John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree but with long delivery on stuff already ordered along with kit yet to be ordered, FOC by 2030 is not happening IMO.
New equipment would need people to operate it. The British armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy, are currently facing difficulty operating quite a lot of their equipment because of personnel shortages. It's been mentioned here as an obstacle to proposals to increase numbers of ships, for example.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
As appealing as unmanned systems are, they only a partial solution. Most Western nations are going to have to consider mandatory service along with good incentives for those who show promise.
Murse
New Member
I do wonder at the the thinking behind some of these decisions, although I'm not sad at Latchford going-a terrible place IMO
https://www.defence.gov.au/about/locations-property/delivering-future-estate
https://www.defence.gov.au/about/locations-property/delivering-future-estate
d-ron84
Active Member
Not sure how true this is, but I was told that the last time they tried to sell Leeuwin they found out that they 'technically didn't own it' as the land had been gifted to the government to be used as a defence establishment, and therefore couldn't sell.
Most likely not true and just a good dit that went around
Murse
New Member
I was once a 7fd Bty gunner (medic actually, but they were so short I had to punch a few rounds) and the trip there from Ocean Reef was painful. Guildford would be worse these days I imagine. I have never heard of the private land bit though, interesting if true.
Im disappointed in Leeuwin Barracks being sold off, I feel like it could be needed again being so close to the port.
Im disappointed in Leeuwin Barracks being sold off, I feel like it could be needed again being so close to the port.
There a couple of problems with this. One is the government is selling off its heritage; given that places like VB Sydney and Melbourne have high levels of heritage protection, they will probably not attract the prices that the land alone would command. Let alone one should PRESERVE one’s heritage - much of Australia’s efforts in both World Wars was directed from VB Melbourne for example.
But that’s not the main one. Labour is reverting to form - move the ADF north and west. Only problem is, many members of the ADF don’t want to live north or west, that’s not where the family support is.
Plus they are closing the inner city bases. Take Warradale in SA - being closed with its functions to move to Edinburgh. Problem - it’s a reserve training base, and a lot of Ithe people in the units based there live south of the City. They’ve also given away Keswick, which is in the city. So the reservists will have to go to Edinburgh- close to a two hour drive for some of them, and the best part of an hour even from the CBD.
So what will the result be? The same as the last time they tried to do this. Permanent retention will crash, and reserve recruiting will suffer. When we already can’t get enough people. Brilliant.
But that’s not the main one. Labour is reverting to form - move the ADF north and west. Only problem is, many members of the ADF don’t want to live north or west, that’s not where the family support is.
Plus they are closing the inner city bases. Take Warradale in SA - being closed with its functions to move to Edinburgh. Problem - it’s a reserve training base, and a lot of Ithe people in the units based there live south of the City. They’ve also given away Keswick, which is in the city. So the reservists will have to go to Edinburgh- close to a two hour drive for some of them, and the best part of an hour even from the CBD.
So what will the result be? The same as the last time they tried to do this. Permanent retention will crash, and reserve recruiting will suffer. When we already can’t get enough people. Brilliant.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Some of the decisions are interesting.
Read where they want to move any flying activity currently operated out of RAAF Point Cook.
Surely given the proximity to Melbourne they would be better off getting rid of East Sale and upgrading Point Cook (Yeah, I know that would cost money and Labor are allergic).
As for the Sydney sales... Victoria Barracks is an "interesting" decision, I could see closing Lancer Barracks but given the heritage buildings who would buy it? Spectacle island can only really be handed over to the harbour trust?
Read where they want to move any flying activity currently operated out of RAAF Point Cook.
Surely given the proximity to Melbourne they would be better off getting rid of East Sale and upgrading Point Cook (Yeah, I know that would cost money and Labor are allergic).
As for the Sydney sales... Victoria Barracks is an "interesting" decision, I could see closing Lancer Barracks but given the heritage buildings who would buy it? Spectacle island can only really be handed over to the harbour trust?
OldTex
Well-Known Member
One question that should be asked is "Does the revenue from the sale of the Defence estate go back to Defence?". If the answer to that question is no (i.e. the revenue goes into Consolidated Revenue), then Defence is effectively made to subsidise the political pork-barrelling/vote buying of the Labor party.
thatsamguy
Member
From DefMin media release:
"All proceeds from divestments under this process will be retained within the Defence portfolio and be reinvested in National Defence Strategy priorities, including continuing to upgrade and strengthen our northern bases."
No win, no loss says hi…
Absolutely every cent of these sales will be reinvested back into defence. No loss.
Defence’s overall budget will be reduced dollar for dollar with every dollar raised. No win.
Aardvark144
Active Member
Those of us that have been around for a few decades have heard all this before and the end result will be - 'due to unforeseen budgetary pressures, funds have been repurposed'.
Is there flying activity at point cook?Some of the decisions are interesting.
Read where they want to move any flying activity currently operated out of RAAF Point Cook.
Surely given the proximity to Melbourne they would be better off getting rid of East Sale and upgrading Point Cook (Yeah, I know that would cost money and Labor are allergic).
As for the Sydney sales... Victoria Barracks is an "interesting" decision, I could see closing Lancer Barracks but given the heritage buildings who would buy it? Spectacle island can only really be handed over to the harbour trust?
Yet again, Australian forces are subject to ballistic missile attacks while deployed on operations and yet again our Government provides them the same level of defensive capability that was provided on the Western front in 1914.
Bunker down and hope / pray.
thenightly.com.au
Bunker down and hope / pray.
Iranian missiles hit Dubai base where Aussies are stationed
A large airbase used by Australian forces in the Middle East was reportedly hit by Iranian missile strikes, but Richard Marles insists all military personnel in the area are safe and accounted for.
thenightly.com.au
There was no way that we would be deploying GBAD resources, even if we had them, to the ME given the size of the forces deployed, the reasons they are deployed, and the agreements we have with the other players. It’s just not a realistic concept. If we were deploying Brigade sized forces or something, maybe. Doesn’t change the argument about whether we need them, but there is no point in bemoaning the fact that our small numbers in that area don’t have their own.
Strange argument I’d suggest most would think. We need to deploy forces there, but we don’t need to protect them?
Curious.
The UK thought that too. Until Akrotiri got hit. Now they are scrambling trying to scrape together something to send…
Takao
The Bunker Group
No - we assessed that based on the air defences in the region, its location and the size of our foot print it wasn't worth putting a GBAD det in. Noting that even when we had RBS-70 and Rapier it never went over there. We have minimal resources; it just doesn't justify it. Like they don't have AFVs or artillery
I'd argue that it made sense at the time, and may still do. There have been multiple strikes on Iran and by Iran in the past two decades, with no threat to the Gulf States. I'd even argue that Tehran's decision to strike things like AMAB, Akrotiri and the French base (plus a bunch of other targets) reflects a level of insanity that you wouldn't forecast. They've gone from Paris and London stepping back to supporting force; likewise they have turned Saudi and the Gulf States from publicly neutral to actively involved. Launching most of these strikes makes no sense logically
For all the course of action analysis we do - we usually can't afford to spend much time on genuinely irrational threat decision making.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Yanked from the RAN thread....
/rant on. There are a few RAA officers who need to be escorted off Russell ASAP. The over-complication of long range strike is killing us / rant off
There are two hard parts about land-based long range strike:
The first is targeting. You need SMEs for that (a bunch of which we have - they wear blue uniforms). That can be built at anytime and don't need launchers. Start putting RAA and Int on the RAAF courses, into 460 Sqn, pay them more - whatever. Fundamentally this is a Joint problem anyhow - so it's ready to go
The second is the missile. Its technically, full of bang and 1s and 0s. Designing it will take time. But..... that's not a RAA problem! Just buy ones that fit the launcher holes and connect to the C2 systems. Pass the maintenance bill to RAEME or the RAAF or industry - but you can hand wave that log away.
What's left is some trucks! With DG placards. That's it! They receive the targeting data over AFATADS (or whatever BMS). They drive to the firing point, park the specified direction, take cover and watch fireworks. Then, when all the noise is done, they drive the trucks to a reload point. All that is as complex as a Pizza Hut delivery - and 17 yr olds do that.
When we stood up 8113, the Centre strongly recommended that the HiMARs units be ARes units. Simply capabilities, easily maintained skills, the ARes get to hold it over the ARA for being more important; it was win:win. Unfortunately..
*le sigh*
YES!!!!
/rant on. There are a few RAA officers who need to be escorted off Russell ASAP. The over-complication of long range strike is killing us
/ rant offThere are two hard parts about land-based long range strike:
The first is targeting. You need SMEs for that (a bunch of which we have - they wear blue uniforms). That can be built at anytime and don't need launchers. Start putting RAA and Int on the RAAF courses, into 460 Sqn, pay them more - whatever. Fundamentally this is a Joint problem anyhow - so it's ready to go
The second is the missile. Its technically, full of bang and 1s and 0s. Designing it will take time. But..... that's not a RAA problem! Just buy ones that fit the launcher holes and connect to the C2 systems. Pass the maintenance bill to RAEME or the RAAF or industry - but you can hand wave that log away.
What's left is some trucks! With DG placards. That's it! They receive the targeting data over AFATADS (or whatever BMS). They drive to the firing point, park the specified direction, take cover and watch fireworks. Then, when all the noise is done, they drive the trucks to a reload point. All that is as complex as a Pizza Hut delivery - and 17 yr olds do that.
When we stood up 8113, the Centre strongly recommended that the HiMARs units be ARes units. Simply capabilities, easily maintained skills, the ARes get to hold it over the ARA for being more important; it was win:win. Unfortunately..
*le sigh*
