Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Just giving an apples for apples comparison.

Basically from the end of the Hawke years until the end of Howard's second term was a time of comparative peace and strategic stability. This was followed by the war on terror, still a period of comparative strategic stability.

Rudd was one of the first western leaders to be vocal about the challenges of a rising China. His own party backed out on his initiatives and we really aren't any better off today, lots of plans and rhetoric, but as yet not too much in the way of tangible results.

I hope the current reviews will give some clarity and direction.
I think it was Rudds DWP in 2009 that labeled China as a threat.
As you said
" lots of plans and rhetoric, but as yet not too much in the way of tangible results."

One would think in thirteen years some dramatic increase in capability over and above replacing like for like.
Yes we have put down the accelerator in the last year, but really the out come has been pedestrian compared to the result and suggest need.

Add in a pandemic and major conflict in Europe coupled with the CCP's continued chest thumping and a military evolving to match its language and I wonder what we could have actually achieved in that past thirteen years of opportunity.

" We need some tangible results"


Cheers S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I think it was Rudds DWP in 2009 that labeled China as a threat.
As you said
" lots of plans and rhetoric, but as yet not too much in the way of tangible results."

One would think in thirteen years some dramatic increase in capability over and above replacing like for like.
Yes we have put down the accelerator in the last year, but really the out come has been pedestrian compared to the result and suggest need.

Add in a pandemic and major conflict in Europe coupled with the CCP's continued chest thumping and a military evolving to match its language and I wonder what we could have actually achieved in that past thirteen years of opportunity.

" We need some tangible results"


Cheers S
It was in the 2009 DWP that Rudd was quite strong on the anti-China rhetoric, then Gillard got a new DWP written in 2012 and pulled back on the rhetoric.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Let me guess, ex-RAAF author by any chance?

The single service funding bucket bickering at the moment, cheered on by complete silence on the issue by CDF is sickening.

So much for ‘jointness’ when it comes down to it…
Ah huh, the argument will be, we need to defend the air/sea gap, SSN IOC is twenty years off, armour and SPGs are useless in our imagined island hoping campaign, the Hunters are years off.

Solution a 25-30% increase in each type the RAAF currently operates, Army becomes a light infantry marine force, maybe with a couple of batteries of strikemasters, and the RAN gets uparmed OPVs to replace the ANZACs/Hunters.

Oh yes, sorry, this is sarcastic :p ;) :cool: o_O
 
Last edited:

WaveWalker

New Member
What are also not especially encouraging signs are the complete lack of capability investment decisions made since the new Government formed, bar the one single decision made to put a 9-12 month hiatus on everything, despite their oft-repeated statements about the “urgency” of equipping defence…
The present govt has been in power for a few months. Considering the continual problems with projects the last govt had 2 terms to manage, as well as some very significant projects and a major strategic outlook deterioration, it’s hardly surprising they want to assess the situation. It seems to me they are being responsible.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The present govt has been in power for a few months. Considering the continual problems with projects the last govt had 2 terms to manage, as well as some very significant projects and a major strategic outlook deterioration, it’s hardly surprising they want to assess the situation. It seems to me they are being responsible.
Incoming governments wanting to access the situation…standard BS in Canada! They want their footprint on stuff or they want to divert money to their pet projects. At least in Australia it’s more of the former whereas here it’s take more money from defence.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The present govt has been in power for a few months. Considering the continual problems with projects the last govt had 2 terms to manage, as well as some very significant projects and a major strategic outlook deterioration, it’s hardly surprising they want to assess the situation. It seems to me they are being responsible.
I think the comment was aimed at the blinkered commentators pushing their agendas, not at the new government.

There is no doubt lots of money has been spent or that some of it has been wasted, the issue is how best to address the very different strategic outlook that has evolved since the assumptions made at the end of the cold war.
 

WaveWalker

New Member
Incoming governments wanting to access the situation…standard BS in Canada! They want their footprint on stuff or they want to divert money to their pet projects. At least in Australia it’s more of the former whereas here it’s take more money from defence.
The difference between Canada and Australia is that Australia faces a significant regional threat and it spends money on defence, both of which don’t apply to Canada.
 
The present govt has been in power for a few months. Considering the continual problems with projects the last govt had 2 terms to manage, as well as some very significant projects and a major strategic outlook deterioration, it’s hardly surprising they want to assess the situation. It seems to me they are being responsible.
They would have been well aware of Projects and how they were tracking as well as out Strategic situation. Marles is Political point scoring. As for problematic projects - the C27 is a case in point - Marles blames the former Government on the issues facing the platform; however, conveniently fails to acknowledge the capability was approved/signed off under the previous Labor Government after the US had announced the platform's withdrawal from Service. I also agree with ADMk2 in that everything the Government has placed everything on hold even though they sprout the urgency of our situation. Even the Submarine Task Force had been shortened to 12 months by the previous Government only to be extended back out to 18 by the present. No Defence project is ever going to run smoothly, on time and on budget. Defence procurement certainly needs to be hastened and brought into the 21st century; however, procuring Defence capability is not like buying a new fleet of cars. The budget 'blowout' mentioned by Minister and the Media in many instances can be attributed to Exchange Rate fluctuations and capability creep.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Ah huh, the argument will be, we need to defend the air/sea gap, SSN IOC is twenty years off, armour and SPGs are useless in our imagined island hoping campaign, the Hunters are years off.

Solution a 25-30% increase in each type the RAAF currently operates, Army becomes a light infantry marine force, maybe with a couple of batteries of strikemasters, and the RAN gets uparmed OPVs to replace the ANZACs/Hunters.

Oh yes, sorry, this is sarcastic :p ;) :cool: o_O
I wonder if we should read anything into Angus Houston co-chairing the Strategic Defence Review. Hard to imagine he wouldn't bring his own air force biases into this review.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The present govt has been in power for a few months. Considering the continual problems with projects the last govt had 2 terms to manage, as well as some very significant projects and a major strategic outlook deterioration, it’s hardly surprising they want to assess the situation. It seems to me they are being responsible.
5 months, actually.

Assessing major projects, force structures, basing etc is fine, a lot of new governments do so. I don’t have a real problem with that. What I do have a problem with, is a new Government shutting up shop on ALL defence capability investment for a period of 9 months (at least) when they are simultaneously and continually telling us how perilous our strategic situation is…

By all means, take a breath and review priorities, but in the meantime one might think it prudent to continue adding to the basic building blocks of ANY type of future ADF in terms of ammunition and guided munitions inventories, logistical nodes and capabilities, hardening of existing bases and so on.

No matter what decisions they make, our main bases today, will be our main bases for at least another 5 years, probably longer. We have never geared up for high intensity warfare, yet they keep telling us such is just around the corner…

In so many areas of defence what we have now is what we will be fighting with if the ‘two way range’ kicks off in the next 5 years. Maximising their capability to engage in said fight would be the most prudent thing they could possibly do in the meantime, along with ensuring our forces can actually get their bullets, beans, bombs and fuel whenever and wherever they need them AND have some redundancy in the highly possible event an enemy of ours chooses to attack our logistical nodes for some strange reason…

But alas, no… Such preparations are not being done either.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Some posters are looking like they are straying into politics. That makes Moderators somewhat twitchy so be careful.
 

south

Well-Known Member
I wonder if we should read anything into Angus Houston co-chairing the Strategic Defence Review. Hard to imagine he wouldn't bring his own air force biases into this review.
You could read into it, or you could look at the integrity of the man over a long period of visible service (not least children overboard), finishing with 6 years as CDF.. in other words, the Joint Force. There is no evidence to suggest anything other than Sir Angus will do his best for the whole ADF.

Or rather, maybe you could suggest a better candidate for the role?
 

Cooch

Active Member
If an incoming Government does not already have a basic handle on Defence matters while still in Opposition, they have not been doing their job. That goes for any government.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I am not casting any aspersions on Houston's character or even his suitability. In fact I think airpower is probably the quickest path for Australia to acquire some sort of strike capability in the next 5 to 10 years.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The difference between Canada and Australia is that Australia faces a significant regional threat and it spends money on defence, both of which don’t apply to Canada.
Actually an unstable USA is as big or bigger than great than Australia faces. Unfortunately there is little Canada can do if the US decides to have civil war v2.0. Hopefully some adults get back in charge of the GOP.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Actually an unstable USA is as big or bigger than great than Australia faces. Unfortunately there is little Canada can do if the US decides to have civil war v2.0. Hopefully some adults get back in charge of the GOP.
If the US were to implode it would be a disaster for Australia. Bring on CANZUK.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You could read into it, or you could look at the integrity of the man over a long period of visible service (not least children overboard), finishing with 6 years as CDF.. in other words, the Joint Force. There is no evidence to suggest anything other than Sir Angus will do his best for the whole ADF.

Or rather, maybe you could suggest a better candidate for the role?
He was a helicopter pilot, led the introduction of the Blackhawk into service, then the transition from RAAF to army. He is very definately a joint thinker and believer.
 
Top