ADF General discussion thread

[Gryphinator]

I think our long range strike/deterrence should be on our subs. Leave the RAAF to defend. Sure have long range missiles like we do already on SH, F35 etc. I feel the 2nd part of his opinion piece will have B21 written in it-not an option as has been discussed here recently.
As for BMD, we should have a bit more than what we do.

 

[ADMk2]

I think our long range strike/deterrence should be on our subs. Leave the RAAF to defend. Sure have long range missiles like we do already on SH, F35 etc. I feel the 2nd part of his opinion piece will have B21 written in it-not an option as has been discussed here recently.
As for BMD, we should have a bit more than what we do.

Long range strike should be coming from subs, surface ships, land and air in our context I think… Having bickering services arguing they are the best at it and their tools shouldn’t be threatened as the USAF is doing to the US Army’s missile plans, is juvenile and out-dated thinking. Long range fires across all domains will be required in years to come, whether individual services like it or not.

BMD is coming. SM-6 Block IA and AEGIS Baseline 9.1 will provide terminal BMD capabilities on the Hobarts by mid-late 2020’s. Each Hobart class will take roughly 2 years to upgrade apparently, so there is some pretty extensive work being done I guess…

FSP 2020 specifically mentioned a ‘deployable hypersonic and ballistic missile defence system’ for ADF, but little detail on whether it will be land or naval based (or both). Not even sure there is a project number for it yet?

 

[Boatteacher]

There was an article in the Australian today which has a reasonably put argument that the nature of any military threat to Australia is shifting from one that's not specifically identifiable and therefor requires the sort of broad brush, balanced force/ bit of everything approach (my words) to a sharper focus on equipping ourselves for the identifiable threat.
The acquisition of armored vehicles is cited as a bad decision. The acquisition of a deeper supply of missiles and stand off weapons a better one.

Obviously it is always dangerous to blindly focus on a single threat. Circumstances can change quickly.
But is the upgrading of the armored force looking back to our last problem without taking sufficient cognizance of the most likely next one?

 

[Boagrius]

I find that line of reasoning bizarre given that the cost of armoured vehicles is extraordinarily modest compared to other capabilities (especially in the quantities we are pursuing) and we never employed any heavy armour in our past COIN deployments. Strikes me that heavier armour is precisely the type of capability that is directed at high intensity peer conflict.

 

[ngatimozart]

There was an article in the Australian today which has a reasonably put argument that the nature of any military threat to Australia is shifting from one that's not specifically identifiable and therefor requires the sort of broad brush, balanced force/ bit of everything approach (my words) to a sharper focus on equipping ourselves for the identifiable threat.
The acquisition of armored vehicles is cited as a bad decision. The acquisition of a deeper supply of missiles and stand off weapons a better one.

Obviously it is always dangerous to blindly focus on a single threat. Circumstances can change quickly.
But is the upgrading of the armored force looking back to our last problem without taking sufficient cognizance of the most likely next one?

Regardless of all the fancy weapons, missiles, fighter jets, ships, submarines etc., that you can have in the end it still comes down to the crayon eaters putting their big boots on the ground and holding it. So what ever fool wrote that article should never have been let out of kindergarten.

 

[spoz]

The chance of Australia being required to put boots on the ground to hold territory in east Asia seems pretty remote…..and I really can’t see us doing it anywhere in SE Asia either. Providing forces to support others, yes. So if we are structuring land forces to take and hold ground that would seem a bit off the centreline; but if we are structuring them to support others on their ground, which might well require armour, then that would be sensible.

 

[ngatimozart]

The chance of Australia being required to put boots on the ground to hold territory in east Asia seems pretty remote…..and I really can’t see us doing it anywhere in SE Asia either. Providing forces to support others, yes. So if we are structuring land forces to take and hold ground that would seem a bit off the centreline; but if we are structuring them to support others on their ground, which might well require armour, then that would be sensible.

I wasn't talking about Australia invading the PRC and occupying it. It's an age old adage since time immemorial that people tend to forget. Aircraft and ships are great weapons but they can never hold ground. That comes down to a soldier, their boots and weapon. It doesn't matter where that ground is; it can be somewhere in Northern Asia; on the Fulda Gap; outside El Alamein; on the Kokoda Trail; or it could be 15 km SW of the black stump in the middle of the outback. It still requires that soldier, with their boots and weapon standing on it to hold it.

 

[ADMk2]

The chance of Australia being required to put boots on the ground to hold territory in east Asia seems pretty remote…..and I really can’t see us doing it anywhere in SE Asia either. Providing forces to support others, yes. So if we are structuring land forces to take and hold ground that would seem a bit off the centreline; but if we are structuring them to support others on their ground, which might well require armour, then that would be sensible.

The problem with Greg Sheridan’s POV on future land combat, is he hasn’t bothered to check what the USMC actually plans to do. He has chosen a small snippet design to suit his idiotic argument. They are developing small dispersed combat teams with extensive missile capabilities, yes. But they aren’t planning on fighting without armour. Quite the contrary, they are buying ACV 1.1 and a replacement for their LAV-25 and they are planning on the US Army supporting them with heavy armour, in the form of Abrams tanks. They are fortunate they have a “big brother” to reach back to, to provide them with the capabilities even they expect they will need (but choose not to fund).

Who and where is our big brother to provide those capabilities, should we choose to divest our Army of the heavy armour they will need to fight in any medium, let alone high intensity conflict against a peer (or greater) nation?

Certainly the Chinese aren’t giving up their heavy armour, nor planning on fighting in our region without it…

I think it’s hilarious anyone reasonably thinks we should.

 

[Takao]

The chance of Australia being required to put boots on the ground to hold territory in east Asia seems pretty remote…..and I really can’t see us doing it anywhere in SE Asia either. Providing forces to support others, yes. So if we are structuring land forces to take and hold ground that would seem a bit off the centreline; but if we are structuring them to support others on their ground, which might well require armour, then that would be sensible.

Really? Despite long standing security commitments with Malaysia and Singapore at a minimum? We have security agreements and interests with a number of SE Asian nations that may see us fighting in support throughout the region. We've already seen that with the Philippines on a small scale.

Noting the likely superiority of our force (if in capability and not numbers) incompatibility with Australian equipment, and the fact that our logistics and health elements are likely superior to every nation we are supporting, that demands a complete force.

I may have missed something, but what do you see is the difference between a force that is supporting, say, the PVA in a large scale counter-insurgency or a conventional fight versus a force designed to take and hold ground? What do you see as Army's basic job if not to take and hold ground?

 

[Massive]

... long standing security commitments with Malaysia and Singapore ... may see us fighting in support throughout the region

Reading this makes me very uncomfortable.

We could easily have 50% of the best equipped and trained part of the Army isolated a long way from home.

Historical experience does not let this sit comfortably.

Regards,

Massive

 

[t68]

Really? Despite long standing security commitments with Malaysia and Singapore at a minimum? We have security agreements and interests with a number of SE Asian nations that may see us fighting in support throughout the region. We've already seen that with the Philippines on a small scale.

Noting the likely superiority of our force (if in capability and not numbers) incompatibility with Australian equipment, and the fact that our logistics and health elements are likely superior to every nation we are supporting, that demands a complete force.

I may have missed something, but what do you see is the difference between a force that is supporting, say, the PVA in a large scale counter-insurgency or a conventional fight versus a force designed to take and hold ground? What do you see as Army's basic job if not to take and hold ground?

I think the operative words here is "may see us fighting in support throughout the region, as far as I am aware none of our security treaties actually compel to send military aid, whereas we only have to consult.

Even ANZUS does not compel us to commit military

 

[vonnoobie]

Maybe we will, Maybe we wont. Main thing the military is meant to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Better to be prepared to put boots on the ground and not need to then not be prepared and need to do so. While none of us would want war with China, Let alone any war, Im sure we would much prefer a nice BBQ and cold beer but if such where to break out dont for a second think we would be able to get by sending a token force like we did to Afghanistan and Iraq. At bare minimum it would likely be as large if not larger then our peak deployed force in the Vietnam war (8,300 personnel).

 

[ngatimozart]

I think the operative words here is "may see us fighting in support throughout the region, as far as I am aware none of our security treaties actually compel to send military aid, whereas we only have to consult.

Even ANZUS does not compel us to commit military

ANZUS does compel Australia and the US to commit military, to whit Articles IV & V:

Article IV​

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.​

​

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.​

​

Article V​

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.​

Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America [ANZUS] [1952] ATS 2

As you can see it's quite specific.

Note that on 11th August 1986 the USA announced that it had suspended its obligations to NZ under the ANZUS Treaty.

 

[Redlands18]

ANZUS does compel Australia and the US to commit military, to whit Articles IV & V:

Article IV​

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.​

​

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.​

​

Article V​

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.​

Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America [ANZUS] [1952] ATS 2

As you can see it's quite specific.

Lets not forget that Australia has enacted Article V, in Sept 2001.

 

[ngatimozart]

Lets not forget that Australia has enacted Article V, in Sept 2001.

It was the US actually that invoked it.

 

[t68]

ANZUS does compel Australia and the US to commit military, to whit Articles IV & V:

Article IV​

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.​

​

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.​

​

Article V​

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.​

Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America [ANZUS] [1952] ATS 2

As you can see it's quite specific.

Note that on 11th August 1986 the USA announced that it had suspended its obligations to NZ under the ANZUS Treaty.

That is still a matter of interpretation as to "act", even PM Howard formal statement when he when he triggered ANZUS was to only consult and consider what actions Australia might take

pdf (aph.gov.au)

ANZUS Treaty | National Museum of Australia (nma.gov.au)

The treaty does not specifically require Australia, New Zealand or the United States to provide military support to the other member states. ‘Acts to meet the common danger’ include the supply of resources or diplomatic involvement as well as armed intervention if necessary.

This article from the ABC discusses the implications of ANZUS and a number of scholars agree that the meaning to "ACT" is ambiguous unlike the North Atlantic Treaty which explicitly states military commitment ANZUS does not

Dr John Blaxland, senior fellow at Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, agrees the wording of the ANZUS treaty does not guarantee military intervention by the United States in Australia's defence.

Fact check: Does ANZUS commit the US to come to Australia's aid, as Foreign Minister Julie Bishop claims? - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[t68]

It was the US actually that invoked it.

I meant to also include this in the above post but forgot to,

ANZUS Treaty | National Museum of Australia (nma.gov.au)

Despite being in operation for more than 60 years, the ANZUS treaty has only been formally invoked once. Then Australian Prime Minister John Howard did this in 2001 as a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, leading to Australia’s involvement in the United States led ‘War on Terror’.

 

[hauritz]

Sometime during the next 10 months there will be a federal election. I am your genuine swinging voter not beholden to any political party so I usually spend the lead up to any federal election looking at the policies put forward by various political parties. The last Federal Election was a close affair with the Coalition Liberal/Nationals ending up with a three seat majority.

It is not completely beyond the realms of possibility that one or more minor political parties could end up holding the balance of power.

So what would the Australian Democrats do if they somehow found themselves in a position of power?

For those not familiar with the Australian Democrats they were a little bit relevant about 20 - 30 years ago but are now just about as likely to gain power as Australia getting a squadron of B-21s ... which is coincidently pretty much their defence policy.

Stronger defence for $100 billion less

The B21 long range strike aircraft (Northrop Grumman) Australia should focus on self-defence rather than buying vulnerable assets to fight wars elsewhere. Smaller, smarter and more effective "off the shelf" assets need be selected to defend Australia. Our plan to defend Australia f

www.democrats.org.au

The Greens are a little more politically relevant. They in fact won a seat in the last election

This is their Defence Peace and Security Policy. Really not so much a policy as a mission statement.

Peace, Conflict Response and Veterans | The Australian Greens

<h2>Principles</h2> <p>The Australian Greens believe that:</p> <ol><li>Genuine security rests on cooperation, fair economic and social development, environmental sustainability, and respect for human rights, rather than on military capabilities.</li> <li>Non-violent conflict management is the...

greens.org.au

One Nation seem to lack any real defence policies of any kind although in the past their leader has expressed concern about the inability of the proposed Attack Class submarine to remain submerged for more than 20 minutes at a time.

Palmers United Party spent over $80 million in advertising in the last Federal Election which worked out to about $9 a vote. Didn't win a seat but his preference spread probably allowed the coalition to hang onto power. Once again the defence policy seems near non-existent although he is a proponent for buying Nuclear subs from the US and is concerned by the inability of conventional subs to travel at speeds much higher than 4 knots when submerged.

Lacking any clear Defence policy of their own the ALP (Australian Labor Party) seems to be content to adopt the Liberal Party Policy. I was amused to read this article from the World Socialist Web Site which actually pretty succinctly outlines why the Labor Party will toe the line when it comes to the current government's defence policy.

Australian unions back war preparations at Labor Party conference

Labor’s conference took to a new level a long-running campaign by the unions to divert workers’ anger over job destruction into calls for the expansion of war-related industries.

www.wsws.org

It is worth remembering that most politicians are almost completely ignorant when it comes to defence, or just about anything else for that matter. Every three years or so we just roll the dice and hope for the best.

 

[John Newman]

Sometime during the next 10 months there will be a federal election. I am your genuine swinging voter not beholden to any political party so I usually spend the lead up to any federal election looking at the policies put forward by various political parties. The last Federal Election was a close affair with the Coalition Liberal/Nationals ending up with a three seat majority.

It is not completely beyond the realms of possibility that one or more minor political parties could end up holding the balance of power.

So what would the Australian Democrats do if they somehow found themselves in a position of power?

For those not familiar with the Australian Democrats they were a little bit relevant about 20 - 30 years ago but are now just about as likely to gain power as Australia getting a squadron of B-21s ... which is coincidently pretty much their defence policy.

Stronger defence for $100 billion less

The B21 long range strike aircraft (Northrop Grumman) Australia should focus on self-defence rather than buying vulnerable assets to fight wars elsewhere. Smaller, smarter and more effective "off the shelf" assets need be selected to defend Australia. Our plan to defend Australia f

www.democrats.org.au

The Greens are a little more politically relevant. They in fact won a seat in the last election

This is their Defence Peace and Security Policy. Really not so much a policy as a mission statement.

Peace, Conflict Response and Veterans | The Australian Greens

<h2>Principles</h2> <p>The Australian Greens believe that:</p> <ol><li>Genuine security rests on cooperation, fair economic and social development, environmental sustainability, and respect for human rights, rather than on military capabilities.</li> <li>Non-violent conflict management is the...

greens.org.au

One Nation seem to lack any real defence policies of any kind although in the past their leader has expressed concern about the inability of the proposed Attack Class submarine to remain submerged for more than 20 minutes at a time.

Palmers United Party spent over $80 million in advertising in the last Federal Election which worked out to about $9 a vote. Didn't win a seat but his preference spread probably allowed the coalition to hang onto power. Once again the defence policy seems near non-existent although he is a proponent for buying Nuclear subs from the US and is concerned by the inability of conventional subs to travel at speeds much higher than 4 knots when submerged.

Lacking any clear Defence policy of their own the ALP (Australian Labor Party) seems to be content to adopt the Liberal Party Policy. I was amused to read this article from the World Socialist Web Site which actually pretty succinctly outlines why the Labor Party will toe the line when it comes to the current government's defence policy.

Australian unions back war preparations at Labor Party conference

Labor’s conference took to a new level a long-running campaign by the unions to divert workers’ anger over job destruction into calls for the expansion of war-related industries.

www.wsws.org

It is worth remembering that most politicians are almost completely ignorant when it comes to defence, or just about anything else for that matter. Every three years or so we just roll the dice and hope for the best.

Talking politics here on DT is not usually a path taken that ends well, it’s a bit of a rabbit hole.

But having said that, I’ll throw my two bobs worth in, very carefully too.

In general, due to our preferential voting system, we end up with one or the other of the two main parties, Centre Right (LNP) and Centre Left (ALP), forming Government.

People might end up being ‘attracted’ to the policies of the more extreme/fringe Left or Right leaning parties, but ultimately their vote will end up in the pocket of the two main parties that form Government.

So.....

When it comes to Defence Policy and Defence Spending, it’s really only worth looking at the policies of the two main political parties and not being conned/fooled by what a minor party is offering, which will never become reality.

As for being a swinging voter, that’s something I can never get my head around, most people generally lean to one side or other in their views, Left or Right, mine is clearly not Left.

At the end of the day the election will be fought on numerous fronts, but if Defence is high on ones list, then I think the choice is pretty clear, very clear.

Cheers,

 

[t68]

Sometime during the next 10 months there will be a federal election. I am your genuine swinging voter not beholden to any political party so I usually spend the lead up to any federal election looking at the policies put forward by various political parties. The last Federal Election was a close affair with the Coalition Liberal/Nationals ending up with a three seat majority.

It is not completely beyond the realms of possibility that one or more minor political parties could end up holding the balance of power.

So what would the Australian Democrats do if they somehow found themselves in a position of power?

For those not familiar with the Australian Democrats they were a little bit relevant about 20 - 30 years ago but are now just about as likely to gain power as Australia getting a squadron of B-21s ... which is coincidently pretty much their defence policy.

Stronger defence for $100 billion less

The B21 long range strike aircraft (Northrop Grumman) Australia should focus on self-defence rather than buying vulnerable assets to fight wars elsewhere. Smaller, smarter and more effective "off the shelf" assets need be selected to defend Australia. Our plan to defend Australia f

www.democrats.org.au

The Greens are a little more politically relevant. They in fact won a seat in the last election

This is their Defence Peace and Security Policy. Really not so much a policy as a mission statement.

Peace, Conflict Response and Veterans | The Australian Greens

<h2>Principles</h2> <p>The Australian Greens believe that:</p> <ol><li>Genuine security rests on cooperation, fair economic and social development, environmental sustainability, and respect for human rights, rather than on military capabilities.</li> <li>Non-violent conflict management is the...

greens.org.au

One Nation seem to lack any real defence policies of any kind although in the past their leader has expressed concern about the inability of the proposed Attack Class submarine to remain submerged for more than 20 minutes at a time.

Palmers United Party spent over $80 million in advertising in the last Federal Election which worked out to about $9 a vote. Didn't win a seat but his preference spread probably allowed the coalition to hang onto power. Once again the defence policy seems near non-existent although he is a proponent for buying Nuclear subs from the US and is concerned by the inability of conventional subs to travel at speeds much higher than 4 knots when submerged.

Lacking any clear Defence policy of their own the ALP (Australian Labor Party) seems to be content to adopt the Liberal Party Policy. I was amused to read this article from the World Socialist Web Site which actually pretty succinctly outlines why the Labor Party will toe the line when it comes to the current government's defence policy.

Australian unions back war preparations at Labor Party conference

Labor’s conference took to a new level a long-running campaign by the unions to divert workers’ anger over job destruction into calls for the expansion of war-related industries.

www.wsws.org

It is worth remembering that most politicians are almost completely ignorant when it comes to defence, or just about anything else for that matter. Every three years or so we just roll the dice and hope for the best.

keep the bastards honest party would not get my vote just on their defence policy alone (Australian Democrats)