ADF General discussion thread

[ADMk2]

No it's not, and no the shouldn't. There should be no "more innocent or less guilty than anyone else.
1st instance, guilt MUST be proven beyond doubt. You are sounding like a dictator that changes the rules to suit a situation.
If war crimes have been committed, they will be exposed.
I can't believe the attitude of "burn the witch" mentality you are showing.
There is a legal system that must be followed. You are not allowed to bypass steps to suit yourself, no matter if you are a cop, prime minister,soldier or engineer.
There are plenty of cops, prison officers,soldiers, sailors and airmen in custody as we speak, as well as Lord Mayors, ex Police Commisioners, politicians, celebrities, football players etc etc etc, I know this 1st hand.
Maybe they,(Military Leaders) should start by laying charges of war crimes on the (already media trialled) guilty bastards. If they don't have evidence , then they can't can they?

ADF members like police and other are subject to the laws of the land and face justice system processes like anyone else.

However they are also accountable to their own employer under respective discipline systems, that at times may well be linked to criminal sanctions, but apply regardless of whether an act is deemed criminal or not.

Having entitlements, awards, rank or other elements of service (ie: salary upon occasion) removed, altered, diminished and so on, are usual outcomes of internal disciplinary processes, and are held appropriately to a different standard of proof, to criminal sanctions.

 

[Volkodav]

ADF members like police and other are subject to the laws of the land and face justice system processes like anyone else.

However they are also accountable to their own employer under respective discipline systems, that at times may well be linked to criminal sanctions, but apply regardless of whether an act is deemed criminal or not.

Having entitlements, awards, rank or other elements of service (ie: salary upon occasion) removed, altered, diminished and so on, are usual outcomes of internal disciplinary processes, and are held appropriately to a different standard of proof, to criminal sanctions.

I've seen soldiers ripped a new one for exceeding the speed limit on base, and face charges under military discipline. They often face far more severe sanctions than civilians for minor infractions.

What gets me is the evidence presented to enquiries and now a civil court case, as I understand it, have as yet not resulted in any formal interviews or charges. Irrespective of what the truth is, at the very minimum stuff is now in the public domain that requires a formal investigation and charges to be laid.

Why do charges need to be laid? Easy, the conflicting versions show one side or the other is deliberately lying about events. Either there were war crimes, or there were false allegations of war crimes, a lesser, but still serious offence.

The biggest red flag to me, why was a soldier as good, brave, intelligent and competent as BRS only a corporal? Those things are not in doubt, and with his pedigree you would have expected him to be commissioned, or at least have made sergeant and been a patrol leader.

Something is off and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels it.

 

[WaveWalker]

Deleted because I can't be bothered. You keep believing the Journalists, they are right, because the ABC wouldn't do anything wrong now would they?
Like cherry pick which version of events to report.
So far no war criminals have been charged, there for why are medals and awards being removed?
My Vietnam comment is regarding blanketing all service personnel as war criminals, over 3000 awards are slated to be removed. 39 alleged murders, no convictions.

You missed the ABC report showing an SAS trooper murdering an Afghan on the ground without a weapon? You think the ABC made it up? You think that was cherry picking? Explain how the clear video of that murder was cherrypicked or the truth was bent.
As you well know these trials will take years to complete and this is being taken very seriously by the authorities.
No one is labelling all veterans as war criminals. Given the numbers of brave troopers giving evidence you’d think that you’d take the allegations seriously.
Your comment sound to me like you want to sweep it all under the carpet and forget it, just like the Vietnam crimes. Further, spare me the ABC evil lefty stuff. The fact is they were the only news organisation that the SAS soldier who took the video trusted to air it truthfully.

 

[old faithful]

ADF members like police and other are subject to the laws of the land and face justice system processes like anyone else.

However they are also accountable to their own employer under respective discipline systems, that at times may well be linked to criminal sanctions, but apply regardless of whether an act is deemed criminal or not.

Having entitlements, awards, rank or other elements of service (ie: salary upon occasion) removed, altered, diminished and so on, are usual outcomes of internal disciplinary processes, and are held appropriately to a different standard of proof, to criminal sanctions.

Roger that, but war crimes won't be held by a military court, it will probably start at supreme court and go all the way to the high court. War crimes won't be dealt with by the toe cutters. Also remember, that you can't be punished twice for the same crime. If a service person is discharged, and stripped of honours by a military court because of war crimes, then they theoretically can't be tried again. That would need to happen after a proper trial.

 

[ADMk2]

Roger that, but war crimes won't be held by a military court, it will probably start at supreme court and go all the way to the high court. War crimes won't be dealt with by the toe cutters. Also remember, that you can't be punished twice for the same crime. If a service person is discharged, and stripped of honours by a military court because of war crimes, then they theoretically can't be tried again. That would need to happen after a proper trial.

You cannot be convicted of a crime twice under our justice system. But disciplinary processes are not criminal in nature. They are civil. Civil and criminal proceedings often do go side by side.

 

[old faithful]

You missed the ABC report showing an SAS trooper murdering an Afghan on the ground without a weapon? You think the ABC made it up? You think that was cherry picking? Explain how the clear video of that murder was cherrypicked or the truth was bent.
As you well know these trials will take years to complete and this is being taken very seriously by the authorities.
No one is labelling all veterans as war criminals. Given the numbers of brave troopers giving evidence you’d think that you’d take the allegations seriously.
Your comment sound to me like you want to sweep it all under the carpet and forget it, just like the Vietnam crimes. Further, spare me the ABC evil lefty stuff. The fact is they were the only news organisation that the SAS soldier who took the video trusted to air it truthfully.

No, I want these men tried in a court of law, not on a family room TV.
Yes I saw that footage.
Do you know ALL of the facts surrounding that incident?
I don't want anything swept under the carpet, I just want a fair trial, which is what every Australian is entitled to.
Yes I have a bias against the ABC, have you seen the report on the Don Dale juvenile centre?
The footage shown by 4 corners shows prison officers firing 11 consecutive bursts of CS gas into a room.
The UN edited version, the real footage shows 3 bursts and over 1 minute later another 3 1 second bursts and then an other 3.
These bursts were fired after 3 hours of negotiations went no where, after extraction teams were considered, and after a dog was considered, after a youth justice officer was stabbed. There was no running water , in 30 degree heat at night, in close to 100% humidity. The officers were ordered by the Minister to carry out the actions.
Never mind 4 corners and the ABC, none of those facts made to TV screens, but the courts found the truth behind it.
That's where it all come out, in court, not TV.

Also wave Walker, where did I mention "lefty" or politics or political party, or covering up crimes, or sweeping anything away, I have never once suggested that war crimes are trivial or should be ignored. What I have and do advocate, is a natural justice.

 

[old faithful]

 

[OldTex]

In the RAAF discussion thread the following posts were made.

Volkodav said:
I'd be more interested in accessing hypersonic strike missiles and acquiring the platforms to deploy them. Same with AEGIS Ashore and Typhon (land based mobile SM-6 and Tomahawk).

The SSNs need to happen and gut feeling a bigger batch II Hunter or new design is needed for hypersonics. To be honest, I hope they are considering a Dreadnought or Columbia based SSGN with VPMs for tomahawk and hypersonic strike missiles instead of Trident. That would be a true conventional deterrent.

John Fedup replied with:
Agree about SSGN, something that actually would be a conventional deterrent but also a piece of kit that could be used. If SSGNs aren’t in the works then it is likely future SSNs will be smaller derivatives of Columbia and Dreadnought with hypersonic missiles.

What these comment raise is the question of what are the capabilities that nuclear powered submarines will provide to the ADF (to be utilised by GoTD)? Due to the size of the RAN, MFUs must provide several capabilities to varying degrees rather than being a specialised single role vessel. But with the future SSNs the attack (ASuW & ASW) role seems to conflict more with the strike (TLAM) role. If both the attack and strike roles are required to be delivered from the same platform, then it is likely that an increased number of platforms will be required.

 

[Redlands18]

Australia and United States vow to increase military cooperation amid rising Chinese presence in Pacific - ABC News
A rundown of the AUSMIN talks in Washington.
An intention to increase military cooperation has been announced with an increased rotational presence of US forces in Australia. There is also talks of increasing cooperation with Japan, where Marles and Wong are headed next.
That also brings to mind the possible deployment of Virginia class SSNs to Australia for long deployments and I wonder if we may also see USN Burke class DDGs on extended deployments while the Hobarts undergo refits.

 

[ngatimozart]

In the RAAF discussion thread the following posts were made.


John Fedup replied with:
Agree about SSGN, something that actually would be a conventional deterrent but also a piece of kit that could be used. If SSGNs aren’t in the works then it is likely future SSNs will be smaller derivatives of Columbia and Dreadnought with hypersonic missiles.

What these comment raise is the question of what are the capabilities that nuclear powered submarines will provide to the ADF (to be utilised by GoTD)? Due to the size of the RAN, MFUs must provide several capabilities to varying degrees rather than being a specialised single role vessel. But with the future SSNs the attack (ASuW & ASW) role seems to conflict more with the strike (TLAM) role. If both the attack and strike roles are required to be delivered from the same platform, then it is likely that an increased number of platforms will be required.

You have 6 SSKs at the moment. The Attack Class plan was for 12 SSK, and I believe that the SSN plan is being touted as 8 boats. The strike capability is just one part of a SSN's role so IMHO there's no need for boats especially dedicated to a strike role.

 

[Volkodav]

You have 6 SSKs at the moment. The Attack Class plan was for 12 SSK, and I believe that the SSN plan is being touted as 8 boats. The strike capability is just one part of a SSN's role so IMHO there's no need for boats especially dedicated to a strike role.

The USN SSGNs, (converted Ohio SSBNs) excel at special forces support and apparently also at ISR. The Block V Virginia's have been developed to replace this capability.

I suspect an SSGN with lockout chambers and UUV support capability would be a very good fit for the RAN.

 

[hauritz]

Will US supply Australia with AUKUS subs? 'That's not going to happen,' key US lawmaker says - Breaking Defense

The US should take the "next Virginia class that's built, designate that to the Australian AOR, and [say] we're going to dual-crew it with Australian sailors and US sailors," Rep. Rob Wittman tells Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

This could be strongly indicative of the future of Australia's SSN program.

Senior American defence lawmaker, Rep Rob Wittman says that there is no way that Australia would be buying a nuclear submarine directly from the US. Instead he recommended that the next new build Virginia sub be dual crewed by US and Australian crews. As for control of these submarines, well that would stay in the hands of the US. Apparently some sovereign technicality will require the US to maintain at least a 51% control of this vessel. Of course America having 51% control really means that Australia has 0% control.

The boats themselves would be designated Australian AOR. I admit I have no idea what that designation means.

He also recommended that Australian shipbuilders should initially work in the US along side American shipbuilders for a full build cycle.

To be honest I do see issues since Australia will not have full sovereign control of these submarines.

 

[vonnoobie]

Will US supply Australia with AUKUS subs? 'That's not going to happen,' key US lawmaker says - Breaking Defense

The US should take the "next Virginia class that's built, designate that to the Australian AOR, and [say] we're going to dual-crew it with Australian sailors and US sailors," Rep. Rob Wittman tells Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

This could be strongly indicative of the future of Australia's SSN program.

Senior American defence lawmaker, Rep Rob Wittman says that there is no way that Australia would be buying a nuclear submarine directly from the US. Instead he recommended that the next new build Virginia sub be dual crewed by US and Australian crews. As for control of these submarines, well that would stay in the hands of the US. Apparently some sovereign technicality will require the US to maintain at least a 51% control of this vessel. Of course America having 51% control really means that Australia has 0% control.

The boats themselves would be designated Australian AOR. I admit I have no idea what that designation means.

He also recommended that Australian shipbuilders should initially work in the US along side American shipbuilders for a full build cycle.

To be honest I do see issues since Australia will not have full sovereign control of these submarines.

Reading the article part gives away the meaning of the term "operate in the Australian AOR", Indicates that AOR would be Australian operational Responsibility or something of that nature. To be fair it is the best option on the table to fill any gap between the Collins and future Australian SSN even if it comes with the risk we may lose operational use of some boats time to time (Though as article states that would be in an emergency which we would likely already be siding with the US on). So far this option is the most realistic one that has been put on the table.

 

[ngatimozart]

Reading the article part gives away the meaning of the term "operate in the Australian AOR", Indicates that AOR would be Australian operational Responsibility or something of that nature. To be fair it is the best option on the table to fill any gap between the Collins and future Australian SSN even if it comes with the risk we may lose operational use of some boats time to time (Though as article states that would be in an emergency which we would likely already be siding with the US on). So far this option is the most realistic one that has been put on the table.

Yep, it's your crawl, walk, run before you get your own boats. Possibly a similar arrangement might be possible with the RN if they could be convinced to permanently base one SSN in Australia. A long shot but you don't know until you try.

 

[vonnoobie]

Yep, it's your crawl, walk, run before you get your own boats. Possibly a similar arrangement might be possible with the RN if they could be convinced to permanently base one SSN in Australia. A long shot but you don't know until you try.

Free parking, Bring your sub, bring your Frigate, your destroyer, your carrier .. -T&C's: vessels parked are at use of RAN-

 

[Redlands18]

Yep, it's your crawl, walk, run before you get your own boats. Possibly a similar arrangement might be possible with the RN if they could be convinced to permanently base one SSN in Australia. A long shot but you don't know until you try.

Yes and Mum and Dad are still planning the wedding

 

[Redlands18]

AUKUS members say plans on track for US and UK to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarine fleet - ABC News
On track for the Mar 23 decision on the SSN Fleet and the deadline for the first Sub and we won't have to pay extra for taxes to pay for it. Overall project costs are also expected to be announced in March. DEFSEC Austin said that Australia risks a "capability gap" as its Naval fleet ages and said "we will not allow Australia to have a capability gap going forward". Not sure the US can help us that much with the Surface fleet issues.

 

[hauritz]

Putting all the pieces together it would seem that the US, UK and Australia are all likely to collaborate on a common sub design. In other words there will be no competition for a new submarine between the US and UK. This makes sense since Australia will be able to use Britain's greater experience in conducting international ship building programs while also benefit from the savings of tapping into the mass production line being run in the US.

Gilday calls for more collaboration with allies on operations, tech development

The chief of naval operations is interested in "every area where I can collaborate more closely" with allies and partners, be it current operations at sea or the development of future weapons.

www.defensenews.com

Down side is that this will be the next generation of submarines that at this stage are still well and truly paper ships. There is a suggestion that Australian ship builders work beside US/UK builders for at least one complete build cycle, which means that construction on our own submarines could be pushed back even further.

The US could be willing to provide at least one submarine that would be joint manned by Australia and US crew but still be ostensibly under US control. The Collins class will start to be withdrawn from around 2038 and will be all gone by 2046. Hopefully there will be at least one Australian built SSN by then, but this is looking like it will be an increasing slow and drawn out process. It wouldn't surprise me if construction of this new submarine won't even commence until the late 2030s so it will be touch and go if there will be any built before the Collins retired.

I would suggest that this might also increase the likelihood of Australia buying something like the B-21 since there will be a looming capability gap existing in the navy. Even just the ability to conduct long range, stealthy reconnaissance might be enough to justify a squadron of these aircraft all paid for by a 10 year delay in the submarine program.

 

[Wombat000]

IMHO the political/ geo strategic posturing potential of a B-21 capability - as a response to extended SSN delays - may be a motivator? Perhaps this type of incentive to decision makers shouldn’t be underestimated?
However I remain otherwise dubious of its return for investment value in ADF service.

….. if it had Maritime Strike capability (it is supposed to be a stealth ordinance hauler), then that would be a much stronger argument for it.

 

[ngatimozart]

All I see WRT various commentaries about the SSN's, is a lot of talking heads yapping like dingoes and none of them knowing any more that the average bloke and blokess on the street. The people who do know anything are firmly keeping their mouths shut as they should. Everything has been gone over and rehashed, especially on here, and it's becoming monotonous. Much the same with the B-21 posts.