ADF General discussion thread

[John Fedup]

I was answering a specific point, but yes the black swan may not be the PRC. It could indeed be an all out Middle East war that turns nuclear, an Indo - Pakistani war that goes the same way, a failed South East Asian state, a war on the Korean peninsula. Many different possibilities and finally one that wouldn't been thought possible eight years ago but now; a political and social collapse and possible civil war in the US?

When one considers the massive US debt and US political polarization along with a host of other domestic issues, some kind of social collapse isn’t an entirely impossible scenario. Should some kind of screwing around with the 2020 election occur, civil unrest may be the outcome. The US Eastern establishment might see the American South and SW leaving as a blessing. Indeed the US domestic situation may prove to be NATO’s demise regardless of who is President. Countries dependent on the US security umbrella had better pay close attention to this possible looming power vacuum.

 

[vonnoobie]

2.4%?
Hugh White thinks it should be more like 3.5%.
Analyst flags the prospect of a nuclear-armed Australia as China's rise continues
He criticises both the frigate and submarine programs as being too expensive, advocates more but simpler submarines based on the Collins class, doubling the F-35 fighter fleet and perhaps even acquiring nuclear weapons.

It all sounds a little alarmist but I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility of the defence budget going well beyond the current 2%.

On a slightly more optimistic note, I don't think the level of tension will ever reach cold war levels. Unlike the old Soviet Union China needs to trade with the west. Without trade the Chinese economy might well collapse. I don't see it being beneficial to any side to allow the current strategic situation to worsen to the point where Australia would consider arming itself to the back teeth with nuclear weapons.

Beyond 2%? Yep.. Well beyond? Not outside of a major international situation (ie: Serious risk of war breaking out directly threatening Australia) or an actual major war starting up among the super powers (Even if we are neutral we would still increase forces as a safety net I imagine).

That being said Hugh White I think is out of touch. Wanting a larger defence budget to be more independent I can get behind in broad terms but his idea one what should be acquired and how it set up leaves much to be desired. Doubling the number of submarines? And we will get all those crews from where exactly? Doubling the number of fighters? Again we will get all those crews from where exactly? Wasn't not so long ago we actually didnt have enough pilots to man all of our Hornets and he wants to add more aircraft to the mix. Going for a light frigate and scrapping the Hobarts and cancelling the Hunters.. We made the light frigate mistake with the Anzacs and realized the mistake in such early on, Stupid to reverse course after learning from our mistakes and fixing them. His entire force sets Australia up to literally be a defensive force isolated almost exclusively to Australia... Fortresss Austalia.. Sounds great.. But history has taught us that to keep the 'fortress' safe you need to have 'patrols' hitting the enemy which means needing the LHD's thus needing the frigates, and for the Army to have the heavy armour. We literally have a history of utilizing patrols to throw the enemy off dating back to WWI when we used 'peaceful penetration' against the Germans on the Western Front, or WWII at Tobruk and through the Pacific, Or Vietnam around Long Tan etc etc. Tying us down to one spot leaves the enemy free to do as they please. Would love to hear his response when hypothesized 'light frigate' force is blown apart escorting merchant shipping and we are cut off from outside supplies.

 

[Takao]

That being said Hugh White I think is out of touch. Wanting a larger defence budget to be more independent I can get behind in broad terms but his idea one what should be acquired and how it set up leaves much to be desired. Doubling the number of submarines? And we will get all those crews from where exactly? Doubling the number of fighters? Again we will get all those crews from where exactly? Wasn't not so long ago we actually didnt have enough pilots to man all of our Hornets and he wants to add more aircraft to the mix. Going for a light frigate and scrapping the Hobarts and cancelling the Hunters.. We made the light frigate mistake with the Anzacs and realized the mistake in such early on, Stupid to reverse course after learning from our mistakes and fixing them. His entire force sets Australia up to literally be a defensive force isolated almost exclusively to Australia... Fortresss Austalia.. Sounds great.. But history has taught us that to keep the 'fortress' safe you need to have 'patrols' hitting the enemy which means needing the LHD's thus needing the frigates, and for the Army to have the heavy armour. We literally have a history of utilizing patrols to throw the enemy off dating back to WWI when we used 'peaceful penetration' against the Germans on the Western Front, or WWII at Tobruk and through the Pacific, Or Vietnam around Long Tan etc etc. Tying us down to one spot leaves the enemy free to do as they please. Would love to hear his response when hypothesized 'light frigate' force is blown apart escorting merchant shipping and we are cut off from outside supplies.

I couldn't agree more. White is so far out of touch with his book it's hilarious. I note that all bar one of our "strategic thinkers" that have commented on his book have been negative.

My issues:

a. 2% to 3.5%. Why? The government has not made a decision about threat increases, the Department hasn't justified it and I'd be surprised if we could spend that much money at the moment. Also, where are we taking that money from?

b. Ditching surface vessels. Why? What escorts our merchant vessels? What does our patrols / long-range SAR? Regional work? FoN activities?

c. Culling the Army. Good idea. It'll work - just like in the 1990s. Remind me how easy Timor was? Oh, and good thing we don't need to send forces to the UN or support our allies...

d. Defend against Indonesia, Japan or India? Here I used a really bad word. To publicly claim this is nearly criminal. Those three, in order of priority, are our allies and relationships we should strengthen. What a .... doofus.

e. Nukes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......sorry. In a country that won't accept a discussion over nuclear power? In a country that led the push for NPT and willingly gave up a nuclear weapon program? Idiot. Oh, and remind me. What is the one country that has attacked not one, but two nuclear powers? Oh, that's right - China. So nukes will deter them, how?

f. The US would no longer be relevant. Possibly, in 2 - 3 decades. At the moment though, the US reigns supreme. Also note that traditionally, the Pacific has been seen as their backyard. To change that strength and culture? That's decades away.

g. AI is expensive and bad. No kidding. Do you know what else was complex, expensive and bad? Mk I tanks. Boxkites. Souix. The DRN. Wait....that last one might still be an issue. But seriously, the first gen or two is always bad. It's the potential there that needs to be investigated...

h. Even with all that we can't secure our sea-lanes (according to White), so how to we actually maintain and equip those things? Australian industry? Well, that's a multi-decade build up too.

White has increasingly become irrelevant, and this is the cherry on top. Just like Dibb, he needs to retire quietly and shut up. These old men are now a drain on our security forces and are hurting more than helping.

 

[Stampede]

Perhaps one more comment. I remember when the Berlin Wall fell the consensus at the time was that everything will be wonderful and we will be able to pursue non-productive arts degrees ect. Then this new wave of creativity ended not long after with the Dotcom Bubble. Since then we've had these big ideas of big data and Intellectual Property Laws. What was meant to be a liberal experience after the fall of the wall has turned into a whole bunch of harsher and smaller walls, not as visible as a real wall but just as thick which prevents or even cuts the transmission of ideas. Y'know, and you could lump sanctions in this category of much more ill-defined walls.

So I'm saying that geopolitical relationships (how ever you wish to define those) have this background of pluming issues. Fundamentally I believe those relationships and people and land and so on have become surplus to the requirements of the Rules Based Order. So that is for me the paradox where the Berlin Wall fell and we got much, much more stricter.

To return to your question about who holds the most strongest most friendliest geopolitical hand. I think we should flip that question. Last year 50,000 Australian University students dropped out. I'll link this August 2018 article from the Guardian on this - Will you drop out of university? Report reveals the Australian students at risk

I think the solution to stability is more useless-universities doing non-productive arts degrees or what ever and accept nations with its meaningless pleasures. Because I claim that the paradox of who pays for the military and how which really has no utility function for a population that is surplus to requirements.

I was lucky enough to experience both sides of the Berlin wall in July of 1989.
One side was bright, modern and vibrant ( The West ) .The other ( the East ) belonged to another time.
The contrast was amazing and the sense of change at the time was not really apparent.
What I do recall was listening on the transistor radio, that a fence had come down between Austria and Hungary and thinking at the time that this was a significant event. It was soon to prove one of the catalysts, for the wall to eventually be made redundant.
I guess if anything can be taken from the fall of the Berlin wall, is how unpredictable the Geo / political landscape is at any time.
While we all hope for a peaceful future, one never really know's what just around the corner.
This region is about to go through an era of great change.
I hope we manage this unpredictability well.


Regards S

PS Ocean- I did an Arts degree...................."Do you want fries with that!"

 

[hauritz]

I couldn't agree more. White is so far out of touch with his book it's hilarious. I note that all bar one of our "strategic thinkers" that have commented on his book have been negative.

My issues:

a. 2% to 3.5%. Why? The government has not made a decision about threat increases, the Department hasn't justified it and I'd be surprised if we could spend that much money at the moment. Also, where are we taking that money from?

b. Ditching surface vessels. Why? What escorts our merchant vessels? What does our patrols / long-range SAR? Regional work? FoN activities?

c. Culling the Army. Good idea. It'll work - just like in the 1990s. Remind me how easy Timor was? Oh, and good thing we don't need to send forces to the UN or support our allies...

d. Defend against Indonesia, Japan or India? Here I used a really bad word. To publicly claim this is nearly criminal. Those three, in order of priority, are our allies and relationships we should strengthen. What a .... doofus.

e. Nukes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......sorry. In a country that won't accept a discussion over nuclear power? In a country that led the push for NPT and willingly gave up a nuclear weapon program? Idiot. Oh, and remind me. What is the one country that has attacked not one, but two nuclear powers? Oh, that's right - China. So nukes will deter them, how?

f. The US would no longer be relevant. Possibly, in 2 - 3 decades. At the moment though, the US reigns supreme. Also note that traditionally, the Pacific has been seen as their backyard. To change that strength and culture? That's decades away.

g. AI is expensive and bad. No kidding. Do you know what else was complex, expensive and bad? Mk I tanks. Boxkites. Souix. The DRN. Wait....that last one might still be an issue. But seriously, the first gen or two is always bad. It's the potential there that needs to be investigated...

h. Even with all that we can't secure our sea-lanes (according to White), so how to we actually maintain and equip those things? Australian industry? Well, that's a multi-decade build up too.

White has increasingly become irrelevant, and this is the cherry on top. Just like Dibb, he needs to retire quietly and shut up. These old men are now a drain on our security forces and are hurting more than helping.

I don't imagine that I will be rushing out to buy his book but the reviews seem to pretty much reveal his most salient points.
Hugh White’s plan for defending Australia simply isn’t viable | The Strategist
Hugh White calls for Australia to scrap ships and build more submarines | The Strategist
His strategy would seem to be that Australia should be able to sink any fleet that is likely to be sent against us. Presumably, this will be accomplished by an airforce about double its current size and with a fleet of two dozen submarines. If all else fails we should also have a nuclear option available. To help pay for this we get rid of all our force projection assets. The destroyers, new frigates, LHDs and long range submarines will either be sold off or the programs cancelled and instead we would rely on light frigates and smaller submarines. The army's role would seem to be reduced to that of a light expeditionary force.

He also assumes that we cannot rely on any support from our allies and even goes as far as to suggest that these alliances could, in fact, be detrimental to our security in that it could draw us into conflict.

I will concede that he makes some good points in regard to America's not being willing to fight another Cold War. It may be inevitable that China will be the dominant power its region but that does not necessarily mean that the US will give up its control of the rest of the planet. In fact countries like Australia may well become even more important to the US as it attempts to contain China.

Personally I think that the alliance with the US will remain strong and perhaps even grow stronger as Chinese influence continues to grow. Australia's best strategy going forward would be to continue supporting its Allies. That means having the forces that will be useful in working beside its allies.

 

[old faithful]

I don't imagine that I will be rushing out to buy his book but the reviews seem to pretty much reveal his most salient points.
Hugh White’s plan for defending Australia simply isn’t viable | The Strategist
Hugh White calls for Australia to scrap ships and build more submarines | The Strategist
His strategy would seem to be that Australia should be able to sink any fleet that is likely to be sent against us. Presumably, this will be accomplished by an airforce about double its current size and with a fleet of two dozen submarines. If all else fails we should also have a nuclear option available. To help pay for this we get rid of all our force projection assets. The destroyers, new frigates, LHDs and long range submarines will either be sold off or the programs cancelled and instead we would rely on light frigates and smaller submarines. The army's role would seem to be reduced to that of a light expeditionary force.

He also assumes that we cannot rely on any support from our allies and even goes as far as to suggest that these alliances could, in fact, be detrimental to our security in that it could draw us into conflict.

I will concede that he makes some good points in regard to America's not being willing to fight another Cold War. It may be inevitable that China will be the dominant power its region but that does not necessarily mean that the US will give up its control of the rest of the planet. In fact countries like Australia may well become even more important to the US as it attempts to contain China.

Personally I think that the alliance with the US will remain strong and perhaps even grow stronger as Chinese influence continues to grow. Australia's best strategy going forward would be to continue supporting its Allies. That means having the forces that will be useful in working beside its allies.

I can see where Mr White is coming from actually, he is talking about a Defence Force, as in literary a Defence Force, which isn't what we actually have, we have more of a small coalition contribution force, a hybrid force with the ability to project and support a small expeditionary force as part of a larger force, long distance from Australia's shores.
If Australia was to do a Sweden, and become neutral, with no real commitment to an alliance, then Mr Whites plan would make a lot more sense IMO.
You could argue, that what we have is actually a defence force, by contributing to our allies interests, our allies guarantee to support us should we require it, leaving us to maintain a modest permanent Defence Force, and allowing us to continue to enjoy welfare like medicare, unemployment benefits, free public education and other social luxuries some of allies just cant do.

 

[Raven22]

The problem with Hugh White’s thinking is that it ignores that there is more to conflict than war, and more to war than combat. It would only make sense if the world could exist in only one of two possible states, complete peace or complete war. However, of course, the world invariably exists somewhere along the spectrum between those two extremes. White’s ADF would only be useful at the extreme of war, and would give the nation next to no ability to shape the environment in a way that was in our national interest before it reached that point. It is an entirely naive viewpoint that ignores not only history, but what is happening today in regard to great power conflict.

I am big believer in Wylie’s famous expression that ‘the ultimate determinate in war is the man in the scene with a gun’. White seems to want to strip the nation of the ability to be that man.

 

[ASSAIL]

Talisman Sabre 19 is finally underway and hopefully this should be FOC for the ADF’s Amphibious Ready Group.
34,000 personnel are involved from mainly Us, Aus, NZ and Japan but troops and observers from many other nations will take part including an unwanted AGI from PLA-N
There will be some nice pics emerging over the next fortnight so keep your eyes peeled.

The fleet sails for Exercise TALISMAN SABRE 2019

 

[Boatteacher]

I find it amusing that the press constantly refer to the monitoring Chinese AGI ship as being "somewhere off the Australian coast" as if no one knows exactly where it is. But it is also made clear this is an old cold war game, which no doubt has certain expectations as to how it is played.

So the question is a generic one, rather than asking specifically what is happening in this case.
I presume it is fair to assume that the ANZUS+ Japanese participants would ensure they know exactly where it is?
Is a ship or aircraft normally detailed to shadow it?
To show my complete ignorance, was there ever developed during the cold war some sort of multi frequency, unidirectional radio interference 'beam' to make the shadowing ship's task more difficult? If not, would it be technically feasible these days?

 

[ngatimozart]

I find it amusing that the press constantly refer to the monitoring Chinese AGI ship as being "somewhere off the Australian coast" as if no one knows exactly where it is. But it is also made clear this is an old cold war game, which no doubt has certain expectations as to how it is played.

So the question is a generic one, rather than asking specifically what is happening in this case.
I presume it is fair to assume that the ANZUS+ Japanese participants would ensure they know exactly where it is?
Is a ship or aircraft normally detailed to shadow it?
To show my complete ignorance, was there ever developed during the cold war some sort of multi frequency, unidirectional radio interference 'beam' to make the shadowing ship's task more difficult? If not, would it be technically feasible these days?

The PRC vessel will be be doing its ELINT Cyber warfare etc., and at the same time ANZUSJ will be playing their games with it, plus gathering their intel. It works both ways. Whatever is done by ANZUSJ, how, when, where and why, is OPSEC and stays that way.

 

[hauritz]

The PRC vessel will be be doing its ELINT Cyber warfare etc., and at the same time ANZUSJ will be playing their games with it, plus gathering their intel. It works both ways. Whatever is done by ANZUSJ, how, when, where and why, is OPSEC and stays that way.

So in a way you could just say that the Chinese are just an unofficial participant in ANZUSJ.

 

[Redlands18]

So in a way you could just say that the Chinese are just an unofficial participant in ANZUSJ.

Probably won’t be available for a Post Exercise Debriefing though.

 

[ASSAIL]

Probably won’t be available for a Post Exercise Debriefing though.

All the noise about this AGI simply shows how complacent/comfortable western naval exercises have come since the demise of the USSR.
During the Cold War these spooks were a constant presence, so much so they were almost taken for granted and if they failed to show, exercise planners would be crestfallen that their exercise wasn’t deemed worthy of observation.
The PLA-N presence simply reflects their growing power and influence and besides it makes for excellent training, the discipline required when enforcing strict EMCON policies is a dose of reality.

 

[ngatimozart]

The ADF have grounded their full MRH90 fleet because of an unexplained tail rotor vibration in an aircraft flying off HMAS Adelaide. A MRH90 was in flight from Adelaide when it experienced the vibration and made a precautionary return aboard ship. As a result the full MRH90 fleet has been grounded as a precaution until the fault origin is determined.

 

[Tasman]

The ADF have grounded their full MRH90 fleet because of an unexplained tail rotor vibration in an aircraft flying off HMAS Adelaide. A MRH90 was in flight from Adelaide when it experienced the vibration and made a precautionary return aboard ship. As a result the full MRH90 fleet has been grounded as a precaution until the fault origin is determined.

Helps explain why photos and videos taken aboard Adelaide in the last few days of Talisman Sabre only showed a couple of Chinooks operating from the ship.

Tas

 

[ngatimozart]

Helps explain why photos and videos taken aboard Adelaide in the last few days of Talisman Sabre only showed a couple of Chinooks operating from the ship.

Tas

I have heard through back channels that the RNZAF NH90s are still flying because they've had a mod to rectify this issue. That's unofficial of course and I haven't any independent verification of it.

 

[MARKMILES77]

ASPI

Revisiting the north in the defence of Australia
27 Jun 2019|Paul Dibb

According to the vice chief of the defence force, David Johnston, during the Q&A following his keynote speech at ASPI’s ‘War in 2025’ conference on 13 June 2019, Defence is now undertaking a mobilisation review. It is to be hoped that such a review will include some or all the following: a review of readiness and the expansion base to include numbers of combat pilots and submariners; proposals for greatly expanded stocks of war-shot missiles and munitions; recognition of the need to guarantee the ADF’s fuel supplies in the north of Australia; attention to the hardening of northern bases against strikes and electronic-warfare attacks; and the sustainability planning required for round-the-clock military operations against a capable modern adversary.

Revisiting the north in the defence of Australia | The Strategist

Wonder how often a "Mobilisation review" is done by the ADF? Can't imagine it is often.
What would a full mobilisation even look like for Australia in the 21st century.
We could certainly generate and equip large numbers of light infantry units relatively quickly but not heavier units for Army without significant advance warning.
Navy and Airforce would require multiple years warning to build/obtain new vessels and aircraft.
We don't seem to keep any reserve/mothballed stock of vehicles, vessels or aircraft which could be rapidly reactivated in a crises.
As soon as a weapon system is replaced in frontline service it seems to be immediately scrapped or sold, even if it potentially has many years of useful life left.

 

[Stampede]

That's a very interesting question MarkMiles77

Without venturing into fantasy land, it's worth reflecting on the size of the ADF a year or two before both world wars and the size each of the services grew to during these terrible conflicts.
Does the same scope for rapid mobilisation apply in this technical age? What can be realistically achieved in a short time for a rapid modern mobilisation of a 21st century defence force?
I don't have the answers, but it does give cause to think when we debate and anguish over very small increments in defence capabilities, we can forget that the demands and expectations of a peace time budget are very different to one when your world becomes an ugly place.
I'm not advocating a chance to the defence budget but are interested if in a top draw somewhere, if there is a plan of an Australian army not of it's current composition but one that is two, three,four or many more times it's current size.

After all we have being there before.

Regards S

 

[ASSAIL]

That's a very interesting question MarkMiles77

Without venturing into fantasy land, it's worth reflecting on the size of the ADF a year or two before both world wars and the size each of the services grew to during these terrible conflicts.
Does the same scope for rapid mobilisation apply in this technical age? What can be realistically achieved in a short time for a rapid modern mobilisation of a 21st century defence force?
I don't have the answers, but it does give cause to think when we debate and anguish over very small increments in defence capabilities, we can forget that the demands and expectations of a peace time budget are very different to one when your world becomes an ugly place.
I'm not advocating a chance to the defence budget but are interested if in a top draw somewhere, if there is a plan of an Australian army not of it's current composition but one that is two, three,four or many more times it's current size.

After all we have being there before.

Regards S

I don’t think that an Army similar in size to the two AIFs is in the minds of the planners, the threat of an invasion is minimal and sending 300 k + troops overseas will never happen again IMHO.
The mobilisation Dibb speaks of is in high end capability, subs, combat aircraft, EW etc and further, fuel security, industrial capacity to support the expansion and port security.
We will never compete with potential adversaries on manpower, our advantage lies in being able to exploit out geography and our sea and air forces.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don’t think that an Army similar in size to the two AIFs is in the minds of the planners, the threat of an invasion is minimal and sending 300 k + troops overseas will never happen again IMHO.
The mobilisation Dibbled speaks of is in high end capability, subs, combat aircraft, EW etc and further fuel security, industrial capacity to support the expansion and port security.
We will never compete with potential adversaries on manpower, our advantage lies in being able to exploit out geography and our sea and air forces.

Yep, totally different state of affairs. Back then it was about empire etc. Now Australia has a totally different outlook closer to home, although from mid 1941 Australia started looking north with trepidation and after Malaya / Pearl Harbour (Malaya was attacked some hours before Pearl Harbour), it looked north with much more trepidation and then initiated actions to bring its forces home from the Middle East and Europe. Australia may not face invasion today, however it will face similar dangers that it did in 1941 - 43 with having its SLOC being cut isolating it, & NZ, from the allies.