Pleased with the quality of the new kit (if not always the quantity) coming into the ADF.
Now seems to be a good time to establish long term partnerships with defence industries in other countries.
A long term commitment could allow more Aust input into future equipment. While still maintaining local manufacture.
We have AUKUS for subs.
Join with Japan for future surface warships. Eg AWD , Drone Carrier and the future replacement for the GPFs.
Join with South Korea for future AFVs and Artillery.
Join the consortium for Tempest.
These will assist in building stronger ties and interoperability with close regional allies.
These countries may come to view Aust manufactures and repair facilities as part of their own supply chain.
None of these will produce short term results but should really pay off in the future.
Now seems to be a good time to establish long term partnerships with defence industries in other countries.
A long term commitment could allow more Aust input into future equipment. While still maintaining local manufacture.
We have AUKUS for subs.
Join with Japan for future surface warships. Eg AWD , Drone Carrier and the future replacement for the GPFs.
Join with South Korea for future AFVs and Artillery.
Join the consortium for Tempest.
These will assist in building stronger ties and interoperability with close regional allies.
These countries may come to view Aust manufactures and repair facilities as part of their own supply chain.
None of these will produce short term results but should really pay off in the future.
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
An interview with a former U.S. military officer, who later became an Intelligence Officer and is now an Australian Citizen.
Provides some good insights into the current relationship between Australia and the U.S.
Interestingly, he thinks AUKUS is not in Australia's interest and the planned 3 Virginia Class subs are unlikely to ever be provided to Australia.
Provides some good insights into the current relationship between Australia and the U.S.
Interestingly, he thinks AUKUS is not in Australia's interest and the planned 3 Virginia Class subs are unlikely to ever be provided to Australia.
Looked John Powers up. Held some very high roles in the Intel community. Has a pretty good idea of the lay of the land. Interesting about the pressure on the 3.5% defence spend. Given the ship and sub building project pipeline and our history of blow outs …I can’t see how we will be under 3.5% in 5-6 years time.
A senior US Senator has told Insiders host David Speers Australia’s level of defence spending is much closer to 3% of GDP, if shipyards and other defence infrastructure is included.
Coons is visiting Australia as part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He backs calls for Australia to spend more on defence, but says some elements haven’t been taken into account.
Coons is visiting Australia as part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He backs calls for Australia to spend more on defence, but says some elements haven’t been taken into account.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
It is being reported by various media sources that the Department of Defence has resurrected the former JP9102. Joint Project 9102 was launched in 2017 to deliver sovereign SATCOM using one or two satellites in geostationary orbit. In April 2023 Lockheed Martin was chosen as preferred tenderer only to have Defence announce it was pulling the plug in November 2024, ceasing the current procurement activity with Lockheed Martin Australia.
In the reporting by Australian Defence Magazine it stated that "In RFI documents, Defence said the sole purpose of this Request for Information was to obtain information in connection with SPA9102 Narrowband satellite communications. It was not a procurement and did not form part of any Commonwealth procurement process." Based on the stated focus being narrowband SATCOM it would indicate just a replacement for the IS-22 satellite provided TACSAT capability is being investigated.
Whether the SkyMuster satellites operated by NBN could be utilised as a temporary broadband SATCOM capability to augment the WGS and Optus-C1D capacity might also need to be investigated as part of any future expansion of SPA9102. The move to LEO and/or MEO constellations would have impacts on the ground segment (terminals and anchor sites) and the control segment as well.
In the reporting by Australian Defence Magazine it stated that "In RFI documents, Defence said the sole purpose of this Request for Information was to obtain information in connection with SPA9102 Narrowband satellite communications. It was not a procurement and did not form part of any Commonwealth procurement process." Based on the stated focus being narrowband SATCOM it would indicate just a replacement for the IS-22 satellite provided TACSAT capability is being investigated.
Whether the SkyMuster satellites operated by NBN could be utilised as a temporary broadband SATCOM capability to augment the WGS and Optus-C1D capacity might also need to be investigated as part of any future expansion of SPA9102. The move to LEO and/or MEO constellations would have impacts on the ground segment (terminals and anchor sites) and the control segment as well.
I had a fair bit of time being briefed on Skymuster capabilities back in the Telco days. Fairly certain skymuster sats couldn’t be used. As far as I am aware there isn’t much scope to upgrade or modify them. From memory there only 2 of them in orbit directly above the equator at an altitude of about 35kms. imagine they would be an easy target. I’m not sure of the available capacity but over the past 6 years NBN co has pushed fibre out into regional locations that may have alleviated the peak loads.
PM hints at $40 billion defence splurge to soothe Trump
Marles trip to the US seems to have been somewhat unusual. The various leaks around it, indicate that it was not normal. The PM's language on additional funding has shifted, and the media leaks are increasing.
It's hard to know exactly what is going on here, however it would at least be safe to assume defence funding communications are getting off script, reactive, and much harder to control for the government.
This all looks like Marles made an emergency trip to the US to make private defence spending concessions and avoid a catastrophe.
I personally think they will struggle to avoid at some point aligning to the 3.5/5% strategy. It just a matter of when, how they will structure it and what the timeframe will be.
I can't imagine the government doesn't have a plan for this, but it looks like they are playing for time.
Marles trip to the US seems to have been somewhat unusual. The various leaks around it, indicate that it was not normal. The PM's language on additional funding has shifted, and the media leaks are increasing.
It's hard to know exactly what is going on here, however it would at least be safe to assume defence funding communications are getting off script, reactive, and much harder to control for the government.
This all looks like Marles made an emergency trip to the US to make private defence spending concessions and avoid a catastrophe.
I personally think they will struggle to avoid at some point aligning to the 3.5/5% strategy. It just a matter of when, how they will structure it and what the timeframe will be.
I can't imagine the government doesn't have a plan for this, but it looks like they are playing for time.
I think you are right and it is the same calculation western European states are making. If you don’t commit funds to placate the US you need to commit funds to address contingencies that might have been expected to be addressed or forestalled by the US (the low budget option is to gamble that US politics realign).
Seems sensible to budget for that as early as possible, but government needs to be making a case to public.
it would also seem prudent for the Australian government to bring its method of calculation of defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP closer to NATO methods though.
But what would we even spend it on?
12 SSNs instead of 9?
9 Hunters, and 6 AWD variants?
18 Mogamis?
Enough warstocks for a year of high intensity conflict?
A new squadron of Wedgetails?
A new squadron of P-8s?
A squadron of B21s?
An armoured brigade?
An Australian flagged fleet of bulkers and tankers?
Even with all of the above I don’t think that would reach $40bn p.a. - that’s an enormous amount of spending.
I had the same qiestion.
I had the same question. Although I think the headline,"
PM hints at $40 billion defence splurge to soothe Trump," is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I can't see anywhere in the article where Albanese hints at 40 billion extra per annum. What he does say is pretty much what he has consistently said. ""what we're going to do is do what we like, which is to provide us with whatever assets we need and our capability".(9 News) And, "We'll continue to provide whatever investment is required to make sure that we lift our capability and we lift our relationships as well." (9 News). I really don't see 40 Billion extra a year being anything like realistic in the current circumstances. Even if Australia lifted it's defence spending to 2.75 % tomorrow, that's an extra 15 to to 20 billion per annum, depending on claculations. That's still a lot of extra funding. I think an extra 10 to 12 billion per annum increase is a doable and a more realistic number. Even then, the GOTD would need to make the case. Something, to my mind anyway, no government has been particularly good at doing so far. I don't think saying because Trump and Hegseth said so, would go down a treat with Australian voters. Still, if we're looking to spend money, we could always throw a few billion New Zealands way, so they can buy themselves a few new frigates.
PM hints at $40 billion defence splurge to soothe Trump," is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I can't see anywhere in the article where Albanese hints at 40 billion extra per annum. What he does say is pretty much what he has consistently said. ""what we're going to do is do what we like, which is to provide us with whatever assets we need and our capability".(9 News) And, "We'll continue to provide whatever investment is required to make sure that we lift our capability and we lift our relationships as well." (9 News). I really don't see 40 Billion extra a year being anything like realistic in the current circumstances. Even if Australia lifted it's defence spending to 2.75 % tomorrow, that's an extra 15 to to 20 billion per annum, depending on claculations. That's still a lot of extra funding. I think an extra 10 to 12 billion per annum increase is a doable and a more realistic number. Even then, the GOTD would need to make the case. Something, to my mind anyway, no government has been particularly good at doing so far. I don't think saying because Trump and Hegseth said so, would go down a treat with Australian voters. Still, if we're looking to spend money, we could always throw a few billion New Zealands way, so they can buy themselves a few new frigates.
It would be a little like drinking from a fire hose.
However if you assume we will align with the NATO calculation, putting us at about 3%, then its half this amount ($15-20B) to achieve 3.5%. Still drinking from a fire hose, just a slightly smaller one.
Second point is that it would likely be significantly forward budgeted 5-10 years. So plenty of time to plan and place long orders.
- Step 1 people. About a third could go to salaries, conditions and other people oriented items, including personal combat equipment. Helps retention and future recruitment.
- Step 2 ammunition. Another third on projectiles We could easily expand this basic requirement, small arms through to top end missiles. $1B equates to about 350 NSMs.
- Step 3. New capability. After the first two, there is only about $6-7 billion on new equipment. I'd suggest a third of this goes to intelligence and cyber services. About a third to new autonomous systems and additional support to the pacific islands. The remaining third to top ups of systems we already have (keeping hot factories open).
Last edited:
Very tongue in cheek there for New Zealand, however your point could be more relevent to the pacific islands. We recently co-funded a naval base in PNG, it would be of value to do the same in say Fiji and Kirrabati.I had the same question. Although I think the headline,"
PM hints at $40 billion defence splurge to soothe Trump," is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I can't see anywhere in the article where Albanese hints at 40 billion extra per annum. What he does say is pretty much what he has consistently said. ""what we're going to do is do what we like, which is to provide us with whatever assets we need and our capability".(9 News) And, "We'll continue to provide whatever investment is required to make sure that we lift our capability and we lift our relationships as well." (9 News). I really don't see 40 Billion extra a year being anything like realistic in the current circumstances. Even if Australia lifted it's defence spending to 2.75 % tomorrow, that's an extra 15 to to 20 billion per annum, depending on claculations. That's still a lot of extra funding. I think an extra 10 to 12 billion per annum increase is a doable and a more realistic number. Even then, the GOTD would need to make the case. Something, to my mind anyway, no government has been particularly good at doing so far. I don't think saying because Trump and Hegseth said so, would go down a treat with Australian voters. Still, if we're looking to spend money, we could always throw a few billion New Zealands way, so they can buy themselves a few new frigates.
The islands also have high value runways that would provide very nice aircraft nodes through to Hawaii. Perhaps useful refuelling points for a larger fleet of Tritons.
I personally think there is benefit in a larger fleet of guardian class patrol boats, providing better constabulary presence and just more eyes and ears in the region.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Naval News has reported the delivery of a new landing craft to the Tongan Defence Forces. This is in addition to the Guardian class patrol boats. So there is already a willingness to expand the capabilities of the Pacific Island nations. The thing is to give them capabilities that they require not what we think they should have. With the hardware must also come the infrastructure (ports, fuel storage etc) and the training for the manpower to operate and maintain the hardware
If we hit those levels of expenditure it won't be until the 2030s or even 2040s. This government has already put forward its defence plans and they are supposedly fully funded. I don't imagine we will see any further increases until there is another major review and I can't see that happening anytime soon.
The current government, and even the previous government, are the masters of procrastination.
I missed that news alert, so thanks. That is exactly the type of investment in the Pacific Islands that we should do more of. And to your point, correctly made, improved security in this region (or ours for that matter) is not always about pointy ended boats with guns.
Gift the Capes to ABF and Pacific island nations and bring back the OCV program imo.