Future of the Australian Defence Force

[RAAFmate]

Recently in the newspaper there was an article about the ADF and the options the government are considering to modernize it. The 4 options that were stated in the newspaper were as follows:

1. 'Stand easy' - no new submarines, no air warfare destroyers and no JSF, 4 more maritime patrol aircraft and more troop carrying ships and aircraft. (1.64% GDP)

2. 'Focused force' - More special forces and light infantry, 12 submarines, 5 air warfare destroyers, 4 more maritime patrol aircraft and buy 48 more super hornets instead of the JSF. (2% GDP)

3. 'Securing the waves' - Bigger navy including 5 air warfare destroyers, 5 more frigates, 12 submarines, 12 more naval helicopters and 6 new maritime patrol aircraft. (2.18% GDP)

4. 'Muscular regional power' - 2 small aircraft carriers, 18 submarines, 5 air warfare destroyers, 5 frigates, 3 big troop landing ships, 250 JSF's, our own military satellites and 3 new army battalions. (2.67% GDP)

After reading the article I was quite shocked at the first two options as I believe these would drastically reduce the capabilities of the ADF, (not so much the second option but certainly the first) most definitely in their own region and would weaken the ADF. It is stated in the article that the current ADF budget is at 1.8% of the GDP and the government wants to reduce the budget by another $1b a year. Hopefully someone else can divulge what would be a good or perhaps the better option for the ADF in the long term.

Cheers

 

[RAAFmate]

Just wanted to post a link to show there is a source for this information.

Cheers


http://www.theage.com.au/national/battle-on-the-home-front-20081226-75m3.html

 

[Aussie Digger]

First off, every single one of those "structures" is an unbalanced mix of capabilities and fails to reflect the ENORMOUS range of capabilities even the LIGHTEST force maintains.

Given the arbitrary number relating to GDP that some author has assigned to these "options", these are not well thought out plans or realistic force structures of any kind.

I think this:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/DCP_2006_16.pdf

Is a more reasonable option...

 

[battlensign]

Just wanted to post a link to show there is a source for this information.

Cheers


http://www.theage.com.au/national/battle-on-the-home-front-20081226-75m3.html

I think you will find that at the cost projection for scenario five (there were 5 in the actual report) - one with/without the carriers - showed costs would "peak at 2.73 percent of GDP".

Personally, I like the "securing the waves" option, but with commensurate increases for the other services. This would probably take 2.4% of GDP at its height, but would only really represent a 10 % cut to Social Welfare spending (105 Billion of 319.5 Billion Cth Budget in 08/09) and redirecting the extra 5 Billion a year to the Defence Department and ADO.

Brett.

 

[BLADE135]

Focused Force plus More

Hi Guys,

I downloaded and read .pdf version of the report, I was happy to find that it did take a neutral stance. I was little unsure of the prices they provided for the equipment and manning. I thought they looked abit on the low side of things.
I thought that the focused force option will be the preferred option for the government. But I would prefer they keep the 100 JSF Fighters and add 2 more submarines to the current six.

I know that option four sounds great but I think:
1. The politicians are a bit scared of what the rest of the region would think.

2. We could have a problem manning the equipment. I am sure the enlistment rate would go up because the would be alot of young people who would love to fly state of the art aircraft, or work on a aircraft carrier or work with state of the art intelligence equipment.

Not saying what we have or are getting now is not good or state of the art ie Wedgetail, F18 Super Hornets, AWD's and Canberra Class Ships. I think in certain ways the prestige of armed forces could rise in the minds of the generation that would want to join.

But lets hope thay give the service men and women what thay need to do their jobs safely and efficiently. They should be the ones telling the government what they want and we should be paying with the only questions being asked on how we give them the exact spec equipment they asked for without losing money in the purchasing process of it.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ Edmund Bourke

 

[RAAFmate]

Not saying what we have or are getting now is not good or state of the art ie Wedgetail, F18 Super Hornets, AWD's and Canberra Class Ships. I think in certain ways the prestige of armed forces could rise in the minds of the generation that would want to join.

Saying that do you think that the super hornets and wedgetails could be able to cope with what other countries in the region are starting to field. i.e Sukhoi's Su 27s/30s and MiG's 29s.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Not saying what we have or are getting now is not good or state of the art ie Wedgetail, F18 Super Hornets, AWD's and Canberra Class Ships. I think in certain ways the prestige of armed forces could rise in the minds of the generation that would want to join.

Saying that do you think that the super hornets and wedgetails could be able to cope with what other countries in the region are starting to field. i.e Sukhoi's Su 27s/30s and MiG's 29s.

When the Wedgetails eventuate, I would imagine that they will be without peer in our region, I suspect even if you include China as being in our region.
Re Super vs Flanker check posts #1581 onward
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6007&page=106

cheers
rb

 

[Navor86]

At first glance the 2nd Option seems to be the most appealing
But IMHO Australia should go for another Option
-Leave the RAAF as it is but retain Super Hornets even when all 100 JSF are purchased

-Cut 4th RAR from the Line Infantry and move them to 1st Commando Regiment.
-Activate 1st Commando Rgt as a Regular Unit.
-Re-Raise 4th RAR as a Light Infantry Unit
-Delink 8/9th RAR
-If appropriate raise a 4th Squadron in each Regiment of the Royal Australian Armored Corps
-Get another 20-28 Helos (8-16 Tiger and 12 MRH)

-Keep the last 2 OHP Frigates until 2025 and replace them along the Anzac Replacment.
With the 2 OHP Australia would get deployable ships for low risk Ops like Solomon Islands
-If manning permits then replace the 6 Collins with 8 Submarines of the new class.

 

[willur]

At first glance the 2nd Option seems to be the most appealing
But IMHO Australia should go for another Option
-Leave the RAAF as it is but retain Super Hornets even when all 100 JSF are purchased

-Cut 4th RAR from the Line Infantry and move them to 1st Commando Regiment.
-Activate 1st Commando Rgt as a Regular Unit.
-Re-Raise 4th RAR as a Light Infantry Unit
-Delink 8/9th RAR
-If appropriate raise a 4th Squadron in each Regiment of the Royal Australian Armored Corps
-Get another 20-28 Helos (8-16 Tiger and 12 MRH)

-Keep the last 2 OHP Frigates until 2025 and replace them along the Anzac Replacment.
With the 2 OHP Australia would get deployable ships for low risk Ops like Solomon Islands
-If manning permits then replace the 6 Collins with 8 Submarines of the new class.

I thought 4RAR is a commando outfit and is part of the bigger picture of SPECOPS in ADF, I don't believe raising 1CDO will be a good idea as it is a good breeding ground for 4RAR and SASR, also provides quality training for all specop forces in australia and abroad.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Not saying what we have or are getting now is not good or state of the art ie Wedgetail, F18 Super Hornets, AWD's and Canberra Class Ships. I think in certain ways the prestige of armed forces could rise in the minds of the generation that would want to join.

Saying that do you think that the super hornets and wedgetails could be able to cope with what other countries in the region are starting to field. i.e Sukhoi's Su 27s/30s and MiG's 29s.

Indonesia has 6x Sukhoi fighters, with 4x more on order.

Malaysia has 18x Sukhoi fighters on order and 12x MiG-29's in-service.

Yes, RAAF's 71x F/A18's and 24x Super Hornets, plus Wedgetail, will be able to handle this...

 

[Aussie Digger]

At first glance the 2nd Option seems to be the most appealing
But IMHO Australia should go for another Option
-Leave the RAAF as it is but retain Super Hornets even when all 100 JSF are purchased

-Cut 4th RAR from the Line Infantry and move them to 1st Commando Regiment.
-Activate 1st Commando Rgt as a Regular Unit.
-Re-Raise 4th RAR as a Light Infantry Unit
-Delink 8/9th RAR
-If appropriate raise a 4th Squadron in each Regiment of the Royal Australian Armored Corps
-Get another 20-28 Helos (8-16 Tiger and 12 MRH)

-Keep the last 2 OHP Frigates until 2025 and replace them along the Anzac Replacment.
With the 2 OHP Australia would get deployable ships for low risk Ops like Solomon Islands
-If manning permits then replace the 6 Collins with 8 Submarines of the new class.

4RAR is a Commando Battalion and a part of SOCOMD. It is a part of the Royal Australian Regiment, because it is, essentially, a regular infantry based unit.

Personally, I believe it should be renamed, but at the end of the day, a name change means nothing without a commitment to increase the ARA by another battalion to replace the Commando Battalion.

4RAR is however considered a normal battalion (admittedly with a different role, focus and equipment schedule) within the RAR. This is evidenced by the fact that 4RAR competes in the Duke of Gloucester Cup (and hasn't ever won it yet...)

1 Commando Regt has a direct lineage from WW2 Z Force units and should remain as is, because history and historical links are important. Where exactly should all the part time Commando operators go, if 1Cdo is re-roled into a line infantry battalion?

1 Cdo maintains 2x Commando Coy's. 1x is based in Sydney and the other in Melbourne. Where are the numbers and facilities coming from to expand to an entire battalion and where is Army's special operations support and expansion capability going to come from?

As to the OHP frigates, I hope manning will allow them to remain in-service until they are replaced under the frigate replacement program. I fear such is not the case however and RAN will operate 11x surface combatants in years to come.

As to SH and F-35. I think RAAF should acquire Growler (if it is allowed) and Growler and F/A-18F Super Hornet should be used to develop a dedicated SEAD/DEAD capability for RAAF (amongst other things) and operate this alongside the F-35 capability in years to come.

I would suggest that any F-35 acquisition would then be reduced to a max of 75x, however I think this structure would add significant flexibility and capability to the force.

I don't think Government is prepared to fund 100 F-35's on top of the SH capability. I think it will be a case of either/or.

 

[battlensign]

Couldn't 4 RAR become: 1/1 Cdo Regt and and 1 Cdo Regt become: 2/1 Cdo Regt?

Brett.

 

[Navor86]

As for 1st Commando.
With the amalgamation of 4th RAR and 1st Commando it would possible to get 5 full time Commando Coys which would ease the strains on the Commando Force

I have a Problem to understand how they are trained.They are said to be as good as their Regular Counterparts,but how is this possible when they are "part-time" soldiers.Is it possible to know how many days per year they train?(If it is not against OPSEC)
And are Members of 1st Commando Reserve?
This post is not meant to be disrespectfull towards 1st Commando as we have seen that they also suffer in this war

 

[willur]

As for 1st Commando.
With the amalgamation of 4th RAR and 1st Commando it would possible to get 5 full time Commando Coys which would ease the strains on the Commando Force

I have a Problem to understand how they are trained.They are said to be as good as their Regular Counterparts,but how is this possible when they are "part-time" soldiers.Is it possible to know how many days per year they train?(If it is not against OPSEC)
And are Members of 1st Commando Reserve?
This post is not meant to be disrespectfull towards 1st Commando as we have seen that they also suffer in this war

1st CDO Regt have combined training courses, the fitness requirement is the same, CDO also train SASR and 4RAR in a number of requirements although due to CDO being at the level it is and the time being away from the system I cannot elaborate and will not based on you don't need to know it in detail except training a CDO is far more entensive than any other reservist or on par or greater than active RAR.
Being CDO is difficult and time consuming occupation involving at times alot of injuries and extra time at home keeping the required fitness, though is one of the most rewarding careers one can take in the reserves.

 

[Aussie Digger]

As for 1st Commando.
With the amalgamation of 4th RAR and 1st Commando it would possible to get 5 full time Commando Coys which would ease the strains on the Commando Force

I have a Problem to understand how they are trained.They are said to be as good as their Regular Counterparts,but how is this possible when they are "part-time" soldiers.Is it possible to know how many days per year they train?(If it is not against OPSEC)
And are Members of 1st Commando Reserve?
This post is not meant to be disrespectfull towards 1st Commando as we have seen that they also suffer in this war

1CDO is part of the "high readiness reserve" scheme. This allows operators to train as much as they are able to. I would expect most operators would be training in excess of 100 days per year.

 

[willur]

also must be remembered that CDO is staffed by a collection of Full-time and part-time.

 

[firdausj]

If you want to continue to be a 'Deputy Sheriff' of US in the region .. Option 4 is reasonable ..

Who will be a 'serious' enemy for Australia in the next 10 - 20 years from now?

 

[black shark]

Regardless of those obscure force packages Australia needs to maintain a technological edge and this means having the best possible air assets first and foremost. A powerful air force will keep all potential aggressors at bay until the US Navy arrives.
A limited force projection capability could be achieved via a couple of troop carriers with enough deck space for 6 helo's.
Combined this with the current naval ship/sub numbers, very high training standards of Australia's military and you have a potent defence force within budget hopefully.
Lets face it, who is going to attack Australia knowing that the US and UK will respond with interest to help defend Oz!

 

[willur]

Regardless of those obscure force packages Australia needs to maintain a technological edge and this means having the best possible air assets first and foremost. A powerful air force will keep all potential aggressors at bay until the US Navy arrives.
A limited force projection capability could be achieved via a couple of troop carriers with enough deck space for 6 helo's.
Combined this with the current naval ship/sub numbers, very high training standards of Australia's military and you have a potent defence force within budget hopefully.
Lets face it, who is going to attack Australia knowing that the US and UK will respond with interest to help defend Oz!

yes but response would take around 60-90 days sure they could send earlier but the legal considerations are immense

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Here's an interesting PDF on Australia's nuclear strategy, which questions the long term viability of reliance on the US's nuclear umbrella, and the need to at least hold an advantage in lead time to nuclear weapons over other regional players.

The Rudd Government clearly faces some difficult choices in determining theextent to which Australia pursues BMD capabilities. Because of the longtime-cycles associated with the research, development and acquisition ofmissile defence technologies, decisions taken on BMD today will have astrong bearing on Australia’s strategic security for decades to come.

In thecontext of dual concerns about the future credibility of extended deterrence and the endurance of American strategic primacy, the choice to abandon BMD, and to eschew at least a rudimentary ability to neutralise ballistic missiles through high level denial strategies, is not a decision that should be taken lightly.

Perhaps the optimal policy for Australia would be to emulate the Japanese
model and adopt a multi-layered strategic approach, which at once hedges
against future uncertainties, but which nevertheless preserves the
proliferation status-quo. This would require Canberra to simultaneously work
towards retaining its position under the US nuclear umbrella for as long as
extended deterrence remains strategically viable, whilst building BMD
capabilities, and establishing an advanced nuclear energy infrastructure
which, combined with Australia’s deep technological base, would eventually
provide Canberra with a default ‘threshold’ nuclear weapons capability.
Indeed, the retention of a relatively short lead-time on development is not a
particularly new theme in Australian strategic thinking. The 1975 Strategic
Basis of Australian Defence Policy noted that:

The possibility of nuclear proliferation in the coming decades must now be
taken into account by Australian policy. No requirement is seen for
Australia now to acquire nuclear weapons. However, the increased
likelihood of nuclear proliferation and the possible requirement to keep lead
time matched with contingency developments in other countries calls for a
review periodically of Australia’s potential against the possibility that the
country might be forced to consider turning to them for protection at some
indeterminate time in the future.

Because nuclear energy has dual utility, the most attractive feature of this
policy is that Canberra could greatly enhance its strategic options without
having to make the overtly destabilising strategic choice of developing a
nuclear arsenal. Such a strategy would allow Australia to remain under the
nuclear umbrella, whilst hedging against the possibility of the US extended
deterrent becoming less credible as the regional strategic balance evolves
over the coming decades.

http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/SCVol4No1/vo4no1Heinrichs.pdf