on-line at short-notice, if required.

Deputy Commander AUST Mine Warfare and Clearance Diving Group, CMDR Dean Schopen, said Huon’s ship’s company of 36 would be posted to other Navy vessels.

Huon was commissioned on May 15, 1999, and was the second RAN ship to carry the name.

That PO's me in a massive way, basically Mothballing a 7 year old ship what a waste on so many levels, theyre using frigates for anti people smuggling ops well prob not at the moment, yet theyve sending two perfectly good ships to berth the least they good do is store the mine hunting gear and use them as Patrol Boats, which they are being used for anyway.

Funding Boost my A**,
Thats my rant over.

 

[Aussie Digger]

By Michael Brooke
Volume 49, No. 4, March 23, 2006
Navy News


The first of the RAN’s six locally-manufactured Huon-class coastal minehunters, HMAS Huon (LCDR Milton Treeby), was deactivated in a ceremony conducted at HMAS Waterhen (CMDR G.W. Ker) recently.

LEUT Steve Noakes, XO Huon, told Navy News that Huon was deactivated as part of the force structure changes announced in the Defence Capability Review in 2003.

“Huon will be kept in a preserved state for a period of four-years by ADI on behalf of the DMO,” he said.
LEUT Noakes said Huon would be handed over to DMO on March 31.

The ship is capable of being brought back on-line at short-notice, if required.

Deputy Commander AUST Mine Warfare and Clearance Diving Group, CMDR Dean Schopen, said Huon’s ship’s company of 36 would be posted to other Navy vessels.

Huon was commissioned on May 15, 1999, and was the second RAN ship to carry the name.

That PO's me in a massive way, basically Mothballing a 7 year old ship what a waste on so many levels, theyre using frigates for anti people smuggling ops well prob not at the moment, yet theyve sending two perfectly good ships to berth the least they good do is store the mine hunting gear and use them as Patrol Boats, which they are being used for anyway.

Funding Boost my A**,
Thats my rant over.

The reason they are being retired is because of personnel issues, NOT funding issues. The RAN is hurting the most out of the 3 services, and you should remember at the same time that these 2 are being deactivated, we ARE gaining an additional 2 Armidale Class patrol boats (14 now instead of 12).

The Huons are slow, cannot handle as higher a Sea State as the Armidales, and do not possess the space for refugees, extra personnel etc, that is needed in the border protection ops.

The need for patrol boats in this time of (relative) peace, is greater than the need for Minehunters, IMHO (and apparently RAN and Government's as well). At least they are only deactivating the vessels and not paying them off. If needed, we could bring them back far quicker than building new ships...