ADF General discussion thread

[Bob53]

Leased Virginias - Depends on how you define leased. There have been proposals for dual crewing of a Virginia class submarine but that boat would still be controlled by the USN.
Additional F-35s - 9/10 Possibly even 10/10. It has always felt like "when" rather than "if" Australia would take up the option of additional F-35s.
M-1 MBT - 9/10 probably proceed.
Land 400 IFV cutbacks - 10/10 (sadly)
MQ9b stay cancelled - 10/10
MQ4C cancellation - haven't we already accepted the first aircraft? Cutbacks perhaps.
OPVs? That is an interesting one. The navy is in the process of taking delivery of 10 cape class PBs so you could argue that the Armidale class has largely already been replaced. Also rumoured that the new MCMV and Hydro vessels will be based on the Arafura so you could make an argument that any remaining contracted hulls could be utilised for these roles instead.

If DTR is correct however these predictions would mostly represent thinly disguised cutbacks rather than any actual improvement in Australia's defence capability.

Yes I was wondering what the improvements would be?

Long range fires and land and air and land based anti shipping missiles is all I can gather as additions…. ( long over due) while potentially stripping the army of its (yet to be delivered) combined arms capabilities…once that skill set is lost it would take many many years to reformulate when needed.…. and what’s everyone ride around in?

My gut feeling is that it’s politically convenient to fall back on the Ukraine videos of tanks being hit …as a sell to the general public that’s we don’t need IFVs and Tanks. Everything needs a spin right?

I can’t see budget topping 2% on anything other than when the Subs hit the accounts payable pigeon hole.

All guess work until the announcement of course as DTR hasn’t always been spot on….

 

[StingrayOZ]

MQ4C cancellation - haven't we already accepted the first aircraft? Cutbacks perhaps

Australia to decide on further Triton maritime drone orders after defence review

Australia will decide on whether to order up to four more Northrop Grumman Corp MQ-4C Triton maritime surveillance drones after a defence review next year, a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) official said.

www.reuters.com

Australia, to date the only non-U.S. customer for the remotely piloted high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft, has so far ordered three to compliment its fleet of crewed Boeing Co (BA.N) P-8A Poseidon planes.

The first Australian aircraft was unveiled in California on Wednesday. It is due for delivery in mid-2024, and will be based primarily in Australia's tropical north but controlled from a base near the southern city of Adelaide.

I would not be surprised to see this order stop at 3 (or even be not accepted and the US to take on these airframes). $7billion for this capability ($5b usd). While handing stuff over to the USN would normally be very painful, if it was coupled with a huge order of other US gear and a huge increase in capability elsewhere, it could be understandable realignment.

Australia commits to Triton in $5 billion deal

The first aircraft will be delivered in 2023 and the last in 2025.

www.defensenews.com

With 3, the US can also cycle through/operate aircraft from Australia. So rather than go it alone capability it would be more of a joint capability. Saving a few billion? Money on base improvements is already spent.

If DTR is correct however these predictions would mostly represent thinly disguised cutbacks rather than any actual improvement in Australia's defence capability.

Which may be the inevitable situation we now face. Imminent cut back in the face of global war and the US facing a peer adversary at the same time as a war in Europe. Either it is going to happen, or both sides are going to arm up like it is going to happen. The clock is running down twice as fast now.

My gut feeling is that it’s politically convenient to fall back on the Ukraine videos of tanks being hit …as a sell to the general public that’s we don’t need IFVs and Tanks. Everything needs a spin right?

I don't see that as a big issue. Australians are smarter than that. I think the issue is in what scenario do Australian tanks and IFV contribute to our security in a war between US and China. Surely our priority areas are the marine and air environments. Which they are. Shrinking IFV procurement could help initiate or build much needed capability elsewhere, and if the defence budget is going to increase anyway, then the intention is to build out IFV to the full order, just not announce, contract and pay it out right just now.

We won't really start having to pay big dollars for subs until later 2030. Any project that can be acquired operated then perhaps either wound down or minimal costs post 2035 would be ideal immediate acquisitions/projects.

But with all this, people are going to demand something tangible and significant. We need some sort of additional platform Navy/Airforce. We are in an open deterrence phase with China. When I say we, I mean the west. We need to start throwing big dollars at big capabilities that can be online within 10 years, pref 5 years. But currently it is a battle of deterrence.

It should be stuff likes submarines, destroyers, aircraft carriers, fighters, bombers, ICBMs, long range munitions, air defence missiles, sovereign build capability, teethy stuff.

We should be doing military dumb things, but deterrently smart things like elephant walks with fighters and P8's loaded with missiles. Taskforces of submarines running along the surface. Flinging fighter jets off ships and islands. Doing flybys of every ADF helicopter all at once. Showboating with allies. Examples of projections of power. Flying fighter jets to Fiji and back. Launching Tomahawks out of Collins and Hobarts.

The UK or USMC could send a F-35B carrier down, and we could do a lot of exercises with them off our coast, putting a bunch of airframes into the air and having a lot of naval units operational.

This is the age of posturing. So from the defence review I would like to see those things. What is our high intensity 5-10 year plan? Even if in 5 years we only have showboat capability in some of those areas, that may take a few more years to fill out to a really solid capability.

With the war we are facing we won't have the time to build new stuff during the war. We also won't be mobilizing our population for continental land fighting creating a huge army. We will want to mobilize a large number of sailors and airpersons for a short period of 3-6 years. During and after the conflict, its likely there will be a period where complex defence stuff is hard to do, so we may not complete any ships, and our operational fleet of subs, ships, aircraft, helicopters etc will decrease as we may need to cannibalise frames to keep things going during this disruptive 10 years. Given that many forces may have half or all of their airforces eliminated, we may fair off much better than others.

The DFR is I think a tough nut to crack. Its not just about unravelling the defence messes we have, but looking at what we really need to focus on between now and the very near future with a global conflict occurring. Inevitably no one is totally prepared. Australia will be saved by our geography and our global location. But being better prepared would make surviving much easier and more prosperous.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes I was wondering what the improvements would be?

Long range fires and land and air and land based anti shipping missiles is all I can gather as additions…. ( long over due) while potentially stripping the army of its (yet to be delivered) combined arms capabilities…once that skill set is lost it would take many many years to reformulate when needed.…. and what’s everyone ride around in?

My gut feeling is that it’s politically convenient to fall back on the Ukraine videos of tanks being hit …as a sell to the general public that’s we don’t need IFVs and Tanks. Everything needs a spin right?

I can’t see budget topping 2% on anything other than when the Subs hit the accounts payable pigeon hole.

All guess work until the announcement of course as DTR hasn’t always been spot on….

Looking at the Ukrainian counter offensive success, which was a text book combined arms operation using what they had, armour, used properly is far from dead.

It will be interesting to see how things go once modern western heavy armour starts to be deployed.

Already there is a situation where manned aircraft can't be used effectively, yet no one is suggesting production of 4th gen fighters be stopped or 5th gen be reduced.

 

[Wombat000]

Dunno.
perhaps I’m being naive?

a reduction in IFV numbers might be prudent in the shorter term, as it may have initial low impact on its actual operational introduction?
Key units are still converted, key logistics and training infrastructure is still created, whilst identified priorities take the shorter term budget.

instead, perhaps the IFVs will be introduced in tranches, perhaps before the initial (reduced) order is completed, a further and subsequent tranches are ordered on an already functioning production line?

I just don’t see defence budgets ( capability) being dulled for a very long time.

 

[ADMk2]

As you mentioned there are 5-6 laid down. Your not just breaking contracts, you would be having to hire crews to come in with blow torches to cut up work already completed including nearly finished hulls. Talk about too late to cancel them, we are more than half way through the complete build!

Leased Virginias? Is the USN getting smaller? Don't see it. Best case they base a Virginia or two out of Perth to help with training and Indian ocean operations. But this doesn't solve our industry problem. Our recruitment and crewing problem. Our submarine availability problem in the short/medium term. This is just the USN picking up Australia's failures and spending a lot on marketing as a success.
Additional F-35's? Getting delivered sometime around 2035 are we? They aren't just laying around. With the F-35 its more a question of when than if. You might as well say the ADF is going to order more 7.62mm ammunition in the future. Yes. Yes they will. I see the USMC has F-35B spots opening up... valuable spots I would say. Maybe they can glue the VTOL controls into regular flight mode, give them hormones and sell them as F-35B's that identify as F-35A's. They are gender type fluid. Its a F-35A with a probe behind its hatch.
Land400? Well I can see initial contract being reduced, that is at least possible. Stupid, but possible. Again, I don't think this will actually save any real money. Cutting numbers kills local production viability and increases per unit acquisition costs and operational costs. Nothing is free. I think who ever believes this will save money, should be placed in a M113, filled with concrete and pushed out the back of HMAS Canberra as a warning to other def mins. In that I would also put the head of the ADF at the time as well. Both the political class and the uniform class can take medicine over disasters like that. We all remember how much money we saved by not building a 4th AWD, and then paying all the builders to simply "work slower and less efficent", then we had to pay again while everyone was sitting around until the next project came down, which we then gave to two yards, because we can show the world how clever we are, twice, by the political class comiting to half the builds and sharing them between twice the yards.
M1 tanks? Well yeah, they are in the pipe and disbanding tanks from the ADF is monumentally stupid and expensive. Armies still have tanks. If you want an Australian Army, you will need tanks. Why is this so much more than the original M1A1 acquisition I don't know. Why was this such a priority over Land 400? I don't know. That's the real juicily bit in this. Why did a MOTS acquisition replacing tanks we bought 10 years ago get ahead of a local industry acquisition replacing the 1960's M113's? Because risk? Because....
MQ-9b/MQ4C - There are issues here. Well look at that, the drones aren't ready and aren't the game changers people thought they would be. Particularly when people who didn't understand over estimated and gave them capabilities they didn't have. Real question is what are we going to do about it. We should order more P8's.

Subscriber only content eh? Clicky baity. Colour me skeptical. Does it come with a colouring-in section of Smith or something? A crystal ball they used to make these predictions? Meth? Maybe some rose tinted glasses? Some magic cordial powder to add to your drink, fanta-sy?

Yeah not sure about some of their claims - Arafura for one given we know officially 6 are already in production, but I will observe that DTR has demonstrated repeatedly it has better sources than most and has a track of record of being ‘right‘ in it’s predictions and ‘scoops’ a lot more than certain other well known defence publications…

 

[Stampede]

Yeah not sure about some of their claims - Arafura for one given we know officially 6 are already in production, but I will observe that DTR has demonstrated repeatedly it has better sources than most and has a track of record of being ‘right‘ in it’s predictions and ‘scoops’ a lot more than certain other well known defence publications…

Arafura class are a mystery at this stage..

Not my wish, but curious as to how Boarder force are placed for crew should they inherit the OPV's as well as Navy's Capes class vessels.

Navy gets corvettes and all.
Border force concentrate on the constabulary stuff.

Cheers S

@Stampede It's BORDER, not boarder. A boarder is someone who lives with you and pays board (rent). A BORDER is a boundary between two nations, states etc. Big difference. Yes, you've triggered my spell Nazi mode.

Ngatimozart.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yeah not sure about some of their claims - Arafura for one given we know officially 6 are already in production, but I will observe that DTR has demonstrated repeatedly it has better sources than most and has a track of record of being ‘right‘ in it’s predictions and ‘scoops’ a lot more than certain other well known defence publications…

IMO the Arafura are fairly moot. They aren't stopping the ADF transforming itself. They aren't soaking up all the crews and the money. IMO complete them and move on.

Real questions are imo:

• More destroyers?
• Corvettes?
• Future of the F-18's?
• When are the F-35's coming?
• When does blk IV happen?
• What are we doing to address sub limitations?
• Amphibious lift? How do the canberras fit into the future adf in a China conflict with no army.
• Lift and AOR?
• Collins LOTE details?
• Army direction?
• Weapons? TLAM, SM6, Sm3, PAC3, etc
• Continuous build for surface and sub surface.

TBH I wonder if there is anything to scoop. I am not sure some of these decisions are finalised.

 

[Stampede]

Arafura class are a mystery at this stage..

Not my wish, but curious as to how Boarder force are placed for crew should they inherit the OPV's as well as Navy's Capes class vessels.

Navy gets corvettes and all.
Border force concentrate on the constabulary stuff.

Cheers S

@Stampede It's BORDER, not boarder. A boarder is someone who lives with you and pays board (rent). A BORDER is a boundary between two nations, states etc. Big difference. Yes, you've triggered my spell Nazi mode.

Ngatimozart.

Eating humble pie
Looking for excuse of using phone to post using middle aged eyes and fingers but you and I know that it was a inexcusable gaffe

Thanks for the correction.

 

[ngatimozart]

Eating humble pie
Looking for excuse of using phone to post using middle aged eyes and fingers but you and I know that it was a inexcusable gaffe

Thanks for the correction.

No need to eat humble pie. Fat fingers are a right pain when using phones. I was taught by nuns and they ensured that we knew how to spell.

 

[Rob c]

No need to eat humble pie. Fat fingers are a right pain when using phones. I was taught by nuns and they ensured that we knew how to spell.

Must be something in that as I was not taught by nuns and 60 years after leaving school I still cannot spell and even spell check struggles with my words at times.

 

[Volkodav]

No need to eat humble pie. Fat fingers are a right pain when using phones. I was taught by nuns and they ensured that we knew how to spell.

I often hit V or C instead of the space bar and end up with monstrosities that auto correct has no hope of fixing.

 

[Bob53]

Eating humble pie
Looking for excuse of using phone to post using middle aged eyes and fingers but you and I know that it was a inexcusable gaffe

Thanks for the correction.

Typing with your boxing gloves on…. I do it all the time

 

[ADMk2]

The US is spending money on analysing the lease or sale of in-service USN nuclear powered submarines for the RAN and the sale of B-21 Raider aircraft for the RAAF.

Section 1276 refers.

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7776/BILLS-117hr7776enr.pdf

 

[Redlands18]

Richard Marles hints at three-way AUKUS submarine design as White House unveiling looms - ABC News
Marles has stopped in Washington on the way home from London and evidence appears to be growing for a brand new AUKUS Submarine design.

 

[ngatimozart]

The full text of Sect 1276

H. R. 7776—472 SEC. 1276. ASSESSMENT OF CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AMONG AUSTRALIA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and development center for the conduct of an independent assessment of resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the partnership among Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States (commonly known as the ‘‘AUKUS partnership’’) announced on September 21, 2021.

(b) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.—In conducting the assessment required by subsection (a), the federally funded research and development center shall consider the following with respect to each of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States:

(1) Potential resourcing and personnel shortfalls.​

(2) Information sharing, including foreign disclosure policy and processes.​

(3) Statutory, regulatory, and other policies and processes.​

(4) Intellectual property, including patents.​

(5) Export controls, including technology transfer and protection.​

(6) Security protocols and practices, including personnel, operational, physical, facility, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, marking and classifying information, and handling and transmission of classified material.​

(7) Industrial base implications specifically including options to expand the United States submarine and nuclear power industrial base to meet United States and Australia requirements.​

(8) Alternatives that would significantly accelerate Australia’s national security, including—​

(A) interim submarine options to include leasing or conveyance of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use; or​

(B) the conveyance of B-21 bombers.​

(9) Any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate.​

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The federally funded research and development center selected to conduct the assessment under this section shall include, as part of such assessment, recommendations for improvements to resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the AUKUS partnership.

(d) REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2024, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that includes an unaltered copy of such assessment, together with the views of the Secretary on the assessment and on the recommendations included in the assessment pursuant to subsection (c).​

(2) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.​

​

Source: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7776/BILLS-117hr7776enr.pdf p 472.

 

[hauritz]

Richard Marles hints at three-way AUKUS submarine design as White House unveiling looms - ABC News
Marles has stopped in Washington on the way home from London and evidence appears to be growing for a brand new AUKUS Submarine design.

This would be the most sensible approach. Building components and perhaps complete modules is far more achievable than building entire submarines. Done properly it might also bring down costs for all three nations.

The British Defence secretary dropped similar hints last year of a collaborative design.

Realistically this is the only way I could see Australia gaining access to nuclear submarines before the 2040s.

 

[hauritz]

The full text of Sect 1276

H. R. 7776—472 SEC. 1276. ASSESSMENT OF CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AMONG AUSTRALIA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and development center for the conduct of an independent assessment of resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the partnership among Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States (commonly known as the ‘‘AUKUS partnership’’) announced on September 21, 2021.

(b) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.—In conducting the assessment required by subsection (a), the federally funded research and development center shall consider the following with respect to each of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States:

(1) Potential resourcing and personnel shortfalls.​

(2) Information sharing, including foreign disclosure policy and processes.​

(3) Statutory, regulatory, and other policies and processes.​

(4) Intellectual property, including patents.​

(5) Export controls, including technology transfer and protection.​

(6) Security protocols and practices, including personnel, operational, physical, facility, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, marking and classifying information, and handling and transmission of classified material.​

(7) Industrial base implications specifically including options to expand the United States submarine and nuclear power industrial base to meet United States and Australia requirements.​

(8) Alternatives that would significantly accelerate Australia’s national security, including—​

(A) interim submarine options to include leasing or conveyance of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use; or​

(B) the conveyance of B-21 bombers.​

(9) Any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate.​

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The federally funded research and development center selected to conduct the assessment under this section shall include, as part of such assessment, recommendations for improvements to resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the AUKUS partnership.

(d) REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2024, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that includes an unaltered copy of such assessment, together with the views of the Secretary on the assessment and on the recommendations included in the assessment pursuant to subsection (c).​

(2) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.​

​

Source: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7776/BILLS-117hr7776enr.pdf p 472.

Sounds like they are funding a RAND study. They do hundreds of these every year. We have heard opinions from the military, politicians and other commentators as to what would be the best way to go forward with new submarines and perhaps the B-21. None of those opinions are fully informed however.

It would have been a good idea to have carried out this study when AUKUS was first announced.

 

[Stampede]

Sounds like they are funding a RAND study. They do hundreds of these every year. We have heard opinions from the military, politicians and other commentators as to what would be the best way to go forward with new submarines and perhaps the B-21. None of those opinions are fully informed however.

It would have been a good idea to have carried out this study when AUKUS was first announced.

I wonder which will come out first?
The Defence Strategic Review or the outcome of the Nuclear Powered Submarine Task-force.
Maybe a bit of both at the same time.
I'm guessing DSR with a broad reference to subs first, with fine details of the Submarine outcome to follow later in the US.

The Bi Annual Air show at Avalon is a big event and this year is running during the first week of March.
Would not be surprised if some leaks appear around this time.

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

I wonder which will come out first?
The Defence Strategic Review or the outcome of the Nuclear Powered Submarine Task-force.
Maybe a bit of both at the same time.
I'm guessing DSR with a broad reference to subs first, with fine details of the Submarine outcome to follow later in the US.

The Bi Annual Air show at Avalon is a big event and this year is running during the first week of March.
Would not be surprised if some leaks appear around this time.

Cheers S

I would think Albanese will want to do the DSR in Canberra, and have at least a couple of days of "selling" it so I think it will be the first week of March or after Washington.

 

[seaspear]

Australia supplied the M-113 personnel carriers to Ukraine a question I have is were the heaters restored to these vehicles ,I can understand their removal as there were no thoughts of operating in very cold weather certainly a winter in Ukraine?
M113A1 (lancers.org.au)