Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Takao]

All,

Regarding the concern that 'new' Beersheba Brigades structures not being able to sustain the desired ready forces of one Brigade plus one Battlegroup, this is not quite correct.

• Each Regular Combat Brigade has two associated Reserve Brigades (Heck, three Brigades is a Division but that is another discussion) that are required to provide a solitary Battlegroup to the associated Regular Brigade.
  
• The Solomon Islands and East Timor showed that Reservists are prepared to undertake tasks overseas and in numbers probably sufficient to sustain a Battlegroup.
  
• Army Reserve's Battle Group Cannan reinforced more than 30,000 Australian and international defence personnel participating in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2017 (TS17) at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.
  
• I accept that such Reserve Battlegroups will not be as proficient as the Regulars and currently lack artillery and armour but the 'missing' Battlegroups are not 'missing'. They are committed and appear to be effective.

Have a great day, FR

I agree - but only in theory. I am not convinced that those two Bde can consistently generate a BG; especially for more than three weeks. Furthermore, with no assets beyond small arms to practice with, is that BG actually capable of anything close to high-end? On top of all that, is the ARA Bde capable of absorbing another BG? Again we get back to a shortage of CS and CSS; but beyond that, the ACR cannot provide any extra forces. So that ARes BG is more like a Bn, and without combined arms, you die.

I'd be leary of using SI and TL as examples of how useful the ARes have been. Those operations at that point were very minor, with insignificant numbers actually involved and no combat to speak of. I suggest that an Army focusing on HA/DR and no-intensity operations like these is not actually an Army.

I think that this is a symptom of AHQ's progressive screw-up with ARes. There is little appetite to change, despite it being poorly managed, utilised and resourced. Add on top politics and it has been put in the too hard basket for years. There has been a number of reviews and red-teaming exercises into the role and structure of the ARes - the last I know of in late-16, but the politics and 'old boys network' kills any decent reformation.

Let me be clear though - none of this lies at the feet of the ARes below LTCOL. It can't. And the men and women of the ARes contribute, within the limits they have imposed, the equal of anyone. We need an ARes - and it is these men and women who are being wasted.

 

[Takao]

You would be surprised how many service personnel, and their families, enjoy the "remote" postings and happily apply for double postings to stay, or even discharge to avoid leaving.

300% premium for local construction, mmm... no, never has been anywhere like that and has always had more to do with inconsistent procurement over decades than any failing of Australian industry.

One you missed is the serious costs associated with consultants and private contractors who are quite often ex ADF anyway and would be doing the exact same job for less money had the government not decided to "save" and civilianise then privatise the position. Defence is shedding several thousand APS to "reduce costs" when APS are cheaper than uniforms, who in turn are cheaper than private contractors and are usually the same people doing the same job.

In a nutshell APS, ADF and contractors do the same support jobs that were once primarily carried out by the ADF, with some APS support alone. There are far more private contractors than Uniforms in the roles and many more uniforms than APS, yet APS are the cheapest, followed by uniforms with private contractors the most expensive. Uniforms are paid more than the APS because they need to be able to deploy and as such have more demanding requirements placed on them, over and above their civilian equivalents. Private contractors however are paid more than either APS or ADF and are specifically contracted to do only specific things that they can not step outside of.

The really sad thing is many of the senior technical service members are lured away from the ADF by the financial and personal benefits of contracting (they are actually usually full time permanent employees of major defence contractors), instead of staying in uniform and coaching and mentoring junior service personnel.

Defence Industry - I agree with that paragraph. I'll happily pay a premium to have it built in Australia. Pyne in Mar 17 indicated that this was government policy - and I think that's correct. It's also not that much of a premium Beyond the simple fact that we might then build a decent manufacturing base that can support the nation and military, especially if our trade is interdicted (remind me why we cannot make dumb 155mm rounds in Australia?), there is the other parts. Salaries generate taxes. Supply chains are created. Hubs of excellence / support are created (imagine - every regional Navy using an Australian patrol boat design; and every Army using PMV. What an earner for us!). Innovation is created. I do get frustrated by the fact that many of the delays that slowed the build of HMAS Adelaide I (even after the war) are still present 100 years later....

Contractors - you mean paying company X $495/hr for a O3 job is not economical? Not even for 3 years? Oh......:rotfl I agree though - better use of APS and less contractors will save us money!

 

[ASSAIL]

Defence Industry - I agree with that paragraph. I'll happily pay a premium to have it built in Australia. Pyne in Mar 17 indicated that this was government policy - and I think that's correct. It's also not that much of a premium Beyond the simple fact that we might then build a decent manufacturing base that can support the nation and military, especially if our trade is interdicted (remind me why we cannot make dumb 155mm rounds in Australia?), there is the other parts. Salaries generate taxes. Supply chains are created. Hubs of excellence / support are created (imagine - every regional Navy using an Australian patrol boat design; and every Army using PMV. What an earner for us!). Innovation is created. I do get frustrated by the fact that many of the delays that slowed the build of HMAS Adelaide I (even after the war) are still present 100 years later....

Contractors - you mean paying company X $495/hr for a O3 job is not economical? Not even for 3 years? Oh......:rotfl I agree though - better use of APS and less contractors will save us money!

By the time the fourth hull is built for SEA 5000 and SEA 1000 there won't be much of a premium at all. We have already proven that with the Collins (despite the political brouhaha)and Anzac builds and this is exactly the route outlined in the Rand report and the purpose of the continuous build.
We have also proven we build high quality compared with others. I'm told that any sailor who has served on an Australian built FFG will attest to their quality v the Todd built ships.
Contractors have to be looked on in totality and this is where perception may be different to reality because I'm sure the number crunchers have done their jobs.
A contractor can be brought in for a specific task; he needs no training, he does not need to be fed or clothed, he has no leave or super contingent liabilities and if he lacks performance he can be removed at will, he doesn't need to be rotated and his family are of no concern to Navy.
I can't put an hourly figure on this but I'd be surprised if, in total, it didn't exceed his nominal salary.
The only downside to contractors filling Naval shore billets is that it removes some shore jobs for sailors as relief for sea time. I don't know what the current ratio is but back in ancient history we had a Navy of 14500 with less than 5000 at sea, I'm sure we are more productive today.

 

[ADMk2]

You would be surprised how many service personnel, and their families, enjoy the "remote" postings and happily apply for double postings to stay, or even discharge to avoid leaving.

300% premium for local construction, mmm... no, never has been anywhere like that and has always had more to do with inconsistent procurement over decades than any failing of Australian industry.

One you missed is the serious costs associated with consultants and private contractors who are quite often ex ADF anyway and would be doing the exact same job for less money had the government not decided to "save" and civilianise then privatise the position. Defence is shedding several thousand APS to "reduce costs" when APS are cheaper than uniforms, who in turn are cheaper than private contractors and are usually the same people doing the same job.

In a nutshell APS, ADF and contractors do the same support jobs that were once primarily carried out by the ADF, with some APS support alone. There are far more private contractors than Uniforms in the roles and many more uniforms than APS, yet APS are the cheapest, followed by uniforms with private contractors the most expensive. Uniforms are paid more than the APS because they need to be able to deploy and as such have more demanding requirements placed on them, over and above their civilian equivalents. Private contractors however are paid more than either APS or ADF and are specifically contracted to do only specific things that they can not step outside of.

The really sad thing is many of the senior technical service members are lured away from the ADF by the financial and personal benefits of contracting (they are actually usually full time permanent employees of major defence contractors), instead of staying in uniform and coaching and mentoring junior service personnel.

AWD’s at over $3b a pop versus F-105 frigates coming in at roughly $1b a pop is the reference I was using... But the point stands. How much capability do we lose for our defence paying such huge cost differences?

 

[ADMk2]

ADMk2, In a few posts you made some comments on value for money.

That may be so but is it a really valuable level of calculation of bigger is better. May be 50+ nations with larger military's above us but how well trained are they, how modern is their equipment, how many of them are conscripts etc etc. Also need to look at the product costs within other nations, Australia is simply a more expensive country and nothing will change that.

Nothing will, but that was simply an example. What I find is truly interesting is when you look at the nations around us in terms of similar expendtiture, how poorly we stack up in the capabilities we deploy, the cost of our military for the military effects it is able to deliver.

The largest funding issue is telling. For only $3b a year overall more than us, Italy can afford to run no less than 22 regular infantry battalions, a much more capable overall Army, an aircraft carrier, a bigger and more capable navy and a bigger and more capable airforce. Italy is an expensive country as is most of Europe no doubt about it, so I wonder how they can do so much more with only a little more funding...

Pray tell which ships have come in at 4 times the cost of elsewhere outside of Russia or China. Australia tends to include a number of hidden costs that other nations dont so I fail to see how we can compare Australia to another nation in purchase costs, Its apples and oranges.

My mistake on that one, I got carried away, but AWD’s are coming in at over USD $2.5b and F-105 frigates at just on USD$1b. Apples and oranges? I very much doubt that... The Future Frigates and Submarines are on track to be similarly expensive.

you are going to compare us to other nations in terms of bang for our buck then you first need to convert our expenditure to a standard (usually USD) in which case for 2017 it comes to $24.3 billion USD. For that amount we have an airforce made up of younger more modern aircraft then the USAF, We have a combat surface fleet in our navy that is 2/3rds the size of the Royal navy, An amphibious capability punching above our weight, A local industry that has jointly and independently developed global beating technologies. You look at the budget and the size of our force and say we arent getting enough for what we spend, The other side of that argument is other nations arent spending enough having them selves stacked with under trained ill equipped conscripts that are marginally effective.

It is relatively easy to maintain a young fleet when your output is around 50 combat coded aircraft, compared to thousands...

 

[ASSAIL]

AWD’s at over $3b a pop versus F-105 frigates coming in at roughly $1b a pop is the reference I was using... But the point stands. How much capability do we lose for our defence paying such huge cost differences?

The comparison is not relevant.
The AWD costs include the costs of setting up a greenfield site, finding and training a workforce, establishing an entire and complex management structure ad nauseum.
Further, the costs were exacerbated by restraining and delaying the build by restricting the funding stream from government simply to serve base political purposes thanks to Wayne Swan.

If, as reported, the third ship has a 50% cost and productivity improvement over the first it seems that it would then be totally comparable with the costs from a US yard.
The experience seen from the Anzac build would bear this out.

 

[ASSAIL]

double post

 

[ADMk2]

The comparison is not relevant.
The AWD costs include the costs of setting up a greenfield site, finding and training a workforce, establishing an entire and complex management structure ad nauseum.
Further, the costs were exacerbated by restraining and delaying the build by restricting the funding stream from government simply to serve base political purposes thanks to Wayne Swan.

If, as reported, the third ship has a 50% cost and productivity improvement over the first it seems that it would then be totally comparable with the costs from a US yard.
The experience seen from the Anzac build would bear this out.

It is completely relevant. The AWD’s are a $9b project to acquire 3 destroyers of a like capability to those rolling off an existing production line.

The question was raised for discussion purposes does Army and ADF more generally get bang for it’s buck, when these exhorbitant cost overheads eat enormously into the ultimate capability delivered?

An Army that isn’t allowed to expand it’s position numbers beyond 30,000 odd and arguably not achieve it’s strategic guidance because of this, but Navy can spend $6b more than Spain would need to acquire practically the same capability...

 

[oldsig127]

An Army that isn’t allowed to expand it’s position numbers beyond 30,000 odd and arguably not achieve it’s strategic guidance because of this, but Navy can spend $6b more than Spain would need to acquire practically the same capability...

This is of course, untrue. As well as three AWDs, Australia acquired the capacity to build more ships, and the skills and infrastructure to do so. You've continually overlooked the cost of building these as part of the cost of the AWDs; now don't exclude them as an additional asset capable of closing the cost gap for future ships and the wide range of strategic benefits inherent in being able to build our own

Declaring my interests in this - I am an ex soldier, not Navy, but have long outgrown the inclination to blame others for poor Army staff work

oldsig

 

[old faithful]

Our defence budget 2017/18 is a whopping 34.6 bn $aust.

Why do we make do with 59 MBT,s.
22 Tigers eat up how much?
Surely these figures and our performance prove beyond doubt, my previous point that Australians are terrible managers. I'm Australian for the record.

 

[oldsig127]

Our defence budget 2017/18 is a whopping 34.6 bn $aust.

Why do we make do with 59 MBT,s.
22 Tigers eat up how much?
Surely these figures and our performance prove beyond doubt, my previous point that Australians are terrible managers. I'm Australian for the record.

Personnel alone cost over $8B per year, the ongoing sustainment of our three services another $5B, the ongoing operations in the Middle east and gulf areas another $2B, and another $2B for defence estate - which has half of it gone without even delving into all the other things our services are required to do - tens/hundreds of millions in support to governments for example.

In 2017/18 the budget provides $7.4B for new capital equipment, and $2B for new capital facilities

All this and more in the publicly available Defence Budget papers. Given that (apparently) they don't get value for money, I suggest we all pitch in and see where we can get the savings necessary to buy more MBTs etc.

oldsig

 

[old faithful]

Oldsig , that's not even close to funny.
So let's say 30bn a year for 4 years, 120bn to maintain a navy of 30 odd ships, and air force of 200 or so aircraft, an army of 30,000 with 60 tanks, 60 or so choppers and a about 2500 odd vehicles. I would suggest we could do better, even with our operations in the ME, what with 1/2 a dozen aircraft and about 1250 personnel deployed.

 

[vonnoobie]

Since this debate is ongoing here is a link to various spending measures including capital costs and sustainment etc for 2017-18 defence budget. http://www.defence.gov.au/Budget/17-18/2017-18_Defence_PBS_02_Department.pdf

Does any one know of any comparable report/overview from another nation?

 

[ADMk2]

This is of course, untrue. As well as three AWDs, Australia acquired the capacity to build more ships, and the skills and infrastructure to do so. You've continually overlooked the cost of building these as part of the cost of the AWDs; now don't exclude them as an additional asset capable of closing the cost gap for future ships and the wide range of strategic benefits inherent in being able to build our own

Declaring my interests in this - I am an ex soldier, not Navy, but have long outgrown the inclination to blame others for poor Army staff work

oldsig

It is not the case that it is untrue, AWD is funded at $9b to build 3 warships. Yes it includes a lot of infrastructure expenditure, but that is largely my point. We are paying huge overheads to acquire like capability to that already available from market and gaining nothing but support for political agendas out of the bargain. There is little straetgic benefit in assembling our own ships in my view, which is what we do. We don’t ‘make’ them, let alone design them, so let us not kid ourselves that we could actually make ships from scratch with the ‘capability’ we have invested in if needed. We can only ‘make’ major defence platforms when they are almost entirely designed elsewhere, with all the major systems on them also made elsewhere. If that is a ‘strategic’ capability, then we have different ideas on the word strategic. Repair, refit, upgrade facilities, fine. But politically driven programs that deliver less capability for more dollars is something we coukd easily do without. An argument could even be made that such decisions are a strategic impediment, rather than a benefit, given warfare now is largely a ‘come with what you have’ affair.

It is not only Navy doing this, Army has done it multiple times and has attempted to do more with ‘Australianisation’ of platforms, the SP gun project being one that springs quickly to mind. As for Army’s staff work when it comes to capability development, don’t get me started...

LAND 40 AGL project... SP gun project... M113 upgrade project... Leopard Thermal sight upgrade... Tiger ARH project... Army watercraft projects... I could go on if needed...

 

[t68]

It is not the case that it is untrue, AWD is funded at $9b to build 3 warships. Yes it includes a lot of infrastructure expenditure, but that is largely my point. We are paying huge overheads to acquire like capability to that already available from market and gaining nothing but support for political agendas out of the bargain. There is little straetgic benefit in assembling our own ships in my view, which is what we do. We don’t ‘make’ them, let alone design them, so let us not kid ourselves that we could actually make ships from scratch with the ‘capability’ we have invested in if needed. We can only ‘make’ major defence platforms when they are almost entirely designed elsewhere, with all the major systems on them also made elsewhere. If that is a ‘strategic’ capability, then we have different ideas on the word strategic. Repair, refit, upgrade facilities, fine. But politically driven programs that deliver less capability for more dollars is something we coukd easily do without. An argument could even be made that such decisions are a strategic impediment, rather than a benefit, given warfare now is largely a ‘come with what you have’ affair.

It is not only Navy doing this, Army has done it multiple times and has attempted to do more with ‘Australianisation’ of platforms, the SP gun project being one that springs quickly to mind. As for Army’s staff work when it comes to capability development, don’t get me started...

LAND 40 AGL project... SP gun project... M113 upgrade project... Leopard Thermal sight upgrade... Tiger ARH project... Army watercraft projects... I could go on if needed...

Strategic shipbuilding in my view is more than designing the ships, how do they get the skills for repair refit if we don't build them let alone upgrade such as the successful ASMD up grade. Bushmaster comes to mind even tho it was pork barrelling by placing it in Bendigo, low number builds don't help number crunching for projects like Land 400, nut I understand the rational behind reasons.

 

[Volkodav]

AWD’s at over $3b a pop versus F-105 frigates coming in at roughly $1b a pop is the reference I was using... But the point stands. How much capability do we lose for our defence paying such huge cost differences?

Australia got a package including a new shipyard, plus two upgraded old yards, plus three worlds best practice workforces for A$9bn as well as the potential to continue building evolved versions of the AWD at highly competitive prices. Oh those who have seen the Spanish ships as well as the Hobarts up close rate the quality of the Australian ships much higher.

The fact that successive governments chose not to use the hard won and expensively grown shipbuilding capability is a political and governance issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the standards achieved but the workers and managers on the project. Interestingly all the "improvements" were made before Navantia came in (at great cost to the tax payer) to tell more knowledgeable and talented people than themselves how to suck eggs, as the Alliance had already head hunted, hired, seconded or contracted all the best Navantia, BAE, BIW etc had to offer to fix the excrement masquerading as a ship design Navantia flogged to the government back in the mid noughties (I don't know what the first four Armada ships were built to but it sure as hell wasn't what they provided to the alliance, noting they crashed and burned on F-105 due to their own black hole and brain drain).

 

[aussienscale]

Australia got a package including a new shipyard, plus two upgraded old yards, plus three worlds best practice workforces for A$9bn as well as the potential to continue building evolved versions of the AWD at highly competitive prices. Oh those who have seen the Spanish ships as well as the Hobarts up close rate the quality of the Australian ships much higher.

The fact that successive governments chose not to use the hard won and expensively grown shipbuilding capability is a political and governance issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the standards achieved but the workers and managers on the project. Interestingly all the "improvements" were made before Navantia came in (at great cost to the tax payer) to tell more knowledgeable and talented people than themselves how to suck eggs, as the Alliance had already head hunted, hired, seconded or contracted all the best Navantia, BAE, BIW etc had to offer to fix the excrement masquerading as a ship design Navantia flogged to the government back in the mid noughties (I don't know what the first four Armada ships were built to but it sure as hell wasn't what they provided to the alliance, noting they crashed and burned on F-105 due to their own black hole and brain drain).

And we also need to remember when comparing project costs that each country tallies the cost very differently, would be curious to know the actual total cost of the Spanish project, because our costings are based on the life of the ships, people seem to be forgetting that of late on here and needs to be taken into account

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

It is not the case that it is untrue, AWD is funded at $9b to build 3 warships. Yes it includes a lot of infrastructure expenditure, but that is largely my point. We are paying huge overheads to acquire like capability to that already available from market and gaining nothing but support for political agendas out of the bargain. There is little straetgic benefit in assembling our own ships in my view, which is what we do. We don’t ‘make’ them, let alone design them, so let us not kid ourselves that we could actually make ships from scratch with the ‘capability’ we have invested in if needed. We can only ‘make’ major defence platforms when they are almost entirely designed elsewhere, with all the major systems on them also made elsewhere. If that is a ‘strategic’ capability, then we have different ideas on the word strategic. Repair, refit, upgrade facilities, fine. But politically driven programs that deliver less capability for more dollars is something we coukd easily do without. An argument could even be made that such decisions are a strategic impediment, rather than a benefit, given warfare now is largely a ‘come with what you have’ affair.

It is not only Navy doing this, Army has done it multiple times and has attempted to do more with ‘Australianisation’ of platforms, the SP gun project being one that springs quickly to mind. As for Army’s staff work when it comes to capability development, don’t get me started...

LAND 40 AGL project... SP gun project... M113 upgrade project... Leopard Thermal sight upgrade... Tiger ARH project... Army watercraft projects... I could go on if needed...

Sorry AD you are a mile off there, the AWDs were very much built in Australia. not assembled, with the exception of two small blocks on Hobart and Sydney and about 3/4 of the keel on Brisbane. They use different grades of steel to Spain (for regional climatic conditions that are both much hotter and colder than the Armada operates in and would have cause hull cracking on the original material), different materials for piping etc, different firefighting systems and interior materials, coatings etc. All improving the durability and survivability of the design from the original.

The diesels are more powerful permitting a higher efficient cruising speed, different arrangements of tanks to increase range, different hanger arrangements to fit the longer Romeos, Typhoon instead of pintle mounted 20mm, superior ASW capability, an CS interface between the core AEGIS system to permit integration of new systems separately from the YSNs spiral development while still maintaining seamless integration with any USN systems desired.

Many of the issues with the unbuildable original design data were identified locally, corrected by Australian experts, and sent back to navantia for a rubber stamp to permit work to progress. These experts were not budgeted for because the government assumed they were buying a complete set of build data read for use, i.e. they expected to be able to build to print from a complete proven design, the reality was very different. Here's an analogy, you go with the cheapest bidder to build your new house, the contractors are fine but there is no foreman, the builder / designer is standing on his dads rep but is clueless and all the suppliers are his cousins and mates who are equally clueless. Whats more, your father in law is making all the calls on options and schedule and he is even more clueless than the builder, but everything is somehow your fault. Then when you step in and sort it all your mother in law takes over, calls you an idiot and pays the builder extra money to supervise your fixes or the problems he caused in the first place.

 

[John Fedup]

Australia’s 30 billion plus defence budget is producing results. Contrast that with my country, Canada. Twenty billion plus and virtually every major capital program is on hold or cut back. Cheer up Oz, it could worse....way worse!

 

[ngatimozart]

This is the Army thread and it has wandered completely off topic. If you want to discuss the AWDs do it on the RAN thread.