ADF General discussion thread

[oldsig127]

I googled Wilbur Ross and found this

Defence Connect

Article by Stephen Kuper. Anyone here know whether he has any credibility in defence matters? His Linkdin profile says nothing.

A suggestion to anyone reading this article. Leave the comments alone unless you really want your eyes to bleed from increased blood pressure. On secnd thought, this pretty much applies to most public comments on that site

oldsig

 

[Takao]

The thing that struck me about the story was it coincided with the USAF speculating about exporting the B21 to allies including Australia and I wasn't aware of the ASPI article until I logged on here. I may need to get my foil hat ready but it seems to have gone from not on the radar at all to quite a few airpower types discussing it, almost if there is a coordinated attempt to set the narrative on a Raider with Roo roundels.

It is just the 2 ex-CAFs and 3 or so ASPI peeps.

Anytime it's come up at work there has been much derision - from civilian and all military. It's not even a half-baked idea, not even sure the batter is fully mixed.

Of course, it wasn't the silliest idea I heard today...

 

[buffy9]

HMAS Adelaide's deployment to Op Render Safe in the Solomon Islands coincides rather nicely with the Bougainville referendum for independence, which appears to be going peacefully several weeks out.

It would seem the LHD is being used as a key signal of the ADF in the region. It is supporting very low end HADR and engagement activities in a key SW Pacific nation, whilst at the same time being present locally for a key regional event - ready to respond if necessary, perhaps.

I haven't been able to find much info on what assets are loaded aboard besides some MRH-90s, engineer/diver elements, a donated ambulance and various other small support/auxiliary elements. Should there be a situation in Bougainville, Honiara may act as a safe/accessible staging area whereby increased forces can be loaded aboard and then be transported to Bougainville, in conjunction with more tactical airland insertions, should it come to that.

HMAS Adelaide heads to the Solomons - Australian Defence Magazine

Factions pave way for lasting peace - Post Courier

Bougainville prepares for 'peaceful, credible' independence vote - official

 

[Massive]

In the absence of a clear strategy (which we don’t really have), I think history has shown us the best thing to do is have as balanced a force as possible, which is largely what is happening.

I definitely agree with this.

It also leads me to have a fair bit of sympathy for the efforts of Paul Dibb and Hugh White. While I don't typically agree with their answers, they are clearly trying to move to a clear strategy and flow the ADF force structure from this.

Not many are really prepared to engage in this debate though - it flares and dies quickly.

It is almost as if a balanced force is the easy answer, so no one asks the hard question that will lead to an equally hard answer.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

Be

It is just the 2 ex-CAFs and 3 or so ASPI peeps.

Anytime it's come up at work there has been much derision - from civilian and all military. It's not even a half-baked idea, not even sure the batter is fully mixed.

Of course, it wasn't the silliest idea I heard today...

Been reading "The Impact of the Charles F. Adams Class Guided Missile Destroyers on the Royal Australian Navy" by Dr David Shackleton, AO Vice Admiral (RAN Retired).
https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/defau...ct_of_charles_f_adams_class_on_ran.pdf#page=9

Very interesting on the acquisition side of things, well frightening actually, the very successful procurement was more by accident than design, with government policy, the appearance to be a good ally, and the RANs desperation to get anything at all, over riding the capability required to achieve stated objectives. In a nut shell the Adams Class got up because it was American and the cheapest option, had there been a cheaper option, even if it was basically useless, it would have been selected instead.

Still have a long way to go but interesting statements about the apparent complete lack of understanding of the design compromises necessary in 60s vintage warships by the RAN, let alone the politically classes, the almost total reliance on the RN telling us what we needed and why, and most disturbingly the reason what the construction of the final two River Class DEs was such a mess, have been very informative.

On the Rivers, Swan and Torrens were constructed without even a formal contract, let alone a fixed design, they were sorted out as they were built. I had no idea that things were so amateurish in the decade before I was born.

I suppose this explains the romantic desire for simpler less complex times when a person with authority could sell a "bright idea" without any real need to "jump through hoops", it how it actually used to work. Put your idea forward, if it fit the government of the days narrative and was affordable with the money made available, then pretty much anything could get up, whether it fit the actual needs of the ADF or not, is how it actually used to happen. It explains a lot of the waste and inconsistency seen post war.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So we are still trying to replace the F-111 with a like for like replacement. Didn't we replace them with Super Hornets? does the AF regret their purchase?

B21 talk is madness. Not going to happen. I am sure the US would be interested in basically any defense procurement Australia was seriously interested in. But the B-21 is the wrong program. Certainly at this stage.

 

[t68]

So we are still trying to replace the F-111 with a like for like replacement. Didn't we replace them with Super Hornets? does the AF regret their purchase?

B21 talk is madness. Not going to happen. I am sure the US would be interested in basically any defense procurement Australia was seriously interested in. But the B-21 is the wrong program. Certainly at this stage.

I honestly don’t think B21 will ever see RAAF service either, but I think the discussion on Super’s replacement of F111 is not correct either as there was not direct replacement available to compare it with, if the Americans were serious about FB-22 and were willing to sell to internationally I think a number of countries may have picked it up as either F111 or Tornado replacement as well as replacing the 117. I’m not trying to disparage the benefits the Supers have brought to the RAAF along with the G which may have never been considered if there truly was an alternative. I think the only other realistic alternatives was the F-15 how that would handle the maritime strike role would be interesting.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Supers were rushed through to fill the capability gap between the retirement of the F-111 and the F-35 coming on. I do agree they weren't an exact replacement for the capabilities of the F-111, nothing was available that could do that particular job.

Australia was forced to acquire 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets in order to maintain capability and capacity through the period between the retirement of the F-111C strike aircraft in 2010 and the F-35A’s service entry from 2018.

The options that weren’t for the RAAF fighter fleet - Australian Aviation

FB-22 was killed off before it even began, because you end up building a slightly larger F-35. The closest to a tactical multi-role bomber is basically the F-35C. Of course the RAAF is never going put forward the purchase of a carrier variant when it already has A's. The US made 2 carrier capable F-35's and no-specific long range bomber version.

If the RAAF wants to go down this rabbit hole (I don't think they do as a service) in terms of capability, then the logical conclusion is OTS low risk is F-35B's or F-35C's, off a carrier. The US is making the planes, Italy, japan, Korea, Spain, the UK, the US will all happily sell carriers.

Jumping into the B-21 program now means riding all the crazy problems and costs. The in service date will end up mid 2040+, and costs will be tremendous. It is likely to be overtaken by unmanned platforms which will have faster/cheaper development and production costs.

 

[John Fedup]

The B-21 along with the Columbia program are the US's two most urgent strike programs. The B-21 will be successful given NG's experiences with what to do and not do wrt stealthy aircraft plus the Congress will be watching NG like a hawk. A B-21 UAV version is probably a given. An Australian version of either B-21 is unlikely but with a drastic change in the Asia Pacific region, anything is possible.

 

[Massive]

An Australian version of either B-21 is unlikely but with a drastic change in the Asia Pacific region, anything is possible.

Latest on this debate from ASPI:

Australia and the Goldilocks bomber | The Strategist

Not a huge move along in the debate but raises the concept of a long-range strike UAV - though noting that this would need to be developed.

Regards,

Massive

 

[vonnoobie]

Suprised no one has bought up just going straight to long range hypersonic missiles launched from Australia. We already understand the tech and are involved in its development for decades now and that has a greater chance of reality then some B-21 fantasy fleet. In all seriousness if the government some how had the money and extra manpower made available without cutting any other service/capability then I would rather those funds go into long range missiles, UAV's and taking a bigger step forward with the Loyal Wingman. For all it would cost we could acquire a much larger bang for our buck with any other purchase.

 

[ngatimozart]

Latest on this debate from ASPI:

Australia and the Goldilocks bomber | The Strategist

Not a huge move along in the debate but raises the concept of a long-range strike UAV - though noting that this would need to be developed.

Regards,

Massive

I disagree with Hellyer's statement that "... we would be seeking to complicate an adversary’s operational planning by letting them know that wherever they operated within a 3,000- to 4,000-kilometre radius of Australia, they would be exposed to attack. And importantly we could do it anywhere, anytime, again and again—something that submarines can’t do." Subs can undertake that mission using tube launched cruise missiles. You just have to have more than one sub on station within range of the target(s). It is not a reason to validate other options. Having said that, it is always helpful to have more than one string to your bow and I would be tempted to study other viable options.

Suprised no one has bought up just going straight to long range hypersonic missiles launched from Australia. We already understand the tech and are involved in its development for decades now and that has a greater chance of reality then some B-21 fantasy fleet. In all seriousness if the government some how had the money and extra manpower made available without cutting any other service/capability then I would rather those funds go into long range missiles, UAV's and taking a bigger step forward with the Loyal Wingman. For all it would cost we could acquire a much larger bang for our buck with any other purchase.

The question that I would ask, is it important or necessary for a manned platform to penetrate an IADS when a smart LO cruise missile such as the AGM-158B JASSM-ER or AGM-158C LRASM can do the same? When hypersonic missiles are bought into the equation, would you consider HSSM being launched from within continental Australia? Or would you consider medium range i.e., ≤ 1,000 nm being launched from air, surface or submarine platforms as well? Something to think about.

 

[seaspear]

Australian military to state 'clear position' on killer robot ethics next year
No hands on deck: US and Australian progress in autonomous warfare at sea — United States Studies Centre
This article suggests that the Australia may take an open mind to autonomous warfae
Chapter 5 – Parliament of Australia
I have attempted to place these articles together for some context in this discussion as it can appear development of these systems is ahead of hard and fast international legislation on their development and deployment

 

[vonnoobie]

The question that I would ask, is it important or necessary for a manned platform to penetrate an IADS when a smart LO cruise missile such as the AGM-158B JASSM-ER or AGM-158C LRASM can do the same? When hypersonic missiles are bought into the equation, would you consider HSSM being launched from within continental Australia? Or would you consider medium range i.e., ≤ 1,000 nm being launched from air, surface or submarine platforms as well? Something to think about.

No I personally dont think we have to be able to penetrade an IADS. When all said and done we are prety capable of penetrating any IADS in South East asia with the only nations in range of Australia that could be a threat China that we wouldnt be able to. Acquiring such a capability for the sole use against a single nation that MIGHT be a threat one day is a poor use of funds and resources when our force is as small and financially constrained as it is.

The way I see it and this is just my 2 cents should take a crawl, walk, run philosophy. Stop basing our defense entirely around China and look at the broad picture giving our selves a diversified capability rather then a limited capability if we built our force entirely around China. Start off with the AGM-158B JASSM-ER's and/or AGM-158C LRASM's for the crawl phase. For the walk/run phase I cant rightly say.. Could be UAV's, Loyal Wingmans or HSSM's launched from Australia but we wont known until some of that tech starts to mature and we get a firmer grip on what we require after getting existing weapons in service that can be used from our current/planned assets.

 

[ASSAIL]

The Guardian-Australia hasn’t got much good to say about Australian Defence “news”.
The detractor in chief seems to be their Defence reporter Paul Daley who finds fault with just about every project.
Of the dozen+ news items at the link Australian defence force | Australia news | The Guardian more than half are negative although I really shouldn’t be surprised given the editorial bias of this organisation.
Examples;
PM doesn’t specifically single out indigenous vets when thanking all vets,
Tony Abbott is the wrong choice for the War Memorial Board,
Sub documents hidden to avoid embarrassing Japan,
Best way to stop worrying about oil shortages is to stop using it,
Australia wasn’t a hero during the ET peacekeeping, it was US military muscle that allowed us in,
Ministers spend a $50k on flights, and
Defence deals with a US govt blacklisted firm.

All riveting stuff for sure!

 

[John Fedup]

No worries, when he writes about Canadian defence news, Australia will be absolutely brilliant compared to Canada.

 

[Milne Bay]

Interestingly the ADF has not selected the Reaper.
The reasons are given below.
MQ-9B Sky Guardian chosen over Reaper

AIRCDRE Goldie also described the primary difference between the two variants under consideration for the down-selection.

“The big difference between the MQ-9A and MQ-9B is that the MQ-9B is able to be certified to fly in civilian airspace,” AIRCDRE Goldie said.


Read more at MQ-9B Sky Guardian chosen over Reaper - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[ngatimozart]

Interestingly the ADF has not selected the Reaper.
The reasons are given below.
MQ-9B Sky Guardian chosen over Reaper

AIRCDRE Goldie also described the primary difference between the two variants under consideration for the down-selection.

“The big difference between the MQ-9A and MQ-9B is that the MQ-9B is able to be certified to fly in civilian airspace,” AIRCDRE Goldie said.


Read more at MQ-9B Sky Guardian chosen over Reaper - Australian Defence Magazine

Well it does make a lot of sense, because the MQ-9A Reaper would've been restricted in the airspace that it could've used without special authorisations / mods etc.

 

[Massive]

Is anyone else on this forum becoming increasingly worried that Australia may well experience a significant strategic surprise in coming years?

I feel that our relationship with China is becoming increasingly tense, and that there is a lack of grand strategy and related defence strategy working to proactively address the threat that this represents.

I feel that our (lack of) a clear defence strategy, with a capability clearly aligned with this, could well leave us short on needed capability if things become significantly worse.

I would love to know peoples thoughts on this.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Boagrius]

In short, yes. I have heard rumblings that the Chinese lease of Tulagi may actually go ahead. If this is the case it may be a matter of time until it gets militarized (?).

I think this is the kind of strategic shock that is in the pipeline like it or lump it. I will leave it to the pros to comment on whether I am correct and what the implications are.