ADF General discussion thread

seaspear

Well-Known Member
These articles from the A.S.P.I suggest still fundamental problems in defence acquisition and although an increase in A.D.F numbers address some issues are not an end to the projects that bleed out money, the shipbuilding was devised to avoid a valley of death
The shipbuilding was devised to avoid a valley of death but senate concerns were that nuclear submarines may in fact now change this
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
These articles from the A.S.P.I suggest still fundamental problems in defence acquisition and although an increase in A.D.F numbers address some issues are not an end to the projects that bleed out money, the shipbuilding was devised to avoid a valley of death
The shipbuilding was devised to avoid a valley of death but senate concerns were that nuclear submarines may in fact now change this
A continuous build of Submarines is going to be very difficult with only 8 Boats, look at the RN build times for 11 Boats to avoid a Valley of Death. But how that will effect the Surface Vessel build program, I have no idea.
 

jeffb

Member
A one third increase in manpower sounds great but in reality by 2040 that is way too small to stand ground against any peer let alone China in a protracted conflict.

The projected population in 2040 is what 35mil? 100,000 is a third of 1 percent?

Not only is it too small but its too slow.
 
A one third increase in manpower sounds great but in reality by 2040 that is way too small to stand ground against any peer let alone China in a protracted conflict.

The projected population in 2040 is what 35mil? 100,000 is a third of 1 percent?

Not only is it too small but its too slow.
If we are talking continental defence then the green machine is going to have to learn and accept to suck hind tit... really if Army is involved, we are in deep trouble.

Governement (Left, Right, Centre) needs to decide what is important, and reallistically, Navy needs to be priority one. No abject nonsense from Labour about additional AWD's or up-gunning Arafura's, but a bi-partisan agreement to stick with the Naval shipbuilding plan and actually deliver a capability worthy of our daughter's and son's that may have to step into harms way.

Additional AWDs, Sons-of-Colins and any other pipe dream distract us from the need at hand. A credible and capable ADF that can perform it's PRIMARY function.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
There’s not only no official policy paper or guidance that suggests the nation itself is at risk of military attack - but no respected mainstream academic is even pushing such a view.

Our area of interest and risk right now is our inner and greater region - I.e. ‘Australia’s interests’.

The lack of a Ten Year Warning timeframe alerted to in the DSU is about our region, and interests, not a full blown conventional attack on our country.
 

Rock the kasbah

Active Member
There’s not only no official policy paper or guidance that suggests the nation itself is at risk of military attack - but no respected mainstream academic is even pushing such a view.

Our area of interest and risk right now is our inner and greater region - I.e. ‘Australia’s interests’.

The lack of a Ten Year Warning timeframe alerted to in the DSU is about our region, and interests, not a full blown conventional attack on our country.
Fair cop
But they are nibbling around the edges
Vanuatu etc.
Ukraine had 8 years to learn, have we learnt what they have or we sleeping on the job
 

Meriv90

Active Member
Please not the C27J MPA, we are already getting forced on it by Leonardo and the MMI that feels it is the only viable option. [At least until Ukraine war situation]

If they only get a hint that RAAF would even just phantom the idea of it there would be no runaway, no escape for us Italians.

Its a nightmare, we got the US P-8 at Sigonella, and we could get on the same logistic train.

or the Japanese that are probably desperate to look for a client for the P-1 and C-2, both perfect for us since the we also didn't get on the C-17 train. And a good amount of possible exchange products for G2G deal.

For what? A C27J that would have a transit time too high because it is way slower than the P-1 and P-8.

Everything to get developed?

Not ITAR Free?

Years and Years before first delivery?

Not created for the comfort of the crew that in a MPA is of uttermost importance since they have to spend hours and hours on station.

The other forum member mentioned it is already working for the US coast guard but as a SAR, and as a SAR it is good, after all i got so bitter when the Canadians choose the Airbus platform since slower and without APU. But it is a SAR mission not MPA, or submarine hunting.

It would be a Frankenstein monster born too late. Again, i know it sounds ridiculous, but we got more than enough Russian subs in our neighborhood, we need a true machine, and if the industry gets even the slightest idea of a client to leverage.....
 

phreeky

Active Member
I find the C-27J as an unusual purchase still. The Caribou had to go, it felt like there was a rush to get "something" and the C-27J had some C-130J parts/training cross-over so we jumped on it. Is the reality that the additional Chinooks were in fact the better placed replacement?

The Caribou were based in Townsville and yet AFAIK the C-27J rarely operates from Townsville, are they even performing the same mission? Was the requirement the Caribou was fulfilling still present? I get the impression it's just being used as a compromised C-130J - is it a solution looking for a niche problem?

Or is this perhaps an airframe that doesn't have much of a place in peace time, but might if specific scenarios were to eventuate? Are there significant airstrips in neighbouring countries that can take a C-27J but not a C-130J?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A continuous build of Submarines is going to be very difficult with only 8 Boats, look at the RN build times for 11 Boats to avoid a Valley of Death. But how that will effect the Surface Vessel build program, I have no idea.
I think the term was at 'least 8'. That would fit with a 'batched' build run of the same platform (modified between batches). After 8 you would want to be looking at a different design and availability as well as the time to retool for the next design. I think it could be reasonably expect to see the build continue if the Politicians stick to the plan.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
cranking up the build drumbeat
That is a very broad and ambiguous statement ! care to expand on what drumbeat for which service and capability ?

But in particular what you think they can do to increase said drumbeat and capability fitting within budgets, force structure and the capability of the service and ADF as a whole to stand up the capability ?

Cheers
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
That is a very broad and ambiguous statement ! care to expand on what drumbeat for which service and capability ?

But in particular what you think they can do to increase said drumbeat and capability fitting within budgets, force structure and the capability of the service and ADF as a whole to stand up the capability ?

Cheers
Big statements without detail could be perceived as khaki electioneering.
To all pollies, please to tread carefully.
We need good leadership not just in the next few months, but also in the next few years.

Cheers S
 

Rock the kasbah

Active Member
That is a very broad and ambiguous statement ! care to expand on what drumbeat for which service and capability ?

But in particular what you think they can do to increase said drumbeat and capability fitting within budgets, force structure and the capability of the service and ADF as a whole to stand up the capability ?

Cheers
I fully understand that it is an election year.
And with my limited knowledge I am very happy with the professionalism, skills and equipment of the ADF.
I have absolutely no idea on where extra funds could be obtained. Wrt drumbeat for all the services upcoming or existing builds, put on a night shift, is the best I've got I'm afraid.
So we are all lucky I am not involved in any of the above
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
I fully understand that it is an election year.
And with my limited knowledge I am very happy with the professionalism, skills and equipment of the ADF.
I have absolutely no idea on where extra funds could be obtained. Wrt drumbeat for all the services upcoming or existing builds, put on a night shift, is the best I've got I'm afraid.
So we are all lucky I am not involved in any of the above
I've said this a few times before - I don't think funding will be the limiting factor it was in the past. During an interbellum (like the one we've largely had for the past 30 years) it's appropriate to ration defence spending and make sure we preserve and build on core capabilities, but don't go overboard. What we should have been doing, and I presume have been doing, is planning contingencies to mobilise the broader resources of the nation to augment those core capabilities quickly and efficiently when things go south. Then the fiscal gloves should come off. Both sides of politics seem to be coming around to this.

Put it this way - when the COVID outbreak presented what was truly a national emergency in 2020, we happened to just find $125bn lying down the back of the lounge. We can do this if we need to. We are a very, very wealthy nation by global standards.

The challenge is what can we throw money at that would meaningfully enhance our capability and resilience in the space of a couple of years?

A couple of ideas:
1) Accelerating and enhancing upgrades of basing infrastructure (Manus, Port of Darwin, northern airbases, Cocos & Keeling).
2) Increased investment in sovereign munitions production. We already doing this, but we could do more. One of the things the current conflict in Ukraine seems to have shown us is that you can never have enough PGMs.
3) Buying more P-8s and possibly an extra squadron of F-35s - if we can find crews for them.
4) Buying more Abrams - if we can find crews for them.
5) Buying more MH-60Rs - if we can find crews for them.
6) Buying more Hawkeis. That production line is a major national asset and needs to be kept open indefinitely. As others have observed in the Australian Army thread we can generate light infantry in relatively short order, but Australia is a big place. We need to give them protection and something to ride around in. Build them and put them in a shed if needed.
7) Making a decision on LCH/LSTs and getting on with procurement. Compared to major combatants I would have thought this is something we could make good progress on quickly.
8) Fuel security. More tank farms like the one being built in Darwin, in more places. Probably a merchant marine to provide tanker support. We are vulnerable to having our supply of refined fuels disrupted. Is this inefficient? Yes. Is it necessary? Also yes.
9) Establish a national disaster response agency. Let the ADF focus on warfighting rather than cleaning up after floods.

There's 9 ideas off the top of my head. Some of them are non starters for reasons I don't appreciate (and I'm sure others will quickly point out to me) but if you were to increase the Defence budget by a relatively modest $5bn to $10bn p.a. (in the context of a c.$600bn p.a. budget) you could see a material improvement in capability over the next 3-5 years.
 

SMC

Member
9) Establish a national disaster response agency. Let the ADF focus on warfighting rather than cleaning up after floods.
I'll bite on this point. Emergency and disaster response is the responsibility of the States and Territories.....the feds role is that of support mainly in aid funding. The issues that we have been seeing in NSW and QLD are largely due to two factors....1 the unprecedented rainfall and 2 the continued funding cuts to State emergency services.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
I'll bite on this point. Emergency and disaster response is the responsibility of the States and Territories.....the feds role is that of support mainly in aid funding. The issues that we have been seeing in NSW and QLD are largely due to two factors....1 the unprecedented rainfall and 2 the continued funding cuts to State emergency services.
I don't disagree. I think my point is that the political reality is that whenever anything goes seriously sideways the question is "Where is the ADF and why aren't they here already?"

That's fine if it's once or twice a decade, but it seems like the frequency the ADF is being called upon is significantly greater than that. I don't know whether this is having impacts on overall availability / training / execution of other priorities. Perhaps it doesn't. But it seems sensible to me to take this burden off the ADF as much as possible.

It doesn't need to be a federal agency though. It could be increased funding for the various SES'.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
S
I'll bite on this point. Emergency and disaster response is the responsibility of the States and Territories.....the feds role is that of support mainly in aid funding. The issues that we have been seeing in NSW and QLD are largely due to two factors....1 the unprecedented rainfall and 2 the continued funding cuts to State emergency services.
spot on. Very well paid people running those departments but when things don’t work out it’s the feds…a bit off topic but right.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'll bite on this point. Emergency and disaster response is the responsibility of the States and Territories.....the feds role is that of support mainly in aid funding. The issues that we have been seeing in NSW and QLD are largely due to two factors....1 the unprecedented rainfall and 2 the continued funding cuts to State emergency services.
Care to list and link the funding cuts to the NSW SES ?

Cheers
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Of course there is always some Scumbags who think ADF Members are there to be abused and spat on. The same type of idiots who will abuse Petrol Station Employees over Fuel prices or think the don't have to wear masks or drag out the old "I pay Taxes so I'm your Boss, so do what I say" crap.
 
Top