In the case of the RAN it seems that it will be an 'independent review' to determine what is needed. Lord help us if certain prominent 'experts' end up in this team!
Tas
Tas
The ABC is reporting that the review will be led by a USN vice admiral.
'Australia's navy will also be reshaped, though decisions surrounding that will be made later this year following a review by the US Navy Vice Admiral William H Hilarides.'
Australia's military has begun one of its greatest shifts since WWII. Here's how it will change
The Defence Strategic Review is the first of its kind in a generation. Here's how it says Australia's military must change as it enters the "missile age".
www.abc.net.au
Vice Admiral Hilarides has retired from active service in the USN.
Tas
Last edited:
He is an ex submariner.The ABC is reporting that the review will be led by a USN vice admiral.
'Australia's navy will also be reshaped, though decisions surrounding that will be made later this year following a review by the US Navy Vice Admiral William H Hilarides.'
Australia's military has begun one of its greatest shifts since WWII. Here's how it will change
The Defence Strategic Review is the first of its kind in a generation. Here's how it says Australia's military must change as it enters the "missile age".
Tas
No bias there, skimmers are all targets.
I understand he was involved as an advisor in Australia's submarine journey so will be well known to the RAN senior sirs.
Tas
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
This is the confusion caused by how defence capabilities are costed. Figures given often include maintenance, spares and support and all sorts of other costs through the life of the capability. The saving would represent the actual cost of buying that number of vehicles, I expect.Interesting note in this article on the Age. Additional spending offset by $7.9 billions savings on infantry fight vehicles and self propelled howitzers. For close to 1/4 the number of IFV ($24 billion program) and half the SPH ($3billion program) we save only $8 billion???? Hopefully addition orders take place down track. I realise the numbers would not be linear for smaller numbers however this looks to be north of $17 billion for 129 IFVs.
Defence must fire up long-range capability to enter the ‘missile age’: review — The Age
The defence strategic review says the “biggest shake-up in decades” is needed to manage a possible major conflict in our region between China and the US.apple.news
Understand what you’re saying. But let’s say a program was $20Billion which was $10 Billion to procure and $10 Billion to sustain and let’s say you cancelled it all together. Is the saving that ca. be used for other programs $10 Billion or $20 Billion?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I am surprised, very very surprised ....
I am surprised that anyone could be surprised at the result of the 2023 ALP DSR.
The ALP appointed (arguably) the worst Def Min in living memory to be in charge of the Review, it is exactly the political (not strategic) document the ALP wanted, surprised? No.
For those that voted ALP at the last Federal election, you’ve got exactly the Government you wanted and deserve too.
Shame ALP, shame.
Army - IFV and SPH gutted, Australian manufacturing jobs gone! Wonder what the Unions will think? M1, and support vehicle upgrades continue, all USA jobs (note: I have nothing against US manufactured procurement, ok?).
RAAF - what’s new? Nothing I can see, beyond future F-35A and F/A-18F planned upgrades, I don’t see any details of other RAAF capabilities, am I missing something?
RAN - the ticking time bomb, we now have to wait until the end of 2023 to see the slash and burn potentially on the RAN horizon.
Again, shame ALP, shame, and shame on all of those that voted for the ALP at the last Fed election, you get what you deserve.
(PS, and don’t get me started on the Climate Crisis/Emergency crap on how it relates to Defence capability either...)
I am surprised that anyone could be surprised at the result of the 2023 ALP DSR.
The ALP appointed (arguably) the worst Def Min in living memory to be in charge of the Review, it is exactly the political (not strategic) document the ALP wanted, surprised? No.
For those that voted ALP at the last Federal election, you’ve got exactly the Government you wanted and deserve too.
Shame ALP, shame.
Army - IFV and SPH gutted, Australian manufacturing jobs gone! Wonder what the Unions will think? M1, and support vehicle upgrades continue, all USA jobs (note: I have nothing against US manufactured procurement, ok?).
RAAF - what’s new? Nothing I can see, beyond future F-35A and F/A-18F planned upgrades, I don’t see any details of other RAAF capabilities, am I missing something?
RAN - the ticking time bomb, we now have to wait until the end of 2023 to see the slash and burn potentially on the RAN horizon.
Again, shame ALP, shame, and shame on all of those that voted for the ALP at the last Fed election, you get what you deserve.
(PS, and don’t get me started on the Climate Crisis/Emergency crap on how it relates to Defence capability either...)
I’m astounded that you’re surprised. This is pretty much what government reviews look like and it seems Smith is on the same trail as when he was DefMin. This one doesn’t really add much that hasn’t already been planned but has cuts that in most cases are not specific and subject to further review.
Agree on hardening the northern bases but that’s been discussed for some time. Adding more missile capability has certainly been discussed here and in the political spectrum for at least 3-4 years that I can think of. Nothing else is new…just cuts as far as I can see.
I note that aside from a vague comment about working with the US on GhostBat there is bugger all mention of drones for surveillance, strike or refuelling. I was expecting something but alas nothing ….
Nothing about a 4th Squadron, additional P8s or KC30A, or planning for C17 replacement.
Last edited:
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Well you'd think it'd be $20 billion, but this is where the politics of budgets comes in. Governments work over four years - the budget year and the forward estimates. That means an expense that will go beyond the next four years isn't actually budgeted for. Let's say you have a capital project - maybe a new hospital - that might cost $2 billion. The costs might be $50 million in the budget year (because you're only doing planning and so forth), and then be maybe $200 million or so in each of the following three years before in year five - which does not appear in your budget - hitting like $1 billion when construction is at its height. If you cancel the project, you haven't saved $2 billion. You've saved whatever you were going to spend in the current budget and over the following three years. The money doesn't exist beyond that. Hope that makes some sense.
Army is NOT gutted.
its been enhanced with long range fires.
There is nothing in the DSR that dictates subsequent numbers of SPH and IFVs wont be further increased. It has created the industry foundation for further tranche capability. -see my comment on Army thread for my justification for this.
I could just as easily argue the DSR has simply stipulated the initial tranche order.
It further mentions Littoral vessels to mobilise Army, and move said equipment, how is that gutting Army?
Navy, perhaps it does require a surface fleet review. It may just stipulate more VLS capability?
the current fleet matrix may not be optimal?
Air Force, Northern base resilience will be essential. The ability to operate from forward bases at high tempo does not need B21s & if Houston thought it imperative RAAF get rapid acquisition of F35s im sure it would’ve been listed, perhaps he’s a Labor voter?
political bias, huh.
its been enhanced with long range fires.
There is nothing in the DSR that dictates subsequent numbers of SPH and IFVs wont be further increased. It has created the industry foundation for further tranche capability. -see my comment on Army thread for my justification for this.
I could just as easily argue the DSR has simply stipulated the initial tranche order.
It further mentions Littoral vessels to mobilise Army, and move said equipment, how is that gutting Army?
Navy, perhaps it does require a surface fleet review. It may just stipulate more VLS capability?
the current fleet matrix may not be optimal?
Air Force, Northern base resilience will be essential. The ability to operate from forward bases at high tempo does not need B21s & if Houston thought it imperative RAAF get rapid acquisition of F35s im sure it would’ve been listed, perhaps he’s a Labor voter?
political bias, huh.
You are older than me but I remember Moore, Ray, Reith, McLachlan, Sinclair. Scholes and others weren't super stars either.
During the first three Howard terms Defence was the departure lounge for clowns who had failed in other ministries. No real talent in the portfolio until it became politically important.
Sadly we have had very few talented defmins on either side.
I was actually surprised how happy many of the serving members at work were. Mind you these are people who have been dealing with a number of unseen issues for a number of years. Very glad to see the end or reduction of some nice to have but capability sucking (through opportunity cost) acquisitions.
As for climate, and adf support of civilian powers, that is one of the real plusses. Read it, it clearly states, that unlike recent decades, the ADF should not be used so extensively in these areas. This is a good thing. The over use of defence personnel and assets in non defence roles has been had a major adverse impact moral, mental health and retention, recognising this and moving to provide other funding and resources for it is brilliant.
Really nothing much has changed for the Airforce and Navy. Not yet anyway. The army is the main focus as far as the three services are concerned, They are losing armour and guns but gaining missiles and littorial capabilities. I was initially sceptical but I am starting to come around.
Where is this notion of “losing“ armour and guns?
back yesterday, we ordered a 100 of this & 50 of that. They were then ‘forgotten’ to bid for upgrades thru their op lives.
The announcement is a limiting of INITIAL number, not a losing or a gutting.
i say this because unless army suddenly decides it doesn’t want to fight anymore, the requirement for them will persist.
the current capability is suboptimal at best and untenable at worst and hence the retention of current equipment is essentially, in practical terms unsustainable. Further numbers are therefore inevitable, and it’s pure logic to run that thru the current domestic production lines.
the prevailing commentary of ‘gutting‘ is a throwback from yesterday block-ordering thinking.
back yesterday, we ordered a 100 of this & 50 of that. They were then ‘forgotten’ to bid for upgrades thru their op lives.
The announcement is a limiting of INITIAL number, not a losing or a gutting.
i say this because unless army suddenly decides it doesn’t want to fight anymore, the requirement for them will persist.
the current capability is suboptimal at best and untenable at worst and hence the retention of current equipment is essentially, in practical terms unsustainable. Further numbers are therefore inevitable, and it’s pure logic to run that thru the current domestic production lines.
the prevailing commentary of ‘gutting‘ is a throwback from yesterday block-ordering thinking.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
In fairness to Labor here, and I know we don't do politics on this forum but it is reasonable to some degree, we should look at the bigger picture.
They have come into government with a budget in desperate need of repair, with unfunded commitments (the nuclear submarines being one), and with a range of fiscal headaches left by their predecessors, including stage 3 tax cuts and the blowing out in the cost of the NDIS. (Not all of this is on the previous government; Labor had a hand in some of these challenges - I'm just outlining the challenges.)
You also have an economy that is not strong, with concerns about the US going into recession, which will have a flow on effect.
We cannot have everything. There needed to be a review to prioritise what was needed most.
I think those saying this review is about justifying "cuts" (I would say limiting future expenditure is more accurate) are partly right, and so too are those saying it is about setting a new direction for the ADF. It's both, and it's needed.
What this review really says to me is this:
We need the nuke subs asap, but we have to wait, so what we will do is stock pile air defence missiles and anti ship missiles to keep any potential wolves at bay, and work out the rest after the next election. Cancel or reduce spending every where else.
We need the nuke subs asap, but we have to wait, so what we will do is stock pile air defence missiles and anti ship missiles to keep any potential wolves at bay, and work out the rest after the next election. Cancel or reduce spending every where else.
knightrider4
Active Member
I admire your optimism I really do. But nowhere have I read that 129 hulls is an initial order nothing mentioned of buying hulls in increments of 50. The second arty regiment is odd when the war in Ukraine provides the lesson that when a near competent IADS is operational, then your going to need every tube you can lay your hands on and a measly 30 is not going to cut it. Himars I don't see having the persistence that tubes provide. I guess more importantly this now heavily unbalances the Army I believe to a point of irrelevance on the battlefield against a near competent enemy. The landing craft again I just don't get it, what are they going to transport? Light infantry onto an island to get slaughtered? There is very little in terms of combat capable equipment for them to carry. For me I see a scenario of look here Houston and Smith we don't want o pay for all this stuff the coalition had on their wish list so give us a review that recommends cutting stuff that we can sell to the public. Its simplistic I know but I don't think I'm too far off the mark.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
I know that the government themselves have made comparisons to the Ukraine conflict, but some are really bad. We're not going to be fighting where massed combined arms formations have utility. We're just not. Company/squadron-sized teams supporting infantry battalions makes much more sense in our region.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
C-17 replacement, a distant project as no design has been finalized. KC30A and P-8s seem to be realistic. As for more F-35s, wait for a new engine that can handle the Block 4 upgrade.
AndyinOz
Member
It has been interesting to first watch the announcement and to watch the back and forth discussion on the meat or lack there of in the announcement and then the implications of the various recommendations and what have you. One recommendation that did jump out at me other than those that are related to the cyber domain, which is my personal area of expertise and interest was the recommendation related to future planning.
'Defence should move away from white papers to produce a
National Defence Strategy on a biennial basis. The first National
Defence Strategy should be delivered no later than Q2 2024.'
pg 99, Defence Strategic Review 2023
I admit that I am not well versed necessarily as to how things were done in decades past but I hope that moving to a more regimented analysis and response cycle to decision making might prove to be useful rather than what seemed to be a more ad hoc White Paper development and publication system and timeline that has been the norm in the last 30 plus years. Just my two cents.
'Defence should move away from white papers to produce a
National Defence Strategy on a biennial basis. The first National
Defence Strategy should be delivered no later than Q2 2024.'
pg 99, Defence Strategic Review 2023
I admit that I am not well versed necessarily as to how things were done in decades past but I hope that moving to a more regimented analysis and response cycle to decision making might prove to be useful rather than what seemed to be a more ad hoc White Paper development and publication system and timeline that has been the norm in the last 30 plus years. Just my two cents.
The Russian offensives were tank heavy, the Ukrainian counter offensives were combined arms with comparatively few tanks.
The key to armour is having enough of it and employing it appropriately. Having more tanks doesn't necessarily win the day, so long they are reasonably competitive, it's how they are used rather than how many there are.
An armoured infantry battalion, while not as good as three, is still a hell of a lot better than three Mech Btns with M-113s.