ADF General discussion thread

[hauritz]

I am not expecting any surprises from the navy review. The SSNs and Hunters are locked in. Marles has already pretty much confirmed the navy will be acquiring Tier two ships. Really all that is left is tinkering with a few numbers and settling on a new design. I suspect we will see the production of the Arafura give way to production of a corvette/light frigate. The Hunter program may be cut back but I can't see how this would save money in short term. The only logical reason I can see for cutting back numbers of the Hunter would be to bring forward a new AWD program.

I think that the airforce is currently on hold to wait and see how the Ghostbat program develops. Ghostbat and its variants have the potential to take on a number of major roles but really it is too soon to make any major decisions. I think the one exception I would make would be more P-8s.

I am actually reasonably positive about the direction planned for the army. I believe a deployable littorial capability will be more relevant to Australia's current strategic environment.

 

[Julian 82]

I am not expecting any surprises from the navy review. The SSNs and Hunters are locked in. Marles has already pretty much confirmed the navy will be acquiring Tier two ships. Really all that is left is tinkering with a few numbers and settling on a new design. I suspect we will see the production of the Arafura give way to production of a corvette/light frigate. The Hunter program may be cut back but I can't see how this would save money in short term. The only logical reason I can see for cutting back numbers of the Hunter would be to bring forward a new AWD program.

I think that the airforce is currently on hold to wait and see how the Ghostbat program develops. Ghostbat and its variants have the potential to take on a number of major roles but really it is too soon to make any major decisions. I think the one exception I would make would be more P-8s.

I am actually reasonably positive about the direction planned for the army. I believe a deployable littorial capability will be more relevant to Australia's current strategic environment.

Yeah we will be able to deploy light forces who will be completely useless in close combat with a near peer enemy (noting that our region is increasingly urbanised or rural and not the thick jungles our grandfathers fought in). This is nothing but a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul because Labor are too stingy to spend the required amount on national defence.

 

[Volkodav]

Yeah we will be able to deploy light forces who will be completely useless in close combat with a near peer enemy (noting that our region is increasingly urbanised or rural and not the thick jungles our grandfathers fought in). This is nothing but a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul because Labor are too stingy to spend the required amount on national defence.

The army is still getting the most powerful, modern, well equipped armoured formation it has ever had. You can argue that there should be more than one brigade, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist and the gear it needs isn't being procured.

As to the political comments, the M-113 was being supplemented and replaced, elsewhere, from the mid 70s, i.e. when we had a Labor government. Since then we have had three CLP and three ALP governments and the M-113 is still used by the army as its primary infantry fighting vehicle. Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[Julian 82]

A

The army is still getting the most powerful, modern, well equipped armoured formation it has ever had. You can argue that there should be more than one brigade, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist and the gear it needs isn't being procured.

As to the political comments, the M-113 was being supplemented and replaced overseas from the mid 70s, i.e. when we had a Labor government. Since then we have had three CLP and three ALP governments and the M-113 is still used by the army as its primary infantry fighting vehicle. Pot, meet Kettle.

All the acquisitions in this DSR were ordered by the coalition government. Labor ordered Choules and the C-27J when they were last in government. That’s it. Now they are cutting the army and deferring tomahawk. Oh and they announced another 12 month review on what munitions/ missiles we are going to manufacture . Despite the rhetoric it’s just more delays, deferments and cuts. This government is not serious about defence. It’s just smoke and mirrors.

 

[buffy9]

A

All the acquisitions in this DSR were ordered by the coalition government. Labor ordered Choules and the C-27J when they were last in government. That’s it. Now they are cutting the army and deferring tomahawk. Oh and they announced another 12 month review on what munitions/ missiles we are going to manufacture . Despite the rhetoric it’s just more delays, deferments and cuts. This government is not serious about defence. It’s just smoke and mirrors.

I'm not certain it's that serious. There is a lot of uncertainty but no confirmation overall. The May 9th budget will hold more details on Defence spending and, ideally, give some certainty as to what direction things are heading. Defence still appears to be growing - just not at or to the degree which is probably necessary.

The important thing is we can scale in future - there is still continuous naval shipbuilding, factories for AFV/SPH, and the intended GWEO Enterprise. If a future government decides we need to actually have the resilience necessary for large-scale conflict, it does exist.

 

[Volkodav]

A

All the acquisitions in this DSR were ordered by the coalition government. Labor ordered Choules and the C-27J when they were last in government. That’s it. Now they are cutting the army and deferring tomahawk. Oh and they announced another 12 month review on what munitions/ missiles we are going to manufacture . Despite the rhetoric it’s just more delays, deferments and cuts. This government is not serious about defence. It’s just smoke and mirrors.

You need to move away from the political narrative because I can assure you there are a great many people here who can provide a complete breakdown on what was ordered when, which DMs and PMs (not just which party) were calling the shots at the time, what the global economic pressures were affecting the money available.

Simplistic blame, especially with a political slant, doesn't further this discussion, if anything it distracts and derails it.

Stick to the facts.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ok we are starting to get into fantasy fleets etc., again, with people obsessing on what may or may not be. WRT the RAN, we don't have enough information and won't do so until the RAN review is out. The DSR is a political document and like even White Papers, it only sets the govt policy. It is the DSR that will inform any capability reviews etc.

Calm down or the Moderation Team will seriously consider locking an thread where posters are over reaching.

 

[Julian 82]

I am not expecting any surprises from the navy review. The SSNs and Hunters are locked in. Marles has already pretty much confirmed the navy will be acquiring Tier two ships. Really all that is left is tinkering with a few numbers and settling on a new design. I suspect we will see the production of the Arafura give way to production of a corvette/light frigate. The Hunter program may be cut back but I can't see how this would save money in short term. The only logical reason I can see for cutting back numbers of the Hunter would be to bring forward a new AWD program.

I think that the airforce is currently on hold to wait and see how the Ghostbat program develops. Ghostbat and its variants have the potential to take on a number of major roles but really it is too soon to make any major decisions. I think the one exception I would make would be more P-8s.

I am actually reasonably positive about the direction planned for the army. I believe a deployable littorial capability will be more relevant to Australia's current strategic environment.

‎Lowy Institute: Military Strategist Mick Ryan on Australia’s Defence Strategic Review on Apple Podcasts

‎Show Lowy Institute, Ep Military Strategist Mick Ryan on Australia’s Defence Strategic Review - 27 Apr 2023

podcasts.apple.com

General Mick Ryan (one of Australia’s foremost strategists has given his assessments of the DSR). Well worth a listen.

 

[Volkodav]

Ok we are starting to get into fantasy fleets etc., again, with people obsessing on what may or may not be. WRT the RAN, we don't have enough information and won't do so until the RAN review is out. The DSR is a political document and like even White Papers, it only sets the govt policy. It is the DSR that will inform any capability reviews etc.

Calm down or the Moderation Team will seriously consider locking an thread where posters are over reaching.

Extremely good point.

What Australia has been lacking since the mid 90s is a high level strategic statement that guides everything else. What has been happening is government has been micro managing the details, selecting platforms, dictating how they are used, when their most critical job is providing high level strategic guidence so the experts can then advise what is required to achieve it.

 

[DDG38]

This just popped up in my news feed, and gee, just one or two slight security issues I can see with this proposal....
The radical proposal to recruit foreigners to fight for Australia
(if you're wondering what I'm alluding to, remember there is no accurate, factual way of testing someone's allegiance to a country)

 

[MickB]

This just popped up in my news feed, and gee, just one or two slight security issues I can see with this proposal....
The radical proposal to recruit foreigners to fight for Australia
(if you're wondering what I'm alluding to, remember there is no accurate, factual way of testing someone's allegiance to a country)

This issue has been raised in this forum before, with IIRC a generally positive responce in particular to pacific islanders.

 

[hauritz]

This just popped up in my news feed, and gee, just one or two slight security issues I can see with this proposal....
The radical proposal to recruit foreigners to fight for Australia
(if you're wondering what I'm alluding to, remember there is no accurate, factual way of testing someone's allegiance to a country)

Actually despite the security concerns this would seem a very good solution to me. In this case they wouldn’t be just fighting for Australia but the entire region, and by extension their own homes, as well.

This solves a lot of recruitment problems that Australia may face and works in with the littoral doctrine being adopted by the ADF.

Also let’s face it. The last thing any Island hopping invader would want to face off with is a well armed, well trained, pissed off Fijian or Maori.

 

[TScott]

Actually despite the security concerns this would seem a very good solution to me. In this case they wouldn’t be just fighting for Australia but the entire region, and by extension their own homes, as well.

This solves a lot of recruitment problems that Australia may face and works in with the littoral doctrine being adopted by the ADF.

Also let’s face it. The last thing any Island hopping invader would want to face off with is a well armed, well trained, pissed off Fijian or Maori.

I actually like the idea in that article of a Pacific Islanders/Oceania Regiment..

Realistically also, if there is major conflict in the pacific islands, they will be the first in, with as much zeal as if any other Australian solider was defending the mainland.

This works on a number of fronts imo.

Interesting that 1500 Fijians are currently serving in the British Army post a similar policy being enacted in 2018.

That's halfway to a new regiment from Fiji alone...

PNG has a population twice the size of New Zealand at almost 8 million, a standard of living comparable to Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan and Haiti according to the HDI.

Given our military and political history with PNG, they would be my main targets of such a recruitment drive.

 

[old faithful]

This just popped up in my news feed, and gee, just one or two slight security issues I can see with this proposal....
The radical proposal to recruit foreigners to fight for Australia
(if you're wondering what I'm alluding to, remember there is no accurate, factual way of testing someone's allegiance to a country)

Shouldn't be too hard when the Govt brings in 700,000 new immigrants over the next 2 years......I have no problem with immigration, but really? 350,000 per year, 100,000 more the NT's population? Thats a lot of infrastructure required.....and houses to rent. Too much too soon.

 

[Volkodav]

Shouldn't be too hard when the Govt brings in 700,000 new immigrants over the next 2 years......I have no problem with immigration, but really? 350,000 per year, 100,000 more the NT's population? Thats a lot of infrastructure required.....and houses to rent. Too much too soon.

We will send them all to the NT. Maybe appoint them as police.

 

[Takao]

I would much rather boost the various armed forces of the islands than recruit into the ADF.

Would I want a Oceanic Bn? Sure. It would be great. From a Canberra-centric view.

But, the people we recruit for the ADF are towards the top echelons. What is the knock-on effects to removing those people from the islands? If we take a chunk of their best and brightest, what hope their armed forces, their police, their schools, their hospitals? Wouldn't Suva want that young, capable CPL and their family to stay in Fiji? Spending money, providing an example, leading Fijian society? Isn't it better for Port Moresby that young, keen LEUT stays with her family, gets local medical experience in the patrol boats as they visit various villages and becomes a brilliant GP?

There is also the real risk of what happens when their home nation disagrees with Australia. What would an Oceanic Bn do if there was another coup in Fiji and we cut diplomatic ties?

Better, I think, that we help build their capability. We want a PNGDF, an RMF, a TLDF or a VMF that is as strong as they can be, familiar with the ADF (including individuals) and capable of working with us. Like we do now. I went through RMC and Weston Ck with reps from all those nations, plus Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and many others. Remember, PNG and Fiji both sent humanitarian aid to us last year with the floods. That's what I think we want. It gives those nations security and resilience, it portrays Australia as a supportive neighbour (not Imperium Australis) and injects flexibility into our strategy and response.

 

[At lakes]

Australian Defence Minister on the telly at the moment news channel 24 offering 50000 bonus if personnel re-sign on and dont quit. i dont know the fine print yet

 

[Redlands18]

Australian Defence Minister on the telly at the moment news channel 24 offering 50000 bonus if personnel re-sign on and dont quit. i dont know the fine print yet

Government to pledge $400 million in bonuses to ADF (msn.com)
ADF enlisted personnel haven't re-enlisted since 1985, when it went to an open-ended model. Basically you signed on for a minimum of 4 years* and after 3 1/2 years you could put in your discharge papers at any time with 6 months' notice. So I am not sure how this is going to work, it may result in a sudden rush of discharge papers by those enlisted personnel who had no plans to but believe they will get offered the bonus.

*There were some exceptions who have to serve longer, due to Return of Service obligations (ROSO).

 

[buffy9]

This just popped up in my news feed, and gee, just one or two slight security issues I can see with this proposal....
The radical proposal to recruit foreigners to fight for Australia
(if you're wondering what I'm alluding to, remember there is no accurate, factual way of testing someone's allegiance to a country)

The idea appears to have some traction, including from the PNG Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko.

Why Australia would be smart to recruit soldiers in the Pacific – a Fijian who served in the British Army explains

Many Pacific islanders would likely not feel exploited serving in a foreign army; they would see it as an honourable duty that comes with economic benefits to improve their lives.

theconversation.com

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_MRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fdefence%2Fpapua-new-guinea-backs-an-albanese-government-push-to-embed-pacific-island-troops-in-australian-defence-force%2Fnews-story%2F4df224e4db4a9597209ba7c7ea1c6cb4&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-low-test-score&V21spcbehaviour=append

Unfortunately the Australian article is paywalled, though both indicate at least some degree of support within PNG and Fiji.

I think the idea has merit considering we have a need and there is, at face value, some willingness from people in the South Pacific to do this. Whether it is the best way I don't know, professionalising their forces would be excellent - though whether there is the will to invest more or to conduct deeper BPC type work, I'm doubtful. DFAT is getting money and DCP has been recommended to be prioritised, so maybe?

I think there is room in areas of lower security risk. They don't necessarily have to be pilots or submariners - medics, engineers, tradees, there are a lot of roles where the security risk is manageable and where it has been acknowledged Defence may need to lower its bar for risk.

 

[Flexson]

Government to pledge $400 million in bonuses to ADF (msn.com)
ADF enlisted personnel haven't re-enlisted since 1985, when it went to an open-ended model. Basically you signed on for a minimum of 4 years* and after 3 1/2 years you could put in your discharge papers at any time with 6 months' notice. So I am not sure how this is going to work, it may result in a sudden rush of discharge papers by those enlisted personnel who had no plans to but believe they will get offered the bonus.

*There were some exceptions who have to serve longer, due to Return of Service obligations (ROSO).

No doubt it will work the same as for all the Navy bonuses over the last 15 odd years.
I'm open ended enlistment, have been since 2009 as a condition of accepting the promotion at the time to Leading Seaman. If you look at my PMKeyS I have an engagement end date (day before my 60 birthday) and a compulsory retirement date (day of my 60 birthday). I also have an Obligation end date which is a date in 2027. This is because the bonuses I have taken means I can't get out before that date. If I didn't take these bonuses then I would be free to submit my discharge papers whenever. Now I can't submit them until, at the earliest, 1 year before the obligation end date.

With the Navy bonuses those eligible (depending on certain criteria) are advised individually that they are eligible and given a window of time to accept. If they accept the obligation end date is added to their PMKeyS. If they voluntarily choose to discharge before this obligation end date then they must pay back, pro-rata, the before tax outstanding time amount. Which is one of the incentives not to discharge before obligation end as you will lose out due to the tax you paid on the original bonus amount.