As focused as many are on major war, the reality is that the ADF has many missions outside that, fairly narrow, area. Australia also spends more time at peace than war. Meaning said tasks occur much more frequently.
One key task is the non-warlike, diplomatic and constabulary tasks of the RAN. Navies carry so much more peacetime tasks than the other two Services and always have.
Agreed on the fact ADF spends more time at peace than at War. This is why it needs adaptable, scalable and modular yet balanced force design. This allows for the unexpected. Note: balance doesn't have to mean equal.
The RAN may currently carry more non-warlike, diplomatic and constabulary tasks but it could be asked, should they? We have ABF.
Currently to the nature of Operation Sovereign Borders naturally the RAN has a large role to play. But the RAAF plays an equally demanding role.
I do think for now RAN needs to maintain responsibility for patrol and control of current and future assets but one day this may need to change.
I think you might be understating the non-warlike tasks of the other services. Peacetime engagements such as overseas training and capacity building, humanitarian and disaster relief (at home and abroad), and cooperative activities with other agencies are generally the role of the Army. But in line with the join forces concept, they generally (especially OS) need the Navy or Air Force to get there. Service rivalry aside we need to be a joint force. We do not want to head down the US path of services competing for funds. This has led to some colossal economic blunders and runs the danger of the military influencing politics, a slippery slope for a liberal democracy.
Port visits are great for as a token diplomacy. But an overseas Army presence in the country is deeply engaged politically, and usually are more closely involved with local populations over long periods in a way in which sailors and air personnel are generally not. This sends signals to the host nation, other states and non-state actors. A highly visible and clearly understood presence. This gives a high level of reassurance and offers a level of diplomatic commitment that a ship stationed offshore, simply cannot. The same could be said for disaster relief and Army operations in Australia, the presence of Army personnel rallies, engages and reassures the community in a way that other agencies cannot. During national emergencies its usually (but not always) Army helicopters that typically called to assist. That said, I am sure the sight of Navy ships during the black summer 2019 fires was a sigh of relief to the people of Mallacoota.
A carrier or ship 100 kms off the coast sends a powerful signal to an adversary and to the nation you are supporting, but it is a mixed signal. To the adversary there is significant firepower sitting off our coast, but they don’t care enough to get up close and personal and risk standing between us and our objective. To the nation you are supporting it is yes, we will support you, but not stand shoulder to shoulder with you and face the threat in the mud, suffering in the same way you do.
Ukraine shows how quickly ground equipment can be delivered and new units raised, not ideal by any means, but doable.
With the RAN however MFUs take years.
Does Ukraine really show that? All Western powers have been unable to keep up.
During the current conflict, both Ukraine and Russia have suffered huge losses and used ammunition at an unsustainable rate. The pace of combat has forced Russia to pull decades old equipment out of storage and seek supplies from Belarus, North Korea, and Iran. Ukraine in contrast has been forced to beg for equipment and ammunition from the West, much of which has already been heavily used and is breaking down from wear and tear rather than from combat. Further to this NATO militaries have discovered their stockpiles short on the ammunition and equipment needed to fight a high-intensity war, and they are now struggling to keep up with Ukraine’s needs. A high percentage of the global north has gifted Ukraine equipment, and it still isn’t enough.
See
here
The West has been pulling obsolete equipment out of storage to gift. What if there isn’t equipment in storage? Ukraine is a localised conflict. Between middle powers. What if it is a global conflict, and every nation needs equipment for their own security? Self-preservation means nations will act in their own national and self-interest.
Certainly, appreciate that RAN MFUs (yes, we need more) take years to build, longer than political cycles. This is part of the problem, and why we should stick to a long term and sustainable growth plan for RAN, unless there is a significant change in circumstances no need to change - improve and adapt if needed but don't throw it out and start again every four years for political purposes.
The thing people misunderstood with Beersheba Bde's were that they were not war fighting Bde's. The Army's mission is not to fight wars - it's to prepare land power. What this means is that when time comes to deploy a JTF, we would assemble the land component from various Bde's. Because every level of command was already familiar with all the capabilities of a Bde, it didn't matter where you grabbed them - a Coy from 1 RAR, 5 RAR or 6 RAR could just as easily pair with a Tp from 2 Cav to build a combat team. That no longer exists. If you want a Mech CT you need to use 1 or 3 RAR. That's okay for a one-shot (assuming you only have the one task), but where are the follow-on/replacement forces coming from? Previously, any of the Bn could. Now?
100% on this and why I am quite critical of the decision to change the MRB structure and centralize all of the armour in Townville and other capabilities elsewhere.
a - a robust and rehearsed mobilisation plan. We need 1100 odd IFVs but bout 150-ish? Ok, how do we make up the numbers? Where do extra SM-2 come from? Spare parts for the E-7s? Fuel to Tindal? etc etc etc. That helps identify what's next
b - list of tasks. From this, what capabilities do we 100% need all the time (say, DDG, E-7, CDT, LHD, some special RAE units). This honestly won't be a long list....
c - a prioritisation of kit based on (b), with workforce matching in (a). This is the stuff that we buy in peace. Rule of thumb, long build or highly technical. So FFG/DDG/F-35/E-7/tank/helo for each Service. Then what is the minimal viable level (based on delivery time) and ensure the delta is covered in (a).
In principle, this would see maritime forces prioritised, then airlift, then air strike, then mech forces.
While I do agree, we need a robust and rehearsed mobilisation plan. Does mobilisation work in the same way it did in times gone by?
National mobilisation is not whole-of-government but rather whole-of-society response, including accessing resources from the wider global domain.
Active duty and reserve troops are obligated to go where they are ordered too. Mobilisation relies on the population agreeing to the cause. In the divisive world we live today, people would disagree on whether water is wet or not. Sure, the government can order people and companies to do things, make its case for mobilisation but that doesn’t mean they will. What is the government going to do if people refuse or object, lock everyone up? Then you’ll have a civil war on your hands as well, further exacerbating the situation. Not very becoming of a democracy to be worse than whatever threat it is mobilising against. We also need to consider that nations alone no longer hold a monopoly on power, non-state actors may not see mobilisation in their interest.
This is where those IO (soft power: propaganda, persuasion, counter IWIO) may come into play.
Mobilisation also relies on your national ability to acquire, produce or generate the all the necessary elements to fight and sustain the war. In the globalised world we live today supply chains are international, few nations can produce everything they need, look how quickly COVID-19 disrupted these supply chains, turned people against each other and generally sent the world FUBAR. If the world is engaged in biological or nuclear warfare, or there is a major world changing climate event. How effective is a call to arms mobilisation going to be?
The world is also a much more multi-cultural and multi-polar place than it was. As much as many would like to believe it, the world is not split down two lines of good verses bad anymore. The contemporary population has access to information and education that it did not have in the past.
The patriotism that existed during the two world wars which was very much an enabler to mobilisation isn't the same. Unblinded trust in the government no longer exists, people have become global citizens with their own views. They form communities with those that they share values, similarities or interests. For many, those values may be at odds with said mobilisation. There of course will also be an effort by your adversary to prevent, complicate and delay mobilisation through - active and passive means. Those IO raise their head again.
Our alliance structures are generally steadfast and solid, but support can be never 100% be guaranteed, if faced with extinction or supporting their ally, fairly safe bet most nations would act in a way that ensures their survival. This is human nature.
We hear people talk about risk regularly here on defencetalk. With only a small fraction of the risks of relying on mobilisation articulated here. Are you prepared to rest your survival on it?
