ADF General discussion thread

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
This wasn’t meant as a criticism of the current Gov. I reckon they’re doing a good job all things considered.

Just pointing out that it’s definitely misleading to call it an 8% increase!
We do need to be a little careful when talking about inflation too. It's not necessarily the case that all of the costs in regards to defence will be increasing by that stated figure. For a start, the greatest cost in defence by far is wages, and they're not automatically going up to match the inflation rate. I'd be interested in seeing what the wage increases will look like. Conversely, other costs might be going up by more than inflation.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
We do need to be a little careful when talking about inflation too. It's not necessarily the case that all of the costs in regards to defence will be increasing by that stated figure. For a start, the greatest cost in defence by far is wages, and they're not automatically going up to match the inflation rate. I'd be interested in seeing what the wage increases will look like. Conversely, other costs might be going up by more than inflation.
And the ongoing fall of the Australian $ against the Greenback is not helping either, 11c since Oct 21.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
And the ongoing fall of the Australian $ against the Greenback is not helping either, 11c since Oct 21.
On an economical stand point that isn't necessarily bad. Sure a high AUD to USD is good for importing stuff and on the ADF side means military imports cost less but on the flip side a higher AUD will mean lower cashflow from exports which means less tax dollars which can risk the ADF budget.

Should also consider exchange rates over a longer period then a single fixed point as they are moving every minute of every day. From January 1 2018 untill December 31 2021 the average exchange rate for the entire period was 0.7213065 while January 1 2022 until October 26 has been 0.700858.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Problem is that events are moving faster than defence planners can respond to them. Even decisions that were made just a few years ago are now proving to be inadequate. I think the OPVs are a good example. They aren’t even in the water yet and there is already suggestions that we should have purchased corvettes instead. The submarine fleet is another even more extreme example of how fast the goal posts are moving.

I am hoping the defence review to be released next March will bring some clarity but I am not holding my breath.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Something which I have been pondering for a little while is whether or not it might be better for Australia to have a new DWP since the most recent one is from 2016, rather than an eight month defence strategy review, particularly given how significant some of the changes in the world security situation have become.

Something else which I have also been considering, given the worsening situations as well as some of the advocacy by "think" tanks, is the normal timeline to get new pieces of major kit into service. Having a review which only considers what might occur over then next five years, without also considering the problem of new kit/capabilities often taking a decade or more to bring into service is a bit of a problem IMO.

I believe that is at least in part responsible for some of the rather impractical suggestions which have been periodically getting put forward, even by those whose business it should be to know better.
 
Something which I have been pondering for a little while is whether or not it might be better for Australia to have a new DWP....
Please no, the Government of the day doesn't need any more excuses to delay making decisions on major projects.... though a sad, cynical part of me thinks that the answer from the current Defence Review will be another Defence White Paper (shades of "Yes Minister"...:rolleyes:)

Something else which I have also been considering, given the worsening situations as well as some of the advocacy by "think" tanks, is the normal timeline to get new pieces of major kit into service. Having a review which only considers what might occur over then next five years, without also considering the problem of new kit/capabilities often taking a decade or more to bring into service is a bit of a problem IMO.

I believe that is at least in part responsible for some of the rather impractical suggestions which have been periodically getting put forward, even by those whose business it should be to know better.
One way to reduce time to service is to reduce/remove the requirement for exdented life of service of equipment being introduced... M113's anyone? Significant engineering effort is expended ensuring new kit/equipment/platforms can acheive the long service lifes requested at acquistion. But that's a double edged sword, because then said new kit/equipment/platforms needs to be replaced more frequently...
 

Aardvark144

Active Member
Something which I have been pondering for a little while is whether or not it might be better for Australia to have a new DWP since the most recent one is from 2016, rather than an eight month defence strategy review, particularly given how significant some of the changes in the world security situation have become.

Something else which I have also been considering, given the worsening situations as well as some of the advocacy by "think" tanks, is the normal timeline to get new pieces of major kit into service. Having a review which only considers what might occur over then next five years, without also considering the problem of new kit/capabilities often taking a decade or more to bring into service is a bit of a problem IMO.

I believe that is at least in part responsible for some of the rather impractical suggestions which have been periodically getting put forward, even by those whose business it should be to know better.
Good God no! The last one took two years to produce. If we are serious on our Geopolitical situation, action needs to commence ASAP after March 23.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Something which I have been pondering for a little while is whether or not it might be better for Australia to have a new DWP since the most recent one is from 2016, rather than an eight month defence strategy review, particularly given how significant some of the changes in the world security situation have become.

Something else which I have also been considering, given the worsening situations as well as some of the advocacy by "think" tanks, is the normal timeline to get new pieces of major kit into service. Having a review which only considers what might occur over then next five years, without also considering the problem of new kit/capabilities often taking a decade or more to bring into service is a bit of a problem IMO.

I believe that is at least in part responsible for some of the rather impractical suggestions which have been periodically getting put forward, even by those whose business it should be to know better.
Yeah, no... no, no and no.

In previous times and a more benign and stable regional/global environment, I’d agree a much deeper update of the 2016 DWP is probably a worthwhile exercise

But let’s not forget apart from the current review, due March 2023, there was also the 2020 DSU, not that long ago.


I would hope and believe, that internal reviews are being constantly being examined behind closed doors and not in the public domain.

A new DWP can potentially be used to delay, or pause, decisions for even longer periods of time.

No thanks.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Events are moving so quickly that we might not have time for a new whitepaper. Everything is usually put on hold until the whitepaper is released which often results in a several year delay for a number of vital projects. There are so many things which are just so bleeding obvious that you really don't need years of consultation and study to come to a decision. Buying new C-130Js without going a tedious, drawn out, selection process for example. Decisions taken on new Blackhawk and Apache helicopters is another example.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I would not be looking to put planned and needed acquisitions and/or replacement of kit on hold. It is my understanding that the 2016 DWP was intended to cover a 10-20 year outlook for acquisitions, strategic environment and capability plan. However, it now appears that there is a greater risk of conflict in the 2025-2035 time frame than would likely have been considered when the 2016 DWP was being drafted.

Hence my interest in both having another look at what the potential 2025-2035 strategic enviro will look like for Oz, as well as how things might and likely will be post-2035. Again, keeping in mind that it can easily be a decade or more for Australia to bring major new/replacement kit into service, with the caveat that earlier, Australia had been averaging ~14 years. IMO the timeframe is too short for major changes or expansions to the ADF structure to take effect before ~2035 or even more optimistically ~2030, but if things need to change to be ready for 2035, it would seem that discussions about such things would need to start now, if they are not already underway.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Any further update as to our future Army structure.

It appears plan Beersheba / Keogh are on the way out

The move from 2nd Div to Forces Command of the 9th Brigade is interesting.


Not sure what to make of some of the movement and specialisation.

Any more info in the public domain would be appreciated
Appears we are spreading the existing number of Regular Tank / Cav / Infantry units across four, rather than three brigades.

Cheers S
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The ADF has some new buzzwords "Impactful Projection".

Mr Marles said impactful projection was a different mindset for the ADF with more emphasis on defending Australia's sea lanes and communication networks. Marles reaffirmed the importance of new submarines describing them as being able to carry out impactful projection more effectively than any other platform in the ADF. The article cites the importance of protecting maritime trade routes and undersea cables that connect us with the rest of the world.

He revealed that he planned to meet US and UK counterparts before the end of the year in the first meeting of AUKUS defence ministers, to thrash out the final details for the nuclear submarine project.

With this and what Dutton has leaked I am inclined to believe that a lot of this has already been thrashed out behind closed doors.

 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Mr Marles said impactful projection was a different mindset for the ADF with more emphasis on defending Australia's sea lanes and communication networks. Marles reaffirmed the importance of new submarines describing them as being able to carry out impactful projection more effectively than any other platform in the ADF. The article cites the importance of protecting maritime trade routes and undersea cables that connect us with the rest of the world.
These quotes plus the ones from Anthony Albanese suggest two things. Firstly is that the review currently being conducted has come up with the answer the Government wanted and is being hinted at in selected interviews. Secondly, the review has developed a cunning plan, namely Defence of Australia 2.0 (being a global search and replace of the original Dibb fantasy story).
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
These quotes plus the ones from Anthony Albanese suggest two things. Firstly is that the review currently being conducted has come up with the answer the Government wanted and is being hinted at in selected interviews. Secondly, the review has developed a cunning plan, namely Defence of Australia 2.0 (being a global search and replace of the original Dibb fantasy story).
It always seems to coincidently work out that defence reviews seem to align with the views previously expressed by whatever government is in charge at the time. The hints that have been dropped do seem to be a variation of the Dibb plan. I must admit I am somewhat concerned that the role of the army may end up being somewhat diminished in favour of an ADF geared towards the A2/AD.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
It always seems to coincidently work out that defence reviews seem to align with the views previously expressed by whatever government is in charge at the time. The hints that have been dropped do seem to be a variation of the Dibb plan. I must admit I am somewhat concerned that the role of the army may end up being somewhat diminished in favour of an ADF geared towards the A2/AD.
The ALP has a tendency to want larger numbers of smaller Warships, the LNP fewer numbers of larger more capable ships. The Dibb report went with 8 Tier 1 Warships (F-100s?) 8 Patrol Frigates (Anzacs) and 9 Corvettes, the Rudd DWP went with 3-4 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 20 Corvettes. The LNP tend towards larger more capable ships in fewer numbers, DDL project of 3 advanced DDGs was LNP, Whitlam cancelled it and went with 4 Tier 2 US Frigates instead. Fraser wanted a new Carrier Hawke cancelled the project forever and Keating decided to upgrade 2 worn out Newport's instead. Howard decided to go with 2 large LHDs and finally order some Tier 1 warships (though too few). Abbott and his successors have decided on 10,000t Frigates and 1600t OPVs.
Both sides seem to be in lockstep on Submarines though.
History suggests we are going to see either Corvettes or Light Frigates in the review and I would not be surprised if it means a reduction in Hunter numbers either.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
The ALP has a tendency to want larger numbers of smaller Warships, the LNP fewer numbers of larger more capable ships. The Dibb report went with 8 Tier 1 Warships (F-100s?) 8 Patrol Frigates (Anzacs) and 9 Corvettes, the Rudd DWP went with 3-4 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 20 Corvettes. The LNP tend towards larger more capable ships in fewer numbers, DDL project of 3 advanced DDGs was LNP, Whitlam cancelled it and went with 4 Tier 2 US Frigates instead. Fraser wanted a new Carrier Hawke cancelled the project forever and Keating decided to upgrade 2 worn out Newport's instead. Howard decided to go with 2 large LHDs and finally order some Tier 1 warships (though too few). Abbott and his successors have decided on 10,000t Frigates and 1600t OPVs.
Both sides seem to be in lockstep on Submarines though.
History suggests we are going to see either Corvettes or Light Frigates in the review and I would not be surprised if it means a reduction in Hunter numbers either.
I don’t think that’s an accurate characterisation. The 2009 DWP called for, amongst other things:

“…eight new, larger, frigates optimised for anti-submarine warfare, to replace the eight Anzac frigates…”

“…around 20 new multi-role Offshore Combatant Vessels to replace existing patrol boat, mine countermeasure, hydrographic and oceanographic ships…”

Which sounds exactly like the Hunter and Arafura to me, except we got an OPV instead of an OCV, which was the LNPs decision. To say nothing of the LNP’s vacillation around the Collins replacement.

This is not to say that one side is better than the other - there is a rich history of both sides making both excellent and stupid decisions - but I don’t think you can make generalisations based on decisions made 50+ years ago by people who are now dead.

I would look more at what the current batch of leaders are actually saying and doing.

To quote Marles in the AFR article:

“Defence will need to be potentially our highest spend”

As Deputy PM, Marles is now nominally the most powerful Defence Minister I can remember. By picking the Defence portfolio for himself he made it clear that the Government’s rhetoric has some teeth.

All this points to me to a material increase in defence spend, with the RAN, RAAF and RAA being the big winners. This doesn’t equate to swingeing cuts elsewhere (although some trimming looks inevitable, even if just for the optics).

As always, time will tell….
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I was hoping the government would give a defence review update in November, but apparently that is not happening and is only confidential/non public.

I worry about lack of platforms for fighting in the next 10 years:

Collins coming out of water for a very significant and extensive LOTE, to try to stretch their operational life into the later 2050's, but mean there will be significantly less capabilities during the later 2020's and the early 2030s..
Hobarts coming out of water for radar and combat system upgrades, $5+ billion worth of work, almost equaling their initial build cost. Less capabilities during the later 2020's and the early 2030s. We basically lose any deployable, reliable destroyer capability. Presumably the LHD and other assets will have to stay in local waters only and we will be cancelling our regional engagements.
Anzacs coming out of water for further upgrades, while smaller they are still significant, and overlapping with Collins/Hobart upgrades. Again less capabilities during the later 2020's and the early 2030s.
Other projects are also unclear.

F-35 to go through blk4 upgrades, which will likely be a slow and probably the most significant upgrade these aircraft will go through as we have already 54 delivered, and the blk4 upgrade gives the platform a lot of capability. Including 16 new weapons integrated, new sensors, new computers, new sub systems, etc. Basically none of the RAAF will be TR3 builds, so this will involve basically pulling apart the entire aircraft and rebuilding them. We may need to buy another squadron of aircraft so we have some capability while this is occurring. SH if we are keeping them around may need to go through with a blk III upgrade to keep them relevant. Time frames are working against us, there is a balance between here and now capabilities and the wants of tomorrows. How do we keep pilots while under going and taking out of service so many, many airframes.

Drone strategy is also unclear.

Then we have the rumored curtailing of the Land400 program. Army looks like riding around in M113's for the time being.. M1A2 is unclear. Some amphibious and landing capabilities are also unclear.

Plus what do we do with our people while all of this is happening as its likely to negatively affect careers, morale, satisfaction and eventually retention.

Suffice to say not sure of the ADF fighting capability in the 2025-2035 period. Particularly if every major platform and fighting unit is in pieces on hardstands or on the ground, or driving around in 1960's vintage items. This affects Army, Navy and Airforce.

All this points to me to a material increase in defence spend, with the RAN, RAAF and RAA being the big winners. This doesn’t equate to swingeing cuts elsewhere (although some trimming looks inevitable, even if just for the optics).
Would like to see some sort of update, if not answers, then at least what is being considered.

Marles certainly is a capable person. He also has a personal friendship with Dutton. Arguably Australia does see defence as a significant priority, we are concerned about the global situation, China, Russia, the war in Europe, US stability. There is heaps of scope for bipartisan progress, in solving a huge number of issues, as we go into a hugely dynamic geopolitical time.

We can acknowledge the limitations of earlier governments from both sides. They were a different time, and for nearly 15 years both sides face internal squabbling and backstabbing ontop of 20-30 years of defence decline since Vietnam.

But we are now at the critical point where things need to happen. It would be nice to see, something.
 
Top