ADF General discussion thread

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I have a comedic image of a bunch of Chinese military technical personal looking at images taken from space observing our rather agricultural ADF ground force of soldiers peering back through telescopes trying to track hundreds of their moving satellites.

I can picture the hilarity of Chinese staff trying as best as they can to compose themselves at our feeble attempts to thwart their satellite observation.

Funny if it wasn't so serious.

I'm sure we have access to some cleaver stuff, but really we should have some capability however modest.

My understanding is that satellites have limitations,but the volume of information gathered must at the end of the day provide a pretty good overall picture of what's happening. "down under ".

Cheers S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
PM to stamp authority over nuclear submarine dissent (msn.com)
PM Albanese and DEFMIN Marles are at the ALP National conference today to put forward their case for the SSNs. There is some dissent within the Labor Party about the Subs, mainly from the far left.
Such a conversation in a healthy democracy is to be expected. AUKUS is a big deal and needs to be sold. To be fair I'm still not a 100 percent with it but I'm getting there slowly.

Best of luck to the PM


Cheers S
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I have a comedic image of a bunch of Chinese military technical personal looking at images taken from space observing our rather agricultural ADF ground force of soldiers peering back through telescopes trying to track hundreds of their moving satellites.

I can picture the hilarity of Chinese staff trying as best as they can to compose themselves at our feeble attempts to thwart their satellite observation.

Funny if it wasn't so serious.

I'm sure we have access to some cleaver stuff, but really we should have some capability however modest.

My understanding is that satellites have limitations,but the volume of information gathered must at the end of the day provide a pretty good overall picture of what's happening. "down under ".

Cheers S
I’m thinking that sat data is real time data? And if you have enough of them over a target area they must be able to provide a fairly good picture of a Carrier task force location?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Such a conversation in a healthy democracy is to be expected. AUKUS is a big deal and needs to be sold. To be fair I'm still not a 100 percent with it but I'm getting there slowly.

Best of luck to the PM


Cheers S
Albanese defends against attempt to strike nuclear submarines out of Labor platform - ABC News
The PM managed to get it passed despite an attempt from the Electrical Trade Union Secretary, to have the references to nuclear powered subs struck from Labors platform. Someone remind me, how many members of the Electrical Trade Union would be involved in building Submarines :rolleyes:
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
I know there was a bit of concern discussed back when the Redback was selected that Germany's purchase of Australian built Boxers might be effected. At least as of now it seems the acquisition is still going ahead.
Germany, Australia Sign Letter Of Cooperation For More Than 100 Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier Infantry
The German Boxer vehicles will be built, utilizing production capacity at Rheinmetall's state-of-the-art Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence at Redbank in South East Queensland, alongside the Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles or CRV being produced for the Australian Defence Force.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I see this as a major problem. Aside from reducing the technical capability if the standing force, there is additional cost in having contractors along with the risk issues if we actually have to go to war. Then there is the higher salary and then someone is making a profit on the arrangements . There is certainly a space for contract work for non core like cleaning and gardening but outsourcing ongoing continued technical work is just lazy management. even specific IT capabilities shouldn’t be outsourced.


Defence’s contractor army continues to grow. Defence’s contractor army continues to grow — The Australian

6:33PM SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

Defence’s outsourced workforce has risen to a record 37,330 under the Albanese government as the size of the uniformed force continues to flatline.
The latest external workforce census, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, reveals the number of outsourced workers engaged by the department rose by 7 per cent in the year to March 2023.

Defence’s external workforce is now 18 per cent bigger than the largest uniformed service, the Australian Army, and more than twice as big as the department's public service workforce.

The survey shows the number of contractors engaged by the department was up 3 per cent to 8523, but consultants were down 2 per cent to 361.

The number of personnel employed through outsourced service providers, who do the lion’s share of equipment maintenance, property management and IT tasks, was up 9 per cent to 28,445.

The rate of growth in the overall external workforce was in line with the March 2022 survey, but the rise in contractor numbers – considered the most problematic category – was well under the previous year’s increase of 22 per cent. The continued expansion of Defence’s outsourced workforce, which includes nearly 1000 more contract employees in its acquisition and sustainment arm, comes as the government tries to rein in use of contractors and consultants.
“Defence will reduce reliance on external labour by reducing the number of contractors we engage to conduct work that would normally be undertaken within the Australian public service,” a Defence spokeswoman said.

She said Defence made $145m in savings in 2022-23 from reducing expenditure on external labour, advertising, travel and legal expenses.

Defence is aiming to convert 2000 external labour positions into public servants by the end of 2024, and has committed to increasing the size of its permanent workforce – including uniformed personnel – by 18,500 by 2040.

Strategic Analysis Australia research director Marcus Hellyer said Defence would struggle to bring those with in-demand technical skills into the public service, because as contractors they could command much higher salaries. “Why would they come back into the public service?” he said.

Dr Hellyer said the department, which over the years had worked to slash its public service workforce, paid a steep premium for contract labour, with the average cost of a contractor $290,000 a year compared to $140,000 for a public servant.

He said the slowing rate of contractor growth was “probably a good thing”, but questioned “who is doing the work?”. “Is the work now not being done? Because Defence has not recruited a similar number of public servants and ADF personnel.”

Dr Hellyer said growing demands for personnel to deliver Defence’s big procurement programs, such as the AUKUS submarines and guided weapons enterprise, would make it difficult for the government to deliver on its promise to slash contractor numbers. “We’re setting up the nuclear submarine enterprise with the Australian submarine agency – that’s hundreds and hundreds of jobs,” he said.

“Some of them are public servants, but they’re being sucked out of other jobs in Defence and other agencies, so they’ll need to be backfilled.”

The size of Defence’s uniformed workforce has fallen over the past three years but been largely static over the past decade.

The latest figures follow a 2021 independent review of Defence’s use of contractors, which warned the department was failing to fully test the market, and “does not have any visibility over the cost-of-service delivery and the margins being realised”.

The Australian revealed last month Defence had handed out $4.6bn in contracts since 2018 to an exclusive club of companies hand-picked by the government.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Quoted post originally in RAN thread:

In case anyone was wondering the urgent, short, sharp navy review was handed over to the government on Friday.
The review findings will now be further considered by the government over the next six months.
I also just went back and did some checking since I was curious about a few timelines.

At present it looks like April 2024 is when the public portions of the RAN review might be released. There might also possibly be some announcements made about changes to the planned RAN MFU's and/or new vessels ordered between now and then, OTOH changes and/or new SEA projects might not be initiated until on or after April 2024. Or to put it another way, about a year after the release of the public portions of the DSR, we might see the public portions of the follow-on naval review.

Further, the DSR itself was originally commissioned back in August 2022.

Given the time taken for the reviews and the reporting and commentary about need for urgency to ensure that Australia has the Defence Force it needs, along with the cutting of planned numbers, scaling back of projects and IIRC outright cancellation of others, this is not leaving me with good and happy feelings about the direction the ADF is being taken in by gov't and policy-makers.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I also just went back and did some checking since I was curious about a few timelines.

At present it looks like April 2024 is when the public portions of the RAN review might be released. There might also possibly be some announcements made about changes to the planned RAN MFU's and/or new vessels ordered between now and then, OTOH changes and/or new SEA projects might not be initiated until on or after April 2024. Or to put it another way, about a year after the release of the public portions of the DSR, we might see the public portions of the follow-on naval review.

Further, the DSR itself was originally commissioned back in August 2022.

Given the time taken for the reviews and the reporting and commentary about need for urgency to ensure that Australia has the Defence Force it needs, along with the cutting of planned numbers, scaling back of projects and IIRC outright cancellation of others, this is not leaving me with good and happy feelings about the direction the ADF is being taken in by gov't and policy-makers.
Completely agree.

Just to add to your time line:

* DSR announced August 2022
* DSR report published 24 April 2023
* RAN review announced at the same time, April 2023
* Government receives RAN review report 29 Sept 2023
* RAN review likely to be published April 2024?

Approx 20mths after the DSR was first announced.

Then of course the next question is, when will the recommendations be actioned?


One question I’ve had since the beginning of this saga, why didn’t the Government commission the RAN review at the same time as the DSR (August 2022)? Why wait until the DSR was published in April 2023?


The cynic in me says it was just another way for this Government to keep kicking the Defence can further down the road.

As the old saying goes:

“Why do today what you can leave until tomorrow”

Urgency? Yeah sure....
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Completely agree.

Just to add to your time line:

* DSR announced August 2022
* DSR report published 24 April 2023
* RAN review announced at the same time, April 2023
* Government receives RAN review report 29 Sept 2023
* RAN review likely to be published April 2024?

Approx 20mths after the DSR was first announced.

Then of course the next question is, when will the recommendations be actioned?


One question I’ve had since the beginning of this saga, why didn’t the Government commission the RAN review at the same time as the DSR (August 2022)? Why wait until the DSR was published in April 2023?


The cynic in me says it was just another way for this Government to keep kicking the Defence can further down the road.

As the old saying goes:

“Why do today what you can leave until tomorrow”

Urgency? Yeah sure....
Relating to all the above and an area of interest to me, is what the timeframes would be for some of the as yet unknown and/or unannounced plans to not only get started, but also to reach IOC and FOC.

I recall GF mentioning years ago, that at point in the 2000's the ADF and DMO was averaging ~14 years between project start and either IOC or FOC (I cannot recall which, it was over a decade ago). For some of the major protects which are capital and resource intensive like shipbuilding, it is still likely a decade or more between the start of a new shipbuilding project and entry into service of the lead vessel.

There is also the question of what happens if/when some of the planned kit buys which have been reduced in number and scope are completed. If there is a significant reduction in the purchase of combat vehicles produced in Australia, because the force being built is going to be a third the size of the original plan, those production facilities are going to complete the builds much earlier and then go idle due to a lack of work. It would be another defence industry boom-bust cycle.

Unfortunately given the lack of information available, I have no real suggestions, just observations. At present I am uncertain whether conditions now are like they were back in 1929, 1933, 1937, or 1939. However, it does seem as what gov't is saying, and what they are actually doing are following two different priorities and security scenarios.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Honestly, I was a bit surprised when Albo's government started stating things about defence with "urgent" and "need now" etc....ordered some missiles, announced sea mines....then the cuts to IFVs and other cuts to the Hunters....then the voice reared its head....then the surplus announced, then the can got kicked again....I should have expected this from them....just cemented their history towards defence. By the end of their 1st and hopefully only term in Government, they will have produced a surplus to wave around, they will be able to show their defence plan and try and sell it as an upgrade.....when really, cost of living has gone stupid, power price risen not dropped, a referendum that was not really needed, and defence realistically cut/slashed due to AUKUS subs coming.....in 2033
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Due to lead times the the naval review is not so urgent as it first appears. Basically Arafura and Hunter are both underway and significantly changing or cancelling them, even in the next couple of months, will result delays and accordingly, capability reductions.

The options going forward going to be for what follows the first batch of Hunters and batches of Arafuras.

In the short term it doesn't matter whether the review recommends frigates, destroyers, corvettes or bigger armed OPVs. Whether it recommends increased numbers or reduced numbers. It doesn't matter whether the government adopts the recommendations or not. It should not affect the currently ordered ships meaning delaying announcement several more months will have no material effect.

The review is about the future, what we are building now is based on the (ridiculously delayed) decisions of the past. The only choice, other than canceliing projects and basically losing the surface fleet, is to keep going with the current batches and adapt the plan for the future.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Due to lead times the the naval review is not so urgent as it first appears. Basically Arafura and Hunter are both underway and significantly changing or cancelling them, even in the next couple of months, will result delays and accordingly, capability reductions.

The options going forward going to be for what follows the first batch of Hunters and batches of Arafuras.

In the short term it doesn't matter whether the review recommends frigates, destroyers, corvettes or bigger armed OPVs. Whether it recommends increased numbers or reduced numbers. It doesn't matter whether the government adopts the recommendations or not. It should not affect the currently ordered ships meaning delaying announcement several more months will have no material effect.

The review is about the future, what we are building now is based on the (ridiculously delayed) decisions of the past. The only choice, other than canceliing projects and basically losing the surface fleet, is to keep going with the current batches and adapt the plan for the future.
A concern I have is the potential for the current builds of the Arafura-class OPV and the first and possibly even second batches of the Hunter-class to be completed, but then have further builds of these classes cancelled and then have either inadequate replacements or worse no replacements ordered, or at least not in a timely fashion.

Similar concerns exist for the planned reductions in numbers ordered for armoured vehicles. In theory, if Australia has domestic production facilities then should more be needed later on, then Australia could just place another order. In actual, real world practice however, this is often either not so simple or sometimes just unfeasible.

We are rapidly approach 2024 and if one takes a decade timeframe to implement major changes to force structure and/or entry into service of entirely new major units, then the planning which should be either already in progress or about to start is what should start to be able to meet Australia's needs circa 2034.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I agree.

I'm hoping the government continues roughly as is for a batch or two, with improvements to subsequent batches, i.e. status quo.

But, as a matter of urgency, as they now have the report, they formulate a way forward based on the reports recommendations that ensures no shipbuilding black hole, and no wording of the growing capability gap.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Due to lead times the the naval review is not so urgent as it first appears. Basically Arafura and Hunter are both underway and significantly changing or cancelling them, even in the next couple of months, will result delays and accordingly, capability reductions.

The options going forward going to be for what follows the first batch of Hunters and batches of Arafuras.

In the short term it doesn't matter whether the review recommends frigates, destroyers, corvettes or bigger armed OPVs. Whether it recommends increased numbers or reduced numbers. It doesn't matter whether the government adopts the recommendations or not. It should not affect the currently ordered ships meaning delaying announcement several more months will have no material effect.

The review is about the future, what we are building now is based on the (ridiculously delayed) decisions of the past. The only choice, other than canceliing projects and basically losing the surface fleet, is to keep going with the current batches and adapt the plan for the future.
I'd like to think your correct with the initial ships or the Arafura and Hunter class.

Arafura class is more advanced in construction than the Hunters , so with six already in various states of construction, it's difficult to believe they will not enter service.

Ship 7 should start construction before the reviews findings are made public.
In a program that has gone news silent, it will be interesting to hear of 7's keel laying service.
Maybe an indication of the Arafura program one way or another.

I think the Hunters are too big to fail.
Change in numbers maybe , but a cancellation of the class would be far to costly in both coin and finding a substitute.

Still think it will be an enhanced second tranche of Lursssens 90m somethings short term, followed by a build of Anzac plus sized vessels in the mid thirtys to compliment a reduced number of Hunter class ships.

Cheers S
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Due to lead times the the naval review is not so urgent as it first appears. Basically Arafura and Hunter are both underway and significantly changing or cancelling them, even in the next couple of months, will result delays and accordingly, capability reductions.

The options going forward going to be for what follows the first batch of Hunters and batches of Arafuras.

In the short term it doesn't matter whether the review recommends frigates, destroyers, corvettes or bigger armed OPVs. Whether it recommends increased numbers or reduced numbers. It doesn't matter whether the government adopts the recommendations or not. It should not affect the currently ordered ships meaning delaying announcement several more months will have no material effect.

The review is about the future, what we are building now is based on the (ridiculously delayed) decisions of the past. The only choice, other than canceliing projects and basically losing the surface fleet, is to keep going with the current batches and adapt the plan for the future.
The delay in the review is having an effect on short-term maritime sustainment. It has already affected how Transcap is going to proceed regarding timeframes & possible scope of work.
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Due to lead times the the naval review is not so urgent as it first appears. Basically Arafura and Hunter are both underway and significantly changing or cancelling them, even in the next couple of months, will result delays and accordingly, capability reductions.

The options going forward going to be for what follows the first batch of Hunters and batches of Arafuras.

In the short term it doesn't matter whether the review recommends frigates, destroyers, corvettes or bigger armed OPVs. Whether it recommends increased numbers or reduced numbers. It doesn't matter whether the government adopts the recommendations or not. It should not affect the currently ordered ships meaning delaying announcement several more months will have no material effect.

The review is about the future, what we are building now is based on the (ridiculously delayed) decisions of the past. The only choice, other than canceliing projects and basically losing the surface fleet, is to keep going with the current batches and adapt the plan for the future.
It could take a decade or more to implement any of the findings from the review. If the review does support the already expressed government view that we need a bigger fleet made up of smaller ships then all that does is trigger another review to determine exactly what capabilities will be required from this new ship. Once that is determined then you have go through the tendering stage which would take several years. Then you go though the contract phase and so on. All this before you even get to the construction stage.

Of course if there is a change of government or even a change in leadership of the current government you could see all that work thrown out.

When Albo is deposed as PM after the voice referendum fails (yes I am tipping that) you could see a complete change of policy from his successor.

Nothing is written in stone. Until the Champaign bottle is cracked against the bow of any new ship I remain sceptical as to the outcome of any review being delivered.
 
Top