ADF General discussion thread

[Morgo]

1, government ideology that the private sector do things better than government, and 2, the big 4 consultancy firms doing a good job convincing APS executives that they can do things that public servants can't.

I think it's more #1 than #2 - the Big 4 obviously make a lot of money from Government and Defence in particular, but not to the tune of $15bn+. For example, PwC recent woes have revealed that they earn about $300m per year from the Federal Government. Say 75% of this is from Defence = $225m, x 3 (as PwC are the biggest of the big 4) = $675m. That's a rounding error in this spend.

I want to know who this money is going to.

Is it Serco et al?

 

[Rob c]

but it became mantra in the APS that if you had to start a new project then the first thing you did was hire consultants to implement it. And here we are.

Another reason I put this behavior by politicians, is a form of political cowardice as the don't want to have to make a decision that can be seen to be wrong. So to guard against this they kick the can down the road for as long as possible by using consultants followed by reviews and more consolations, then if anything goes wrong it becomes someone else's fault for suppling the wrong data or advice. This behavior means that they are fully covered and due to the extended time to reach a decision there is less time to be involved in further decision making. A win, win for the polly.

 

[ngatimozart]

Another reason I put this behavior by politicians, is a form of political cowardice as the don't want to have to make a decision that can be seen to be wrong. So to guard against this they kick the can down the road for as long as possible by using consultants followed by reviews and more consolations, then if anything goes wrong it becomes someone else's fault for suppling the wrong data or advice. This behavior means that they are fully covered and due to the extended time to reach a decision there is less time to be involved in further decision making. A win, win for the polly.

Dead right and just not pollies. I once had worked with an officer (Flt LT) who only ever made one decision, and that was not to make a decision. Was a waste of space and O2.

 

[Bob53]

As somebody who was in Defence for more than 50 years, I second DDG 38. Until the 90s and a number of rationalist economics reviews we had the power in uniform and the APS to make our own judgements and do the work ourselves. Since then the “contractors are better “ mantra, patently BS (you get the same, or less experienced people but have to pay for profit) has gutted us - but somebody still has to do the things we used to do. I am, however, sceptical of the figure, particularly if it is not given a time boundary. ANAO has its own issues and agenda.

And don’t get me started about the downskilling of the total Australian workforce as contractors bleed experienced staff from the APS and Defence, but don’t have appropriate training programs to generate more, so we end up importing Poms and Yanks and Philippinos et al…

Well typically consultants ask you what they need to know then they tell you what you told them when they submit their recommendations. The number 1 rule when employing consultings is make sure the brief is complete and tight. Laziness in this area ends up tripling the costs.
rules around restricting FTE employment means consultants are used to circumvent FTE number restrictions usually at much higher cost.

 

[Redlands18]

Churn a concern as ADF tackles 'scary' troop shortfall (msn.com)
Australian Defence Force chief Angus Campbell renews calls to strip medals from Afghanistan war veterans (msn.com)
Royal Australian Navy Fleet Command records 690 complaints of unacceptable behaviour in two years - ABC News
And we wonder why recruitment for the ADF is low, these articles will continue to hurt the ADF. The issues with spouses and children have always been there for members but I would suspect that a much greater % of spouses have careers of their own compared to 40 years ago and are less likely to be prepared to move to the other side of the country.

 

[Vivendi]

delete (sorry wrong thread)

 

[Bob53]

I have mentioned in other ADF threads that I suspect that the recent and current ADF reviews will be a cost cutting exercise dressed up as a new strategy. We were recently fed a diet of things must be delivered sooner to address the almost immediate risks.

Todays Australian carrys this article Which has me scratching my head about how we are accelerating missile purchases amongst other things.


Extract- Defence’s core funding will go backwards over the next three years, new analysis reveals, despite the federal government’s warnings of unprecedented strategic circumstances.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute found the May budget reduced Defence’s core funding by $1.5bn through to 2025-26, compared to that previously budgeted.

 

[Bob53]

Does anyone else feel the recent AU donation to the Ukraine is a bit of a cop out?

Australia pledges $100m in new military support for Ukraine, including vehicles and ammunition | Australian politics | The Guardian

Anthony Albanese said the military package, plus $10m in humanitarian aid, would make a ‘tangible difference on the battlefield’

amp.theguardian.com

They asked for Hawkei, Bushmaster and Abrams.
We are Sending 28 X M113, some unspecified Special Operations Vehicles (which I suspect will be Landrover based PLVs) some trucks and trailers and 105mm ammunition. It looks like most of this can be purchased at a Grays online surplus sale.
And apparently the value is $110m $US? Sounds like they are using the new replacement value …. A 50+ year old M113 would be worth maybe $200k.

As far as I know the 105mm has been surplus for around 8 years. Why wasn’t it all just shipped off at the start of this war? It’s virtually worthless to the ADF.

I’m sure the Ukrainians will be happy to accept but I would ask would we want AU soldiers using this equipment in the battle environment the Ukrainians are experiencing?

I note Marles is still saying we are unable to send Hawkei for a reason that cannot be disclosed? As it stands I don’t think the current gov have sent any Bushmasters either… and the Abrams are about to be replaced…

 

[TScott]

Does anyone else feel the recent AU donation to the Ukraine is a bit of a cop out?

Australia pledges $100m in new military support for Ukraine, including vehicles and ammunition | Australian politics | The Guardian

Anthony Albanese said the military package, plus $10m in humanitarian aid, would make a ‘tangible difference on the battlefield’

amp.theguardian.com

They asked for Hawkei, Bushmaster and Abrams.
We are Sending 28 X M113, some unspecified Special Operations Vehicles (which I suspect will be Landrover based PLVs) some trucks and trailers and 105mm ammunition. It looks like most of this can be purchased at a Grays online surplus sale.
And apparently the value is $110m $US? Sounds like they are using the new replacement value …. A 50+ year old M113 would be worth maybe $200k.

As far as I know the 105mm has been surplus for around 8 years. Why wasn’t it all just shipped off at the start of this war? It’s virtually worthless to the ADF.

I’m sure the Ukrainians will be happy to accept but I would ask would we want AU soldiers using this equipment in the battle environment the Ukrainians are experiencing?

I note Marles is still saying we are unable to send Hawkei for a reason that cannot be disclosed? As it stands I don’t think the current gov have sent any Bushmasters either… and the Abrams are about to be replaced…

Hasn't there been plenty of photo's of Australian supplied Bushmasters in the field in Ukraine?

 

[vonnoobie]

Does anyone else feel the recent AU donation to the Ukraine is a bit of a cop out?

Australia pledges $100m in new military support for Ukraine, including vehicles and ammunition | Australian politics | The Guardian

Anthony Albanese said the military package, plus $10m in humanitarian aid, would make a ‘tangible difference on the battlefield’

amp.theguardian.com

They asked for Hawkei, Bushmaster and Abrams.
We are Sending 28 X M113, some unspecified Special Operations Vehicles (which I suspect will be Landrover based PLVs) some trucks and trailers and 105mm ammunition. It looks like most of this can be purchased at a Grays online surplus sale.
And apparently the value is $110m $US? Sounds like they are using the new replacement value …. A 50+ year old M113 would be worth maybe $200k.

As far as I know the 105mm has been surplus for around 8 years. Why wasn’t it all just shipped off at the start of this war? It’s virtually worthless to the ADF.

I’m sure the Ukrainians will be happy to accept but I would ask would we want AU soldiers using this equipment in the battle environment the Ukrainians are experiencing?

I note Marles is still saying we are unable to send Hawkei for a reason that cannot be disclosed? As it stands I don’t think the current gov have sent any Bushmasters either… and the Abrams are about to be replaced…

Yes and no. Could Australia financially afford to do more to support Ukraine? Yes. Do we have the assets in our own stocks to do so? Not so much.

Government after government from both sides always tend to buy the bare minimum, some times we will get a little more then that (Bushmaster PMV), other times less then that (M1 Abrams). For that reason it has put us in the position we have nothing left to hand over out of our own stocks with out having a direct impact on our own forces.

In regards to what is being sent

• 105mm shells - That is assuming they are coming from our own stocks and not purchased from else where. IF we had or have stocks of them sitting and didn't give them earlier that is a major blunder by the GoA.
• As to the financial amount - The Special operations vehicles are more likely to be the HMT 400 Extenda's of which we have or are acquiring some 120 or so of them with the most recent order being 89 vehicles for $105m, The M113's are likely also valued at their previous upgrade cost which all but zero houred the hulls at an average cost of $2.32m each and the trucks cost a good $700k or so each on average based on last order. Based on those figures you get circa $65m in M113's, inc trailers north of $20m in trucks and $16.5m in SOV's.

Now what could the GoA do to provide real help? If not from what things we already have to give away then look into what our industry could supply or what we can buy on Ukraine's half abroad. With our not so long ago investments in 155mm production capacity increases we have a the capacity to easily build 10,000 shells a month (RNM alone can do up to 100,000 shells a year First exports roll out of Rheinmetall NIOA Munitions factory - Australian Defence Magazine), Even factoring in domestic consumption, contractual obligations with exports 5,000 shells a month should have been achievable instead we went and built all of 10,000 shells with France and patted our selves on the back.

 

[the road runner]

Hasn't there been plenty of photo's of Australian supplied Bushmasters in the field in Ukraine?

There has been plenty of videos of bushmasters in Ukraine

Australian Bushmasters in demand on Ukrainian frontline | ABC News - YouTube

Bushmasters are playing a 'very important role' in Ukraine's counter-offensive against Russia - YouTube

 

[Bob53]

Hasn't there been plenty of photo's of Australian supplied Bushmasters in the field in Ukraine?

Yes but they were promised some time ago….

 

[Mikeymike]

Personally I think this is the difference between a package financed within the Defence budget and a package financed by additional money.

Being financed from within, Defence is making a judgement that they don't have that much to spare due to other competing spend priorities and so has cobbled together a package of items they no longer see as priorities or spare.

In regards to what Ukraine actually has been asking for I can sort of understand why they haven't been included:

Hawkei - Suspect this is a combination of the braking issues as well as the fact that army still haven't embedded a support and sustainment operation in Australia and suddenly having to setup a second on the opposite end of the world with competing demands on spares is a major hurdle.

F18s - There could be a few hurdles here, these could be anything from Australian/American bureaucracy, Contractual requirements to Air USA, state of the fleet, to Ukraine deciding they don't want to setup two competing sustainment operations for western jets (F16 vs F18)

Abrams - These are required until army get the replacements, then its a US call as I believe they go back to the US when Australia gets the new ones.

Bushmasters - Personally I think more could have been provided unless Defence decided they are close to the limit of what they can spare with what they have already sent.

Personally I would like Australia to send more and I think its a good excuse to "Stress-test" industry in what they can produce. For example, have Rheinmetall and Thales up their production of ammunition to see what they can realistically produce if required.

I also think you could use it as an excuse to refresh Army stocks - e.g. send another 100 used bushmasters and then order new builds for the army. Believe there is already budget to do this for the bushmaster in the budget.

 

[old faithful]

If The IFV project is to be reduced to 129 vehicles, then we will need every bushmaster we have. I suspect that we will see motorised infantry on a bigger scale than we do now.

 

[Stampede]

If The IFV project is to be reduced to 129 vehicles, then we will need every bushmaster we have. I suspect that we will see motorised infantry on a bigger scale than we do now.

Yep what will 1,3 and 7 Brigades look like going forward.
9 Brigade Heavy.
1,3,7 all continuing as Multi Role Combat Brigades, I think not.
Yep more motorized infantry I'd guess.

Cheers S

 

[ngatimozart]

Yep what will 1,3 and 7 Brigades look like going forward.
9 Brigade Heavy.
1,3,7 all continuing as Multi Role Combat Brigades, I think not.
Yep more motorized infantry I'd guess.

Cheers S

Interestingly the NZ Army is to supply a:

"Motorised Infantry Battle Group (MOT INF BG) in an Australian-led Brigade within an integrated ABCANZ [American, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand] Division” Australia to assist NZ Army recovery under Plan ANZAC - Australian Defence Magazine​

​

That could be the direction that the Aussie Army is heading.

 

[Todjaeger]

Personally I think this is the difference between a package financed within the Defence budget and a package financed by additional money.

Being financed from within, Defence is making a judgement that they don't have that much to spare due to other competing spend priorities and so has cobbled together a package of items they no longer see as priorities or spare.

In regards to what Ukraine actually has been asking for I can sort of understand why they haven't been included:

Hawkei - Suspect this is a combination of the braking issues as well as the fact that army still haven't embedded a support and sustainment operation in Australia and suddenly having to setup a second on the opposite end of the world with competing demands on spares is a major hurdle.

F18s - There could be a few hurdles here, these could be anything from Australian/American bureaucracy, Contractual requirements to Air USA, state of the fleet, to Ukraine deciding they don't want to setup two competing sustainment operations for western jets (F16 vs F18)

Abrams - These are required until army get the replacements, then its a US call as I believe they go back to the US when Australia gets the new ones.

Bushmasters - Personally I think more could have been provided unless Defence decided they are close to the limit of what they can spare with what they have already sent.

Personally I would like Australia to send more and I think its a good excuse to "Stress-test" industry in what they can produce. For example, have Rheinmetall and Thales up their production of ammunition to see what they can realistically produce if required.

I also think you could use it as an excuse to refresh Army stocks - e.g. send another 100 used bushmasters and then order new builds for the army. Believe there is already budget to do this for the bushmaster in the budget.

Something to consider re: kit Australia could send to Ukraine. As much as one might wish for Australia to provide more support and material to Ukraine, one needs to consider both what Australia's strategic concerns are, particularly between now and ~2030, as well as what the limitations are on or of Australian defence industry.

For example, think about Australian 155 mm ordnance. How large are Australian warstocks of 155 mm munitions, and what condition are the warstocks in? How large does the ADF want or feel it needs to be, particularly if a potential conflict in the region were to break out?

From the manufacturing side of things and especially for defence kit which is not really something which can be produced for speculation on later sales, manufacturers really are not going to 'just build' munitions, they are going to build to fulfill orders. If one were to look at the ADM article linked to a few posts back on the Rheinmetall NIOA munitions facility, then one would realize a few fairly significant things. First, the overall facility was apparently designed to produce up to 100k projectiles p.a. at full-rate production whilst running multiple shifts. Secondly, the total projected workforce is ~100, but right now the facility is only at ~60% staff. This is significant because without a large enough staff, there just will not be sufficient bodies to be able to carry out all the production and QA/QC functions needed to run across multiple shifts and meet the planned high production numbers. IMO not much would be gained in attempting a stress test until such a facility was much closer to being fully staffed as well as having production reach full rate.

 

[vonnoobie]

Something to consider re: kit Australia could send to Ukraine. As much as one might wish for Australia to provide more support and material to Ukraine, one needs to consider both what Australia's strategic concerns are, particularly between now and ~2030, as well as what the limitations are on or of Australian defence industry.

For example, think about Australian 155 mm ordnance. How large are Australian warstocks of 155 mm munitions, and what condition are the warstocks in? How large does the ADF want or feel it needs to be, particularly if a potential conflict in the region were to break out?

From the manufacturing side of things and especially for defence kit which is not really something which can be produced for speculation on later sales, manufacturers really are not going to 'just build' munitions, they are going to build to fulfill orders. If one were to look at the ADM article linked to a few posts back on the Rheinmetall NIOA munitions facility, then one would realize a few fairly significant things. First, the overall facility was apparently designed to produce up to 100k projectiles p.a. at full-rate production whilst running multiple shifts. Secondly, the total projected workforce is ~100, but right now the facility is only at ~60% staff. This is significant because without a large enough staff, there just will not be sufficient bodies to be able to carry out all the production and QA/QC functions needed to run across multiple shifts and meet the planned high production numbers. IMO not much would be gained in attempting a stress test until such a facility was much closer to being fully staffed as well as having production reach full rate.

I understand the issues with lead times and domestic requirements etc but to be realistic this conflict has been going on 16 months now, RNM has been manufacturing munitions of 10 months now and I am doubtful if we would be using said facility to its full capacity. GoA could have got this ball rolling a while back to be producing shells today.

 

[Todjaeger]

I understand the issues with lead times and domestic requirements etc but to be realistic this conflict has been going on 16 months now, RNM has been manufacturing munitions of 10 months now and I am doubtful if we would be using said facility to its full capacity. GoA could have got this ball rolling a while back to be producing shells today.

Perhaps, but then again perhaps not. The linked article is dated 5 May 2023 and mentions a targeted work force of ~100, whilst also mentioning that the current workforce is only ~60. The fact that current plans involve a 50% increase in the facility's workforce beyond what is currently is suggest quite a few things to me and none which I would consider unexpected or unusual for what I understand is essentially a new facility.

That, coupled with the article also mentioning that the first export orders are now coming out of the facility would suggest to me that the facility is now finally starting to produce enough munitions to have some 'surplus' production capacity, with likely even more available in the future once the facility is fully staffed and running.

When one also takes into account the publicly unknown size and status of the ADF's 155 mm munitions warstocks, one adds an additional layer of demand to determining whether or not such an ordnance factory could have been producing ordnance intended for the Ukraine earlier.

As it stands, I suspect the only way that AusGov could have gotten things further along than they currently are, is if AusGov had started the processes which led to the factory being established even earlier, and this would likely have required that AusGov recognize the need and value in having such a facility sooner than actually happened. IMO it is worth noting that the Rheinmetall NIOA project office to oversee the construction of the new facility in Maryborough QLD opened in Nov 2019, well before the (current) Russian invasion of Ukraine. Given that time would have been required get the munitions factory site selected, or even an agreement to establish a jointly owned facility before the ~two years of construction to build the facility, one would likely be looking at least as far back as 2018 for when things started happening. If nearly a year after the facility was finished and first started operations, the workforce is still only about 60% of planned, then it will likely be another year before the facility is fully staffed. If one wished that the facility was, now, fully staffed and operational, initial planning for the facility would probably need to have started by 2016. I really do not see anyone having been able to predict the current state of things back in 2016.

 

[ADMk2]

Does anyone else feel the recent AU donation to the Ukraine is a bit of a cop out?

Australia pledges $100m in new military support for Ukraine, including vehicles and ammunition | Australian politics | The Guardian

Anthony Albanese said the military package, plus $10m in humanitarian aid, would make a ‘tangible difference on the battlefield’

amp.theguardian.com

They asked for Hawkei, Bushmaster and Abrams.
We are Sending 28 X M113, some unspecified Special Operations Vehicles (which I suspect will be Landrover based PLVs) some trucks and trailers and 105mm ammunition. It looks like most of this can be purchased at a Grays online surplus sale.
And apparently the value is $110m $US? Sounds like they are using the new replacement value …. A 50+ year old M113 would be worth maybe $200k.

As far as I know the 105mm has been surplus for around 8 years. Why wasn’t it all just shipped off at the start of this war? It’s virtually worthless to the ADF.

I’m sure the Ukrainians will be happy to accept but I would ask would we want AU soldiers using this equipment in the battle environment the Ukrainians are experiencing?

I note Marles is still saying we are unable to send Hawkei for a reason that cannot be disclosed? As it stands I don’t think the current gov have sent any Bushmasters either… and the Abrams are about to be replaced…

The first of the new Abrams won’t arrive until 2024. The last around 2026 on current timelines.

We don’t have enough to meet our own needs as it is (hence the larger buy).

In no way can we deliver Abrams any time soon without compromising our own capability substantially.