ADF General discussion thread

There is a bigger issue with the Fijian forces, that they are over sized and take on a significant amount of UN taskings to keep them occupied.
Fiji: The Peacekeepers

East Timor, PNG, Tonga, Samoa etc are also keen or looking or in similar type of missions and the money working for the UN brings in.

Now looking at our new UN partnership in the Golan Heights, which is new of AUS but old ground for Fiji.
Stepping up to the UN: Australia’s peacekeeping deployment with Fiji | The Strategist

I think that is the critical direction for this. Australia facilitating Pacific nations involvement in UN missions and filling out their capability with some of our own higher and heaver capability when needed.

Is this conversation about cross training or integration?

Cross training with our near neighbours is a must,so please lets take it as far as one can.
We can all learn from each other.
But integration ties in with nationhood and sovereignty.
I'm sceptical on this suggestion and don't see the benefits of the ADF having a foreign legion.
This is not directed at any other nation, however big or small. At the end of the day we need to try and do this ourselves first.
We can still however have allies.Allies working alongside us, rather than within our force structure on a permanent basis.
But yes we need to be a good neighbours to our region and military links do build bridges that facilitate relationships on many levels.

Maybe if the suggestion that the colony's of Fiji and New Zealand had joined the Australian Colony's back in the 1890's when our federation was proposed, we many have in fact got the defence force some are suggesting.

What do you say Ngatimozart
Time for another vote



Regards S

Stampede said:

Is this conversation about cross training or integration?

Cross training with our near neighbours is a must,so please lets take it as far as one can.
We can all learn from each other.
But integration ties in with nationhood and sovereignty.
I'm sceptical on this suggestion and don't see the benefits of the ADF having a foreign legion.
This is not directed at any other nation, however big or small. At the end of the day we need to try and do this ourselves first.
We can still however have allies.Allies working alongside us, rather than within our force structure on a permanent basis.
But yes we need to be a good neighbours to our region and military links do build bridges that facilitate relationships on many levels.

Maybe if the suggestion that the colony's of Fiji and New Zealand had joined the Australian Colony's back in the 1890's when our federation was proposed, we many have in fact got the defence force some are suggesting.

What do you say Ngatimozart
Time for another vote



Regards S

Click to expand...

We don't mind adding the states of Australia as provinces of NZ. It's always regarded it as our West Island anyway

I think that you would have to be extremely careful about incorporating part of another nations armed forces into yours. There's always the vexatious question of sovereignty surrounding those forces and then more practical but important things such as the rate of pay for the personnel whilst they are in Australia and who pays them. For example would the Republic of Fiji, or the kingdom of Tonga, etc., be able to pay its troops the equivalent of Australian army pay and allowances; yet those troops would be living and working in exactly the same conditions as their Aussie digger compatriots, having the same cost of living expenses and pressures. They'd have families to support etc., as well as their own living expenses. The equivalent per annum pay cost for a regiment sized force would bankrupt the nation and even a company sized force would most like be the equivalent of the country's annual defence budget.

So would Australia be willing to fully fund such an initiative? IMHO unless there is a significant increase to the defence budget, I don't believe that there is funding available for such an undertaking. The ADF has a sizeable number of higher priority acquisitions and projects that it has to fund at the moment and for the next few years. Maybe the best option could be to embed small cadres of officers and NCOs into Aussie units for training purposes and then include whole units in exercises like Talisman Sabre or Southern Katipo (here in NZ).

Double post

Sideline said:

ALSO I don't know if any of you have seen this U.S. Military Could Collapse Within 20 Years Due to Climate Change, a report commissioned By Pentagon says a combination of global starvation, war, disease, drought, and a fragile power grid could have a cascading, devastating effect. NOTE I can't find the source report.

Click to expand...

The security problems and pressures talked about in this report would be applicable to most western nations including Australia and New Zealand. While acceptance of climate change is gaining momentum, there is still a reluctance to talk about or understand the problem of unrestrained population growth and its effects, one of which is as a driver behind climate change. The reasons for this are mainly political (both left and right wing politics require an expanding population for the extra taxes ) and religious as most major religions have a "Go forth and multiply " The security problems this will bring in the years to come will be of a greatly increased nature to what they are now as desperate people will follow demonic leaders (as per Germany and Adolf Hitler) who will use this desperation to their own ends. Our pollies are very unlikely to take steps to counter this problem and will always be in the "TOO LITTLE TOO LATE" brigade

ngatimozart said:

We don't mind adding the states of Australia as provinces of NZ. It's always regarded it as our West Island anyway

I think that you would have to be extremely careful about incorporating part of another nations armed forces into yours. There's always the vexatious question of sovereignty surrounding those forces and then more practical but important things such as the rate of pay for the personnel whilst they are in Australia and who pays them. For example would the Republic of Fiji, or the kingdom of Tonga, etc., be able to pay its troops the equivalent of Australian army pay and allowances; yet those troops would be living and working in exactly the same conditions as their Aussie digger compatriots, having the same cost of living expenses and pressures. They'd have families to support etc., as well as their own living expenses. The equivalent per annum pay cost for a regiment sized force would bankrupt the nation and even a company sized force would most like be the equivalent of the country's annual defence budget.

So would Australia be willing to fully fund such an initiative? IMHO unless there is a significant increase to the defence budget, I don't believe that there is funding available for such an undertaking. The ADF has a sizeable number of higher priority acquisitions and projects that it has to fund at the moment and for the next few years. Maybe the best option could be to embed small cadres of officers and NCOs into Aussie units for training purposes and then include whole units in exercises like Talisman Sabre or Southern Katipo (here in NZ).

Click to expand...

Rather than governance from the "Beehive",maybe a compromise for the region.
How about Norfolk Island?.........................It has a gaol!

Many issues associated with foreign troops within the ranks of other nations with pay and conditions not to be underestimated.
The British Army have had this issue with the Gurkha Regiments over the years. Not just during actual service, but also with veteran benefits.
These are long term commitments.
Always much to consider should we go done that path.

Regards S

ASSAIL said:

Is it any different in principle to having a Gurkha regiment in the British Army? Yes there could be differences in detail dependent upon how they were integrated, and;
Yes there would be problems if they were fully integrated, sovereignty, jurisdiction re discipline and maybe more unforeseen obstacles but surely it would benefit both sides for all but full combat duties.
The strategic benefits would far outweigh any organisational difficulties.

Click to expand...

There would also be legislative issues, though not insurmountable, around citizenship requirements. I am not convinced that some pacifist elements of our polity would support the notion of us "integrating peaceful Pacific Islanders into our warmongering ways" nor that the PI nations would necessarily want us making their best and brightest into Australian citizens if it meant their loss - dual citizenship solves that though.

Citizenship

Options for non-citizens

Click to expand...

In exceptional circumstances, if a position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen the citizenship requirement may be waived and applications may be accepted from:

• Permanent residents who can prove they have applied for citizenship
• Permanent residents who are prepared to apply for citizenship after they have completed 90 days of relevant Defence (effective) service.
• Overseas applicants with relevant military experience (see below).

Please be aware that if, as a permanent resident, you refuse citizenship or fail in your application, your ADF service will be terminated.

Click to expand...

This suggests to me at least that there would need to be changes to allow block filling of large numbers of positions or the hiring of several times as many bureaucrats to manage the process as it now exists

oldsig

oldsig127 said:

There would also be legislative issues, though not insurmountable, around citizenship requirements. I am not convinced that some pacifist elements of our polity would support the notion of us "integrating peaceful Pacific Islanders into our warmongering ways" nor that the PI nations would necessarily want us making their best and brightest into Australian citizens if it meant their loss - dual citizenship solves that though.

oldsig

Click to expand...

"integrating peaceful Pacific Islanders into our warmongering ways" haha. Obviously those pacifists haven't had the pleasure of experiencing the camaraderie between Fijian army SNCOs & the PNG army SNCOs when both groups have partaken of copious quantities of fire water. 'Tis a sight to behold - from a distance.

Ha, peaceful.

The ADF is really the vehicle to solve some of the asperiational issues occurring in the Pacific. If we do nothing, we will end up with mercenaries fighting each other. Fijian mercenaries in Bougainville - Wikipedia

Citizenship is certainly part of the equation. I don't think Australia would find any shortage of high quality applicants in a Pacific Regiment. I don't think we would have any shortage of jobs for them to do and part-take in. While they will come in as light infantry, they are looking for capability beyond that, but that isn't always viable in a small pacific island force.

Look at US recruitment in American Samoa, highest recruitment compared to any US state or territory.

StingrayOZ said:

Citizenship is certainly part of the equation. I don't think Australia would find any shortage of high quality applicants in a Pacific Regiment. I don't think we would have any shortage of jobs for them to do and part-take in. While they will come in as light infantry, they are looking for capability beyond that, but that isn't always viable in a small pacific island force.

Look at US recruitment in American Samoa, highest recruitment compared to any US state or territory.

Click to expand...

The ADF doesn't have a recruitment issue - particularly in the combat arms.

Note that this whole proposal is NOT about solving an ADF problem.

Clearly defining the problem that is trying to be solved is critical before leaping to solutions.

Regards,

Massive

Yeh, I probably framed that incorrectly. I was trying to address the concern that they would just be light infantry, and I think that assumption may not be entirely accurate.

Its about pacific nations forces, skills, roles and integration, then a whole lot of other secondary issues about opportunity, stability, engagement etc.

The UN Fijian mission I think it a great case study. You have a significant mission, capture of Fijian forces, lack of capability from the UN and others to really address, that or stop it from re-occurring. While Fijian forces doing UN mission creates other problems. There is probably an opportunity to make a bit more a unified approach to that, leveraging off Australia's wider breath of capabilities, that it could enable these type of missions much more effectively and back it up with more capability.

Which is probably a better way to frame it. Perhaps a Pacific regiment specifically for UN type missions. Able to use Australian equipment and capabilities, beyond what is possible to integrate into small nation forces. So you might have some UAV drivers, cavalry, specials depending on the force mix needed and the type of missions we would be looking at (which tend to be decade long or perpetual type stuff).
Deployed pay rate would basically be the UN payrate, so this in terms of $ cost is very little to the AU gov, its not taking "places" from Australians or anything like that. Its not coming out of Army head count etc.

We have also played a critical role in getting say Vietnam into some UN missions and being an enabler there. So this might have some benefits to the wider region beyond that, where we can offer expertise in something the ADF doesn't typically do a lot of directly (UN Missions). Doing it under the UN banner would also help alleviate some of the "colonial" concerns regarding this, if they are just doing UN missions then that has a very different flavor to being injected into whatever op we commit to.

Defence Connect


Interesting,
Former air marshals Leo Davies and Geoff Brown say Australia's strike capabilities need a boost. Whilst I agree that more long range strike is needed operations over Syria showed the enabling assets needed to strike at range, but realistically besides the extra submarines what could the ADF buy and deploy without sending us bankrupt.

The proposed B21 on price alone is a no go for defence, just as land based long range strike missile creates problems our adversaries will likely detect the launch, would a 6 extra Attack class submarine but with increased land attack capability be the way to go but that’s just as expensive as B21. Just what way can we realistically increase our long range strike capbilty.

In hindsight I think it was a mistake for the USAF not to pursue the FB-22 least it would have been a true replacement for the F111

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/January 2005/0105raptor.pdf

My 2c:

There's not a great deal we can do in the short term, save perhaps making sure that we have healthy warstocks of standoff PGMs? I would hope and expect that the F35 will receive a new variable bypass powerplant around a decade from now which will give it longer legs.

Beyond that I'd suggest we might take a long hard look at both FCAS and PCA/NGAD, assuming they bear fruit in a remotely timely manner (perhaps a big assumption). A long legged platform like this could give us not just enhanced strike options but also buffer somewhat against evolving PLAAF strategic airpower.

At home there is also the question of improving the survivability of our airfields to reduce the vulnerability of our strike aircraft. I imagine a mixture of hardening, dispersal and robust GBAD would be called for here. We already have a foot in the door with NASAMS and AIR6500 looks set to continue this trend.

Gosh. If only there was a way for those two to have actually done something about this....

Anyhow.

Strike at range comes from 4 platforms. It's about effects after all, not platforms:

1. submarine. Collins is a capable platform, Attack should be better. Advantages are stealth and reach, disadvantages are low ammunition and launch signature. Already in service - question on ammunition holdings

2. surface vessel. Anzac / Hobart pretty good. Hunter will step up from Anzac. Advantages are numbers and reach, disadvantages are low ammunition (including what mix do you take) and low speed. Already in service or being procured - question on ammunition holdings.

3. air launched. F-35 / F/A-18F / P-8 ( ). Advantages are response time, flexibility and numbers, disadvantages are enablers and vulnerability. Already in service - question on ammunition holdings.

4. ground launched. LAND 8113. Advantages are simplicity, easy to hide and numbers*, disadvantages are political and range. In procurement - question on ammunition holdings.

We have multiple options. We don't need to put a platform overhead, we just need stand-off munitions with enough range to hit a target without putting the launch platform at risk. For the most part we have that. Even better, we have options (including options that may utilise the same missiles - look at SEA 4100 and LAND 8113). So, the problem isn't platform types. Sorry ex-CAFs - you don't get more aeroplanes.

The strike mission has 3.5 problems.

1. Ammunition holdings. You need enough weapons to get through the IADS. Now, there is going to be a significant number of targets that need hitting, so you need lots of ammunition. You can either stockpile (expensive, stock runs out, only have what is hand) or build (expensive, creates jobs, can spool up and down to match need). But fixable - and for less than more Attack or B-21s.

2. Launch platform numbers. We have enough submarines and air platforms. If you can't put an acceptable strike in with 72x JSF then you need to leave the ADF. And between 6 - 12 submarines gives you almost as many options. The risks in having only a handful of surface combatants (with really limited #'s of tubes) and land platforms mean that parts of your flexibility are leaving. Extra surface combatant's isn't really an option at the moment (unfortunately...) but LAND 8113 could be expanded. These platforms are trucks - simple to maintain, simple to purchase and easy to use. Triple the buy and you have a Regiment - now you have multiple locations and real operational flexibility. You can even use the ARes (at last, something useful for them) to operate the system - it's that easy.

3. Targeting. What is looking at the target, providing information, BDA? How do we cue these systems? Satellites? - ok, but you need sovereign platforms or the support of the US (and them not using the gear). GPS? Hope those birds are still up - and there is no jamming. The basic int functions? Hope that's supported with appropriate analysis and comms networks - again jamming and threat counter-intel is going to hurt here. This part isn't addressed by most looking at strike - but we need to know what, where and how we are hitting things.

0.5. Politics. Normally I'd rate this higher, but if we are clever we can use it to solve as many problems as it creates. Not domestic politics, but rather international - especially Indonesia. Any strike options will concern them (rightly or wrongly) - we need to build that relationship and work with them to see us as an ally. Even bring them under our conventional strike umbrella. This also adds advantage of range - with Indonesian permission we can put a LAND 8113 Bty near the equator - adding a "free" 500 - 2500 km of range).

So all up, the ADF is already mostly there, the ex-CAFs are moaning about there service instead of the Joint Force, the problems are enablers - not platforms, and there are options. For much cheaper than any of their plans we can do the mission now, and only get more flexible in the near future.

Edit - note this only considers kinetic options. There are a whole bunch of non-kinetic options out there that might be able to do the job, depending on what the job is. Iran's nuke program wasn't delayed by a cruise missile, it was delayed by STUXNET. Again - what is the effect we are trying to achieve.

Being a novice so give me a little leeway but I imagine strike capability would also come under ensuring that the facilities your assets operate from are able to keep operating even after an enemy strike. All well and good increasing the size of the Navy and Air force if we could dig into the mystical pot of gold and pay for it and the extra manpower but entirely pointless if your facilities that are required for them to operate are knocked out of commission. Are we set up well enough in hardened naval and air bases or ability to shift to civilian assets if needed and still keep the tempo?

Not sure how you would harden a naval base but I imagine an increased Land 8113 would allow for some of those assets at times to be based in such locations if not building up fixed GBAD systems there. Darwin has the hardened aircraft bunkers is there any other locals to the north? Or need for such hardening at bases that support our enablers? Again Land 8113 or type there of could be used to help.

Just my 2 cents

I would argue that with PGMs such as JASSM and LRASM being available, a manned strategic aircraft is no longer necessary, given the assets that the RAAF already have. Secondly, Australia, like the rest of FVEY, plus Russia, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea et al., are signed up to the Missile Technology Control Regime which, although not a treaty & not enforceable in law, means that they don't export missiles / UAVs with the capability to carry payloads > 500 kg over ranges of ≥ 300 km. That, IMHO, would preclude the AGM-86 Tomahawk ALCM and the UGM-86 SLCM, RGM-86 GLCM variants would just be within the criteria of having < 500 kg payload. The Annex gives the details. Note, that the PRC is not a signatory.

vonnoobie said:

All well and good increasing the size of the Navy and Air force if we could dig into the mystical pot of gold and pay for it and the extra manpower but entirely pointless if your facilities that are required for them to operate are knocked out of commission. Are we set up well enough in hardened naval and air bases or ability to shift to civilian assets if needed and still keep the tempo?

Not sure how you would harden a naval base but I imagine an increased Land 8113 would allow for some of those assets at times to be based in such locations if not building up fixed GBAD systems there. Darwin has the hardened aircraft bunkers is there any other locals to the north? Or need for such hardening at bases that support our enablers? Again Land 8113 or type there of could be used to help.

Just my 2 cents

Click to expand...

Happy to be corrected if I am wrong here but my understanding is that our current naval and air bases are likely to be vulnerable to special forces and LACM attack. Both of these get more complicated if the PLA/N/AF get an eventual foothold in the South Pacific.

I don't know how likely the former is but the capability for the latter may well exist in the PLAN's submarine fleet (I'm looking at SLCMs here ala YJ18 and CJ10). Recent history has shown how difficult it is to stop low flying cruise missiles (ref US employment against Syria in the face of Syrian/Russian IADS, and the more recent Saudi experience). I don't know if there is much that can be done to stop such weapons apart from establishing a robust integrated sensor and GBAD network (ref AIR6500).

Looking ahead you'd hope that someone will devise a decent radar system that can be mounted on a HALE UAS or a JLENS style aerostat one day. I can't see an alternative way of plugging the blind spots imposed by the radar horizon and terrain features when trying to maintain round-the-clock coverage against the LACM threat.

I think it is easy to over estimate the threat of a missile attack against Australian bases. China may have the physical capability in some instances to do so, but that is a long way away from a realistic threat. China’s strategy is based around not fighting - it would be hard to fathom why they would go against their own strategy only to attack mainland Australia. It would be extraordinarily difficult to construct a scenario that had China taking their high value assets out of the safe environment they have created for themselves in the South China Sea and for which their primary purpose is to protect as A2AD weapons, away of the second island chain that is their man threat, only to use these scarce assets to launch a strike against a tertiary threat like Australian bases.

The capability to protect expeditionary bases (and specific permanent bases if need be) is a wise investment, but it would be difficult to construct a threat assessment that saw protecting permanent Australian bases take a significant slice of the funding pie.

Raven22 said:

I think it is easy to over estimate the threat of a missile attack against Australian bases. China may have the physical capability in some instances to do so, but that is a long way away from a realistic threat. China’s strategy is based around not fighting - it would be hard to fathom why they would go against their own strategy only to attack mainland Australia. It would be extraordinarily difficult to construct a scenario that had China taking their high value assets out of the safe environment they have created for themselves in the South China Sea and for which their primary purpose is to protect as A2AD weapons, away of the second island chain that is their man threat, only to use these scarce assets to launch a strike against a tertiary threat like Australian bases.

The capability to protect expeditionary bases (and specific permanent bases if need be) is a wise investment, but it would be difficult to construct a threat assessment that saw protecting permanent Australian bases take a significant slice of the funding pie.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I guess the question becomes how rapidly China is both willing and able to project power further afield than the first island chain. The pace of their growth in this space in the last decade has been pretty alarming.

Presumably in a scenario where we needed to strike at targets far to our north, those same strike assets would be fair game. Granted, you could get really carried away here but I can see an argument for establishing a layered IADS capability. Fleshing out our ability to disperse aircraft to alternative/bare bases (e.g. Scherger) wouldn't hurt either.

I think there's an argument to plan ahead of the threat to some extent here too. This all has to occur within the realms of reality of course but I think we need to be prepared for just as much change in our strategic outlook in the next decade as has occurred in the last.

t68 said:

Defence Connect


Interesting,
Former air marshals Leo Davies and Geoff Brown say Australia's strike capabilities need a boost. Whilst I agree that more long range strike is needed operations over Syria showed the enabling assets needed to strike at range, but realistically besides the extra submarines what could the ADF buy and deploy without sending us bankrupt.

The proposed B21 on price alone is a no go for defence, just as land based long range strike missile creates problems our adversaries will likely detect the launch, would a 6 extra Attack class submarine but with increased land attack capability be the way to go but that’s just as expensive as B21. Just what way can we realistically increase our long range strike capbilty.

In hindsight I think it was a mistake for the USAF not to pursue the FB-22 least it would have been a true replacement for the F111

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/January 2005/0105raptor.pdf

Click to expand...

I saw those two commenting in the “Australian” today (sorry can’t post link) and my thoughts began rolling back in time to RAF policy on strategic bombing that proved to be a disaster both between the World Wars and during WW2. In a nutshell the cost benefit both in terms of lives and resources was negligible. It seemed like they both hold Bomber Harris in high esteem. It must be something they add to the LOX tanks
These thoughts seemed so at odds with the simple statement in DWP 2016 that the strike capability for the ADF is vested in the submarine force which loosely ties in with Takao’s post above in which he counters the CAFs utterances very succinctly.