Future of the Australian Defence Force

[Aussie Digger]

still those agreements still have to be processed and any action approved by congress, what about projection of force a carrier does take awhile to restation any move of blue water fleet from RAN will take time and what about the first gulf war movement of troops and aircraft take less time than navy but the navy can cover more area. I think sending the F22 would be last resort might send 1 sqr but not 2 or 3and the US would send marines and such support.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 passed by Congress allows the US President to authorise military action in foreign territory without Congressional approval for up to 90 days...

I think a major military attack on a friendly power, might just be the basis behind this authority...

but I still believe in 60 -90 days as noone has put up any solid except because they have to. Look at any conflict US is currently in or previous conflict how long was the response time.

And why do you think the ONLY response option would be to physically deploy assets ALL the way to Australia?

Do you HONESTLY think the ONLY US option to assist Australia would be to fly or sail assets ALL the way to Australia?

Could not Tomahawk CM or US Navy submarine strikes, or B-2/B-52/B-1B strikes on Chinese/Indian or whomever's assets in the South Asia sea, BEHIND the projected force, not prove an effective means of engaging a force deployed SO far away from this Country's mainland?

Come on. I'm sure 1 CDO would attack from a slightly different angle against such an overwhelmingly powerful threat...

As to your response time, Libya bombed a German nightclub on April 5 1986. USAF assets in the UK and USN assets in the Mediterranean Sea launched retaliatory strikes on April 14 1986. The raids were known as El Dorado Canyon...

The "critical incident" used by President Bush as the catalyst for the invasion of Panama was the assault upon 4 US servicemen and occured on December 16 1989. The US invaded on December 20, 1989...

US forces were on the ground in Saudia Arabia, under an operation known as Desert Shield on August 7 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990.

9/11 happened on September 11 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom was already underway and announced officially by President George W Bush on October 7, 2001. B-2, B-52 and B-1B operations, along with carrier, submarine and special forces operations all commenced in only a touch over 2 weeks after the biggest, most brazen military attack since 1990.

And the Enduring Freedom operations were conducted further away from mainland USA and PACRIM assets than Australia is...

Need I go on?

Legal considerations are always prepared by the US for future conflicts except when economic considerations are to be met, also they will allow australia first to prepare its own response this alone would take time. Also the US is currently active on 3 fronts how much response would they have left and not leave themselves open.

I'm sure they are. Why are you so sure America doesn't have WELL developed plans to rapidly deploy forces to ANY nation in the Pacific, in case of Chinese, Indian or whoever attack someone else?

What do you think Staff officers DO, when there are no operations to plan?

How many F-22's are being used in current operations? There are 6 operational F-22 aircraft at Kadena Air Force base as I type this. Not ONE of them is currently engaged in operations... According to RAND, 6x F-22's could handle anything up to a full Regiment of Chinese Flanker aircraft...

How many USN Submarines are there, and how many are engaged in actual operations on these 3 fronts? How many B-2's?

The idea that the US couldn't assist Australia is utterly ridiculous. We have 4x air combat squadrons in RAAF. The USMC alone has more than 20, with more deployed air combat power in Japan ALONE than RAAF even possesses...

Also to me a response is a projection of force not 'please dont because you are being naughty' and how many carrier groups are currently available for rapid relocation, what if this scenario happens during election time.
In I believe the US will respond, A DIRECT PROJECTION OF FORCE which to me is a response will still take at least 60 Days to be on station

Utter rubbish. I've shown only a few of the NUMEROUS times the USA has deployed significant military assets to major military operations in less than 3 weeks in the past 30 years.

There are others, but if this doesn't change your opinion, than it's not worth mentioning anything else...

 

[black shark]

Private willur, I think you should salute the General (Aussie Digger)!

You underestimate the strength of the US and their proven logistical abilities. A mistake some former opponents have made so don't feel too bad.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sensor Data to Shooter to Delivery response times in recent history have been as short as 15 minutes. The Russians have done the same when they took out a Chechyan leader weith a TBM.

8 years ago it was a SDSD response time of 8+ hrs....

And at a simple analogy level, one USN SSGN has more onboard "weight" of firepower than all other non US militaries in the PACRIM. They can reach out and touch anyone "significantly"' within a week at their furthest point

Response is like an onion peel - and they have the biggest onions...

 

[willur]

Private willur, I think you should salute the General (Aussie Digger)!

You underestimate the strength of the US and their proven logistical abilities. A mistake some former opponents have made so don't feel too bad.

I do value the opinons of others and do accept defeat in this debate, although if I did not force my opinon I would have not got the complete answer that I needed beyond the 'just because" even with the angry responses. Also I have never stated that US would not provide assistance as I know of the equipment status of US assests within Australia and the possible use of Aus cruise missles stock which in it self is a large deterent, but one must remember that the War on terror is the Main US concern and sabre rattling in this geographic is really a concern of Australia's military strengh with more concern than ever. And secuirty is like a onion it has layers and depth.
Nothing says 'DONT try it' like a carrier, no matter what physical presence of force is located a carrier is still a big stick of response.
Thank you for your input and am proved reluctantly corrected

 

[gf0012-aust]

but one must remember that the War on terror is the Main US concern and sabre rattling in this geographic is really a concern of Australia's military strengh with more concern than ever. And secuirty is like a onion it has layers and depth.

Again, I strongly disagree and any cursory look at the USN's change in focus since 2004 shows that the PACRIM - and Australia is critical to the US.

• Over half of their military capability will be PACRIM focussed
• More than half their strike assets are PACRIM based
• There new sensor networks such as Seabased X band are PACRIM based

the US has a strategic long view - and the state based concerns are the PACRIM.

You are confusing a non state player conflict with state on state conflict - and they are clearly gearing up for both

 

[OPSSG]

Speaking as an observer of this thread (and as a Singaporean), I think that the US and Australia have adopted a sophisticated response to the slightly quarrelsome region we live in.

@willur, if anything, Australia's continued willingness to invest in defence (when the Europeans are cutting back) and send men in harm's way greatly increases the strategic value of Australia to the US. In fact, without Australia's positive involvement in Southeast Asia, we would live in a more dangerous region. In a sense, IMHO, Australia has been investing in building goodwill with many countries and that positive role is appreciated.

From my point of view, every dollar Australia spends on defence and engagement of her immediate neighbours enhances the security situation for my country in Southeast Asia. I also cannot imagine that any country wanting to do harm to Australia will not want to do the same to my country. IIRC there is some SIGINT listening post in Singapore (and mentioned by Tim Huxley) that was left behind by Australia. I believe, it is still operational and will also provide some early warning to Australia should the threat situation in the area change.

 

[gf0012-aust]

good to see the Govt sticking with the Phils on these issues....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/25/2473947.htm?section=justin

Aus-funded intelligence centre to open in Philippines

By Shirley Escalante

Posted 1 hour 20 minutes ago

An Australian-funded police intelligence centre will be opened this week in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao, known as a haven for terrorist networks.

Australian Ambassador to Manila, Rod Smith, says the Mindanao Area Police Intelligence Office would contribute significantly to building the counter-terror capability of the police in the region.

Australia donated more than $274,000 for the construction of the police intelligence headquarters.

It will house a satellite office of the Philippine Bomb Data Centre which the Australian Government helped put up in the capital Manila.

Authorities say operatives of the regional terror group Jemaah Islamiyah and the local Abu Sayyaf are hiding in Mindanao.

Both have been linked to the Al Qaeda network.

 

[barra]

CAF (an ex pusser by the way recently anounced that the RAAF will retire the Caribou's next year primarly because the AVGAS the BOU's run on is getting very difficult to acquire as it gets fazed out across the world.

So as a stop gap measure the Beechcraft B300 King Air operated by the Army's 173 squadron will be transfered to the RAAF's 38 squadron in RAAF colours but with army pilots. Additional King Airs will be leased and operated by RAAF pilots to round out the squadron. This is meant to be a short to medium term plan.

OK so for the proper replacement for the Bou's what would be the best option?.

Another squadron of Chinook's operated by the Army?.
A squadron of Osprey's either operated by the Army or as a joint unit with the RAAF much like the British joint harrier force operated by the RN and the RAF.
More NH-90's operated by the Army or as a joint force with the RANs NH-90's with a less tactical focuse than the the other army NH-90 squadrons.
A squadron of CASA C-295 operated by the RAAF.

My personal choise would be the joint Army/RAAF Osprey option. But I would be happy with any of the above.

Lets just say that CAF saw the light.......:

I think you have missed the most obvious choice of replacement for the Caribou. I believe the C-27J is the obvious choice with its commonality with the C-130 engines, avionics and cargo system. Short field performance better then a Bou is unsurpassed, perhaps only the Osprey could match it.

On the Osprey, I believe it has friends in high places but the cost to acquire and run may be more than we can afford and justify for a small force. Particularly with prioritys already set in a budget under pressure.

My personal opinion for Tactical airlift would be the replacement of the Bou's with 12-14 C-27J's and 6 CH-47F's for Army in the SPECOPS role.

BTW, first I have heard about Bous having a problem with AVGAS. Most aircraft can run on a variety of similar fuel types, I would guess the Bou's are the same. I thought it was more to do with an ageing airframe and the unexplained structural failure of the wing root on the one in PNG recently. The frame was returned to DSTO for examination and no fault or explanation could be found. Sad to see them go as they are much loved by their operators, maintainers and passengers alike.

 

[ThePuss]

Lets just say that CAF saw the light.......:

I think you have missed the most obvious choice of replacement for the Caribou. I believe the C-27J is the obvious choice with its commonality with the C-130 engines, avionics and cargo system. Short field performance better then a Bou is unsurpassed, perhaps only the Osprey could match it.

On the Osprey, I believe it has friends in high places but the cost to acquire and run may be more than we can afford and justify for a small force. Particularly with prioritys already set in a budget under pressure.

My personal opinion for Tactical airlift would be the replacement of the Bou's with 12-14 C-27J's and 6 CH-47F's for Army in the SPECOPS role.

BTW, first I have heard about Bous having a problem with AVGAS. Most aircraft can run on a variety of similar fuel types, I would guess the Bou's are the same. I thought it was more to do with an ageing airframe and the unexplained structural failure of the wing root on the one in PNG recently. The frame was returned to DSTO for examination and no fault or explanation could be found. Sad to see them go as they are much loved by their operators, maintainers and passengers alike.

Well I don't know about "seeing the light" I dont think he had much choise when the navy paid off its fast jets

Good point about the C-27, I had a brain fart and forgot to list that one. Yes it would make a very good option. However I am surprised to hear you say that that the C-27 has better STOL capabilities than the Bou as I remember before the project to replace the Bou 10 odd years ago got canned The RAAF said that there was nothing out there that remotely close to the STOL of a Bou.

I have heard from multiple sources that the Bou has trouble obtaining its fuel both in FNQ and its pacific area of operations. One of which was the CAF interview that I first heard that the Bou was getting paid off early. Im no birdy but it probably a specific fuel for radial engines.

I agree it wil be sad to see the Bou's go. I remember the one time I saw one, it sounded like a tank and was amazed by the demonstration it did. One trick it did was to land only on its nose wheel, trundel along the runway, drop its tail, gun it and take off near vertically!

 

[barra]

Fully agree that short field performance of the Bou is unsurpassed, which is what I wrote. Poor grammar on my part, sorry bout that.

Short field performance better then a Bou is unsurpassed, perhaps only the Osprey could match it.

Some of my mates in Townsville have been left stranded by the early retirement. The King Airs only need minimal RAAF techos (flightline only) meaning the rest have to find a new home and move the family once again. Sorry business indeed. Might ask them about fuel type, could be a furphy.

Yes, hard to be a fast jet jockey when your carrier is paid off and jets sold.

 

[barra]

I remember the one time I saw one, it sounded like a tank and was amazed by the demonstration it did. One trick it did was to land only on its nose wheel, trundel along the runway, drop its tail, gun it and take off near vertically!

This was an airshow favourite, I think it was called the "wheelbarrow". The trick was stopped due to the amount of stress placed on the nose wheel strut during the landing. Another airshow favourite not done any more is the high alpha/low speed pass that Hornets used to do. With the nose at a 70 degree high attitude and speed below stall, they almost appear to be hovering. I saw a pair of them doing it in formation at Tindal once, very impressive.

Airshows just won't be the same in a few years, no Caribous and no F-111 dump and burns.

 

[ThePuss]

Fully agree that short field performance of the Bou is unsurpassed, which is what I wrote. Poor grammar on my part, sorry bout that.

Na mate my fault for not reading your post correctly. BTW I recon that your suggestion of an addtional 6 chooks and a SQD of C-27's is just what the ADF needs for its tactical airlift requirements with one Caveat, 6 NH-90's for the navys heavy lift dose not seem enough to me.This is becauce the NH-90's will just like the Seaking is deployed normally as a two bird flight and that means we would be at best able to deploy 1 and 1/2 flights due to training and maintenance requirements. I would like at least two more NH-90 airframes for the navy.

 

[Jecito]

Option 1

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)

Australia should choose option 1. We can also keep bludging off the US like the EU, Japan and spend the money on social issues, especially during a recession. All Australia really needs is a defence force suited to peacekeeping/anti terrorist operations. Wasting money on JSF, M1 Tanks etc that will never get used except in some wet dream about a Chinese/Indian invasion. The howard/bush deputy sherriff doctrine should be thrown into the same scrapheap as 'preemptive war' and the rest of the neocon junk. Australia's Military spending as GDP is already double that of Canada, Germany, Spain etc. With the Democrats and ALP in power, time to take the chainsaw to the huge overbloated budget in the military-industrial complex in both countries.

 

[bruceedwards]

That's fairly harsh Jedico.

I would say that the ADF has the right idea - if you are going to deploy your troops overseas, you want them to be able to defend themselves if the enemy attacks. Or at least deter the enemy from doing so.

I can see how the JSF is a divisive purchase (unproven and expensive) but the M1 is an absolute game-changer whereever things get nasty, and you never know where Aussie troops are going to be deployed next. IMHO it's better to come prepared than count the bodybags afterwards.

 

[Feanor]

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)

Australia should choose option 1. We can also keep bludging off the US like the EU, Japan and spend the money on social issues, especially during a recession. All Australia really needs is a defence force suited to peacekeeping/anti terrorist operations. Wasting money on JSF, M1 Tanks etc that will never get used except in some wet dream about a Chinese/Indian invasion. The howard/bush deputy sherriff doctrine should be thrown into the same scrapheap as 'preemptive war' and the rest of the neocon junk. Australia's Military spending as GDP is already double that of Canada, Germany, Spain etc. With the Democrats and ALP in power, time to take the chainsaw to the huge overbloated budget in the military-industrial complex in both countries.

Well hold on. Before you can make a statement like that you need to define the goals and purposes of the Aus. military. The needs, and therefore allocated budget, needs to be based on the military doctrine. You're suggesting re-writing the Aus. military doctrine to be limited on to peacekeeping and anti-terrorist operations? I.e. defending Aus. from foreign powers is not longer a requirement?

 

[battlensign]

Well hold on. Before you can make a statement like that you need to define the goals and purposes of the Aus. military. The needs, and therefore allocated budget, needs to be based on the military doctrine. You're suggesting re-writing the Aus. military doctrine to be limited on to peacekeeping and anti-terrorist operations? I.e. defending Aus. from foreign powers is not longer a requirement?

Additionally, questions I would ask are 1) exactly what is the need to fight counter-terrorism with the ADF if the abhorence of the Guantanamo solution identifies correctly the pursuit and prosecution of terrorists as a criminal justice and not a military issue? 2) How does one keep the peace where there is no ability to provide the implied threat of potential escalation should things get of hand at the civil level but not constitute a direct military threat to Aus? (Think East Timor militias without Jakarta) - wouldn't these operations still require many boots on the ground and the ability to support them?

I would also note that the budget of Spain is misleading as their costs for personnel and host of others are considerably lower than places like Oz. It is also important to note that these countries listed all have budgets based on their strategic circumstances (located as a large grouping within NATO, or isolated by oneself and located nearer to potential threats).

Should we cut defence funding in order to correct self-inflicted chronic health issues such as Alcohol related liver disease, Smoking related cancer, Diabetes or Heart Disease?

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia's Military spending as GDP is already double that of Canada, Germany, Spain etc.

Germany has one of the largest tank armies in the world. Spain has 5 AWD class ships, several large amphib ships, a LHD and a aircraft carrier (with aircraft). We would love to be where spain is now in 10 years!

Dig a little deeper and you will find that these countries are proberly in a more capable position that Australia. (except for Canada the CDF is struggling for many reasons, then again we don't share land borders with the only super power and located in its backyard. )

I think if you want to save money look at cutting costs with out significant reduction in capability. Same assets and reduce costs. Besides many of the defence projects will keep states like south australia alive when everything else starts drying up in terms of work.

 

[kato]

Germany has one of the largest tank armies in the world.

Not since 2003 at least. We have fewer tanks than half of Europe nowadays, pretty much.

Adjusted for population in comparison to Australia, the Bundeswehr has +20% manpower and +50% active tanks (but, with the same adjustment, easily -50% in Navy ship numbers, -30% in combat aircraft numbers, and around -50% in transport aircraft numbers).

It's all a matter of priorities and requirements.

Spain has 5 AWD class ships, several large amphib ships, a LHD and a aircraft carrier (with aircraft).

And only 12 escorts for all that... (planned 6 F80, 6 F100). What several large amphib ships btw? The LHD will replace the two current 40yo Newports.
Btw, Spain also has easily twice the population of Australia.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

On ADF tactical transport the Army already plans to grow its CH-47 fleet to 12 CH-47Fs by mid next decade (projects in the DCP) just to support increased demand for helicopter support. Navy plans on replacing all MRH90/Seahawk/Sesprite helicopters (~24-32) with a reconfigurable helo so all will be capable of naval support (ie transport) missions.

As to the 38 SQN role a full unit of ISR/Tactical Super King Airs will be very useful and I expect we will see them in the long term. Operationally they are ideal for non-direct action transport for SOF and the ISR role (especially COMINT) is very important until the ADF ever acquires some kind of MALE tactical UAV.

With the C-17s the C-130 can be cascaded into covering most of tactical transport mission. The only really unique tactical role of the Caribou and its replacement was deploying Army patrols across the north of Australia. Since this is mostly redundant after Defence abandoned the crazy Defence of Australia strategy the need for a C-27J (compared to a C-130) diminishes. As a medium sized air force we can’t necessarily have platforms in every size class.

The other requirement is for SOF strategic infil/exfil for direct action missions far from home and nearby support. We have an infil capability via the C-130H, parachuting and the airdrop RHIB but no exfil. This is ideal territory for the CV-22B. Such a long range, high speed VTOL capability would also provide C-SAR and other high end tactical transport capabilities.

So an ideal RAAF transport fleet of:

8 A330 MRTT (33 Sqn – strategic transport and tanking)
8 C-17A (36 Sqn – strategic and tactical transport)
16 C-130J (35, 37 Sqns - tactical transport)
8 Super King Air (32 Sqn – liaison transport and training support)
8 Super King Air (38 Sqn – tactical transport and surveillance primarily in support of SOCOMD)
8 CV-22B (20 Sqn – strategic transport and C-SAR primarily in support of SOCOMD)

 

[battlensign]

And only 12 escorts for all that... (planned 6 F80, 6 F100). What several large amphib ships btw? The LHD will replace the two current 40yo Newports.

Probably a reference to the 2 Galicia Class 13000t LPDs......

Brett.