ADF General discussion thread

Sandson41

Member
Whilst I get the extension to other Commonwealth realms, who are technically in a form of personal monarchical union, and whose militaries largely share traditions and configuration. However from my reading (as below) US citizens could not be an officer, without losing US citizenship.
Presumably. Aussie citizenship is part of the process:

"And that's why, also, from the first of January 2025 we'll be allowing our Five Eyes nations, people that are in Australia, permanent residents, from the Five Eyes nations of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, to be able to apply to join the Australian Defence Force. They will need to meet the normal enlistment requirements in the ADF, including security vetting, they will need to have been a permanent resident in Australia for at least the last year and not been a member of a foreign defence force in the prior two years. They will join the New Zealand permanent residents that were able to join the Australian Defense Force from 1 July of this year, and already we see nearly 400 New Zealand permanent residents in the pipeline with applications to join our Defence Force right now. And for all these permanent residents from the Five Eyes nations, once they join our Australian Defence Force, they will then be expected to take out Australian citizenship, when they become eligible after three months of service."

 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Whilst I get the extension to other Commonwealth realms, who are technically in a form of personal monarchical union, and whose militaries largely share traditions and configuration. However from my reading (as below) US citizens could not be an officer, without losing US citizenship.

8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3) (INA 349(a)(3)), as amended On or after November 14, 1986.
Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States; or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer.

This amendment of the statute in 1986 eliminated the provision allowing for approval of the foreign military service by the Secretaries of State and Defense Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986, Public Law 99-653, § 18(d), 100 Statutes at Large 3658 (amending INA 349(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(3)).
It is not just commissioned officers that could be subject to a loss of US citizenship, noncommissioned personnel are also subject to this. In a similar fashion, most (foreign) gov't service where there might be some sort of oath of office or position administered would run afoul of one or more other US codes.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As noted above, they have to become Australian citizens. The effect on their US citizenship is, frankly not of concern, or even of interest, to Australia. So it’s a personal decision. As of course a change in citizenship always is. Personally, I am happy to be an Australian citizen and certainly have no regrets that I that did not take US citizenship when it was offered to me in the 80s
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Whilst I get the extension to other Commonwealth realms, who are technically in a form of personal monarchical union, and whose militaries largely share traditions and configuration. However from my reading (as below) US citizens could not be an officer, without losing US citizenship.

8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3) (INA 349(a)(3)), as amended On or after November 14, 1986.
Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States; or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer.

This amendment of the statute in 1986 eliminated the provision allowing for approval of the foreign military service by the Secretaries of State and Defense Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986, Public Law 99-653, § 18(d), 100 Statutes at Large 3658 (amending INA 349(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(3)).

I suggest you actually read the first paragraph of 8 U.S.C. § 1481 again

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality--
And from the Congressional Research Service : U.S.Nationals and Foreign Military Service (IF12068) :
Since Congress amended the INA in 1986, a U.S. national who enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state will be expatriated if (1) those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States or (2) the U.S. national serves as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer (8 U.S.C. §1481). The 1986 amendments also removed the requirement that such service be approved by the Secretaries of State and Defense but required that an individual intend to relinquish U.S. nationality.
And that is the reports italicization of "intend" not mine
 

downunderblue

Active Member
'Alarm bells as Chinese warships off Aus'

“Defence will continue to monitor the activities of the task group in Australia’s maritime approaches with a combination of capabilities, including air and maritime assets.”

Defence did not know what the Chinese Navy task group’s goal was.

In a separate incident, officials also said an Australian surveillance aircraft had an “unsafe and unprofessional interaction” with the Chinese warplanes"..


...

I'd suggest the intention of the J-16 pilot and the PLA-N task group was the same, that of general 'shithousary', namely:
  1. 'Coarse slang (chiefly British). ... Something regarded as despicable, unacceptable, or bad; spec. (in the context of football matches) disruptive or underhand tactics designed to secure an unfair advantage for one's team.
Does anyone know what happens when chaff or flares enters a turbofan? Will it break the blades or the engine in general? I assume it won't down the aircraft(it can run on on engine?) but cause a expensive engine replacement, unnecessary upset the crew and further alienate many for no real net gain?
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
"Defence did not know what the Chinese Navy task group’s goal was."
Yeah, I think that statement is not entirely accurate. But great ammo for those who think we have no idea who's doing what in our region. We have an extensive ISR network for a reason.
No idea what chaff would do to an engine, it's generally pretty fine material so maybe the impact would be relatively minimal but I'm no engine maintainer so can't comment on it with any certainty. But it's cowboy, unprofessional behaviour like this that makes me laugh at people who think the PLAN is somehow at the same level as the main western militaries. It's also breathtakingly stupid and dangerous behaviour that can start a real world shooting match so they should knock it off.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
'Alarm bells as Chinese warships off Aus'

“Defence will continue to monitor the activities of the task group in Australia’s maritime approaches with a combination of capabilities, including air and maritime assets.”

Defence did not know what the Chinese Navy task group’s goal was.

In a separate incident, officials also said an Australian surveillance aircraft had an “unsafe and unprofessional interaction” with the Chinese warplanes"..


...

I'd suggest the intention of the J-16 pilot and the PLA-N task group was the same, that of general 'shithousary', namely:
  1. 'Coarse slang (chiefly British). ... Something regarded as despicable, unacceptable, or bad; spec. (in the context of football matches) disruptive or underhand tactics designed to secure an unfair advantage for one's team.
Sailing the ships here isn't shithousary, it's perfectly fine and health freedom of navigation. It's no different to what we do in the South China Sea and the like - as an island nation we should be fighting against all forms of coercion against restriction of maritime movement, especially in international waters.

Does anyone know what happens when chaff or flares enters a turbofan? Will it break the blades or the engine in general? I assume it won't down the aircraft(it can run on on engine?) but cause a expensive engine replacement, unnecessary upset the crew and further alienate many for no real net gain?
Bad things can happen. Depending on the size of the chaff, it can melt across innards, or block the engine air flow fully. Flares obviously are very quick to move the combustion outside the self-contained chamber.... Having said that though, high-bypass turbofans are actually pretty reliable - it may not be an issue ingesting the chaff. It also may require a new engine.

Could be a neat intel win though - it's normally cut to specific wavelengths....
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
With our recent PLAN visitors I wonder if the Jindalee ORN needs to be expanded for greater coverage to our east and maybe even to the south if possible.

Thoughts

Regards S
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It already has coverage towards the south. Don’t know how far east it goes.
 

Sandson41

Member
That map may be out of date, or soon may be.

Longreach is being extended, as of 2020, to look east. I don't know if that's happened yet, but work was underway years ago.

Doubt it covers anything south of central QLD-ish tho.


 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
That map may be out of date, or soon may be.

Longreach is being extended, as of 2020, to look east. I don't know if that's happened yet, but work was underway years ago.

Doubt it covers anything south of central QLD-ish tho.


Thanks
I thought there was some talk it but was unaware as to it’s progress

cheers S
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While much discussion (as usual) goes on about fantasy fleets and new platform purchases in the RAN/Army/RAAF threads, I'll put this article here which has snippets from recent Senate estimates which puts into stark relief how dire the recruitment issue is. (article gained through Defence subscription) :
"ADF recruiter misses target but gets another shot
By Noah Yim,The Australian
Tuesday 25 February 2025 at 12:00:00 am AEDT

A recruiter hired to fix a staffing crisis within the Australian Defence Force is almost 30 per cent behind target and has had its performance period extended by six months.

Recruiting firm Adecco was meant to hire 10,512 recruits for the ADF and be able to take a prospective recruit from application to enlistment in 100 days. But Senate estimates revealed it believed it could deliver only 7461 recruits - and was expected to process recruits in 150 days instead of 100.

The Coalition criticised the Albanese government for “continuing to fail at their own target of recruiting ADF candidates within 100 days”. The government in 2022 announced it would change the recruitment firm for the ADF from ManpowerGroup to Adecco.

The ADF's permanent headcount hit a peak at 59,619 in 2021, but this has slipped every year since, down to 57,226 in 2024. The government's 2024 Defence Workforce Plan set a “realistic” target of 69,000 permanent ADF personnel by the early 2030s.

As a share of the total Australian workforce, the ADF made up 0.52 per cent in 2001 but this had fallen to 0.38 per cent in 2024.

The Defence Department revealed Adecco had a target of 10,512 recruits to the ADF - about double the number in the 2023-24 financial year - but the recruiter forecasted it would deliver only 71 per cent of the target.

“Adecco is expected to provide a recruiting system, to a specified schedule, that delivers 100 per cent of targets in 100 days,” the department said in response to a question on notice in Senate estimates. However, the actual expectation by December 2024 was that this would be done in 150 days, the department said.

“Defence has extended the performance implementation period by six months to allow Adecco to address issues that neither party anticipated,” its response read. “The key challenge includes shortfalls in psychologists and medical professionals to assess candidates.

“These collective issues have resulted in candidate throughput that is less than what is necessary to achieve the ADF's desired targets. Adecco understands the imperative to resolve these issues and has made adjustments to address known issues, including a recruiting operations restructure and increase of full-time equivalent, and working with the health services subcontractor to increase candidate throughput.”

Opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie criticised the government over the revelations and accused it of having “no urgency around recruiting Defence personnel”.

“Instead of taking action, the Albanese government has extended Adecco's performance implementation period,” he said.

Referring to Chinese warships conducting live-fire exercises in the Tasman Strait, he added: “The events of the past week should serve as a reminder as to why we need a strong, capable ADF to respond to the challenges we face.

“But under Labor, recruitment is down, morale is down, and our ADF is worse off as a result of weak leadership.”

When contacted for a response, Defence Minister Richard Marles said the Albanese government had been “taking urgent action to ensure Defence has the workforce needed to keep Australians safe”.

“Under our government, the ADF is growing, separation rates are declining, and we have seen the highest application rates in over 20 years,” he said. “Compare that to what we saw when the Liberals were in government - an ADF personnel crisis. They knew about declining recruitment and retention, and did nothing.

“The Liberal Party put out press releases promising to grow Defence's workforce to 18,500 yet did nothing to fully fund it.

“In their final years in government, when Peter Dutton was the defence minister, the size of the ADF was in decline, dropping by around 1,400.”

Mr Marles accused the Coalition of having “no plan to fix the crisis”. “Where is Andrew Hastie's ‘workforce plan' that was promised almost a year ago?” he asked.

“The Albanese government has begun to turn the crisis around, with a suite of measures to address recruitment and retention, including a Workforce Plan released last year.

“We recognise the value of our Defence workforce. We are investing in our workforce. And we are ensuring that Defence has the resources, people and capabilities to keep Australians safe.”
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Really?

NDIS is not perfect but a general skills shortage can't be blamed on them.
Yep. The point about shortages of medical professionals and particularly psychologists for assessments causing delays in processing (rather than the general skills shortage). They are being snapped up by huge demand coming out of the NDIS.

I think the concept of it is great as well but it’s causing some serious distortions in certain sectors (especially allied health) the way it is currently implemented.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yep. The point about shortages of medical professionals and particularly psychologists for assessments causing delays in processing (rather than the general skills shortage). They are being snapped up by huge demand coming out of the NDIS.

I think the concept of it is great as well but it’s causing some serious distortions in certain sectors (especially allied health) the way it is currently implemented.
It used to be done by service members in those fields, even reservists. Again, not an NDIS thing.

A child psychologist specialising in autism likely wouldn't be on defence recruiting a books. And the surgeon commanders I knew were reservists who dabbled in recruiting.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
It used to be done by service members in those fields, even reservists. Again, not an NDIS thing.

A child psychologist specialising in autism likely wouldn't be on defence recruiting a books. And the surgeon commanders I knew were reservists who dabbled in recruiting.
That’s true in the short term. But the problem (at least from a Defence recruitment perspective) is that in the medium term the NDIS provides a strong incentive for relatively more psychology grads (of which there are a finite pool) to become pediatric and other clinical psychologists and fewer to become the sort of organisational psychologists that would be needed for Defence.

I’m not saying at all that it’s a good thing or a bad thing, but it is definitely a thing. Like competing against the mining industry for engineers and trades in WA.
 
Top