Extra hulls? Isn't there a rumour that the Hunters will be cut from 9 to 6?
Pretty much. Unfort between the release of the public portions of the DSR, plus statements and leaks from officials, and then rumours about the as yet to be released follow-on naval review, the actual plan for the RAN is as clear as mud. So far, it seems that the original plan of nine Hunter-class frigates is still proceeding, as is the Arafura-class OPV build. However, all of this is still subject to change.Extra hulls? Isn't there a rumour that the Hunters will be cut from 9 to 6?
What promises haven't they kept exactly? And how have they been any worse than the previous succession of Governments who were happy to reap the peace dividend, especially those in the past decade when the rising Chinese threat was crystal clear?It's ALP all over as far as defence goes.
Promise the world, and deliver an atlas.
Well they have certainly cut the army to the bone. Nothing about that 4th F-35 squadron either. HMAS ANZAC about to be retired without replacement, so we will soon be down to 10 MFUs.What promises haven't they kept exactly? And how have they been any worse than the previous succession of Governments who were happy to reap the peace dividend, especially those in the past decade when the rising Chinese threat was crystal clear?
As far as I can see the only worthwhile increase in the RAN's warfighting capability delivered in that time period was the Hunter class. The current state of affairs was entirely foreseeable and avoidable, but the LNP didn't fix it did they?
I don't want to get into a partisan argument - the Gillard Government in particular was atrocious on Defence - but I think it is far too early to judge the current Government. The situation the RAN is in is as a result of long term lack of investment, and will need long term investment to fix, and so personally I think that even before you overlay the macroeconomic challenges they've inherited a deliberate approach is the right one.
We need to hasten slowly, and make sure this doesn't happen ever again.
Army is not a strategic priority, to be frank. The threat is China, and if we're fighting an armour heavy land war with them we've lost. Funding is not unlimited, and prioritisations need to be made.Well they have certainly cut the army to the bone.
This was never promised, contracted or committed to in any fashion. Of the three services the RAAF is already the best capitalised and modernised.Nothing about that 4th F-35 squadron either.
Rather than waiting until around April - May 2024,to release some/none of the recommendations from the delaying Surface Force Review, make some decisions now. Such as continuation of the OPV build and the commitment to the full Hunter class build. If the recommendation is for a reduction of the ASW frigates to 6 hulls, fine but use the hull for a class of 6 AAW frigates to follow immediately on from the final ASW hull. An AAW version would not need the full range of ASW systems which may provide some weight and space for additional AAW systems.The RAN is where the investment needs to be. They have already committed to following through with the SSNs. I have said this before but if the outcomes of the Surface Force Review don't involve significant additional investment then the Government should be rightly criticised. But what else would you have them do in the meantime?
Fair enough. That’d be great.Rather than waiting until around April - May 2024,to release some/none of the recommendations from the delaying Surface Force Review, make some decisions now. Such as continuation of the OPV build and the commitment to the full Hunter class build. If the recommendation is for a reduction of the ASW frigates to 6 hulls, fine but use the hull for a class of 6 AAW frigates to follow immediately on from the final ASW hull. An AAW version would not need the full range of ASW systems which may provide some weight and space for additional AAW systems.
If that has been decided, or any decision for that matter, why not announce it. It removes doubt, gives certainty to inductry and might just help stem the loss of valuable trained personnel. It is not like there is a carved in stone schedule for announcements be they good, bad or indifferent. While detailed plans based on the recommendations take time to be developed, there is no reason why the recommendations that are being accepted (and developed) should not be announced.Fair enough. That’d be great.
But how do you know they haven’t decided this or something similar (or even superior) and just haven’t announced it yet?
As I said it’s too early to draw conclusions. We need to wait until their response is announced.
I am absolutely not saying that. And if I was king for a day I personally think that we should’ve gone ahead with the full planned IFV and SPG buys (which we may do, and these “cuts” are just an accounting trick).Are you suggesting that the ADF should only be looking at a strategic conflict that is about defending mainland Australia from an invasion?!!!
Are you serious?
Have look what is happening in the middle east Morgo. It's pretty obvious that Russia is being a little bit mischievous here. Opening another front to distract and stretch the US a bit more.
If China was being aggressive toward Taiwan, a few spot fires in our region wouldn't be a bad plan for them, and SSNs etc won't be of much use. Sending poorly trained and equipped soldiers to deal with coups etc could be a problem however. That's just one scenario. A balanced force is required, and is a realistic possibility, if the will is there.
Probably some combination of (a) they haven’t decided on their full response yet to all recommendations and want to announce it all at once, and (b) they’re looking to time the announcement for when they will get maximum political mileage. I was actually half expecting that after the Voice went down in flames that they might announce something to try deflect attention / reset the narrative but nothing yet…If that has been decided, or any decision for that matter, why not announce it. It removes doubt, gives certainty to inductry and might just help stem the loss of valuable trained personnel. It is not like there is a carved in stone schedule for announcements be they good, bad or indifferent. While detailed plans based on the recommendations take time to be developed, there is no reason why the recommendations that are being accepted (and developed) should not be announced.
Fair enough. I’d put Abbott and Morrison in the same bin too though. And Hawke and Keating did deliver the ANZACs and Collins after all.The "urgent reviews" to deliver capability ASAP , or words to that effect.
You might as well include Rudd's time as well as Hawke and Keatings. None of those governments did anything good for the ADF.
Turnbulls time was ordinary as well, but at least the Libs/Nats show some interest in maintaining and replacing major assets.
Waiting until there is the perfect 100% solution means that no decision will be made and nothing will be done. The best that can be hoped for is the 70% solution which can be started quickly (OPS Planning 101). As more information becomes available or the conditions start to change then the plan can be adapted and adjusted and may become an 80% solution.Probably some combination of (a) they haven’t decided on their full response yet to all recommendations and want to announce it all at once, and (b) they’re looking to time the announcement for when they will get maximum political mileage.
I agree. For all I know though they’ve made decisions and are running an accelerated procurement process to execute them. That’s certainly what they should be doing. Time will tell whether that is actually what’s happening.Waiting until there is the perfect 100% solution means that no decision will be made and nothing will be done. The best that can be hoped for is the 70% solution which can be started quickly (OPS Planning 101). As more information becomes available or the conditions start to change then the plan can be adapted and adjusted and may become an 80% solution.
Alot of good questions without answers today.I agree. For all I know though they’ve made decisions and are running an accelerated procurement process to execute them. That’s certainly what they should be doing. Time will tell whether that is actually what’s happening.
Possibly, but I would normally expect there to be some signs of a procurement programme getting started, if not any real indications of what is to be procured. So far, I have not seen something anything other than some of the questionable procurements.I agree. For all I know though they’ve made decisions and are running an accelerated procurement process to execute them. That’s certainly what they should be doing. Time will tell whether that is actually what’s happening.