ADF General discussion thread

[Morgo]

It looks a bit like the ghosts of Dibb and Beasley are still running Labor’s defence policy, if these early leaks are accurate - back to fortress Australia. Let’s hope not; that is a discredited concept.

It appears to me that it’s actually the opposite.

The focus seems so be on a lighter, more deployable expeditionary force - but deployable to the archipelago to our north rather than to fight a land war in Eurasia. This neatly explains the expansion of amphib capability and the swapping of tracked SPH for lighter and longer ranged wheeled HIMARS. A focus on heavy armour would unavoidably result in a less deployable force.

I think this is a sensible shift as, frankly, the likelihood ofus needing to deploy a mass of armoured troops to the Middle East again any time soon is very low, With fracking turning the US into a net energy exporter and a green energy revolution underway the region is increasingly less relevant.

That said, I think other commenters are 100% right that keeping a sovereign manufacturing capability for IFVs, SPH and probably Hawkei warm is really important in case of mobilisation. And it looks like this is where we are heading.

 

[Oldbeagle]

My concern is more on the Corporate arrangements of Hanwha Defence Australia, like you I believe that a sovereign capability to produce SPH, IFVs and other material is vital. Given that reports are correct and the SPH and support vehicles are capped at 45 and the order for IFVs is limited to 129 is it still worth the Company building a factory, investing in plant and equipment as well as recruiting and training staff for such limited production runs ?
Instead might they offer to import the SPHs from Korea and also if selected the Redbacks as well and how would this effect the Government's stated long term plans? interesting times ahead.

 

[Wombat000]

I’m thinking we need to perhaps modify mindsets.
where as in the past we may have purchased capability in bulk buys, typically from overseas, I think we are moving towards domestically produced capability acquisition.

akin to the ship building plan, domestic production infrastructure seems to be evolving, therefore it suggests capability will begin to now be acquired by tranches.

to Me, this has the benefit of a controlled introduction of new kit, the evolution of previous iteration, and allowing diversification of funds in the interim. - actually quite clever, however it does perhaps slow the wider uptake of more modern capability.

so smaller number initial buys has a logic, presuming of course subsequent orders are placed before the production lines run cold, like the Bushmaster.

 

[Stampede]

My concern is more on the Corporate arrangements of Hanwha Defence Australia, like you I believe that a sovereign capability to produce SPH, IFVs and other material is vital. Given that reports are correct and the SPH and support vehicles are capped at 45 and the order for IFVs is limited to 129 is it still worth the Company building a factory, investing in plant and equipment as well as recruiting and training staff for such limited production runs ?
Instead might they offer to import the SPHs from Korea and also if selected the Redbacks as well and how would this effect the Government's stated long term plans? interesting times ahead.

Good question.

We don't know the winner of LAND 400 Phase 3 so it is speculative at this stage Hanwha gets the gig for the IFV.
That said, the point still stands when is a production run too small to warrant local product versus an overseas supply.
I'm thinking whoever wins and what ever numbers come out of the DSR, production will no doubt be made in OZ for both SPG's and IFV's which suggests both commitment and scope for increased numbers done the track.

As to force structure and the light versus heavy debate lets just see what vehicle numbers are initially planned and then workout what the Brigades will look like going forward.

Dynamic times


Cheers S

It appears to me that it’s actually the opposite.

The focus seems so be on a lighter, more deployable expeditionary force - but deployable to the archipelago to our north rather than to fight a land war in Eurasia. This neatly explains the expansion of amphib capability and the swapping of tracked SPH for lighter and longer ranged wheeled HIMARS. A focus on heavy armour would unavoidably result in a less deployable force.

I think this is a sensible shift as, frankly, the likelihood ofus needing to deploy a mass of armoured troops to the Middle East again any time soon is very low, With fracking turning the US into a net energy exporter and a green energy revolution underway the region is increasingly less relevant.

That said, I think other commenters are 100% right that keeping a sovereign manufacturing capability for IFVs, SPH and probably Hawkei warm is really important in case of mobilisation. And it looks like this is where we are heading.

Just a note Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia did not have a MBT and all the other heavy stuff a few decades ago.
Tanks were used in Vietnam including our own Centurions.

SE Asia has a wide variety of geography and could equally throw up a wide variety of contingency's.

I'd rule nothing in or out regarding scenario's and the forces and type of equipment needed to meet the challenge at hand.

I will however note that the heavy stuff does cost significant dollars and for a balanced defence force good choices have to be made.

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

My concern is more on the Corporate arrangements of Hanwha Defence Australia, like you I believe that a sovereign capability to produce SPH, IFVs and other material is vital. Given that reports are correct and the SPH and support vehicles are capped at 45 and the order for IFVs is limited to 129 is it still worth the Company building a factory, investing in plant and equipment as well as recruiting and training staff for such limited production runs ?
Instead might they offer to import the SPHs from Korea and also if selected the Redbacks as well and how would this effect the Government's stated long term plans? interesting times ahead.

Hanwa aren't paying for the factory, plant and equipment, the Australian Government is as part of the contract, I'm not even real sure Hanwa will own it or it is leased to them as part of building the AS-9/10 and possibly the IFVs. Hanwa would not even be allowed to build vehicles there for export, without Australian Government approval.

 

[Morgo]

Just a note Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia did not have a MBT and all the other heavy stuff a few decades ago.
Tanks were used in Vietnam including our own Centurions.

SE Asia has a wide variety of geography and could equally throw up a wide variety of contingency's.

I'd rule nothing in or out regarding scenario's and the forces and type of equipment needed to meet the challenge at hand.

I will however note that the heavy stuff does cost significant dollars and for a balanced defence force good choices have to be made.

Cheers S

Yep agreed. Definitely a role for heavy armour if we have the connectors.

Based on current numbers it looks like we will be able to sustain a deployment of 20 MBT / 40 IFV plus artillery/NASAMS and accompanying infantry effectively in a littoral environment.

While it’s not going to beat the Russians or the PLA on its own, having a force of say 4 MBTs and 8 IFVs show up on your remote island / beach (or alternatively trying to dislodge this group) is not something anyone would relish.

 

[Volkodav]

We are not (at this point anyway) getting rid of heavy armour.

We are still getting heavy AIFVs, just reduced numbers, but from the sound of things, we will still be building them locally. We are still getting SPGs, though reduced numbers.

There have been no reports of cuts to the MBT plans, or the on going Boxer acquisition. We will still have more Bushmasters than the current ORBAT says we need. Hawkei, once it's teething issues are sorted, will give army a capability they have not had since shortly after WWII.

Army aviation is still being expanded, we are still getting long range precision fires. Unmanned capabilities are being acquired, expanded, introduced. Cyber is being grown.

Littoral capability is being massively revitalised and expanded after almost disappearing.

What we are losing is the short term future ability to sustain an identical brigade structure in theatre in definately. Ironically we have not had this capability since Vietnam and conscription. So we are not losing the capability, we simply aren't growing it.

The army will be harder, more lethal, more versatile and effective than it has ever been in peace time.

When you look at the dross The Australian has been pushing for a couple of years now, the army is still going to be much heavier and harder than they believe it should be.

 

[CJR]

IFVs? There's potential devil in the details...

190ish 'pure' IFVs is the direct combat elements of two mech battalions [1] fully kitted out but with few hulls available as spares and the support elements still stuck in trucks, PMVs and/or recycled M113s. Alternatively 190ish IFVs and derivative hulls (engineering vehicles, mortar carriers etc. etc.) might be one mech battalion fully kitted out in both the direct combat; support elements and support units plus a good stock of spare hulls... I don't know which of those two outcomes would be the best option (able to stand up a full armored brigade but lacking in tracked support assets and potentially difficult to sustain in action vs a single but fully equipped mech infantry battalion...).

SPH? If we do actually get extra HIMARS (plus ideally loitering munitions or NLOS missiles...) I don't think it's that much of a loss.

[1] I can't find Aus specific numbers but google gives anything from 50 to 90 IFV per battalion... given 400ish hulls as the plan to equip three mech battalions plus support elements I'd assume Aus is towards the higher end.

Edit: Had misread the numbers reported in the media (192 vs 129...). So, above per IFVs is incorrect... we're instead well into the one mech battalion with about the minimal viable training and spare hulls...

 

[old faithful]

The review will reveal all.
We may see a completely new approach on mech organisations for the ADF.

 

[Volkodav]

The review will reveal all.
We may see a completely new approach on mech organisations for the ADF.

True.

It is still 190 more IFVs than we have ever had. More MBTs than we have had since the 80s, while enhancing CAV, engineers, aviation and precision fires.

 

[Redlands18]

The most important thing right now is we are getting factories up and running building world class AFVs, we have several years yet to increase numbers. We can build Armoured 4WDs in 2 different sizes, we can build heavy 8x8 AFVs, we can soon build heavy tracked SPHs and are planning on building heavy tracked IFVs, when was the last time we could do all this?

 

[Morgo]

The most important thing right now is we are getting factories up and running building world class AFVs, we have several years yet to increase numbers. We can build Armoured 4WDs in 2 different sizes, we can build heavy 8x8 AFVs, we can soon build heavy tracked SPHs and are planning on building heavy tracked IFVs, when was the last time we could do all this?

Don’t forget missiles which may include up to Tomahawk / PrSM / SM-6, our own advanced munitions production, potentially world leading UAVs and top notch shipbuilding, which in the medium term will be building the most complex warships in the world.

Despite the number of other stupid things the previous Government I reckon they did a cracking job on Defence Industry compared to where we were 10 years ago.

Will be interesting to see where the current lot take things tomorrow, but personally I think things are looking positive.

 

[Bob53]

IFVs? There's potential devil in the details...

190ish 'pure' IFVs is the direct combat elements of two mech battalions [1] fully kitted out but with few hulls available as spares and the support elements still stuck in trucks, PMVs and/or recycled M113s. Alternatively 190ish IFVs and derivative hulls (engineering vehicles, mortar carriers etc. etc.) might be one mech battalion fully kitted out in both the direct combat; support elements and support units plus a good stock of spare hulls... I don't know which of those two outcomes would be the best option (able to stand up a full armored brigade but lacking in tracked support assets and potentially difficult to sustain in action vs a single but fully equipped mech infantry battalion...).

SPH? If we do actually get extra HIMARS (plus ideally loitering munitions or NLOS missiles...) I don't think it's that much of a loss.

[1] I can't find Aus specific numbers but google gives anything from 50 to 90 IFV per battalion... given 400ish hulls as the plan to equip three mech battalions plus support elements I'd assume Aus is towards the higher end.

I’m in agreement re reduced SPH numbers. I’d much rather HIMARs flown in to 100-200kms from the lines by C130 and its ability to rapidly move and fire multiple long range munitions than a SPH trucked to within 60-80kms of the lines.

The downside is can a HIMARS provide a volume of fire and the cost per shot of the SPH?

On the surface HIMARS appears to have a much lighter and potentially lower risk logistics tail so that again favours that system.

 

[Redlands18]

DSR to drop at 12pm according to the ABC

 

[Morgo]

Sounds like they’re punting the project level detail to next year?

 

[Tasman]

I strongly recommend that members download the public version of the Defence Strategic Review which is available at: https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review.

Tas

 

[Julian 82]

I strongly recommend that members download the public version of the Defence Strategic Review which is available at: https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review.

Tas

I read it but it is really light on detail. A bit of a damp squib. Other than confirming some capabilities that the previous government committed to in the DCP, it cuts certain capabilities (e.g army close combat forces) and puts the numbers of other capabilities in doubt (e.g it could be construed that Hunters will be cut to fund corvettes). Importantly, no new or expanded capabilities are promised. We don’t even know if the numbers of long range fires go beyond what the previous DCP promised.

 

[Aardvark144]

I read it but it is really light on detail. A bit of a damp squib. Other than confirming some capabilities that the previous government committed to in the DCP, it cuts certain capabilities (e.g army close combat forces) and puts the numbers of other capabilities in doubt (e.g it could be construed that Hunters will be cut to fund corvettes). Importantly, no new or expanded capabilities are promised. We don’t even know if the numbers of long range fires go beyond what the previous DCP promised.

As to being light on specific capabilities, I refer to my comment of Apr 15:

I note in the AFR today that Industry believes that whilst the Review will make recommendations as to the capabilities the Military needs, the Government will leave it up to the three Services to produce the shopping list. I can see where this is going.
I do however hope that I am proved wrong.

 

[ADMk2]

I strongly recommend that members download the public version of the Defence Strategic Review which is available at: https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review.

Tas

9 months taken to avoid any really tough decisions (ie: RAN surface fleet force structure) and now pushed back another 6 months so they still don’t have to make a decision… LOL. Advocated for larger number of smaller surface vessels, which could mean and / or, or could mean Hunters will be scaled back. Doesn’t of course commit to anything.

A bit of tinkering around the edges with RAAF, B-21A ruled out absolutely was the only real surprise. JSM for F-35A is about the only new capability I saw. Tells ADF to extract it’s digit and hurry up and acquire a bloody Medium ranged Air defence system ASAP. I expect this points to an entirely off the shelf acquisition, which likely points at Patriot PAC-3 but we’ll see.

Army loses 3/4 of it’s planned IFV’s and 50% of it’s SPG’s but seems to be retaining tank capability and supposedly acquires more HIMARS, more land based anti-ship missiles (which could well end up being one and the same thing) and more or at least accelerated littoral manoeuvre craft.

Confirmation AH-64E will be based wholly in Townsville alongside CH-47F, while Blackhawk and Seahawk will be in Sydney, Nowra and Oakey.

No mention of what is happening in Darwin once the Tigers go. Perhaps their space will be re-developed for Army’s littoral manoeuvre HQ but there is no mention of that.

Overall very bland and disappointing given the priority placed on this…

 

[Bob53]

Interesting note in this article on the Age. Additional spending offset by $7.9 billions savings on infantry fight vehicles and self propelled howitzers. For close to 1/4 the number of IFV ($24 billion program) and half the SPH ($3billion program) we save only $8 billion???? Hopefully addition orders take place down track. I realise the numbers would not be linear for smaller numbers however this looks to be north of $17 billion for 129 IFVs.

Defence must fire up long-range capability to enter the ‘missile age’: review — The Age

The defence strategic review says the “biggest shake-up in decades” is needed to manage a possible major conflict in our region between China and the US.

apple.news