ADF General discussion thread

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
While the Ospreys would be a great additional capability, i'm not sure that I see the benefit of them over expanding the existing Chinook capability. Cost of Osprey capability does not to me seem to offset the additional cost of and logistics required to support an entirely new and expensive platform.
Well so far it is 'exploring options' so no guarantee that it will go forwards, That said assuming future governments don't rip this up and knock out much of what has been put forth (Which really isn't much, it's just one of the few times we have gone and planned ahead and there acquisition is spaced out over a decent time frame) they have costed a decent budget towards it that would allow for the acquisition of around a dozen give or take.

Some things to also take into account, We only have a limited number of CH-47's so any that are based on board any ship are ones being denied to use in land based operations. If using the CH-47 from a ship then you have to get very close to the target, With a combat radius nearly half that of the Osprey depending on the location you could very well be putting the ship in harms way when it didn't need to be the case.

An Osprey acquisition would not only make our air assets more capable but also provide better protection (in range) to our ship's, Quite simply a $100 - $200m aircraft (depending on what is included and how it is costed) is a small price to pay for something that could mean the difference in the safety of a $1.5 billion dollar LHD and the 400+ (Could be up to 1,400 with out overload) personnel on board.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
While the Ospreys would be a great additional capability, i'm not sure that I see the benefit of them over expanding the existing Chinook capability. Cost of Osprey capability does not to me seem to offset the additional cost of and logistics required to support an entirely new and expensive platform.
Range is an issue that Chinook only overcomes with extreme difficulty always involving the use of additional assets / personnel and speed is an issue Chinook can never overcome versus the Osprey.

Whilst the cost is high and a new platform imposes an additional logistics burden, the capabilities are significantly different and best suited to do different tasks.

We'll see in time, but for the roles listed in the WP, Osprey is the vastly superior platform. Whether the gold-plated capability is worth it to Government or not, is the issue, IMHO...
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
The DWP certainly has a "realist" tone it.

I would have thought that there would have been a deeper assessment of the risk of climate change (natural or man made - who cares) induced conflict. It certainly touches on climate change, but more so from the perspective of us having to help out after disasters and instability, which it acknowledges are as a result of climate change but doesn't really go the step further and explore major conflict resulting from these same shifts. As a document that asks the tax paper for hundreds of billions in spending I'd have thought all risks, however minor would be put forward.

Some other topics that I thought could of got deeper coverage:

-Antarctica & Southern Ocean (no credible risks? really? none at all link link link - mainstream media - i know)

-Mortar & PGMM (especially since ADF will increasingly be operating in urban areas)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The DWP certainly has a "realist" tone it.

I would have thought that there would have been a deeper assessment of the risk of climate change (natural or man made - who cares) induced conflict.

It certainly touches on climate change, but more so from the perspective of us having to help out after disasters and instability, which it acknowledges are as a result of climate change but doesn't really go the step further and explore major conflict resulting from these same shifts.
there is more than 1 x white paper - this is the public version - plus climate change has been addressed in other docs separate to the white paper

Some other topics that I thought could of got deeper coverage:

-Antarctica & Southern Ocean (no credible risks? really? none at all link link link - mainstream media - i know)

-Mortar & PGMM (especially since ADF will increasingly be operating in urban areas)

As a document that asks the tax paper for hundreds of billions in spending I'd have thought all risks, however minor would be put forward.
thats not what the white paper is for at all - its not asking the tax payer for money - its about laying out future force development around issues of strategic interests across local, regional, global vectors

some of what you have pointed to is not within a white paper construct - but is presented to bodies such as the NSC on a regular as well as on demand basis.

the logic. strategic assumptions and tactical development choices behind the future force development is presented to govt before the white paper is developed.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
thats not what the white paper is for at all - its not asking the tax payer for money - its about laying out future force development around issues of strategic interests across local, regional, global vectors

some of what you have pointed to is not within a white paper construct - but is presented to bodies such as the NSC on a regular as well as on demand basis.

the logic. strategic assumptions and tactical development choices behind the future force development is presented to govt before the white paper is developed.
Hey mate,

Yes i know "asking for money" isn't the purpose official of the white paper but for the major public document that the department releases and certainly the one with the most hype it seemed (to me anyway) the tone played down many of the threats i.e "no more than a remote prospect of a military attack on Australian territory by another country" but then goes on to tell us we need a "more capable, agile and potent future force" and expands our forces in a number of areas ( which is great - and needed) but for me it seemed like there was a slight disconnect.

Now i do understand there are multiple versions and other supporting documents but for the average punter or journalist it might be the only defence document they ever read and kinda says defence: "nothing to worry about, we are safe - but we need more your money to build our forces up "...Punter: "wait what?"

Just my take..
 

t68

Well-Known Member
GF

You were saying a diffrent levels of white papers from unrestricted to restricted, secret etc etc, would there be any diffrence in the equipment purchase list in the IIP or would it just be more indepth on how the equipment will be used with all the internal gizmo's
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
GF

You were saying a diffrent levels of white papers from unrestricted to restricted, secret etc etc, would there be any diffrence in the equipment purchase list in the IIP or would it just be more indepth on how the equipment will be used with all the internal gizmo's
He'll have to get the cone of silence out first before he can answer you - that's if Agent 86 hasn't destroyed it again :D :D
 

t68

Well-Known Member
He'll have to get the cone of silence out first before he can answer you - that's if Agent 86 hasn't destroyed it again :D :D
I thought that might be the case when I hit the submit button:hitwall, didn't expect him to tell me what actually was in it more how they are structured.

as they say nothing ventured nothing gained:D
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
MORE than $230 million will be spent boosting Australia’s defences against malicious cyber attacks by deploying an aggressive front line, including 100 newly recruited IT experts.

For the first time, the four-year program, to be announced today by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, will create a capacity to launch pre-emptive attacks on cyber raiders.

Strategies will be drawn up to co-operate with allied nations to shut down overseas “safe havens” for cyber criminals before they can launch raids on our computers.
Mr Turnbull has personally driven the project with the aim of strengthening the economy and employment as well as national security.

Cyber security would be an economic asset, along the same lines as trusted justice systems and infrastructure networks, as it would attract investment and job creation.
Source: News.com.au Link

:D :D :D Excellent .........
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Lest We Forget
Lest We Forget indeed!


To my two Grandfathers...

Frederick George Royal Newman, Sergeant, Boer War, South Africa.

Arthur Douglas McDonald, Private, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Reinforcements, wounded and survived Gallipoli, a true Anzac.

https://www.aif.adfa.edu.au/showPerson?pid=195688

My father, William BJ Newman, Army, Corporal, WWII

My Uncles..

Peter J Newman, Army WWII
Alan D McDonald, Army WWII
Norman Staples, RAAF, WWII

To my Mother Audrey Newman (nee Mcdonald), who at the end of WWII worked in a Government Factory packing parachutes for the war effort.


And of course to all the other too.... Lest We Forget.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #234
Indeed, Lest we Forget.

Cannot claim any ancestors who fought for Australia or New Zealand, but quite a few who served in US, Canadian, West Indian, or British service.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Indeed, Lest we Forget.

Cannot claim any ancestors who fought for Australia or New Zealand, but quite a few who served in US, Canadian, West Indian, or British service.
Tod,

Mate, just a slightly different uniform, same people, same cause, same intent.

Again, yes, Lest We Forget.

Cheers,
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
If anyone is interested ASPI has released a report on the DWP.

Going off of early media reports (which put me onto the report) I'm not too keen on it when the apperantly (holding out hope the media miss interpreted stuff) said that building the submarines in Australia will lead to cost and time blow outs (not like France has no unions causing any issues). I also have to wonder if the have accounted for the DWP including future cost's (operations, maintenance etc) and inflation when they make mention of the AOR's being over priced with a DWP price of $1 - $2 billion compared to the $650m contract.

Oh well, time to start reading.

https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/the-cost-of-defence-aspi-defence-budget-brief-2016-2017/Cost_of_Defence_2016.pdf
 
Last edited:

chis73

Active Member
Just to follow-on from vonnoobie's last post - a seriously must-watch presentation on the 2016 Australian defence budget by ASPI's Mark Thomson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iGFl8J2TJk

For those with plenty of time on their hands I would also recommend ASPI's Defence White Paper conference.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-bcfeS6XTdI_ty95t1G-rYUfYcZdAZk

ANU also has some great lectures to watch (including recent lectures on Australian - Japanese strategic cooperation, piracy, and Indo-Pacific security). Unfortunately these aren't well separated and tend to be in reverse order. But here is a link.

They also have a free e-book available covering Paul Dibb's contribution to Australian defence (would only Arthur Tange be considered more influential?)
 

hairyman

Active Member
If Donald Trump were to win the American election and become the next President, and he were to follow through on stated plans to withdraw American forces from the Asia Pacific region, how would that move effect the Australian Defence Forces? Would we have to spend up big to enhance our defence forces?
 
Top