Whilst better than a kick in the teeth, it’s still not as generous as the MSBS bonus (the absence of which is only starting to bite). $50k taxed for 3 years; interesting how much difference it makes.
You forget the benifit that constant interaction will have on both sides.
It has been my experence that many expat pacific islanders often return home, bringing their their accumulated wealth, knowledge and personal relationships with them to the benifit of both countries.,
AndyinOz
Member
I wonder if perhaps the idea of a 'Pacific Battalion or whatever formation it might end up taking might be something that could be utilize more so in the event of a natural disaster, especially in the Pacific region that the ADF might usually respond to. Granted those sorts of circumstances do happen infrequently, but they still do happen. That does to my mind gel a little with the conclusion that seems to have been reached recently that the ADF should not necessarily be the 'go to' agency for disaster response and relief. Of course I do not discount the idea that the ADF might need to take the lead in such a situation etc. But to boost the numbers available for response from the Pacific partners in the region could free up resources with the ADF for other primary purposes.
I am not sure if this is at least in part the idea for the idea of bringing in people from outside Australia under the umbrella of the ADF. As others have said it might well have a knock on effect of promoting the development of knowledge and skills within partner nations as well. So long as those involved and their absence from their home defence organisation does not diminish capacity or capability. As for other sorts of uses outside that limited scope I imagine there is the issue of political consensus, if the unit is to be used for purposes outside of that I wonder if it could be a little bit like herding cats but still an interesting concept for the situation I imagine. I would be curious if others have an insight.
I am not sure if this is at least in part the idea for the idea of bringing in people from outside Australia under the umbrella of the ADF. As others have said it might well have a knock on effect of promoting the development of knowledge and skills within partner nations as well. So long as those involved and their absence from their home defence organisation does not diminish capacity or capability. As for other sorts of uses outside that limited scope I imagine there is the issue of political consensus, if the unit is to be used for purposes outside of that I wonder if it could be a little bit like herding cats but still an interesting concept for the situation I imagine. I would be curious if others have an insight.
InterestedParty
Active Member
I am no expert on Pacific relations but watching the issues with the Pacific Forum in recent years makes me concerned how useful a Pacific battalion would be in the actual Pacific area.
How would the Solomons react to an ADF group that included Fijian troops and vice versa.
Would such a unit be divided on national lines or mixed, would there be a Fijian company that could be deployed to areas where that would not cause a problem.
I am not picking on Fiji, just using it as an example.
I think a Pacific battalion is a great idea otherwise, for military and political/soft power reasons
How would the Solomons react to an ADF group that included Fijian troops and vice versa.
Would such a unit be divided on national lines or mixed, would there be a Fijian company that could be deployed to areas where that would not cause a problem.
I am not picking on Fiji, just using it as an example.
I think a Pacific battalion is a great idea otherwise, for military and political/soft power reasons
While not adverse to the idea of a pacific battalion, I think having them spread throughout the ADF as a regular member would be of greater benifit.
Have it as a mode of entry. If they like it and decide to stay then open up the rest of the ADF to them.
This is how the ready reserve used to work. They got some of the best and brightest in key roles, providing coaching and mentoring to young people who may not have otherwise enlisted.
If they enjoyed the experience, then they had the opportunity to go full time.
Perhaps the Pacific BTN could be part of the ready reserve?
So for those who are keen on the pacific battalion concept, how do you propose to get past the citizenship requirement ? Currently to join the ADF you must be an Australian citizen or doing a lateral transfer from another military where the skillset is recognised and you can get a fast track / citizenship waiver, then you have the security clearance bridge to cross which depending on the job requirement is no easy feat. Most ADF jobs now have a minimum Secret level requirement which also requires Australian citizenship or a waiver.
So, do we fast track their citizenship to commence their training and then hope they can also pass security vetting ? Or would it come under say a temporary contract for 4 years under a waiver and then if they want to stay they have to gain full citizenship ? If you go down the waiver path, who accepts the risk and signs off on it ?
Lots of things to consider before you start talking about increasing numbers of ADF member via overseas recruitment.
So, do we fast track their citizenship to commence their training and then hope they can also pass security vetting ? Or would it come under say a temporary contract for 4 years under a waiver and then if they want to stay they have to gain full citizenship ? If you go down the waiver path, who accepts the risk and signs off on it ?
Lots of things to consider before you start talking about increasing numbers of ADF member via overseas recruitment.
There's also the sovereignty problem as well.
InterestedParty
Active Member
Presumably the British had the same or similar problems with having the Gurkhas in the British army for 100 years or so and they seem to have managed. I had a relative who was a colonel in the Gurkhas but unfortunately is dead so I have no insights to offer.
It depends upon how the mooted Pacific Battalion is structured; whether or not the Pacific Island soldiers part of their home defence force, or they are attested into the ADF? If the former the sovereignty problems arise because say Australia wants to deploy the battalion in a situation that some or all of the contributing nations disagree with. They would rightfully refuse permission for their contingent(s) to be deployed. It's the same when No 2 Sqn RNZAF, was permanently deployed to Nowra during the 1990s.
"Had"? The British army still has Gurkhas, & via the (British-run) Indian Army has had for over 200 years.
Gurkhas join the British army as individuals, but there's an agreement between the governments of the UK & Nepal governing them, dating from 1947, but updated. India's also a party.
It's implicit in some of the conditions that they can't be used against Nepal (& I expect that's never been considered to be a possibility), but apart from that there just seems to be a requirement to inform Nepal about major deployments of Gurkhas.
https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/brigade-of-gurkhas/
From 2005 -
Tri-Partite Agreement
Australia like other countries have been ordering the HIMARS because of the effectiveness shown in Ukraine recently though its accuracy has been thwarted by electronic jamming by Russian units ,experts will likely tweak the HIMARS to counter this, it's not known how successful this will be ,This begs the Question should the A.D.F invest in the development in electronic warfare as well to counter such missiles
Russia's jamming of US-provided rocket systems complicates Ukraine's war effort | CNN Politics
Russian troops have learned how to knock HIMARS missiles off course with the help of electronic warfare | Mind.ua
Russia's jamming of US-provided rocket systems complicates Ukraine's war effort | CNN Politics
Russian troops have learned how to knock HIMARS missiles off course with the help of electronic warfare | Mind.ua
In terms on Electronic warfare for our current systems already in place we are already punching above our weight and we are still bringing in more systems and planned upgrades for existing systems yet again. The ADF is well set up in EW.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Australia possesses the EA-18G Growler for starters, Ukraine does not possess anything remotely in the same class.
What I was trying to suggest was should the A.D.F have mobile land based systems capable of diverting guided missiles similar to what Russia uses who are acknowledged as a leader in such systems , I'm not suggesting this warfare is the be all and end all even these articles go into the limitations of such , and what the capability of the A.D.F is in this type of warfare is not public or set out in capability goals I can find online
The Fall and Rise of Russian Electronic Warfare - IEEE Spectrum
Analysing the limitations of Russian EW capabilities in Ukraine - Army Technology (army-technology.com)
The Fall and Rise of Russian Electronic Warfare - IEEE Spectrum
Analysing the limitations of Russian EW capabilities in Ukraine - Army Technology (army-technology.com)
Given the guidance used in ATACMS and GMLRS, this might well just be Russian propaganda; I’m not sure how EW would be able to affect inertial guidance. While the GPS signal could potentially be interferred with, that is only auxiliary in GMLS as I understand it; and doing so, without stuffing up your own systems, would be quite a challenge.
You are not the first to have considered such a capability…
Force Level land based EW was first mentioned if I recall in the 2016 DWP, re-affirmed in FSP2020 and given Ministerial approval in July 2022.
This is on top of existing capability already delivered under the initial tranche of force level EW capability.
From ADM on the topic.
Aussie optimist
Member
Looks like the defence budget is staying relatively flat in terms of inflation. 2024 budget will be $52.558 billion. Not really a bad result, but not really seeing the national urgency in capability build up either.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
What I find makes interesting reading in the defence budget papers are the tables showing unit availability days for RAN vessels and flying hours for all aircraft, stated for each service. I'm sure there are stories to be told beneath those figures, especially when you compare from year to year.
For example, the E-7A Wedgetail fleet was set a target in the current financial year of a total of 3600 flying hours. That would have been a significant improvement on the previous year, which came in at 2850 hours. Yet the budget papers out tonight show they're now expected to only achieve 3045 hours this year. For next year, and through the forward estimates, the target remains 3600. This example is repeated for some other aircraft types.
From a different perspective, the F/A-18F was set a target in the '22-'23 budget for that year and the forward estimates (meaning the following three years) of a total of 4050 hours a year. That's in spite of having flown 4500 hours in '21-'22, and being on track to fly 4670 hours this year.
The flying hours set for the Super Hornets, the Growlers and the F-35s are interesting in themselves. In the new budget, looking at the latest year in the estimates, 2026-27, the totals work out to an average of 168.75, 233.33, and 187.5 per aircraft respectively. The figures go to the questions of whether we have enough pilots and whether pilots are getting enough hours. Noting that the recent review, which otherwise didn't have much for the RAAF, did make particular mention of the need for more aircrew.
For example, the E-7A Wedgetail fleet was set a target in the current financial year of a total of 3600 flying hours. That would have been a significant improvement on the previous year, which came in at 2850 hours. Yet the budget papers out tonight show they're now expected to only achieve 3045 hours this year. For next year, and through the forward estimates, the target remains 3600. This example is repeated for some other aircraft types.
From a different perspective, the F/A-18F was set a target in the '22-'23 budget for that year and the forward estimates (meaning the following three years) of a total of 4050 hours a year. That's in spite of having flown 4500 hours in '21-'22, and being on track to fly 4670 hours this year.
The flying hours set for the Super Hornets, the Growlers and the F-35s are interesting in themselves. In the new budget, looking at the latest year in the estimates, 2026-27, the totals work out to an average of 168.75, 233.33, and 187.5 per aircraft respectively. The figures go to the questions of whether we have enough pilots and whether pilots are getting enough hours. Noting that the recent review, which otherwise didn't have much for the RAAF, did make particular mention of the need for more aircrew.
I found it interesting in the DSR that hardening of the Norhtern airbases is recommended. It doesn't actually state was level of hardening is needed.
See below extract from attached article:
"I'm not a big fan of hardening infrastructure," Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, head of Pacific Air Forces, the top Air Force command for that region, told The War Zone and other outlets at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association Warfare Symposium back in March. "The reason is because of the advent of precision-guided weapons... you saw what we did to the Iraqi Air Force and their hardened aircraft shelters. They’re not so hard when you put a 2,000-pound bomb right through the roof."
He goes onto mention that upgraded base defences & adding dispersal alternatives as the better options than hardening.
Just seeing what others think. Cheers.
New Era Of Deception Tactics Key To Air Force Surviving Pacific Fight (thedrive.com)
See below extract from attached article:
"I'm not a big fan of hardening infrastructure," Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, head of Pacific Air Forces, the top Air Force command for that region, told The War Zone and other outlets at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association Warfare Symposium back in March. "The reason is because of the advent of precision-guided weapons... you saw what we did to the Iraqi Air Force and their hardened aircraft shelters. They’re not so hard when you put a 2,000-pound bomb right through the roof."
He goes onto mention that upgraded base defences & adding dispersal alternatives as the better options than hardening.
Just seeing what others think. Cheers.
New Era Of Deception Tactics Key To Air Force Surviving Pacific Fight (thedrive.com)