ADF General discussion thread

[aviation_enthus]

Rather then from 3 to 2 it really should go down to a singular location even something along the lines of a common user facility for ground vehicles with multiple companies sharing the main production facilities. All well and good to have multiple sites but it increases risk of death valleys where as having a single site between various vehicles across the board, exports and upgrades/maintenance could allow such a site to retain enough personnel to make it cost effective (ie: harder for some random polly to want to cut to save a dollar) and even put them in a better position to be able to ramp production up when/if needed. Hell throw in production or trains and trams because between NSW and VIC we technically have the scale for continuous production of those with majority to full Australian content which would benefit a few of the defence contractors to keep them busy and thus keeping them sustainable and by extension keeping us self sufficient.

Yes. One facility is the best option. A government owned “joint user factory” with the ability to house multiple production lines and store tooling and equipment from previous production runs. It could be included as a condition of supply contracts that it must be used. Would be relatively inexpensive to build a massively oversized factory (3-4 times what’s required). I’d be happy if this was considered at all to be honest.

I’ve just finished reading a 2 part book about the production of munitions and military equipment in Australia. Covers the period of 1900-1945:

“The Great Power Struggle for Australia, 1900-1945” Volume I & II.

Andrew Taylor Ross

Author of The Great Power Struggle for Australia, 1900-1945 and The Great Power Struggle for Australia 1900-1945

www.goodreads.com

It details the hard lessons Australia learnt during WW1 in regards to supply of military equipment (and even civil goods). Details the various steps the British in particular, took to try and block Australia in its attempts to be self sufficient in some areas of production between 1918 and 1939. I would highly recommend it especially given the current plans for ship building, missile production etc. Plus the supply issues presented by COVID and our current trade “war” with China.

Seems we have been here before!! This is one of main reasons I love history and it’s one of the small things I hope I can contribute on this site.

There was a department created after WW1 called the Munitions Supply Board (MSB). The MSB was responsible for assisting civil industry to develop various production capabilities and providing consistent standards for measurements etc. The current small arms factory at Lithgow was a former MSB factory.

I guess you could summarise the whole subject down to this:

We had massive supply issues during WW1 despite not being directly attacked. This resulted in the creation of the MSB. What followed was a bipartisan effort to develop a level of self sufficiency using the MSB as a platform to organise the military side of this goal. By the beginning of WW2 in the Pacific, Australia had the ability to manufacture a large range of munitions on our own. We also had the ability to modify imported designs (like the P-51) to enable efficient local production.

Fast forward to today and a lot of the same issues exist that we faced before WW1.

- negligible merchant fleet. Means we will face significant hurdles importing important materials during wartime. Even if we can get foreign ships to sail here, we can expect significant price increases

- large amounts of imported civilian goods. Electronics etc. This will mean we could reasonably expect a significant decline in our “standard of living”. This also occurred in WW1. (Obviously a war will result in shortages, I talking about imported goods that we DON’T even manufacture onshore).

- minimal “light/medium” manufacturing. Building trains and shipping is heavy manufacturing. If you read the books mentioned above, you’ll see the large roll played by GM (Holden) in particular (amongst other manufacturers).

That being said, I’d also argue Australia has much better awareness of the threats we face (as far as self sufficiency goes) than that period in our history (1900-1914). However we still have a long way to even get back to our starting point at the beginning of WW2. (In terms of self sufficiency).

 

[oldsig127]

Yes. One facility is the best option. A government owned “joint user factory” with the ability to house multiple production lines and store tooling and equipment from previous production runs.

"I like it! Just one place to target!"

[President Xi]

oldsig

 

[Shanesworld]

"I like it! Just one place to target!"

[President Xi]

oldsig

Good point. But one place to defend if you do it right.

The build up of missile production is major positive.
Getting into tactical lazers would i think be a very good step. Lockheed has a significant effort in that space that seems promising.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes. One facility is the best option. A government owned “joint user factory” with the ability to house multiple production lines and store tooling and equipment from previous production runs. It could be included as a condition of supply contracts that it must be used. Would be relatively inexpensive to build a massively oversized factory (3-4 times what’s required). I’d be happy if this was considered at all to be honest.

I’ve just finished reading a 2 part book about the production of munitions and military equipment in Australia. Covers the period of 1900-1945:

“The Great Power Struggle for Australia, 1900-1945” Volume I & II.

Andrew Taylor Ross

Author of The Great Power Struggle for Australia, 1900-1945 and The Great Power Struggle for Australia 1900-1945

www.goodreads.com

It details the hard lessons Australia learnt during WW1 in regards to supply of military equipment (and even civil goods). Details the various steps the British in particular, took to try and block Australia in its attempts to be self sufficient in some areas of production between 1918 and 1939. I would highly recommend it especially given the current plans for ship building, missile production etc. Plus the supply issues presented by COVID and our current trade “war” with China.

Seems we have been here before!! This is one of main reasons I love history and it’s one of the small things I hope I can contribute on this site.

There was a department created after WW1 called the Munitions Supply Board (MSB). The MSB was responsible for assisting civil industry to develop various production capabilities and providing consistent standards for measurements etc. The current small arms factory at Lithgow was a former MSB factory.

I guess you could summarise the whole subject down to this:

We had massive supply issues during WW1 despite not being directly attacked. This resulted in the creation of the MSB. What followed was a bipartisan effort to develop a level of self sufficiency using the MSB as a platform to organise the military side of this goal. By the beginning of WW2 in the Pacific, Australia had the ability to manufacture a large range of munitions on our own. We also had the ability to modify imported designs (like the P-51) to enable efficient local production.

Fast forward to today and a lot of the same issues exist that we faced before WW1.

- negligible merchant fleet. Means we will face significant hurdles importing important materials during wartime. Even if we can get foreign ships to sail here, we can expect significant price increases

- large amounts of imported civilian goods. Electronics etc. This will mean we could reasonably expect a significant decline in our “standard of living”. This also occurred in WW1. (Obviously a war will result in shortages, I talking about imported goods that we DON’T even manufacture onshore).

- minimal “light/medium” manufacturing. Building trains and shipping is heavy manufacturing. If you read the books mentioned above, you’ll see the large roll played by GM (Holden) in particular (amongst other manufacturers).

That being said, I’d also argue Australia has much better awareness of the threats we face (as far as self sufficiency goes) than that period in our history (1900-1914). However we still have a long way to even get back to our starting point at the beginning of WW2. (In terms of self sufficiency).

If you read Mahan, many think that he was all about the major fleet engagement with battle wagons slugging it out to determine the outcome of the naval war, but he wasn't. He was about production, trade, and the nation's wayto ensure the free and safe flow of that trade across the maritime commons - the sea. He said that a maritime nation without a mercantile fleet would always be subject to the whims of others because it was totally reliant upon other nations to ship its trade goods. In times of crisis, be it war or pandemic etc., any disruption to the SLOC of the nation, it had no guarantees that its trade would be moved and it would be left to wither on the vine.

Australia and NZ are definitely in that category and the current pandemic has illustrated the impacts that major disruption to shipping has on economic activity. We aren't the only nations in such a position with the US having very few US flagged merchant ships to call upon in times of crisis. As part of a nations National Security Strategy such problems should be addressed to ensure that the nation has some such capability as part of its resilience package.

 

[oldsig127]

Good point. But one place to defend if you do it right.

"Thank God it's us"

[People of Ipswich or Geelong or Bendigo or wherever the armaments factories we're defending reside]

"Why not us?"

[Everyone else we can't manage to defend]

I'm not in favour of all or nothing defence strategies when just one munition in the wrong place means failure, or at least when we're not well enough armed to manage both that and proper defence in depth.

oldsig

 

[Shanesworld]

"Thank God it's us"

[People of Ipswich or Geelong or Bendigo or wherever the armaments factories we're defending reside]

"Why not us?"

[Everyone else we can't manage to defend]

I'm not in favour of all or nothing defence strategies when just one munition in the wrong place means failure, or at least when we're not well enough armed to manage both that and proper defence in depth.

oldsig

I see your point. And agree.
But if scoping, planning and provision is made soonish/later, Australia could still distribute this manufacturing to multiple locations when tensions worsen later this decade. Whilst focusing now in 2 or 1 location to smooth the production and development processes are established.

I also look on with envy of even this progress in Aus as compred to nz.

You at least gave a growing awareness to build on. Open discussion where defences can be improved or redundancy could be raised.

 

[ASSAIL]

If you read Mahan, many think that he was all about the major fleet engagement with battle wagons slugging it out to determine the outcome of the naval war, but he wasn't. He was about production, trade, and the nation's wayto ensure the free and safe flow of that trade across the maritime commons - the sea. He said that a maritime nation without a mercantile fleet would always be subject to the whims of others because it was totally reliant upon other nations to ship its trade goods. In times of crisis, be it war or pandemic etc., any disruption to the SLOC of the nation, it had no guarantees that its trade would be moved and it would be left to wither on the vine.

Australia and NZ are definitely in that category and the current pandemic has illustrated the impacts that major disruption to shipping has on economic activity. We aren't the only nations in such a position with the US having very few US flagged merchant ships to call upon in times of crisis. As part of a nations National Security Strategy such problems should be addressed to ensure that the nation has some such capability as part of its resilience package.

Ownership of the merchant marine is a significant factor and not necessarily the flag of convenience.
I’m no expert, maybe Alexsa has something to add, but I presume if hostilities erupted the owners of the hulls could call them back to their ownership country, deregister if required and reflag. That’s a simple administrative procedure which could certainly be accelerated in an emergency.
It would give the NATO countries an enormous fleet led by Denmark.
Australia’s problem is a bit more retractable, wages and conditions demanded by the unionised crews make the operation of ships economically impossible unless the cargos are very high value and volume.
If you have any doubts about this statement, go have a look at the workers car park in any Australian port. It would be hard to find a car there with a price tag under $60k

 

[vonnoobie]

If it wasn't for those damn unions it would actually be very economical and profitable for shipping in Australia especially coastal trade. Wages aside a big issue is limitations on operations, going off memory here but recall something about such ships when getting into port to load/unload had to remain for something like 24 hours before departure even if they could be in and out in less the 1/4 of that. If not for them our coastal trade could quite easily sustain 50 odd ships.

 

[oldsig127]

I see your point. And agree.
But if scoping, planning and provision is made soonish/later, Australia could still distribute this manufacturing to multiple locations when tensions worsen later this decade. Whilst focusing now in 2 or 1 location to smooth the production and development processes are established.

I also look on with envy of even this progress in Aus as compred to nz.

You at least gave a growing awareness to build on. Open discussion where defences can be improved or redundancy could be raised.

I think we're already at the point of dispersal and building supply chains into multiple manufacturing centres. Boxer in Ipswich, Hawkei and Bushmaster in Bendigo, K-9 Huntsman in Geelong is a good start for AFVs. Warships in Adelaide and Perth also not bad. Missiles...ahh, now that's a question still to be answered but at least in the pipeline wrt Spike-LR

Meanwhile NIOA who manufacture ammunition at Benalla has a new factory at Maryborough (QLD). Ramping up.

oldsig

 

[aviation_enthus]

I think we're already at the point of dispersal and building supply chains into multiple manufacturing centres. Boxer in Ipswich, Hawkei and Bushmaster in Bendigo, K-9 Huntsman in Geelong is a good start for AFVs. Warships in Adelaide and Perth also not bad. Missiles...ahh, now that's a question still to be answered but at least in the pipeline wrt Spike-LR

Meanwhile NIOA who manufacture ammunition at Benalla has a new factory at Maryborough (QLD). Ramping up.

oldsig

I think the construction of the Inland Rail plus the various Renewable Energy Zones in NSW also provide significant opportunities for dispersal, while still allowing easy logistics.

Linking Melbourne and Brisbane with heavy inland rail means we have an option other than coastal shipping to move raw materials and heavy equipment.

Having cheap energy and a handful of liveable towns (Parkes, Dubbo, Albury, Wagga Wagga, etc) along the route, means in the next 10 years various industries may be set up in regional VIC/NSW. Hopefully some of them would be useful to defence production.

*If I was in government, I’d look very closely at providing significant tax benefits (or creating free zones) to companies willing to set up along that corridor.

Gives us future options anyway!

 

[MARKMILES77]

Ownership of the merchant marine is a significant factor and not necessarily the flag of convenience.
I’m no expert, maybe Alexsa has something to add, but I presume if hostilities erupted the owners of the hulls could call them back to their ownership country, deregister if required and reflag. That’s a simple administrative procedure which could certainly be accelerated in an emergency.
It would give the NATO countries an enormous fleet led by Denmark.
Australia’s problem is a bit more retractable, wages and conditions demanded by the unionised crews make the operation of ships economically impossible unless the cargos are very high value and volume.
If you have any doubts about this statement, go have a look at the workers car park in any Australian port. It would be hard to find a car there with a price tag under $60k

I will state at the outset that I know next to nothing about this topic but is Australia's situation with regard to it's merchant fleet (or lack thereoff) as bad as is often made out. Doing a bit of research Today I came across the concept of the "Australian Trading Fleet.". Ships owned and or operated by Australian companies and which operate into or out of Australian Ports (So excludes Australian owned ships which don't visit Australian ports).
The fleet is much larger than the 14 vessels Registered in Australia and growing both in number and tonnage. Isn't this more important in a crises than the number of vessels registerd in Australia?

 

[MARKMILES77]

140 ships as of 2 years ago and steadily rising as seen in these 2 tables:

 

[ngatimozart]

Ownership of the merchant marine is a significant factor and not necessarily the flag of convenience.
I’m no expert, maybe Alexsa has something to add, but I presume if hostilities erupted the owners of the hulls could call them back to their ownership country, deregister if required and reflag. That’s a simple administrative procedure which could certainly be accelerated in an emergency.
It would give the NATO countries an enormous fleet led by Denmark.
Australia’s problem is a bit more retractable, wages and conditions demanded by the unionised crews make the operation of ships economically impossible unless the cargos are very high value and volume.
If you have any doubts about this statement, go have a look at the workers car park in any Australian port. It would be hard to find a car there with a price tag under $60k

I am not sure on the legalities of ownership and flags of convenience either, however I would think that the companies would be based in a tax haven to avoid taxes. Some of the EU countries have pretty high tax rates and in the Australian case I am sure that the Australian tax men would love to get their grubby little fingers on as much of any Australian companies money as they can.

Unionised maritime crew and wharfies have been the bane of both Australian and NZ shipping and port companies. I can't really speak for the Australian side but in NZ the unions, especially the Seamans Union, Cooks & Stewards Union, Waterside Workers, and Dock Workers Unions killed NZ merchant shipping. By the time the Bolger National government deregistered unions and made unionism voluntary in the 1990s it was far to late. That was how we broke the back of union power here.

However there has to be some way that the nation has a small fleet of tankers, container ships, bulk carriers, and general cargo ships, that it can utilise in times of crisis. They don't have to be huge large ships, but large enough to do the job. Definitely not defence owned but maybe government owned and crewed, being worked commercially and / or hired out inbetween crises. I see this as part of of a whole of government National Security Strategy and it would come under the heading of resilience. That's just one option.

 

[vonnoobie]

I will state at the outset that I know next to nothing about this topic but is Australia's situation with regard to it's merchant fleet (or lack thereoff) as bad as is often made out. Doing a bit of research Today I came across the concept of the "Australian Trading Fleet.". Ships owned and or operated by Australian companies and which operate into or out of Australian Ports (So excludes Australian owned ships which don't visit Australian ports).
The fleet is much larger than the 14 vessels Registered in Australia and growing both in number and tonnage. Isn't this more important in a crises than the number of vessels registerd in Australia?

Oh we own quite a number of ships

140 ships as of 2 years ago and steadily rising as seen in these 2 tables:
View attachment 48372View attachment 48373

Yes a large number of ships but things to take into consideration is where and what they are used for. The vast bulk of them are for mineral products meaning very little of use to us. A large number of those ships operate abroad including the bulk of the container ships so the number in or near our waters at any one time would be a fraction of the list. For security purposes we would want a fleet large enough that is near enough always in Australian waters whose use ranges from general cargo, containers and RO/RO. At present the fleet size that fits that mix totalled about 10 ships most operating between Tasmania and the mainland. So their is a dire need for more coastal shipping.

 

[ASSAIL]

140 ships as of 2 years ago and steadily rising as seen in these 2 tables:
View attachment 48372View attachment 48373

Don’t be misled by the number of ships because vessels such as tugs and coastal barges are included.
The most important table is the “Deadweight Tonnage”, the cargo carrying capacity of the fleet and if you refer to the 2018 table there is only 131200 tonnes total trading on the coast and 267,100 tonnes trading international, a pathetically small number.
The status of the foreign flagged vessels in indeterminable as to their utility in a conflict
This is a tiny fraction of tonnage required to meet the strategic needs of the country.
The only hope is that some of the foreign flagged vessels are owned by our allies and can be commandeered by their parent government should they be allies.

 

[Hone C]

However there has to be some way that the nation has a small fleet of tankers, container ships, bulk carriers, and general cargo ships, that it can utilise in times of crisis. They don't have to be huge large ships, but large enough to do the job. Definitely not defence owned but maybe government owned and crewed, being worked commercially and / or hired out in between crises. I see this as part of of a whole of government National Security Strategy and it would come under the heading of resilience. That's just one option.

Not sure about the details in Australia, but in NZ at least there's a lot of government policies that disincentive NZ owned shipping.
International shipping is exempt from the Emissions Trading Scheme, whereas Kiwi companies pay around $75 a tonne, which can add up to a million per ship annually, as well as GST, the Maritime Levy, Oil Pollution Levy, etc.
While rail and road gets government funding, there's very little government investment in shipping infrastructure.
Just levelling up the field with competing freight haulers may go a long way.

 

[alexsa]

140 ships as of 2 years ago and steadily rising as seen in these 2 tables:
View attachment 48372View attachment 48373

Be careful with these figures the are the trading fleet (vessels that trade primarily to Australia) as they hide a few realities. Very few of these are legally Australian and would not be entitled to be registered in Australia.

For example -

• Livestock carriers, none of these are Australian flagged and none are Australian owned, rather the foreign owner has a wholly owned subsidiary in Australia (KLTT and LSS).
• The same with the container ships.
• LNG tankers include other vessels owned by partners the joint venture that is NW shelf (only 5 of these are truly Australian and I suspect their days are numbered).
• Most bulk carrier belong to Rio Tinto Maritime (RTN), BHP and Fortescue. These are owned by a Singapore subsidiary of those operations.
• Tankers and LPG carriers are simply foreign flag vessels primarily operating to Australia.

Looking at the vessels of 500 gross tonnage or more certified for overseas operations there are around 60 on the Australian register. This includes offshore vessels and a lot of small tonnage.

Australia did try to set up an International Register (the AISR) and it is still on the books. The problem was that the idea was sound but the politics and resistance from inside different departments (I mean the public servants not the politicians themselves) meant it has absolutely no appeal as the 'carrots' on offer were lame (well essentially non-existent).

Neither party has addressed shipping in a meaningful way ................ hence the current situation.

PS: I cannot provide a public source on the numbers of ships of 500 tonnes or more on the register. Simply put this was one of the figures my staff used to report on. If you are feeling keen you can access the register at:

www.amsa.gov.au/vessels-operators/ship-registration/list-registered-ships

If you are really keen you could look at the length of each ship (35m gets you close to 500 gross tonnage for stumpy commercial vessels) ... but I don't recommend it.

 

[ADMk2]

Ownership of the merchant marine is a significant factor and not necessarily the flag of convenience.
I’m no expert, maybe Alexsa has something to add, but I presume if hostilities erupted the owners of the hulls could call them back to their ownership country, deregister if required and reflag. That’s a simple administrative procedure which could certainly be accelerated in an emergency.
It would give the NATO countries an enormous fleet led by Denmark.
Australia’s problem is a bit more retractable, wages and conditions demanded by the unionised crews make the operation of ships economically impossible unless the cargos are very high value and volume.
If you have any doubts about this statement, go have a look at the workers car park in any Australian port. It would be hard to find a car there with a price tag under $60k

Might it be possible for Australia to purchase merchant vessels, have them run by overseas companies and bring them back, as noted “if” required? That way by passing the Union issue, but ensuring availability if required?

Obviously there would be political fallout. I’m sure one side of politics would have plenty to say about it, but it might solve a strategic issue…

 

[alexsa]

Might it be possible for Australia to purchase merchant vessels, have them run by overseas companies and bring them back, as noted “if” required? That way by passing the Union issue, but ensuring availability if required?

Obviously there would be political fallout. I’m sure one side of politics would have plenty to say about it, but it might solve a strategic issue…

It would be better that they were operated by Australian officers as that would stimulate training of such folk. At the moment there are not a lot of them and these folk would be required to operate the vessels if they were to be any use. The main benefit of having a fleet is you can ensure your own trade is serviced. Not many of these ships would be much use to the RAN in an auxiliary role (particularly noting that raw materials from the main proportions of our exports by volume and weight).

The International Register was supposed to deal with this as it would have Australian nationals as officers (at least the top 4) but pacific islanders as crew. With the right carrots it could have worked.

 

[Bob53]

Yes, mixture of arsenal ship and drone mothership. Given the current P8 can already accommodate most of the capabilities I thought it ended up a good argument for a small force like the RAAF to simply get more P8's. Bring the fleet up to 20 and acquire LRASM as soon as available, The platform is going to be around for a long time, has a huge user base and will evolve considerably, best to keep our modest force instep.

Interesting concept. Could even add in the roraty launcher used on the B52. Air Force B-52 Bombers Getting Major Bomb Launcher Upgrade opening the option to carry AGM -85 Cruise missile https://www.boeing.com/history/products/agm-86b-c-air-launched-cruise-missile.page Given our ranges and the cost to support the 737 being low, when considered I think this is a very suitable option for Australia and smarter than a B21 purchase. I think it would make sense to add these as stand alone vs additional P8s and stand them up for a more dedicated strike role.