ADF General discussion thread

[Ananda]

Just to show how much is the budget really for procurement. This year budget for defense close to USD 8 bio. However less than 22% of that can be allocated for procurement. The rest is for maintanance and salary. The President currently try to increased the mordernisation effort, but with (example) USD 33 bio spend on fuel or energy subsidise alone, not much can be done to significatly increase the defense budget from now. They (the military) can considered lucky if manage to get 15% increase next year on current budget.

In short even if Indonesia manage to keep economic growth on 6%-7% for next decade, it will be hard to raise the budget from current 0.9%-1% of GDP. Unless something significant on region security environment changes. Next year is ellection year, thus more budget will be allocated for social project as vote getting measure, which are more or less the same situations in many countries during ellection year.

The President opening political salvo to opposition, which then can put the blame on them if next year mordernisation packages being halted in parliement due to political wrangling.

What current administrations more interested on defense is more on building capacity and capabilities of local defense industries. That's why increase cooperations with ROK in defense happen. Not because ROK provide better prices or quality, but more due to the effort in increasing local industries involvement in which ROK willing more to give.

 

[foxdemon]

I found this today saying that Indonesia is buying over hundred second hand tanks from Germany see this link for the article Germany To Sell Tanks to Indonesia | Defense News | defensenews.com.
It seems as though they are pushing ahead with getting more military kit, I just wonder why so many tanks? its not like they have huge expanses of area for tank warfare like we do here in Australia? And if Indo are involved in some type of conflict internaly lets say, how will they get these tanks from island to island they do seem to have a few of those!

Looking at the article, that amount of vehicles is enough for one armoured brigade. I would think this is an example of 'keeping up with the Jones'. Both Australia and Singapore have been playing with new tanks in recent years, so I guess the Indonesians felt they'd like to play with some tanks too. Forming an armoured brigade wouldn't be high on my list of priorities if I was running the TNI, though.

 

[ASSAIL]

Quadrant Online - Why Our Defence Forces Face Terminal Decline

I have just read this piece by Jim Molan and it eruditely presents a point of view on the ADF's relationship with the people and their current government.

His description of Minister Smith as the "CEO" of defence is telling:

"He doesn't like the ADF, doesn't trust it, doesn't want to be the CEO, has no strategic long term vision, is not prepared to pay for defence, shows no public interest in its ultimate operational effectiveness, is risk averse in a portfolio that is all about risk, believes that accountability starts one step down from himself while irrationally attacking the ADF's reputation and consistently tells political half truths to the comany shareholders, the Australian people".

I found it an excellent read (forgive me if this is old news to some) and a thoughtful analysis of Australian Defence Policy and implementation in recent years.

 

[Navor86]

Since Australia now has a new goverment, when can we expect any announcements on changes/cuts/ new procurement?
Will they wait for a new White Paper or will there be any immediate announcements?

 

[John Newman]

Since Australia now has a new goverment, when can we expect any announcements on changes/cuts/ new procurement?
Will they wait for a new White Paper or will there be any immediate announcements?

I'm sure there will be range of differing views, but in my opinion, I think that until the new Government produces and announces it's new Defence White Paper there probably won't be any major announcements either way.

The Libs have said the new DWP will be due within 18mths, so at a guess, I'd say it will be announced just prior to the 2015 Budget.

Below is their party Defence Policy announced prior to the election:

http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.c...on's policy document for Stronger Defence.pdf

There is not a lot of detail, which you would expect from a pre election policy document, but from what I can see a number of the clearer messages are:

* Spending to 2% within a decade
* A decision within 18mths to ensure there is no submarine gap (ties in with the new DWP), and the replacements will be built in Adelaide.
* A commitment to the choice of the F-35, but more specifically on the initial 72 F-35's, but says this does also depend on the previous Governments commitments to Super Hornets (maybe this is referring to the additional 12 Growlers??)
* Mention and consideration of a 'Triton' type capability, but won't make decision a from opposition (probably means no announcement till the DWP)

So I suppose it will come down to, what are the 'major' decisions that are due to be made between now and the Libs new 2015 DWP?

And that probably means the 12 F-35A's (to make up the 1st Sqn of 14), maybe the Growlers, maybe something on the replacement of Success and Sirius might be examples of decisions that need to be addressed before the DWP

It will be interesting if the new Government will release the long awaited 2013 DCP that Labor would have prepared or will the DCP be skipped over for a while till they do a bit of a 're-write' on it before release?

 

[the road runner]

A few guys here have been talking about a SPH buy .
They are usually right so it would be nice to see the SPH get the nod after it was dropped by Labour! Paladin or K-9's would look great with a kangaroo on the side.
PZH2000 would be a dream come true.

Time will tell

 

[Todjaeger]

A few guys here have been talking about a SPH buy .
They are usually right so it would be nice to see the SPH get the nod after it was dropped by Labour! Paladin or K-9's would look great with a kangaroo on the side.
PZH2000 would be a dream come true.

Time will tell

Given a choice, I think a M109 buy of some version would be best, if any SPH were to be purchased. While the ADF does want (and would be better served with) an SPH with a 52-cal. barrel, the design is also spec'd to use an integrated fires system. None of the 52-cal. systems use what Australia uses, but the M109's do.

Time (and politics) however will tell.

-Cheers

 

[the road runner]

This might be of interest ... Prof Paul Dibb at the SPC meeting.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbUSnL3mKSU"]SPC13-26 - Session 7 - Emeritus Professor Paul Dibb - YouTube[/nomedia]

Some points i found interesting were

*Less revenue coming into government,but government still spending!
* An extra $2.9 Billion a year needed to pay for high end platforms
* Cut defence civilian bureaucracy (to help pay for the $2.9 billion)

If not we may get ......

*Less JSF than the 100 quoted
*Less subs than the 12 planed ( as a number of you def pros have already said)
*Land 400 to be reconsider ....

What do you guys think...
More for Navy ,less for Army ?

EDIT. there are a number of youtube videos up on the RANMedia website of the SPC conference you guys might find interesting

http://www.youtube.com/user/RANMedia?feature=watch

Cheers

 

[the road runner]

Prof Paul Dibb also talks about Submarine's at the 27 minute mark. He has a few interesting comments about subs.

He also talks about Multi role platforms being of greater flexibility for a defence force such as the ADF.

He states we should be thinking of plug in ,plug out capability as the LCS brings, being a capability we should look at to replace our frigates.


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puyFvuVMPiA"]SPC13-28 - Session 7 - QandA - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[ASSAIL]

EDIT. there are a number of youtube videos up on the RANMedia website of the SPC conference you guys might find interesting

RANMedia - YouTube

Cheers

I found Kim Beazley's presentation the most interesting and relevant to todays challenges.
He spoke about the ability to control and dominate the approaches to the north and north west and revealed that the strategic imperative of the time dictated a destroyer/frigate force of 17 ships in order to protect the five identified choke points and ensure dominance of ASW and electronic surveillance.

Nothing has changed for the RAN but the atrophy of our escort force makes any such dominance impossible.
The very thought of the Anzac replacement reducing from 8 to 6 is beyond belief and a fourth AWD a real no brainer. (I usually stay out of the debate on force structure but Beazley's presentation rang a cord).

Interestingly he also states that the multiplier effect of submarine numbers 7 & 8 is so pervasive that a force of 12 is not required and frees up money for the escort force.
His presentation is worth the 25 mins in viewing IMHO

Regards
Chris

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbMLHnnCq8o&list=UUQ8hkLHwG2MNGNHmW4EzMfg"]SPC13-22 - Session 6 - The Hon Kim Beazley - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[t68]

I was reading the current issue of defence today and they seem to be under the impression because of the cost growth margin for the future frigate program we may end up with as little as 4 vessels, if that was the case would we be better off just building additional AWD as these can work down from their intended role.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was reading the current issue of defence today and they seem to be under the impression because of the cost growth margin for the future frigate program we may end up with as little as 4 vessels, if that was the case would we be better off just building additional AWD as these can work down from their intended role.

Cost growth margin is normally factored into contingency - I wouldn't be taking that insight as insightul

 

[Volkodav]

Cost growth margin is normally factored into contingency - I wouldn't be taking that insight as insightul

It really is a sad state of affairs, I really wish a certain ex-PM and her faceless backers had left things well enough alone and let the Bomber run as opposition leader again. IMO he would have been in with a shot in 2004 and would have romped it in in 2007 and Australia would be in a better state now, defence definitely would.

Does anyone remember Bombers statement ref an early replacement of the F-111, forming a couple of extra RAR Btns and beefing up border protection? he was closer to right than anyone else at the time. Could you imagine him mismanaging the stimulus?

Government needs to change every now and the, its a necessary part of Democracy, I just wish Labor had stuck with the grown ups instead of going with people who were not ready, people who needed time in senior ministerial roles to lean the ropes. People who needed to prove themselves before promotion.

The state of the RAN is what pi$$es me off the most, it is so much smaller and less capable than was planned and I don't know if it will ever recover because the people who made all the current decisions (bar Choules) are now back in charge.

 

[Raven22]

Does anyone remember Bombers statement ref an early replacement of the F-111, forming a couple of extra RAR Btns and beefing up border protection? he was closer to right than anyone else at the time. Could you imagine him mismanaging the stimulus?

What's that? A politician promised something?

Well, that absolutely would have happened then...

 

[ASSAIL]

Government needs to change every now and the, its a necessary part of Democracy, I just wish Labor had stuck with the grown ups instead of going with people who were not ready, people who needed time in senior ministerial roles to lean the ropes. People who needed to prove themselves before promotion.

The state of the RAN is what pi$$es me off the most, it is so much smaller and less capable than was planned and I don't know if it will ever recover because the people who made all the current decisions (bar Choules) are now back in charge.

I agree entirely that Bomber could have changed the last several years for Labor but look at the university debating team they've just elected to lead them, not much rope learning there and that's a real shame but don't blame the current govt for the sins of Smith and co and the use of DoD budget to bankroll Labor's excesses.

If you've had time to look at ex minister Hills presentation and Q&A responses from the conference, you will be appalled at the seemingly lack of preparation, grasp of topic and general incompetence of this person, the contrast with Bomber is stark. I had no knowledge of his performance as defmin as I was embroiled in work for the last many years before joining this forum but if that performance was indicative of his years in charge it is little wonder the wheels fell off.
Chris
[/I]

 

[Volkodav]

Hill used to refer to himself as the Minister Assisting the Prime minister of Defence, i.e. Howard had a very firm grip on the portfolio and basically micro managed him.

This is understandable as by the time Hill took over their had been a succession of seat warmers through the portfolio who looked at defence as a personal plaything or even a convenient device to bludgeon Beazley with by attacking everything that was done other Labor, irrespective of its merit. By the time Hill took over Howard had been burnt by the lack of attention afforded defence, the inability to do things he wanted to do, as well international events forced a changing of priorities on the governments part as defence was now seen as important, it was a potential vote winner and a vote loser if not seen to be done well.

 

[Volkodav]

On to the nuts and bolts of Beazleys presentation, the mention of 17 majors is interesting, I had always been under the impression that it was to have been 16 plus a dozen or so corvettes. My understanding was that the DDGs (3) and FFGs (6) were to have been replaced by a class of (8) FFG/DDGs to form the Tier 1 element while the ANZACs (8) were to have been Tier 2. Beazley seems to be suggesting that the existing Tier 1 ships were planned to be replaced one for one. The mention of NZs contribution of 4 Anzacs brings the total of majors up to 21, only 2 short of the 23 Frazer (as defence minister in the late 60s early 70s) stated that we needed.

All of this leads my to wonder if we would be better off had we not wasted so much time on the failed ANZAC WIP and just built modern replacements for the 3 DDGs before replacing the 6 FFGs with something suitable.

All irrelevant now, I seriously doubt, considering the political climate and the reductions in number to date that we will ever see such a plan realised.

3 Flight IIA Burkes would have been good especially if followed by 6 FFGs (F-100s or maybe even F124 with SPY-1F), complementing the ANZACs and Corvettes. N

 

[hairyman]

IT is a pity the C.F.Adams were not replaced one for one when they were retired. Maybe we could of got from the Yanks three Ticonderosa destroyers. Although they may have been a bit man-power heavy for the R.A.N.

 

[John Newman]

IT is a pity the C.F.Adams were not replaced one for one when they were retired. Maybe we could of got from the Yanks three Ticonderosa destroyers. Although they may have been a bit man-power heavy for the R.A.N.

Actually we had the opportunity to take up the 4 Kidd class DDG's, but that offer was declined, supposedly because of the bad taste left in our mouths from the problems associated with the two second hand Newport LST's which became Manoora and Kanimbla.

See the link below about the Kidd Class:

Kidd-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually we had the opportunity to take up the 4 Kidd class DDG's, but that offer was declined, supposedly because of the bad taste left in our mouths from the problems associated with the two second hand Newport LST's which became Manoora and Kanimbla.

See the link below about the Kidd Class:

Kidd-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3 x Tico cruisers (Block 1's) were also an option - but deemed US for our needs. Too much effort required to make them competitive