ADF General discussion thread

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Its a big warhead. nearly ~500kg metric.

There was an argument for a nuclear armed JASSM-ER/LRASM instead of LRSO.
Certainly the conventional version of the LRSO was cancelled because that role can be done by JASS-ER/LRASM
In fact I wonder what the difference will be between LASSM-XR and the LRSO other than the warhead and possibly an improved stealth coating. There is a rumor that the subsonic LRSO is a LASSM-XR and there is also a supersonic version in development which is where most of the funding goes to.

When launching a nuclear cruise, it would seem that also launching a number of similar conventional long range weapons would be useful.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Lifted from OPSSG


Maybe looking at a preview of Project Land 2097 Phase 4

When I saw that I wondered where we were up to in our own project. I didn’t realise that bell with the 429 where have two bites of the cherry


I wonder how Hawker-Pacfic & Babock will differ in their respective bids, guess we will never really now consider opspec for the Specials

The Hawker Pacific/Bell team had previously advised it would offer the single-engine Bell 407GT and/or Bell 429 for Army’s requirement, but after the RFT was released it has settled on the latter helicopter. “Our bid is driven by the specifications in the tender and we felt that the 429 was a better fit for those requirements,” McQuestin explained. “We believe that having two primes offering the Bell 429 for Land 2097 will bring two unique and differentiated offerings to the ADF.”


Thought it was strange that the killer egg (MH-6M Little Bird) didn’t get a look in
 

t68

Well-Known Member
The greens have pushed a bill to debate the powers of the PM & Cabinet to have the power to deploy troops according to this it is to happen today

Senate to debate Greens bill to restrict PM's powers to send Australians to war (msn.com)

I wonder if they will take heed of a 2010 senate committee into the very same thing.

From my point of view that should remain the same, I am all for the debate within Parliament but the executive decision should rest with the PM & Cabinet as has been done so since federation.

It would be interesting to see how members feel on the subject

Parliamentary involvement in declaring war and deploying forces overseas
Parliamentary involvement in declaring war and deploying forces overseas – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Lifted from OPSSG


Maybe looking at a preview of Project Land 2097 Phase 4

When I saw that I wondered where we were up to in our own project. I didn’t realise that bell with the 429 where have two bites of the cherry


I wonder how Hawker-Pacfic & Babock will differ in their respective bids, guess we will never really now consider opspec for the Specials





Thought it was strange that the killer egg (MH-6M Little Bird) didn’t get a look in
I think the Army is looking at something that has more Utility usefulness then the MH-6 provides, something that can perform a light Tpt role as well as the SF role.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Interesting article and poses many questions that I don’t see being answered in any short space of time.

Not exactly related Greg Sheridan has been busy this week with several articles.https://apple.news/AMCeLmlDPS4ua9-AMn-vHuA

This if you are unable to read it saying that Dutton is effectively re writing Australia’s defence strategy and putting the acid on the Anzus alliance with the US requesting acres to advanced missile technology. In short are we a trusted partner or not.

Here is a text copy.
9:46PM SEPTEMBER 07, 2021


Defence Minister Peter Dutton has, without quite saying so, given us a new defence doctrine. For the first time, we are going to embrace asymmetric warfare as the offensive party rather than the defensive party. It’s a revolution.


Submarines and frigates and tanks and armoured vehicles are all very well – but Australia is now moving decisively into the era when missiles and drones count much more.


Australia, says Dutton, will increasingly invest in “long-range strike weapons, offensive and defensive cyber, and area denial systems”, as well as “capabilities which can be produced in bulk, more quickly and cheaply, and where their loss would be more tolerable, without significantly impacting our force posture”.


Dutton wants cheap weapons that can “swarm” an enemy. And in case we didn’t get the point, he is explicit: “I am referring to assets like autonomous craft and remotely piloted drones.”


Dutton also speaks at some length about missiles and the government’s project to build missiles in Australia. He links this with Australia’s status as an ally included in the US National Technology and Industrial Base.


He calls on the Americans to give greater effect to Australia’s inclusion in its defence industry base. This is a slightly coded reference to asking for the transfer of intellectual property that would allow Australia to manufacture US-designed missiles in Australia, mainly for our own use but also as part of the US supply chain.


Dutton and Foreign Minister Marise Payne will shortly travel to the US for the 31st AUSMIN talks with their counterparts, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin. This missile partnership will be one of the key topics.


Thus, one key audience for Dutton’s speech is not Australian at all – it is the American diplomatic and defence establishment.


Australia wants to partner with the US in drone and missile warfare, the kind of warfare that could impose heavy costs on Chinese aggression without putting at risk impossibly expensive allied platforms like ships and aircraft.


The other important audience for Dutton’s speech is the Australian Defence Department and the Australian military. The government has been wanting to move down this path for some time, but the Australian Defence Organisation is addicted to the sleepy, antique force structure Australia has had for decades.


This force structure is no longer relevant or fit for purpose.


Dutton’s speech is clear, strong and purposeful. But the $64m question remains: where’s the beef, Jack?


Dutton is right to identify drones as a key to modern warfare but Australia still does not own a single armed drone. He’s right to talk of the centrality of missiles, but our missile stocks are pitifully small. The question is: will the government follow through on the strong strategy that Dutton has outlined, and will it do so in a relevant timeframe, which for Defence would be like changing to warp speed through a Star Trek wormhole, compared with its normal horse and buggy pace.


The other striking element of Dutton’s speech is the blunt way he talks about China. Australia welcomes China’s rise, he says, and wants to work constructively with Beijing. He then goes on to condemn “the activities of certain nations in our region like China which … undermine the sovereignty of other nations”.


The onus, he says, is on Beijing to demonstrate that it will contribute to regional stability, not undermine it.


Australia called out “malicious cyber activities by China’s Ministry of State Security” and will continue to speak frankly, Dutton says. He declares: “We will not be cowed.”


That frank talk needs desperately to be backed up by the frank action that Dutton has eloquently foreshadowed.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
And here is another article from Ben Packham along a similar vein.
9:54PM SEPTEMBER 07, 2021


Peter Dutton has signalled greater access to US missile technology will be a key test of the ANZUS alliance, ahead of an Australian push for unprecedented defence industry co-operation at high-level talks in Washington.


The Defence Minister, who will travel to the US with Foreign Minister Marise Payne next week for the discussions, said the allies needed to “pool our know-how and resources” to develop new long-range strike weapons, offensive cyber and unmanned capabilities – including autonomous and “swarming” drones.


But Mr Dutton, speaking at a closed Australian Chamber of Commerce in Australia session, said doing so would require the US to deliver on its commitment to integrate its closest allies’ defence industries into its congressionally mandated National Technology and Industrial Base.


The NTIB was expanded in 2017 to include Australia and Britain, after the inclusion of Canada in 1993. Despite promising a “defence free-trade area” for America’s closest allies, it has so far achieved only limited success in breaking down US export control barriers.


Mr Dutton, ahead of the Australia – US Ministerial Consultations, said Washington’s support for Australia’s proposed sovereign guided weapons enterprise would strengthen the nations’ military interoperability. “Bilateral industry support for the enterprise will be a practical demonstration of the strength of our inclusion in the US National Technology and Industrial Base,” he said.


Mr Dutton and Senator Payne will arrive in the US on September 16 for the “2+2” AUSMIN talks, after meeting counterparts in South Korea, Indonesia and India.


The Defence Minister said he was confident his first face-to-face meeting with Biden administration counterparts Lloyd Austin and Antony Blinken would “see our alliance level-up”.


Speaking at the same event, US charge d‘affaires Michael Goldman said he expected the AUSMIN talks to deliver “ambitious announcements on force posture, joint exercises and deployments”.


“Exercise Talisman Sabre and (the US marine deployment in Darwin) are excellent initiatives and I expect them to be built upon,” Mr Goldman said.


“On the civilian side I think you will see a renewed focus on Covid, but we will also see clear-eyed recognition of the challenges posed by our strategic competitors and a reinvigorated commitment to dealing with those challenges together.”


Scott Morrison will seek to progress the meeting’s outcomes during an expected trip to Washington in October or November.


Growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea and Beijing’s trade bans against $20bn worth of Australian exports will be key AUSMIN agenda items.


Mr Dutton said the Australia-US alliance had become more important in combating Beijing’s “increasingly coercive” behaviour.


“(China’s) activities undermine the sovereignty of other nations and grate against the rules-based international order – an order from which they have happily benefited for decades,” he said. “We must invigorate new energy into defence thinking and preparedness, so we are poised and ready for any eventuality.”


The year’s AUSMIN talks will occur against the backdrop of the US global force posture review, which is expected to position China and the Indo Pacific as America’s top strategic priorities.


Mr Dutton said Australia and the US needed to work more closely together “to achieve our force posture and defence capability objectives”.


Video: 'We are worried about the situation in the Indo-Pacific currently': Dutton


“That must include giving greater practical effect to Australia’s inclusion in the US National Technology and Industrial Base. It means both our governments and defence industry sectors working to reduce barriers to collaboration and integration.


“Our respective national industries and small businesses have unique skills. They are at the forefront of innovation in certain fields; they lead technological developments in distinct areas.


“Through co-operation, we can surge ahead, creating a whole that is far greater than the sum of our parts,” he told the event, organised and hosted by former Australian ambassador to the US Joe Hockey, now president of Bondi Partners.


Mr Dutton said it was vital for Australia to continue to invest in its core military capabilities, including submarines, frigates and fighter jets. But, in a reference to the government’s push to rapidly acquire new US guided missiles, he said Australia needed the ability “to hold a potential adversary’s forces and infrastructure at risk from a greater distance”.


He said the Australian Defence Force – which does not yet have a single armed drone – also needed to acquire new and inexpensive unmanned systems, “which can undertake multifaceted missions, be used in a swarm capacity, or teamed with traditional manned capabilities”.


Australian Strategic Policy Institute chief executive Michael Shoebridge said the US NTIB had underdelivered on its sweeping ambition, and it was important to focus on specific initiatives to address key strategic challenges.


“If there is one specific thing right now it is missile production in Australia,” he said. “That involves tightly held commercial and government intellectual property, and making a decision to have money spent in Australia rather than in the US, buying from their local production facility.”


He said dispersing US missile production to supplies in a conflict made strategic sense, but “it makes less sense if you are a congress-person with a missile production facility in your district”.


Mr Shoebridge said the proposed initiative would also have to overcome the lingering influence of Donald Trump’s “America First” mantra in President Joe Biden’s economic platform.


The Morrison government announced a $1bn plan in March to establish a sovereign guided weapons enterprise producing US-designed missiles in Australia. The government hopes the initiative will supply hi-tech weapons for both the ADF and the US military.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A missile or a drone can't hold ground. A missile is a one shot weapon. A drone can't think on the fly and adapt to changing circumstances quickly enough.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
True, not quickly enough…yet. Ten additional years of R&D on AI and drone technology will likely produce some pretty terrifying weapons.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
A missile or a drone can't hold ground. A missile is a one shot weapon. A drone can't think on the fly and adapt to changing circumstances quickly enough.
I’m not reading any more into Duttons comments (as opposed to the journo opinions) other than he wants to grow our asymmetric capabilities, increase our Missile capabilities, invest in armed drones and obtain some lower cost and more easily replaceable capabilities…. Whatever that last part means. His government is proceeding with a lot of traditional capability enhancements so I think this is as well as, not instead of.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I’m not reading any more into Duttons comments (as opposed to the journo opinions) other than he wants to grow our asymmetric capabilities, increase our Missile capabilities, invest in armed drones and obtain some lower cost and more easily replaceable capabilities…. Whatever that last part means. His government is proceeding with a lot of traditional capability enhancements so I think this is as well as, not instead of.
Yep, I am being facetious. I don't have much store for those who state that advanced technology can replace the grunt with a rifle and a bayonet holding the ground, because that's what it all comes down to in the end. The air forces and navies can win battles and campaigns but they cannot win wars because they cannot hold ground. Except all out nuclear war when nobody wins.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Well, air power has certainly shown in Afghanistan that they can't provide any real deterrence. Except for the strategic airlift, almost everything they did appears to argue against air power claims of importance and capability. On top of that, the use of UAVs has appeared to make the threat situation worse, regardless of the claims.

If people were willing, could make a fascinating basis for actual discussion about where to build a force and commit funds.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Flying drones and naval vessels controlled by AI are just the beginning because frankly it is just easier. It is far more complex having AI controlling ground units because you need to deal with the terrain and other obstacles. Could also be difficult to have a AI controlled machines assess threats and use judgement in certain situations.

However I think it is inevitable that AI will eventually be looked at to replace or supplement regular ground forces. If our side doesn't do it the other side will, so unless there is some sort of international agreement to limit that capability, it must happen.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Well, air power has certainly shown in Afghanistan that they can't provide any real deterrence. Except for the strategic airlift, almost everything they did appears to argue against air power claims of importance and capability. On top of that, the use of UAVs has appeared to make the threat situation worse, regardless of the claims.

If people were willing, could make a fascinating basis for actual discussion about where to build a force and commit funds.
Hmmm not so no sure of that. It’s a long bow to draw. Basically as soon as AirPower was removed the Taliban rolled up against all the grunts with Guns… but to be fair I think that was an outcome decided at the top of Afghan politics.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
A nice little article by Michael Shoebridge in ASPI today.

Well worth a read


Mirrors my concerns re timing and how we should deal with threats in the near future.


Thoughts


Regards S
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Yep, I am being facetious. I don't have much store for those who state that advanced technology can replace the grunt with a rifle and a bayonet holding the ground, because that's what it all comes down to in the end. The air forces and navies can win battles and campaigns but they cannot win wars because they cannot hold ground. Except all out nuclear war when nobody wins.
Yes agree but equally foot soldiers don’t really serve as a deterrent (unless there is a lot of them) until placed in front of the foe.

On the other hand the missiles are designed to strike from a distance and deny easy access. If the ADF can get Anti shipping with a range of 1000-2000km and gets the ability to find and target at that distance I see that as a deterrent for anyone coming in our direction.

If they get here it’s over to the army but by that stage the enemy should be at least degraded.

It’s the same strategy Taiwan is using. If they didn’t have the capability to sink ships I think the PRC Army would be there now.

To me the approach Dutton is taking makes sense.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
A nice little article by Michael Shoebridge in ASPI today.

Well worth a read


Mirrors my concerns re timing and how we should deal with threats in the near future.


Thoughts


Regards S
He makes many valid points about our glacial pace of decision making and acquisition. From memory here the decision to go to 12 subs was 2008. Think about what you were doing in 2008 and what has transpired in your life since then. And we are still years away from seeing any outcome and still arguing with the contractor at

The requirement to upgrade existing to new CRV and IFV was 2015. It’s too slow when compared to our main competitor.

Sure there will be comments here about its because this that or the other thing. Well that may be true but the reality is it’s too slow.

if anyone made a decision on 6 wrong subs back then in 2008/9/10 would we be in a better or worse position now. Would it be tragic we had only 6 new subs with only 4000m range or didn’t have the capabilities of the barracuda?

If someone was breaking into your home and you could get a gun in a few weeks or pick up a cricket bat now, what would you choose?

Why do we continually buy off the shelf and them modify them to a level that they are virtually unrecognisable to the original.

Why can’t RAN accept and work with a ship with that is exactly the same as the RN?

Thanks instead we tick every option box at the dealer and request a heap of customisation then stand around scratching our heads about delays and cost and then go and do it again next week.

This system is broken.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
He makes many valid points about our glacial pace of decision making and acquisition. From memory here the decision to go to 12 subs was 2008. Think about what you were doing in 2008 and what has transpired in your life since then. And we are still years away from seeing any outcome and still arguing with the contractor at

The requirement to upgrade existing to new CRV and IFV was 2015. It’s too slow when compared to our main competitor.

Sure there will be comments here about its because this that or the other thing. Well that may be true but the reality is it’s too slow.

if anyone made a decision on 6 wrong subs back then in 2008/9/10 would we be in a better or worse position now. Would it be tragic we had only 6 new subs with only 4000m range or didn’t have the capabilities of the barracuda?

If someone was breaking into your home and you could get a gun in a few weeks or pick up a cricket bat now, what would you choose?

Why do we continually buy off the shelf and them modify them to a level that they are virtually unrecognisable to the original.

Why can’t RAN accept and work with a ship with that is exactly the same as the RN?

Thanks instead we tick every option box at the dealer and request a heap of customisation then stand around scratching our heads about delays and cost and then go and do it again next week.

This system is broken.
Tell you why the RAN can't accept and work with a ship designed for the RN. The RAN operates in a completely different environment and has different CONOPS. Same with the rest of the ADF. There's also the sovereignty and sovereign capability issue as well.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Tell you why the RAN can't accept and work with a ship designed for the RN. The RAN operates in a completely different environment and has different CONOPS. Same with the rest of the ADF. There's also the sovereignty and sovereign capability issue as well.
I would also suspect a whole host of other issues that while relatively minor, would still be a problem. Unless the RAN was using the exact same kit across the board as the RN, then there have to be differences in RN vessels compared to RAN vessels. Something as minor as the firefighting kit can make a significant difference if the RAN uses one configuration and the RN another.

I suppose that the RAN could decide to adopt the same kit as the RN, but that would then likely mean that the RAN has to import their kit, vs. possibly being able to order and receive it from a domestic supplier and/or manufacturer.

The same sort of situation goes for virtually every piece of kit or ship's systems which the RAN operates a different type from the RN.
 
Top