ADF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

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.

Last I heard is that the lease was denied but that was about a week back. If it does go ahead then I would suggest that the Chicom behaviour in the South China Sea would be an exemplar for their behaviour, bar the claiming it as sovereign Chinese territory by historical right.

 

[ngatimozart]

I posted the two links below originally in the China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical thread, but they are also equally pertinent here. The linkages between the two are important, and they do and will have impacts upon Australian and the South West Pacific.

Beijing's tactics are driving spiral of violence in Hong Kong

Touted as ‘next Hong Kong’ Taiwan lives on the edge

This third article, China, media freedom in the Pacific, and the great Australian silence, whilst I don't suggest it has direct linkages to the first two, it certainly is a cause for concern because it illuminates behaviour that is not that dissimilar to that of the PRC, albeit of a gentler form, regarding the journo, but the extradition of people without due process is far more alarming. What else that is alarming, is that the two dogs that should have barked the most in this case, Australia & NZ, didn't even whimper. Neither did the PIF (Pacific Islands Forum) or any of its members AFAIK. I am very happy to be corrected. The govt of Nauru has a similar attitude towards media and Fiji goes through a love / hate cycle with foreign media.

I don't have very much time for MSM usually because they don't let facts get in a way of a story. However, a free and unencumbered media is one of the main pillars of an open and free democracy and once you start restricting and muzzling the media, its downhill from there. There was an Austrian philosopher & Jewish refugee, Karl Popper, who taught at my alma mater during WW2. He wrote The Open Society and its Enemies whilst he was here and I do thoroughly recommend it, if you like that sort of thing. He discusses what is happening in the world now. The point that I believe he makes is that we must not let our rights, freedoms, or media, be restrained within reason*, or we will slide into dictatorship be it from the left or the right of politics. We must stand up for what is right and face down evil / wrong.(Long time since I read the book).

In Australia's (& NZs) case I believe it is time for the political and bureaucratic elite to be far more aware of what is happening in the region and to the north and north east viz a viz the PRC, and to be more assertive in their responses. It is best to be prepared just in case it all turns to rubbish. If it doesn't then that's great, but it also shows any potential aggressors that you are awake and prepared.

*Within reason is defined as the social and moral code, e.g., murder, rape, theft, etc.

 

[Boagrius]

In a possibly perverse way I am heartened by the fact that they have yet to get their way in Hong Kong, and I suspect even a successful annexation of Taiwan would become a quagmire for them long term.

Nevertheless I find the prospect of PRC militarization of sites in the South Pacific alarming and imagine it should serve to shape/focus our future strategic direction.

 

[Stampede]

In a possibly perverse way I am heartened by the fact that they have yet to get their way in Hong Kong, and I suspect even a successful annexation of Taiwan would become a quagmire for them long term.

Nevertheless I find the prospect of PRC militarization of sites in the South Pacific alarming and imagine it should serve to shape/focus our future strategic direction.

Hong Kong could go many ways, but so far we have not seen tanks on this cities vibrant streets, and this city and the world are better off for it.
Of course its an unfinished chapter, so nations in the region both near and far are reassessing how to contend with a wide range of uncertain outcomes.
Concerning times for all, including the PRC.

As to Taiwan, the result of the election next year will be interesting and suggest the events and outcomes in Hong Kong may have an influence here.

What should not be underestimated is that may Taiwanese live and work on the mainland and have a personal history with the mainland.
Will this and the interdependence of commerce be the glue that eventually unifies these two nations.
Or will time cement the people of Taiwan's sense of self and uniqueness, that eventually moves them further away form the PRC politically and ideologically,if not geographically.
So how would the CCP deal with this outcome?

The Falkland Islands are a long way from Taiwan but some parallels could be drawn with the two.
Could a domestically challenged CCP, seeking to garnish domestic favour through patriotic drum beating take the military path to bring a renegade province back into the fold.
What would / should / could the region ,the USA and Australia do if such a course of events unfold.

A military invasion does sound unthinkable but history remands us that the unthinkable is sometimes possible.

In another thread we are talking about the sale of our two FFG's
Maybe we should re asses that and many other things to do with defence rather quickly.

PS.
How many of our Hobart and ANZAC Class are in the water and are an option for government this week?


Regards S




.

 

[DouglasLees]

The security problems and pressures talked about in this report would be applicable to most western nations including Australia and New Zealand. While acceptance of climate change is gaining momentum, there is still a reluctance to talk about or understand the problem of unrestrained population growth and its effects, one of which is as a driver behind climate change. The reasons for this are mainly political (both left and right wing politics require an expanding population for the extra taxes ) and religious as most major religions have a "Go forth and multiply " The security problems this will bring in the years to come will be of a greatly increased nature to what they are now as desperate people will follow demonic leaders (as per Germany and Adolf Hitler) who will use this desperation to their own ends. Our pollies are very unlikely to take steps to counter this problem and will always be in the "TOO LITTLE TOO LATE" brigade

This is in many ways our most pressing social and environmental issue on a global level. It forms a toxic combination with the worst affects of climate change: desertification, water shortage and storms or floods that destroy communities and local economies. The current political 'left' and 'right' both support the idea of an expanding population because they are both committed to economic growth as an end in itself, irrespective of quality of life issues. This overlaps with an emphasis on personal autonomy/'choice' and group rights as opposed to co-operation and civil society as we used to understand it. Also, the revival of religious fundamentalism and populist nationalism add new ingredients to the mix. In Turkey, President Erdogan urges his citizens to have large families and Viktor Orban is pursuing similar goals in Hungary. The far right believe that 'white' people are in danger of being outbred globally and in 'their' countries - a disturbing revival of Blood and Soil ideology. Worryingly, in the UK a member of Boris Johnson's inner circle was quoted in the press yesterday as advocating a strong relationship with Orban and saying that there was much to be admired in his family and population policies (this strange negates one of the positive features of Brexit - being able to disengage from EU governments like that of Orban!).

At the same time, the combination of ecological and population pressures will lead to an increase in the number of environmental refugees (which will in turn fuel racial nationalism and fears about immigration). It is hard to feel optimistic unless there is a rethink of our economic and material priorities. With or without such a rethink, the security implications remain serious and are a strong argument for more long-term investment in defence and perhaps in particular Naval capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

PEOPLE: I know a little of this is done, a low cost idea that might improve the military capabilities of all of the Pacific nations would be that ALL of those on a promotional track whether NCO or officer spent a year (or 2) in the Australian army as an exchange at one rank below their current rank. My thoughts is if you have ever been involved in any sporting or musical activity simply spending a year or two around people that are much more advanced than you you learn so much just by osmosis. This would significantly improve the professionalism and knowledge base within the Pacific Island army units and build links to Australia.

PLACES: What do you think of the idea of a small cyclone proof storage faculty, (think land based Strategic sealift ship) with disaster relief equipment/supplies being co-managed AUS & Locals in each of the Pacific nations. (a 2 year posting in Fiji would not be terrible)

ALSO I don't know if any of you have seen this U.S. Military Could Collapse Within 20 Years Due to Climate Change, a report commissioned By Pentagon says a combination of global starvation, war, disease, drought, and a fragile power grid could have a cascading, devastating effect. NOTE I can't find the source report.

@Sideline The source report was linked to in your link above. I just checked the link now and it's working, but it may have not been working when you looked at your link.

https://climateandsecurity.files.wo...-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf

 

[malleboy]

This is in many ways our most pressing social and environmental issue on a global level. It forms a toxic combination with the worst affects of climate change: desertification, water shortage and storms or floods that destroy communities and local economies. The current political 'left' and 'right' both support the idea of an expanding population because they are both committed to economic growth as an end in itself, irrespective of quality of life issues. This overlaps with an emphasis on personal autonomy/'choice' and group rights as opposed to co-operation and civil society as we used to understand it. Also, the revival of religious fundamentalism and populist nationalism add new ingredients to the mix. In Turkey, President Erdogan urges his citizens to have large families and Viktor Orban is pursuing similar goals in Hungary. The far right believe that 'white' people are in danger of being outbred globally and in 'their' countries - a disturbing revival of Blood and Soil ideology. Worryingly, in the UK a member of Boris Johnson's inner circle was quoted in the press yesterday as advocating a strong relationship with Orban and saying that there was much to be admired in his family and population policies (this strange negates one of the positive features of Brexit - being able to disengage from EU governments like that of Orban!).

At the same time, the combination of ecological and population pressures will lead to an increase in the number of environmental refugees (which will in turn fuel racial nationalism and fears about immigration). It is hard to feel optimistic unless there is a rethink of our economic and material priorities. With or without such a rethink, the security implications remain serious and are a strong argument for more long-term investment in defence and perhaps in particular Naval capability.

The saying goes that "demography is destiny" and in a military sense that once was largely true.

A prudent government, takes into account all possible issues that impact it militarily. For example there are a number of demographers who are forecasting peak population at 2040 not 2100, with a peak population of 8 rather than 11 billion. Attempts at reversing demographic decline, have generally had no impact impact. (Eg Peter Costello's, plea for "one for dad, on for mum and one for the country") as once birth rates decrease they area almost impossible to reverse. Peak oil is possibly already upon us, but not peak production as we spent much of the last half century concerned with but rather peak consumption, which will drive down production. It may be possible that we may move from immigrant demand being greater than desired by host countries, to being below that required by the countries that have been using it to offset there own demographic decrease.

 

[ngatimozart]

The saying goes that "demography is destiny" and in a military sense that once was largely true.

A prudent government, takes into account all possible issues that impact it militarily. For example there are a number of demographers who are forecasting peak population at 2040 not 2100, with a peak population of 8 rather than 11 billion. Attempts at reversing demographic decline, have generally had no impact impact. (Eg Peter Costello's, plea for "one for dad, on for mum and one for the country") as once birth rates decrease they area almost impossible to reverse. Peak oil is possibly already upon us, but not peak production as we spent much of the last half century concerned with but rather peak consumption, which will drive down production. It may be possible that we may move from immigrant demand being greater than desired by host countries, to being below that required by the countries that have been using it to offset there own demographic decrease.

@malleboy Could you provide some sources for your claim that peak population is being forecast for 2040? And why 8 billion rather than 11 billion later? For example UN projections show that Australian population growth is forecast to increase at a similar rate to the present out to 2100 and these graphs, the demographics show that as it affects different population groups. You will note that there is a steady increase in the numbers of the > 25 quartiles and a slow increase in the < 25 quartiles, with the 25 - 64 quartile having the largest 95% prediction interval as it gets closer to 2100. Whilst this may be different to your data sources for overall world population forecasts, it is an important consideration for the ADF as it plans for the future.

 

[malleboy]

ngatimozart,

The numbers come from "Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline"

Review attached...
‘Empty Planet’ Review: A Drop in Numbers

Australia (along with USA and Canada) as an significant importer of immigrants, is mitigating demographic changes that would otherwise occur given our current birth rate of 1.81. I mentioned Australia as being not able to reverse birth rate decline, not that our population was declining.

Regardless of whether it is in 2100 as UN currently predicts or earlier, in the East Asia region population decrease is already occurring, which will have an impact on population and economies that play a significant part in our broader regional outlook.

World Bank data showing Japan in decline already
Population, total - Japan | Data

 

[ngatimozart]

ngatimozart,

The numbers come from "Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline"

Review attached...
‘Empty Planet’ Review: A Drop in Numbers

Australia (along with USA and Canada) as an significant importer of immigrants, is mitigating demographic changes that would otherwise occur given our current birth rate of 1.81. I mentioned Australia as being not able to reverse birth rate decline, not that our population was declining.

Regardless of whether it is in 2100 as UN currently predicts or earlier, in the East Asia region population decrease is already occurring, which will have an impact on population and economies that play a significant part in our broader regional outlook.

World Bank data showing Japan in decline already
Population, total - Japan | Data

Ok, first of define the geographical parameters of East Asia. Secondly, most of the literature that I remember reading suggested that first world countries populations would decline over time because of declining birth rates due to increased living standards, increased longevity, changes in social dynamics etc. As you have said nations like Asutralia and NZ have used immigration to increase their population. However I would argue that nations such as Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos, the populations are increasing.

If you look at the above graph, you can see that definitely Vietnam and the Philippines disprove your assertion and they are East Asian nations. I've included both Australia and NZ in the graph to enable a quick compare and contrast. I have deliberately excluded the PRC because the scale of the graph would make any comparison a waste of time and I don't have the time to go find all the date and create a proper graph.

Use a single source of data to support a claim isn't a very good idea when making comparisons.

Whilst this very vaguely refers to the ADF, time to get back on topic.

 

[Rob c]

Use a single source of data to support a claim isn't a very good idea when making comparisons.

Totally agree with this, I have for interest been going around various sites in regard to population and what the world can sustain in regard to population and there is no figures that can be quoted as definitive with differing sites claiming that we will reach 10b from anywhere from 2050 to around 2100 and a world population sustainability vairing from a low of 8.7B to 10B. Whatever the end result, I believe we are heading into an era of a high probability of significant conflict, which could easily involve our neck of the woods. Water and food resources will be a significant reason for these possible conflicts as forecast by the London universities study into future strategic directions in the early 2000's ( sorry I lost the link many years ago when my then computer died about 2010.)

 

[ngatimozart]

Hugh White has burst into print again and whilst the naysayers will say he's not worth listening too, he does raise a valid point here about allies and friends in the region and why Australia must plan to fight alone. Why Australia must plan to fight alone. I don't agree with everything that he writes, but in this case I think he has a very valid point. It is my belief that too many assumptions are being made by too many people, about who will turn up on the day if / when it arrives. It is always assumed that the US will turn up, and I see defence pollies, bureaucracts, analysts, writers, strategists in the open media, and posters on here who blindly follow the mantra of the US turning up for the big blue against johnny foreigner, but what if it can't / won't? What do you do then? That's the question Hugh White and now I are posing. This leads to the next article

The defence strategy of Australia and what is the best of two options - The defence of Australia? Or core force? Defence of Australia or core force? – The Australian Naval Institute. The article discusses both and doesn't offer a neat solution. So what is Australia to do to solve this problem and to be able plan to fight alone if need be?

 

[Stampede]

Hugh White has burst into print again and whilst the naysayers will say he's not worth listening too, he does raise a valid point here about allies and friends in the region and why Australia must plan to fight alone. Why Australia must plan to fight alone. I don't agree with everything that he writes, but in this case I think he has a very valid point. It is my belief that too many assumptions are being made by too many people, about who will turn up on the day if / when it arrives. It is always assumed that the US will turn up, and I see defence pollies, bureaucracts, analysts, writers, strategists in the open media, and posters on here who blindly follow the mantra of the US turning up for the big blue against johnny foreigner, but what if it can't / won't? What do you do then? That's the question Hugh White and now I are posing. This leads to the next article

The defence strategy of Australia and what is the best of two options - The defence of Australia? Or core force? Defence of Australia or core force? – The Australian Naval Institute. The article discusses both and doesn't offer a neat solution. So what is Australia to do to solve this problem and to be able plan to fight alone if need be?

Always good to ask the question.
What I don't understand is what are they really talking about with regards to actual capability re a comparison of Defence of Australia and or "Core force."
Assuming the defence budget stays the same, what would the ADF's inventory actually look like and how different would this be to what we have today.
I'm sure there would be as many interpretations to that question as the number of people you ask

I'm actually a very old fashioned chappie and like to know the simple numbers and types of planes,tanks and ships we have in service.
Their capabilities,the quality of the crew that make them work, and how they integrate with each other tends to give a good indication of what we actually can and cannot do.

This may sound very simplistic.But our military history shows we may have to defend our homeland or fight on anyone of the worlds continents.
Conduct high end warfare with heavy bits of kit or do counter insurgency with much lighter stuff. We may fight in very large numbers as in the two World Wars or something much smaller with commensurate numbers and equipment.We will need to conduct operations under and on the surface of the sea and in the sky's above.The land environment may be in the hills and mountains or vast open plains,Jungle or more arid landscapes interrupted by towns and cities .

Our geography and needs make us relatively unique in defence terms made more challenging by our somewhat limited population size

We need and ADF that can do it all be cause we have done it all before.

So for the future their is absolutely no script other than trying to do the best we can within the budget available.
So I hear the argument we can't do that we have to do one or the other.
We need to make a choice!
So what does one or the other look like?
Not critical, just puzzled

Regards S

 

[Goknub]

I think White's article is using a strawman argument to push his DOA theory of sticking all our resources into preparing for one version of one scenario based on defending the Air-Sea Gap against a marauding Imperial Japanese Fleet/PLA-N.

I don't see anyone in a position of influence, or even a passing understanding of our history, who assumes that we will always be fighting with friends/allies. In fact it's usually the opposite, an under-estimation of how important the Pacific is to the US compared to the British Empire. Most of the effort post-DOA has been on building a credible high end force capable of deterring aggression without the need for external allies. I don't see anyone following the mantra he posits that we assume the Yanks will come riding to our rescue.

That second article I think is poorly researched. The Core Force (under various names) has been Australia's doctrine post-WW2 until DOA, not something that came up in 1973. The last 20 years of operations has demonstrated that the Core Force was the better of the two.
That's not to say there aren't valid arguments to be had. But the RAAF and RAN are both capable high-end fighting forces. I would say the Army is the current weak link, having been stuck with a light infantry doctrine for far too long (thanks largely to DOA which White is largely responsible for). But that is in the process of being corrected. All up, I think it is quite disappointing that this is what the supposed best and brightest can come up with.

 

[Takao]

For all my disdain of Hugh White, his questions about alliances are solid. Much of his underlying assessment is good - it's when he start proposing solutions and making "logic" links between his data he is proving to be increasingly redundant.

United States
with respect to the US, the Pacific is clearly their lake from their point of view. Even the pre-1941 operations and exercises (especially pre-1930) had an element of reminding the Brit's that the US wanted to be the force in the Pacific. So there is the temptation to assume that will continue to occur forever and that Australia can leverage off it. And that's not a horrible temptation.

But... All the recent (say, last 5 years) press promoting the US shift to the Indo-Pacific has been pure words. In every respect, it hasn't happen. Diplomatically (ambassadors not being posted, SecState not visiting key nations), aid (the has been a real and a % of budget decrease in aid from the US to the Pacific), military (Atlantic and CENTCOM still have priority) and intelligence work has been all focused elsewhere. The actions of the US (including pre-Trump) do not match the words they are saying. Now, that is concerning because the reality is that if something happens in the Pacific than the US will rapidly pivot back. But while they ignore it, those elements in the Pacific will take a more brutal cost in the opening attacks. Which will mean a higher proportion of losses on Japanese and Australian forces.

Add this to Trumps comments about allies having to pay - and there are serious questions about the US's laxity about how they view the Pacific and the consequences for Australia. We may have to act as the BEF did in 1939/40 or 1914 to support a crumbling US front...

Others
I think White undermines his own argument here.

History—the only guide we have—suggests that shared values count for little in decisions for war. Shared fears of a common enemy are what count. Military alliances work and endure only when the parties are convinced that their own security depends directly on the security of an ally, and the more direct the dependence, the stronger the alliance will be.

Indonesia
Yes. 100%. And the reality is, if you want to play silly buggers with Australia you have to play with Indonesia or PNG. If we can finally get over our view of Indonesia as a threat, that will be an enormous bounty. We should be doing everything we can to boost our relationship with Indonesia and bring them into a much more respected and key position among our friends. Any external threat to Indonesia will become one to us - better to fight north of Jakarta than north of Darwin. I understand that there will be frustrations - especially in trade and domestic policies - but point to an alliance that doesn't have those issues. Britain and France? In fact, Britain and most of NATO? US and NZ? Better security relationships will help with all of this. And there are real things that the ADF can do that will help this that doesn't need any wider Government approvals.

Malaysia and Singapore
Not the same country, nor the same as Indonesia, with their own issues. But FPDA still actually means something. And with our economy intertwined so much, Singapore and Australia are already reliant on each other. Can you imagine something threatening Singapore that Australia ignores? Even putting FPDA aside - our trade and petroleum will suffer should Singapore go to war. Likewise, as arguably the most technologically advanced nation in SE Asia, Singapore will also hurt if we get attacked. And even more so than us and Indonesia, you want to play silly buggers with Singapore demands dealing with Malaysia. Which means that for all intents and purposes, Malaysia and Singapore have the same relationship to Australia in terms of share security concerns

New Zealand
On one hand White is correct, NZ and Australia's security is intertwined. And I really like @Wombat000 comments in the NZDF General thread. I think he asks excellent questions. I'll never question the NZ population or military's will to aid Australia - but I'm beginning to ask what use they can be beyond low-level stuff. Anything from INTERFET down the NZDF provides an invaluable ally (for starters, the NZ relationship with SW Pacific nations is generally much better than Australia's and they understand the cultures and populous better) but after that? It seems that the political will is missing - and that undermines their value. Which is a shame; of all the nations and cultures out there, there few others and none better you'd rather beside you against a no-shit threat than a Kiwi.

That's just what I see as the top five players in the SE Asia region that highlights White is, again, wrong and right. There is massive value in asking how we fight the first half of the war without the US playing much (or do a large INTERFET+ operation without them), but in our rush to do that lets not forget about our other neighbours. White is correct about shared threats mean more than fancy alliances; and there are three powerful and potential nations to our north that we already share threats with.

Oops - didn't mean to be so long - sorry

 

[ngatimozart]

Australia, like NZ, is highly dependant upon exports to China for its economy. If something untoward happens to that export trade then things can turn to that brown smelly stuff fairly quickly. This has impacts right across the economy and upon the govts accounts, that could negatively impact upon the ADF and its medium and long term acquisition plans. So this arvo I was somewhat shocked when I saw a link to this in my email and followed the link. It did cause me to splutter and choke whilst drinking my juice of the empire (tea) causing consternation to she who must be obeyed.

The US is elbowing Australia and allies in a race for the China market

The crux of the argument is that the US is doing the dirty on its cobbers and will cut them out of the Chinese market with this new deal that Pres. Trump has negotiated and agreed to with the PRC, because it covers most products that Australia and NZ export to China. That's if it works. We shall have to wait and see, but it is ominous.

 

[Stampede]

Australia, like NZ, is highly dependant upon exports to China for its economy. If something untoward happens to that export trade then things can turn to that brown smelly stuff fairly quickly. This has impacts right across the economy and upon the govts accounts, that could negatively impact upon the ADF and its medium and long term acquisition plans. So this arvo I was somewhat shocked when I saw a link to this in my email and followed the link. It did cause me to splutter and choke whilst drinking my juice of the empire (tea) causing consternation to she who must be obeyed.

The US is elbowing Australia and allies in a race for the China market

The crux of the argument is that the US is doing the dirty on its cobbers and will cut them out of the Chinese market with this new deal that Pres. Trump has negotiated and agreed to with the PRC, because it covers most products that Australia and NZ export to China. That's if it works. We shall have to wait and see, but it is ominous.

Something about having too many eggs in one basket.
Market forces verses sovereign security.

Ouch!

Regards S

 

[t68]

A little bit of topic but still related to the ADF in general.

Well with the drought really bring water levels down some interesting items are starting to emerge, like the hull of a M3 Grant and torpedo poles trying to catch bombs before exploding into the Cataract Dam walls. It’s certainly not something I expected

Haunting remains of flooded town emerge due to drought

 

[ngatimozart]

A little bit of topic but still related to the ADF in general.

Well with the drought really bring water levels down some interesting items are starting to emerge, like the hull of a M3 Grant and torpedo poles trying to catch bombs before exploding into the Cataract Dam walls. It’s certainly not something I expected

Haunting remains of flooded town emerge due to drought

It's quite interesting. The old Grant would've been quite an impressive piece of farm machinery but hard on the fuel bill. Here in NZ, Bren carriers and US GMC 6 x 6 trucks were the thing for a long time. I watched the item on the Sydney dam water levels as well. Not good and maybe time for a couple more desalination plants to be built.

 

[John Fedup]

Something about having too many eggs in one basket.
Market forces verses sovereign security.

Ouch!

Regards S

Not all that much different from Canada’s situation wrt to US market dependence.