ADF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I see that another oil refinery capability in Australia is been lost. That reduces the refineries to two. The Kwinana refinery in Perth closure and conversion to a fuel import terminal was announced last October which reduced the refineries to three. Now the Altona refinery is to be closed and converted to a fuel import terminal because it isn't economically viable. How long before the remaining two terminals (Brisbane, QLD) and Geelong, VIC) remain operational before they to are closed because they are no longer financially viable?

These refineries are strategic assets and as such the Commonwealth should be committed to ensure that the refining capability isn't lost. Interestingly enough there is similar talk in NZ of closing the Marsden Point refinery for exactly the same reasons.

 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I see that another oil refinery capability in Australia is been lost. That reduces the refineries to two. The Kwinana refinery in Perth closure and conversion to a fuel import terminal was announced last October which reduced the refineries to three. Now the Altona refinery is to be closed and converted to a fuel import terminal because it isn't economically viable. How long before the remaining two terminals (Brisbane, QLD) and Geelong, VIC) remain operational before they to are closed because they are no longer financially viable?

These refineries are strategic assets and as such the Commonwealth should be committed to ensure that the refining capability isn't lost. Interestingly enough there is similar talk in NZ of closing the Marsden Point refinery for exactly the same reasons.

A lot of talk last year from the Government and the energy Minister Angus Taylor, good moves made to buy strategic reserves of fuel, albeit still in the US, but plans and moves in place to repatriate it to Aus with new facilities. This is a big blow to the Governments plans and strategy, the loss of a refining capability in the west, lost capability on the east coast is very concerning, will be interesting to see the reaction and what they plan to put into place !!

Cheers
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Colour me unsurprised.
A "significant number" of foreign spies and their proxies have been removed from Australia or "rendered inoperative" in the past 12 months, according to the nation's domestic spy agency...

...Mr Burgess said the number of spies and proxies dealt with in the previous year was in the "double figures".
He described a "nest of spies" from a foreign intelligence service outside of the region, which had developed targeted relationships with current and former politicians, a foreign embassy and a state police service.

They even asked a public servant to reveal security protocols at a major airport and recruited someone with federal government security clearance and access to "sensitive details of defence technology".

"When ASIO finds a nest of spies, we will deal with what we find," he said.
I expect to see plenty more of this sort of thing in the years ahead, unfortunately.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Colour me unsurprised.

I expect to see plenty more of this sort of thing in the years ahead, unfortunately.
Colour me unsurprised.

I expect to see plenty more of this sort of thing in the years ahead, unfortunately.
Yep and interestingly it is claimed that the "nest of spies" is from outside the region pointing the finger at Russia rather than the PRC.

 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While Russia is an obvious choice there are plenty of other countries with very capable FIS which are active in this region. Pure speculation of course and you'll never get details from ASIO. I would wager that this particular op is only the tip of the iceberg as it's a game all countries play.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Another ...interesting piece from the Australian

Scott Morrison has compared our time with the 1930s. The admiral in command of US forces in Asia says there is a strong chance China will invade Taiwan in the next six years. The US is committed to Taiwan’s security and would respond militarily. Politically, strategically and technically, it’s inconceivable Australia would not be involved.

Our communications facilities are critical to US submarine, missile detection and missile launch capabilities. They would be a prime target in serious military conflict. Every civilised leader is trying to prevent such conflict. The way to do this is soberly to make it clear to Beijing that invading Taiwan would come at enormous cost.

However, Australia should also pay attention to what the region might look like for us if the US lost such a conflict. This almost certainly would mean our dealing with a much diminished US military presence in our region.

Therefore, as a matter of the greatest urgency, Australia must beef up its independent military capabilities, both to support the US and prevent conflict, and to be able to look after ourselves whatever happens...

...or Australia, the only disadvantage of the JSF is range. We can address that two ways. The Super Hornets have a longer range(!?). We have only 24 of them. Another squadron or two, with our longest range missiles integrated into them — these are currently integrated only into our ageing classic Hornets — would give us much more punch at greater distance. We would proceed with the JSF purchase at the same time. Even more important, the Australian-produced unmanned Loyal Wingman jet offers great potential. It could be evolved as an unmanned bomber. Because it doesn’t need a pilot, it can carry more munitions than a manned aircraft and it can achieve a greater range. It’s cheaper than a manned aircraft and it’s made in Australia. But if we go down that road we need to move fast and build large numbers...

...Then we can also acquire, as they come into service, Orcas, the long-range unmanned underwater vehicles. Like almost all unmanned vehicles, they work best in tandem with, or under the direction of, a manned system. They cannot do everything a submarine can do but they can do quite a lot. They certainly complicate the situation of any potential adversary....

...In budget terms, we have spent a lot on COVID-related issues, but much less than we expected to 12 months ago. Another $20bn, or even $40bn, on these defence capabilities over the next few years would make no real difference to our budget but might make a serious difference to our chances of national survival.

That’s what the government should concentrate on.

Strikes me that the size of the RAAF ACG is already on track to grow via loyal wingman. That said, if further growth is sought we could do worse than to hold on to the Rhinos and Growlers until the USN replacement arrives, while still procuring the 4th tranche of F35s. If kept up to USN spec, the SHornet variants could potentially provide useful capability as standoff weapon trucks and even C-LACM screens further down the track.

There has been quite a bit of attention given to Orca in recent years and it does make me wonder whether an XLUUV like this could help our subsurface force fill out its numbers in the time until Attack arrives on strength (and beyond), and free the Collins boats up to focus on their most pressing tasks. From the POV of pursuing our own A2/AD capability, a distributed fleet of XLUUV equipped with a long-range, sub-launched cruise missile could have a significant impact on enemy behaviour and decision making (assuming you could get them the targeting data they need, which may be tricky).

In the meantime, someone needs to bring Greg up to speed on the range performance of the F35 vs the Rhino... :rolleyes: ;)
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member

Peter Dutton has replaced Lynda Reynolds as MINDEF. If my count is correct, he is the seventh MINDEF of the past decade.

Without mentioning the events that have led up to this point, hopefully the transition can occur with no difficulties. I suppose in this context the decision to create a minister for defence industry is appropriate - it may help avoid potential disruption to projects in the pipeline.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Peter Dutton has replaced Lynda Reynolds as MINDEF. If my count is correct, he is the seventh MINDEF of the past decade.

Without mentioning the events that have led up to this point, hopefully the transition can occur with no difficulties. I suppose in this context the decision to create a minister for defence industry is appropriate - it may help avoid potential disruption to projects in the pipeline.
From a single party perspective this will be the 6th since September 2013 (just under eight years) with one of those (Pyne) not contesting the election. Reynold's has been in the chair since the the 2019 election so the last few years have been pretty stable .... noting how often folk move about (or get moved).
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member

Peter Dutton has replaced Lynda Reynolds as MINDEF. If my count is correct, he is the seventh MINDEF of the past decade.

Without mentioning the events that have led up to this point, hopefully the transition can occur with no difficulties. I suppose in this context the decision to create a minister for defence industry is appropriate - it may help avoid potential disruption to projects in the pipeline.
There are actually 4 Defence related Ministerial Portfolios
Defence Minister : Peter Dutton
Defence Industry : Melissa Price
Vet Affairs, Defence Personnel : Darren Chester
We have actually had a Minister for Defence Industries for some years now.
Reynolds step down is probably health related, she has been on extended leave since the Rape story broke.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I suspect this will be welcome news to many (myself included).

The Morrison government will spend $1bn to fast-track the creation of an Australian sovereign guided weapons enterprise, creating a new military manufacturing industry.

Reflecting a worsening strategic environment, the government expects to spend $100bn in missile and guided weapons purchases during the next 20 years.

The government believes the new facility, to be announced on Wednesday, could generate $40bn in domestic production and export sales in that time.

The Australian understands the facility could begin production within three years.

Scott Morrison said: “Creating our own sovereign capability on Australian soil is essential to keep Australians safe, while also providing thousands of local jobs in businesses right across the defence supply chain.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, having the ability for self-reliance, be it vaccine development or the defence of Australia, is vital to meeting our own requirements in a changing global environment. It is imperative we now proceed with the creation of a sovereign guided weapons capability as a priority.”

The government plans to choose a corporate strategic partner this year. The companies it nominates as possible partners include Raytheon Australia, Lockheed Martin Australia, Kongsberg and BAE Systems Australia. Of these, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are American companies and, as this is a deal at the highest levels between Canberra and Washington, that could give them an advantage.

Raytheon claiming they can have a facility up and running in SA inside 3 years. Will be following this one closely...
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I suspect this will be welcome news to many (myself included).




Raytheon claiming they can have a facility up and running in SA inside 3 years. Will be following this one closely...
Assuming this is a separate effort from the already announced local manufacture of Spike, it really does show a ramping up of industry to support Defence

oldsig
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
Raytheon would have the largest portfolio of missiles wouldn't it? AMRAAM, Tomahawk AIM9 and the SM series. LRASM is about it for LM, and NSM/JSM family for Kronsberg and I don't think BAE make any missiles themselves, components they do and as part of MDBA they do. I think the list shortens a bit as US contractors are more likely to be chosen, which then becomes LM with LRASM versus Rytheon with most missiles we might want or are currently in use. Looks a little one sided.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Peter Dutton as Defence Minister; Interesting times ahead, although I think he may be a good choice for the position.
Don't know. I believe he was a Qld copper before becoming a pollie and in his last job he appeared to be pretty single minded. It's a totally different portfolio and requires different skills so we'll see.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dutton has lusted after this portfolio for a long time. He won't want to loose the job. I think some have concerns he may get too involved at a platform level, due to his interest, but that is pure speculation.

One of the key things for an Aus Def min now is managing allies. I think given the current situation, he will have a good relationship with allies. Not that I think he is a particularly likeable or jovial character, but he represents are harder, less wavering, less compromising line. A role they see is key for Australia to have. He is also clearly a significant player in the party.

Proof is always in the pudding. I think the general reshuffle has actually generally been a good thing.
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
Hugh Whites book 'How to defend Australia' is available for free if you are a Kindle Unlimited subscriber How to Defend Australia eBook: White, Hugh: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store . I've only flicked through it so far, but I have the impression he won't be getting an invite to a RAN party for a long time. More F35's, millions of missiles, drones and industry to back them up. Thinks we should downsize the Navy platforms and aim the RAN and our other forces mainly for maritime denial, rather than control.

I've read the section on nuclear weapons in detail and he does seriously consider the nuclear option. Says it would cost about $10-20 billion in the initial years, would require 4 ballistic missile submarines and a nuclear force similar in size to the UK to be credible. I'm not sure I am absolutely convinced submarine launched missiles would be necessary, we have a lot of space in the outback, we could play a shell game with missiles and launches, moving them around many sites spread over thousands of kilometres. Four subs may only give you one at sea at any given time. I would argue one sub could easily be more vulnerable than say 10 mobile launches that are between spread 100 different sites. If you remove the subs from the nuclear weapons equation I suspect it becomes much cheaper. Of course, there is that old myth, that won't die completely, that Oz did acquire a modest stock pile of nuclear weapons in the past. My own contribution to the story, which is true, comes from a late friend who was ground crew when we had the F111, he said they would kit them out sometimes with dummy nukes and do tests runs delivering them.

The other bit I have read in detail is regarding 'efficiency', which makes me, the tax payer, rather sad. In each case he points out the country com[pared to is in very different circumstance to Oz:

"Singapore, which spends less than half as much on defence as we do – about A$15 billion. With that it gets quite a lot of capability. Its air force has 100 frontline fighters – upgraded fourth-generation planes – with plans for some sixty F-35s. Its navy has six small major warships, seventeen corvettes and patrol boats, five old but quite capable submarines, and four mid-sized amphibious ships. Singapore’s army has three combat-ready heavy divisions, with massive numbers of fighting vehicles – well over 4000. So while its air force and navy are clearly somewhat weaker than ours, its army is far stronger."

And with Israel & France

"Israel offers an even more telling benchmark. It spends about A$26 billion a year on defence. Its air force has almost 300 fourth-generation fighters and is planning to buy fifty to seventy-five F-35s. Its navy has no major surface combatants but operates six submarines. Its army has 133,000 active soldiers and 380,000 reservists. There are six active and thirteen reserve infantry brigades and four active and eight reserve armoured brigades, with 2760 main battle tanks, over 6000 armoured personnel carriers and 600 self-propelled 155 mm howitzers. So this army is ten times the size of ours. Plus it has nuclear forces, including medium-range ballistic missiles. All for about 75 per cent of our defence budget."

'.....France, which spends only 40 per cent more than we do, for which it gets an air force with almost 250 fighters, a navy with an aircraft carrier, three amphibious assault ships, ten nuclear-powered submarines, including four with ballistic missiles, twenty-three major surface warships and an army of 117,000, with 6.5 active brigades, including one armoured and one light armoured brigade, equipped with some 3600 armoured fighting vehicles – and a nuclear capability.'


The book has aged a bit already, it's infused with concern regarding the USA becoming a less stead fast ally, I think this is directly because of the Trump administration. He also says the PRC wouldn't be stupid enough to rile up India while it's got it's focus on the SCS. Whoops! The Quad is probably making more progress than he expected and there have been a number of new programs like the Loyal Wingman and the focus towards acquiring long range missiles since the publication in 2019. You could say these are some of the things he thinks we should be spending money on.

I will read it fully over the next couple of weeks. You may not agree with him but he has reasons for his opinions.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
WRT the comparison to Israel, the Israeli Navy is a green water navy at best and it doesn't have the anywhere the sam AOMI that Australia or NZ have. So IMHO comparing the Israeli Navy and the RAN in any strategic context is a waste of ink and paper, apart from the fact that operate in two totally different strategic worlds. Israel also faces different strategic problems and priorities to Australia, and more importantly its geographical and spatial context is completely different.

On the nuclear issue I can see a few problems and the biggest one is the non proliferation treaty which Australia is a signatory too. It would take a lot of fancy political and diplomatic footwork and dancing to be able to produce nuclear weapons and not be sanctioned by the UN for it. Never take it for granted that the US will be ok with a nuclear armed Australia and that they the UK, or France will protect you in the UNSC if a sanctions motion is submitted by vetoing the motion.

I agree that a SSBN fleet would be highly expensive and cost prohibitive. However if you decided to go down the nuclear weapons path you could still have two legs of the triad with GL- ICBM and RAAF deployed nukes from fast jets in ALCM(N). There would be no reason why the RAN couldn't use SLCM(N) from their subs either.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Hugh Whites book 'How to defend Australia' is available for free if you are a Kindle Unlimited subscriber How to Defend Australia eBook: White, Hugh: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store . I've only flicked through it so far, but I have the impression he won't be getting an invite to a RAN party for a long time. More F35's, millions of missiles, drones and industry to back them up. Thinks we should downsize the Navy platforms and aim the RAN and our other forces mainly for maritime denial, rather than control.

I've read the section on nuclear weapons in detail and he does seriously consider the nuclear option. Says it would cost about $10-20 billion in the initial years, would require 4 ballistic missile submarines and a nuclear force similar in size to the UK to be credible. I'm not sure I am absolutely convinced submarine launched missiles would be necessary, we have a lot of space in the outback, we could play a shell game with missiles and launches, moving them around many sites spread over thousands of kilometres. Four subs may only give you one at sea at any given time. I would argue one sub could easily be more vulnerable than say 10 mobile launches that are between spread 100 different sites. If you remove the subs from the nuclear weapons equation I suspect it becomes much cheaper. Of course, there is that old myth, that won't die completely, that Oz did acquire a modest stock pile of nuclear weapons in the past. My own contribution to the story, which is true, comes from a late friend who was ground crew when we had the F111, he said they would kit them out sometimes with dummy nukes and do tests runs delivering them.

The other bit I have read in detail is regarding 'efficiency', which makes me, the tax payer, rather sad. In each case he points out the country com[pared to is in very different circumstance to Oz:

"Singapore, which spends less than half as much on defence as we do – about A$15 billion. With that it gets quite a lot of capability. Its air force has 100 frontline fighters – upgraded fourth-generation planes – with plans for some sixty F-35s. Its navy has six small major warships, seventeen corvettes and patrol boats, five old but quite capable submarines, and four mid-sized amphibious ships. Singapore’s army has three combat-ready heavy divisions, with massive numbers of fighting vehicles – well over 4000. So while its air force and navy are clearly somewhat weaker than ours, its army is far stronger."

And with Israel & France

"Israel offers an even more telling benchmark. It spends about A$26 billion a year on defence. Its air force has almost 300 fourth-generation fighters and is planning to buy fifty to seventy-five F-35s. Its navy has no major surface combatants but operates six submarines. Its army has 133,000 active soldiers and 380,000 reservists. There are six active and thirteen reserve infantry brigades and four active and eight reserve armoured brigades, with 2760 main battle tanks, over 6000 armoured personnel carriers and 600 self-propelled 155 mm howitzers. So this army is ten times the size of ours. Plus it has nuclear forces, including medium-range ballistic missiles. All for about 75 per cent of our defence budget."

'.....France, which spends only 40 per cent more than we do, for which it gets an air force with almost 250 fighters, a navy with an aircraft carrier, three amphibious assault ships, ten nuclear-powered submarines, including four with ballistic missiles, twenty-three major surface warships and an army of 117,000, with 6.5 active brigades, including one armoured and one light armoured brigade, equipped with some 3600 armoured fighting vehicles – and a nuclear capability.'


The book has aged a bit already, it's infused with concern regarding the USA becoming a less stead fast ally, I think this is directly because of the Trump administration. He also says the PRC wouldn't be stupid enough to rile up India while it's got it's focus on the SCS. Whoops! The Quad is probably making more progress than he expected and there have been a number of new programs like the Loyal Wingman and the focus towards acquiring long range missiles since the publication in 2019. You could say these are some of the things he thinks we should be spending money on.

I will read it fully over the next couple of weeks. You may not agree with him but he has reasons for his opinions.
Re the comparison of numbers:

Israel's armed forces are very powerful, but local. Most of the air force's transport aircraft are old. Its tankers are very old, secondhand Boeing 707s & some KC-130H. It would now be converting ex-airline 767s if Boeing hadn't refused to sell spares or provide any other support for them.

The navy's biggest warships are 1900 tons - & they're just being delivered. Until now the biggest was 1200 tons - & it only has three of them. No replenishment at sea, amphibious ships etc. Doesn't seem to do ASW, either.

Lots of conscripts, paid bugger-all, & very cheap reserves.

And it's got a lot of stuff free, or at a discount. Its German-built submarines were heavily discounted, for example. IIRC they got one roughly out of each three free.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Re the comparison of numbers:

Israel's armed forces are very powerful, but local. Most of the air force's transport aircraft are old. Its tankers are very old, secondhand Boeing 707s & some KC-130H. It would now be converting ex-airline 767s if Boeing hadn't refused to sell spares or provide any other support for them.

The navy's biggest warships are 1900 tons - & they're just being delivered. Until now the biggest was 1200 tons - & it only has three of them. No replenishment at sea, amphibious ships etc. Doesn't seem to do ASW, either.

Lots of conscripts, paid bugger-all, & very cheap reserves.

And it's got a lot of stuff free, or at a discount. Its German-built submarines were heavily discounted, for example. IIRC they got one roughly out of each three free.
Indeed, a number of Israeli purchases of German kit have been subsidized to a degree by Germany. The Sa'ar 6 corvettes ordered from Germany for ~€480 mil. (each I think) had Germany pay €115 mil. Also the US has recently increased it's direct military aide to Israel to USD$3.8 bil. p.a.

Oz could afford quite a bit of kit if it kept receiving billions in aide.
 
Top