Sorry to late in adding my 2 cents worth on this. The talk of SSNs already has Indonesia on edge. They are happy for the US and UK to deploy into the area with theirs but having a neighbour with such a capability upsets the balance in their view. An asset such as the B21 would really create a stir.
First of all we have to look at what's happening in Ukraine and the learnings that are coming out of there. One thing is absolutely obvious and that is despite all the technology, you still need the individual infantryman with their rifle, bayonet and boots to both take and hold possession of any piece of dirt. No fancy UAV, UGV, or vehicle is going to do that. Tanks and other armoured cannot operate without infantry support. The Russo - Ukrainian War experience has reinforced that lesson harshly, in the case of the Russians. So just based on that I disagree with your assertion that the conscription of massive amounts of infantry is a thing of the past.Hi all
I was just reading an article in defence connect, about the mobilisation of the external military workforce in the event of a large scale conflict.
Mobilising Defence’s forgotten external workforce
Opinion: With the upcoming Defence Strategic Review set to assess Australia's mobilisation capabilities, how can the Commonwealth, ADF and defence industry prepare for a mobilisation in the event ofwww.defenceconnect.com.au
This got me thinking about how a broad general mobilisation of the ADF would occur and what shape it would take. The example used in the article was a WW2 style conflict in modern times.
I think the days of drafting mass amounts of infantry and giving them a gun, are largely gone to a broad extent. The society of today is a lot different to WW2 also, as I think we have lost a built in hardness and practicality that we once had.
I’m sure the government has plans in drawer somewhere relating to this, but I guess interested to get everyone’s thoughts. We tend talk about platforms and weapons systems but I guess I’m thinking along the line of people, structure and size.
Its such a large subject but I think it warrants some discussion.
Cheers
Just a minor correction Ngati. The Second division was an infantry Division when it was in North Africa and remained so for the rest of the war though it did have light tanks and later armored cars later for reconnaissance purposes. However a armored brigade was formed prior to them going to Italy from the 4th brigade (from memory) and a new infantry brigade, to replace the 4th was formed from reinforcements from NZ. This brought the total NZ army fighting strength in Italy to 27000, which was then termed the NZ corps, though to make it up to a full Corps other outside units were attached and Freyberg was promoted to Lieutenant General to command the corps and Major general Inglis initially to over command of the 2nd infantry division.
Thanks for your detailed reply Ngati. I do agree that mass infantry conscription will be required, but I essentially was meaning all the other broader fields you touched on in the second part of your post.
I think this is a relevant point, and something I’ve given some thought to.
I disagree with your thought that supply chain consultants and computer scientists etc would make first rate QMs, "Bears" (aka EW specialists) etc. The problem, from my perspective, with the consultants etc is that their experience is largely theoretical and academic. Hence they will have their 'pet' theory on how a particular function should be organised which they will defend to the death. What would be needed would be people with practical real world experience who can readily transfer that experience from the civilian domain to a military domain.
Actually, having worked with both career ADF (current and ex) and defence civilians who have transfered from commercial environments, as well as reservists who are across both ADF and civilian specialities, even consultants,I can confirm there is a spectrum of talent, intelligence, and ability across the range.
That's why one of the most critical things is upskilling the population in general, and perhaps even more importantly, assessing and recognising existing skills and knowledge.
If I was an optimistic person (sadly that has been burned out of me) I would hope that the Australian International Shipping Register would be used for these vessels.
In this case, I'd argue that an Army lead does make sense. The sealift capability this brings will almost always be used for Land missions - everything from additional HADR gear to supporting the ARG as part of an invasion or a deployed force. While the Amphib capability is a Joint one, having the prime 'user' makes sense. Especially when you consider it won't all be Army under his command. Plus from memory, MAJGEN Walk has been involved in the ARG in the past, as well as directly supporting the transfer of materiel by sea.
Would this impact Army's littoral manoeuvre plans under AOF? I'm aware the Strategic Fleet and littoral manoeuvre are two different functions, though I can't help but suspect Army's current plans were formed with the recognition that the Strategic Fleet wasn't going to happen (at least under the former government or thinking).
This fleet will be a total cockup, a resource waster and will end in commercial tears.
Forgive my ignorance, but is this a "merchant Navy" type of thing? A govt run shipping company type arrangement?
Sure is, 12 ships to ensure our strategic supply chain.
Oh dear....