ADF General discussion thread

[DDG38]

Media talk once more of enlisting Pacific Islanders in the ADF.
Spoken on here in the past with most posters in favor.
Often wondered (with the British Armys reduction of Gurkha Regts ) if a battalion of Gurkhas could be introduced into the Aust Army.

There are security clearance and citizenship requirements to be met for foreign citizens to serve in the ADF, and I can't see any way round that to increase uniform number in the short term. Even lateral recruits from 5EYES militaries still have to jump through hoops before they get full access to classified data. Of course the general media casually ignore this inconvenient fact for easier to swallow talking points.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is the worst idea the Department of Defence ever had. Australia needs to get serious about resolving problems without forever resorting to passport giveaway festivals. I have a lot of insight into our 'Pacific Island family' and their 'security' elements and we definitely DO NOT want them here let alone giving them access to our military structure and classified data.

I have served with Pacific Islanders and they are very good service personnel. They are hard working, diligent and loyal. Am very proud of my service alongside them.

Seems to be a growing public assumption that the ADF is obligated to assist in every flood, fire or other disaster.
Even heard complaints about so called "slow response times" as if the ADF is an emergency service on 24 hour standby.

Isn't that a part of the Federal govt policy requirements?

 

[Bluey 006]

Post 1/2

Appreciate some time has passed since this discussion started, and we have seen some developments since then (get back to them later).
I was OOA and otherwise engaged. I do however, think this is an discussion that can bare some fruit.

Yoinking across to a more general discussion....

Not only should they, but they always will. Even with the biggest, baddest ABF you can think of plus a full strength and capable Coast Guard, it'll be the RAN which has the ability to operate into the Southern Ocean to rescue sailors or capture fisherman. Or chase a fishing vessel 3/4 of the way to South America. It is inherent to a Navy, the things they need for war (equipment, thinking and processes) means they will always have diplomatic and constabulary tasks. And, while the other two will help, the RAN will always carry more...

Agreed they should and always will.

However, I believe the original operational concept document for SEA 1180 ruled out extensive use of the class much below the 40th parallel. Unsure how this has changed over the years. Or if the current ConOps for the Arafura class allows for this, others may know.

Assuming this stands, beyond our frigates, we don’t have a huge capability to operate that far south. Unsure if using billion-dollar frigates armed with millions of dollars in missiles to rescue sailors and chase fishermen halfway across the world is the best use of resources?

A reality that it does happen and will continue to, but questionable if in a time when our security environment is deteriorating and our fleet numbers are being challenged, we should be using our primary combat vessels for this purpose. We simply don’t have enough.

This might actually strengthen the case for corvettes or a dedicated polar class patrol vessel. Something akin to Jan Mayen class vessels.

Not at all. The Army has spent more time doing non-warlike tasks than warlike - even if at least one of those non-warlike tasks saw my helicopters getting shot at. But in discussing the wider range of tasks the RAN carries, it's not service rivalry or the like.

So, we agree the Army spends more time doing non-warlike tasks than warlike. Yet we are seeing the number of infantry battalions effectively reduced and no new security stabilisation battalion or civil-military coordination capabilities raised, and our reserves getting a new security role in the North. At a time when our traditional security partners are facing the prospect of confrontation on multiple fronts, internal political and social challenges, and economic woes that may hamstring its ability to provide support to all of its allies, everywhere, all the time.

Where will the manpower come from? If and when we face a concurrent set of challenges that require boots on the ground. With this rise of grey zone activities you could expect more insurgencies and the like, not less. Yes, we need a mobilisation plan but we also need enough enlisted personnel (active or reserve) to ensure we can “hold the line” (figuratively speaking) be that in combat or other measures to support that national interest, while the mobilization plan is activated.

The work we do in the region is essential. Our Sect - Coy sized exchanges and the like are a cornerstone of our defence in building regional relations. And they pay back, as anyone who has seen the deployment of forces to Australia post-disaster in the last couple of years.

Exactly….

But, for constabulary tasks, these nations generally have their own forces and we have the AFP, and for diplomatic tasks, it's very low level. For starters, the biggest Army force we regularly send overseas will have, at most, an O4 in charge. Perfectly fine, very little influence. Normally the ranks are lower. A ship will have at least on O5. There is a subtle, but distinct difference - even within our own nation.

A few points to cover here….

I think tying the influence of the deployment or mission to the rank of the officer in charge takes rather a simplistic view of things. The individual in charge might personally have little influence, but the mission, strategic commitment/policy direction, and organisation that he/she represents do. You can bet said deployment is getting consideration at much higher levels than O4, which is strategic influence. You reference this later when you talk about an Armoured Bde “It might not deter, but it'll cause a rethink at least”. This suggests it is influencing at the highest policy level.

As an Army officer you’d know influence over people or things does not happen quickly, it is a persuasive process. It doesn’t happen all at once. It requires a sustained and concerted effort. To effectively influence, you need intimacy with your target audience to understand the culture, motivations, thinking, challenges and goals etc. Then you need to build trust and confidence before applying the effects required to change minds or affect outcomes. Or if you are looking to influence outcomes you need to have solid situational awareness and the ability to apply hard and soft power at the appropriate time and place to alter the course of events. You need to be there.

An Army forward deployment in the country is exactly that “in the country” for extended periods. In the case of “constabulary tasks” overseas, the Army might not be directly involved in the constabulary activity themselves but they are likely involved in training, capacity building, logistics support, ISR and the like—activities which build trust and confidence.

Army personnel sandbagging a river or rescuing stranded civilians during a flood shapes public opinion in a way that a navy ship offshore cannot.

The Navy (with some exceptions) are at sea, and while exchanges do happen navy personnel have much less of an opportunity to interact with local populations/forces over a long period. Of course, during port visits, no doubt they interact quite closely with the bars and local wildlife but much like where you reference that “planes can fly away”, ships can sail away. That is not to say they can’t have a sustained presence and influence on events if we look at the multi-national operation in the Gulf of Aden or various deployments in the Middle East, they are a sustained presence. But would the citizens of say Iraq (for example) even know those ships are there?

Now, I am not anti-navy. I very much agree that we should expand and modernise the fleet, and I am not saying Navy port visits or presence doesn’t have influence, absolutely they do. An aircraft carrier as an example is of 100,000 tonnes of diplomacy and influence. And the Navy does have a heavy load.

I probably overstated when I used the term “token diplomacy”, there is nothing token about port visits. The hugely valuable and far-reaching forms of military diplomacy, however, they alone cannot win the hearts and minds. At home or abroad.

But if we are serious about restructuring the ADF for the future it requires serious investment, gutting one service to prop up another will only lead to problems down the track when circumstances change.

I'm not arguing against a Joint Force. The fact I, as an Army officer, argue for the RAN should indicate it's a very good idea that has inculcated itself within the ADF. But a joint force demands an honest assessment and understanding of roles, including areas one's own service doesn't do well at.

Completely agree that the RAN needs investment. However, if you are always preparing for the conflict you are in. You’ll never be ready for the next one, ships won't do much good inland. Appreciate that developing the RAN is a good idea and priority need, agree 100% but to suggest the army isn't good at influence, engagement, nation building operations, capacity building etc I think is overstatement, I am sure you'd agree the Australian Army did some fine work in Afghanistan/Iraq. Each service has its purpose and needs ongoing improvements to meet the very real and unpredictable threats over the next few decades, to let one service degrade is dangerous.

There is a mix of concepts here, but some are correct and some not.

This is a discussion, and exchange of ideas. Not sure there is a black-and-white right and wrong, it is subjective. Depends on your opinion, and point of view. If the current / trendy view on things of in-service personnel/government of day or consultants was always right, we wouldn’t be facing some of the serious challenges we do. The fact is we a navigating a multi-polar world filled with a multitude of converging traditional and emerging threats enabled by new cutting edge (and potentially game changing) technologies, this somewhat uncharted territory. Flexibility in capability and thinking is required.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as they say.

Generally speaking, in times of peace, Land and Air forces (the latter especially) are not seen by the wider population, much. Their area of influence is much smaller.

The wider population is not at sea. Sailors may interact while they are in port but after a few days they leave. We live in the era of a 24-hour news cycle, a ship visit might make the nightly news but it will soon be forgotten once the next social media fad comes along. Army/Airforce or Navy for that matter that can progressively engage a community over a period of time will have a greater long term impact.

 

[Bluey 006]

2/2

Look at Pitch Black for instance - lots of 'stuff' for Darwin and Tindal populations, very little (including media) down south.

This is a loaded example; Pitch Black is an Air Combat Exercise, not an airshow. Worth noting, it incorporates thousands of personnel and hundreds of aircraft from around the globe that in turn return to their home countries and apply the experience learned at this exercise, that is influence. Also, not sure anything else in the ADF gets the public and media excited like a fighter aircraft or helicopter fly past.

Often such forces rarely leave the base; in my first overseas, non-deployment, trip we spent all our time on the base - we never went outside the wire.

Depending on the context of the deployment, this may be true. it very much depends on mission. But look at INTERFET, RAMSI etc , ADF personnel clearly visible and engaging the population.

I hazard a guess that during this trip you were, through your presence alone, interacting with local/allied forces in some way, deterring something or altering behavior of someone in some way, i.e. learning or teaching something and gaining situational/cultural/climate and awareness or understanding. Building relationships and so on.

A ship visit on the other hand; it gets more media and has a wider impact. If USS Carney were to rock up to Darwin on her way home, the media will be more. This will be increased if she visits Perth or Sydney. And when she does, she'll drop 280-odd people into a CBD - because that's where the ports generally are. That's a Bn or Wg effort. If she comes with another ship those numbers increase. At the pinnacle, Perth, Brisbane, Darwin, and Sydney residents still speak of times when USN carriers have visited...

“If” is the operative word here. And again, they are there then they are not. People have the attention span of goldfish these days.

But even taking the smallest ship, they have outstanding impacts. A mate was the 2IC of one of the MHC to visit Japan. Their trip up and back hit 19 ports, something like 8-10 countries. They worked closely with various DFAT staffs across this, and entertained senior foreign personnel on board - all providing a smart, approachable, clear statement of Australian respect and friendship. Sure, the PO's had some work to do the morning they left each port....

Sounds like an amazing and far-reaching trip. I’m sure they were lovely parties, on board an RAN ship only accessible to an exclusive few. The same event could be held week in week out by Army or Air Force personnel in a function centre. Arguably, having a bigger impact because those attending could build deeper relationships with counterparts and regular guests.

When you are attempting deterrence, your thoughts are more on track. The ultimate level of support to a friend is parking an Armoured Bde (+) by their side. Air forces, especially, are simply too movable - there's no guarantee they won't fly away. But you can't do that with heavy units. RAND found this when looking at forward-deployed US forces. Which is why, when our 'strategic experts' talk about no role for armour in the region, I think they underestimate the statement that 1 (Armd) Bde (or 3 (Armd) Bde now, I suppose *sigh*) is being deployed to, say, Vietnam does. It might not deter, but it'll cause a rethink at least.

Sounds like we very much agree here.

Those 'strategic experts' that talk about no role for armour in the region can explain to the children of our service personnel why mummy or daddy didn't come home.

Ultimately, it comes back to what are you trying to achieve diplomatically. The ADF is simply another toolbox that DFAT and the Government of the Day have, but like every toolbox the contents are varied, and some do better than others.

This is very true and like all but the simplest jobs it will usually require more than one tool to get it done.

 

[Bluey 006]

Yes, because we have no other choice. We cannot sustain the ADF required for a small conflict, let alone a war of national survival. Nor should we. The alternative is to have all that risk and no mobilisation plan. Which I'd argue is one of the single largest failures a government could commit.

If we are getting serious about a mobilisation plan (and we should), we need to seriously consider overhauling our reserve structure and adding a fourth tier (as well as revisiting the recent changes to the 2nd Division). Perhaps, something not too dissimilar from the US model might work, albeit with some subtle differences.

Currently, active-duty military members work in the military full-time. At the same time, Reservists typically serve on a part-time basis about one weekend a month plus two weeks a year for "annual training. Reservists can serve on active-duty orders, or be deployed based on need.


Overhaul is as follows:

Tier 1: Active-duty military members work in the military full-time.

Tier 2: The Australian Army Active Reserve which consists of the following components: (similar to what we have now with some changes)

• Active Reserve (made up of two parts)

The High Readiness Reserve which a higher minimum requirement than the active reserve, about four nights and one weekend a month plus five weeks a year for annual training. They are required to serve at least 42 days and may serve a maximum of 180, although a further 50 days may be undertaken upon special approval.

Active Reservists typically serve on a part-time basis of about two nights and one weekend a month plus up to three weeks (increased from two to deliver enhanced proficiencies) a year for "annual training. The active reserve is required to serve a minimum of 30 days and may serve a maximum of 120, although a further 50 days may be undertaken upon special approval. Tax subsidies and annual leave offsets are offered to employers that employ reservists.

Active Reservists can serve on active-duty orders, or be deployed based on need. The reserve is meant to augment the needs of the active-duty forces in times of deployment, conflict or declared war.

Tier 3: The Standby Reserve has no training obligation and is mainly used to maintain the administration of members upon discharge from the Regular Army or the Active Reserve in case they are required to be called back into service in a national emergency or mobilisation. Members of the Regular Army are required to remain in the Standby Reserve for five years following discharge.

Tier 4: We then establish a National Guard/ Home Guard/Civil Defence / Auxiliary (whatever you want to call it) force that includes the Army, Airforce and Navy elements in each state, and territory (geared toward 18-25 year age bracket). The primary job of these “Guard” units is to defend (use this term figuratively more than literally) the location to which they belong, support mobilisation capacity in their state (logistics, industry and so on) and respond in support of State Emergency Services during disasters and times of heightened security, such as cyclones, floods, bushfires, major events, environmental disasters, or pandemics etc (effectively a militia extension of the SES).

These Guard units typically are controlled by the state and funded through that state's budget. Still, they can be activated for federal duty and federalised in national mobilisation scenarios, then receive federal funding and placed under the control of national command in support of federal needs. That means during a declared national mobilisation “Guard” units theoretically could deploy in support of overseas operations, unlikely but possible under the most extreme scenarios, but more likely be filling in at home for an active-duty or active reserve soldier, who has deployed.

These “Guard” units would serve on a part-time basis - one weekend a quarter plus two weeks a year for "annual training. This low-impact commitment and low likelihood of being deployed to combat or outside of their home state opens up the pool of possible recruits but provides access to a larger pool of trained personnel to call upon during rapid national mobilisation in an emergency, people that might otherwise have not been obligated, able or motivated to serve. The “Guard” units also provide garrison forces in each state and territory (with the support of the standby reserve) if required to defend (again use this term figuratively more than literally) the homeland. This would enable active duty and active reserve troops to focus on major combat, expeditionary and offensive operations, effectively increasing the available troops able to be deployed overnight.

These guard units could be offered reduced fitness standards and be offered free higher education credits/professional certifications in areas that support broader recruitment efforts and defence industry skills shortages. Marine engineering for example. Thus encouraging further advancement of these skills and progression into careers in these disciplines. With further tax and housing incentives offered to progress to active reserve or active duty.

 

[Redlands18]

Defence force understaffed by thousands in tight market (msn.com)
The ADF is short by 4,300 personnel as of 1 Jan 2024, the CDF Lt Gen Campbell told a Parliamentary hearing in Canberra today 14 Feb. Good news is numbers leaving has dropped to 10% and ADFA has one of its largest intakes and the Army graduated its largest ever cohort and The RAAF numbers is at a two decade high.

 

[DDG38]

Just putting these news articles discussing the issues covered at Senate estimates yesterday and as they discuss all 3 services I'm putting them in this thread (sourced via Defence News account) :

Anzac frigate's future in doubt
By Ben Packham,The Australian
Thursday 15th February 2024

Defence has revealed a mothballed Anzac-class frigate could soon be junked as it struggles to cope with a shortfall of more than 4300 personnel.

Chief of the Defence Force Angus Campbell laid bare the extent of the ADF's chronic workforce crisis in a Senate estimates hearing, revealing it was nearly 7 per cent under strength and was continuing to shrink.

“Inflow rates remain below the level required to maintain our current force,” he said.

General Campbell said personnel shortages had placed “stress across the entire organisation”, and were most acute for technical roles.

Chief of Navy Mark Hammond said the service could now muster only 4½ crews for its eight workhorse frigates, and suggested first-of-class ship HMAS Anzac might now not undergo planned life-extending upgrades.

The Australian revealed in November the frigate had been taken out of the water indefinitely, amid shortages of engineers and a cloud over the Anzac upgrade program.

Vice Admiral Hammond told senators he had ordered an assessment of the ship, which was suffering “drive train fragility issues” after 27 years of service.

He said the study would “inform a value-for-money assessment of retaining her for an extended period”.

The move comes ahead of the release of the government's new surface fleet plan next week, which is expected to confirm the troubled Hunter-class frigates program will continue, and potentially announce a new fleet of corvettes for the navy.

Defence officials revealed the army was currently 2891 personnel under strength. The navy has a deficit of 881 personnel, while the air force is short 534 people.

The personnel crisis comes as the government scrambles to rearm and reform the ADF to prepare for a feared conflict between China and the US over the status of Taiwan sometime in the next decade.

General Campbell blamed the difficulties on low unemployment rates, and said “considerable effort and innovation” was going into addressing the issue. He said Defence was considering allowing “non-citizen enlistment” as one option, with Australian citizenship being offered as a lure for potential foreign recruits.

The personnel shortage was making it hard for the ADF to do its job, General Campbell said, with the pressure to “fill the hole” requiring that more personnel be dedicated to recruiting, induction and training.

Despite the shortfall, officials said the ADF's workforce costs had gone up by more than $900m a year due to a range of factors including retention bonuses, increased health costs, moving costs and housing.

Defence chiefs were also grilled over the army's retired MRH-90 Taipan helicopters, amid criticism they were not gifted to Ukraine. The army's head of joint aviation systems, Major General Jeremy King, told senators that work to strip parts from the aircraft began almost immediately after the fleet was retired last year, and they could not be made airworthy again.

“We have not had an airworthiness framework around those airframes for nearly five months,” he said. “And that is a boring but important nuance in relation to how we manage these aircraft.”

The Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, said the aircraft's $45,000-plus per hour flying costs and poor availability record made them inappropriate for the casualty evacuation role Ukraine wanted them for.

“It is not suitable for that task. You need to have a reliable aircraft for that task,“ General Stuart said.

The army achieved only a 40 per cent availability rate for the aircraft due to long-running sustainment issues. But opposition senator David Fawcett said the New Zealand army achieved a far better rate of 70 per cent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADF under ‘stress' with staffing 7% below target
By Matthew Knott,The Sydney Morning Herald
Thursday 15th February 2024 at 12:00am

The Australian Defence Force is thousands of people short of its staffing targets, putting the nation's military under intense strain as it confronts heightened tensions in the Indo-Pacific and the risk of conflict between global powers.

The ADF's workforce crisis has pushed the government to explore ways to allow foreigners to serve under the Australian flag, slash recruitment times by 200 days and ease fitness standards for recruits.

Defence Force Chief Angus Campbell revealed yesterday that the ADF was 7 per cent - or 4308 people - below its authorised strength of 62,735 staff at a time when it is trying to expand the number of uniformed personnel.

The federal government has set an ambitious goal of boosting its workforce by 18,500 people by 2040, a 30 per cent increase on current levels.

‘‘Inflow rates remain below the level required to maintain our current force,'' Campbell told Senate estimates.

Campbell and fellow Defence leaders also came under intense questioning about why a Fijian colonel accused of torture was appointed as a deputy Australian Army commander, and why retired MRH-90 Taipan helicopters were being disposed of rather than being donated to Ukraine.

The army has been the hardest hit by lack of personnel, falling almost 2900 people below target staffing - a 9 per cent shortfall.

The navy is 880 people, or 6 per cent, below its targets while the air force is faring best at 536 people below its required staffing level.

‘‘It puts stress across the entire organisation in terms of being able to train, recruit, to conduct activity, and to sustain our people, support their families, continue our tempo of activity, internationally and domestically,'' Campbell said.

With low unemployment making it difficult for the military to compete with the private sector, Campbell said the ADF was especially struggling to recruit and retain employees with technical expertise. He said the ADF was exploring innovative ways to boost personnel numbers, including allowing ‘‘non-citizen enlistment on a pathway to citizenship''.

The Herald reported last year that the federal opposition and leading military experts were calling for the federal government to allow foreigners to serve in the ADF.

Longstanding Defence policy states that only Australian citizens can serve, with exemptions granted only in ‘‘very rare and exceptional circumstances''.

A Defence spokeswoman said: ‘‘Defence is developing a range of options for government consideration including the potential to expand recruitment of non-Australian citizens.''

The ADF's chief of personnel, Lieutenant General Natasha Fox, said it typically took 300 days to get a recruit into service, but the organisation wanted to slash that to 100 days with help from a new recruitment contractor.

Defence Personnel Minister Matt Keogh said this week that recruits had been required to be fit enough to serve on the frontline even if they are ‘‘more likely to be wearing a hoodie in a basement doing cyber ops than holding a rifle''.

He said the ADF would drop its one-sizefits-all fitness testwhich requires recruits to be able to complete dozens of sit-ups, pushups and sprints in a set time - and make it easier for people with medical conditions to serve in the military.

Opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said the nation's military was facing a recruitment and retention crisis. ‘‘We need to do a much better job of getting young Australians into uniform if they want to serve. There are a lot of barriers at the moment.''

Hastie said he believed submariner numbers were especially low, raising fears about Australia's ability to advance the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines pact.

Campbell conceded there were flaws in the process that allowed Fijian colonel Penioni (Ben) Naliva to serve as deputy commander of the Australian Army's 7th Brigade in Queensland.

A United Nations special rapporteur named Naliva as being involved in the savage beating of a Suva businessman, while former Fijian prime minister Laisenia Qarase made allegations of torture against Naliva in a memoir published in 2022.

Describing the allegations against Naliva as ‘‘very disturbing'', Campbell said the appointment process ‘‘did not function as it should have''.

Army Chief Simon Stuart said a lack of spare parts and a cost above $45,000 per flying hour meant the Taipan was not a suitable helicopter to provide to Ukraine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[DDG38]

Defence understaffed and sliding further backwards

By Dominic Giannini, Canberra Times

Updated February 14 2024 - 4:29pm

The Australian Defence Force is thousands of people below strength as it struggles to employ and retain staff.

There was a shortage of more than 4300 people - almost seven per cent - as of January 1, Chief of the ADF Angus Campbell told a parliamentary hearing.

Hiring rates are below the level required to maintain the force, the general said on Wednesday.

"Defence is addressing retention and recruitment as a priority," he said.

A tight labour market made the task more difficult, he added.

On the plus side, the number of people leaving the force dropped from a high of almost 12 per cent to 10 per cent in February.

There were also struggles with skill sets within the staff shortage number, General Campbell said.

The army, air force and navy were all under "varying degrees of stress".

The army is almost 2900 personnel short (nine per cent), the navy more than 880 (6.5 per cent) and the air force more than 530 (three per cent).

The need to accelerate recruitment was providing further challenges for the force, General Campbell said.

The department also defended the fact that workforce costs had jumped more than $900 million a year, pointing to the retention bonus, housing and health and moving costs.

There has been an 85 per cent take-up of the $50,000 retention bonus trial put in place to help keep staff.

Department officials also came under fire after admitting it took 300 days for a recruit to join the army after signing up.

Defence was working to bring that down to 100 days, chief of personnel Lieutenant General Natasha Fox said.

"I have an additional task to accelerate recruiting and make that faster than 100 days," she said.

"That includes all the medical, psychological and security checks."

While there were challenges around recruitment and retention, the separation rate had begun to fall and more people were starting to come in, Defence Minister Richard Marles said.

"This government has been particularly focused on improving the defence offering," he told parliament, pointing to the bonus and wage increases for members.

Liberal frontbencher Simon Birmingham pursued questions about the Department of Defence's culture following reports of tensions between Mr Marles and top brass.

The issue traced back to a tense meeting between the minister, department secretary and defence chief.

"There won't be any Valentine's Day cards flowing between the minister for defence and his department, though, will there?" Senator Birmingham said.

Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty said it wasn't unusual for a minister to make clear their expectations of senior staff.

"I've had many interactions with a number of ministers in this portfolio and it's routine and, in fact, appropriate for them to have these engagements with the department," he said.

"The minister also set out areas where he was very pleased with the performance of the department."

Officials were also pressed on why the defence minister hasn't released a review into the navy's surface fleet, which was announced in April 2023 and received by the government four months later.

Senator Birmingham questioned why there was a delay in the release despite the minister saying it would be short and sharp.

Previous reviews took years to work through, department Deputy Secretary Tom Hamilton said.

"It is entirely appropriate that the government take the time it needs to work through such issues of fundamental importance to the Australian Defence Force and to Australia's defence policy settings."

The review is expected to be released next week.

 

[Stampede]

Just putting these news articles discussing the issues covered at Senate estimates yesterday and as they discuss all 3 services I'm putting them in this thread (sourced via Defence News account) :

Anzac frigate's future in doubt
By Ben Packham,The Australian
Thursday 15th February 2024

Defence has revealed a mothballed Anzac-class frigate could soon be junked as it struggles to cope with a shortfall of more than 4300 personnel.

Chief of the Defence Force Angus Campbell laid bare the extent of the ADF's chronic workforce crisis in a Senate estimates hearing, revealing it was nearly 7 per cent under strength and was continuing to shrink.

“Inflow rates remain below the level required to maintain our current force,” he said.

General Campbell said personnel shortages had placed “stress across the entire organisation”, and were most acute for technical roles.

Chief of Navy Mark Hammond said the service could now muster only 4½ crews for its eight workhorse frigates, and suggested first-of-class ship HMAS Anzac might now not undergo planned life-extending upgrades.

The Australian revealed in November the frigate had been taken out of the water indefinitely, amid shortages of engineers and a cloud over the Anzac upgrade program.

Vice Admiral Hammond told senators he had ordered an assessment of the ship, which was suffering “drive train fragility issues” after 27 years of service.

He said the study would “inform a value-for-money assessment of retaining her for an extended period”.

The move comes ahead of the release of the government's new surface fleet plan next week, which is expected to confirm the troubled Hunter-class frigates program will continue, and potentially announce a new fleet of corvettes for the navy.

Defence officials revealed the army was currently 2891 personnel under strength. The navy has a deficit of 881 personnel, while the air force is short 534 people.

The personnel crisis comes as the government scrambles to rearm and reform the ADF to prepare for a feared conflict between China and the US over the status of Taiwan sometime in the next decade.

General Campbell blamed the difficulties on low unemployment rates, and said “considerable effort and innovation” was going into addressing the issue. He said Defence was considering allowing “non-citizen enlistment” as one option, with Australian citizenship being offered as a lure for potential foreign recruits.

The personnel shortage was making it hard for the ADF to do its job, General Campbell said, with the pressure to “fill the hole” requiring that more personnel be dedicated to recruiting, induction and training.

Despite the shortfall, officials said the ADF's workforce costs had gone up by more than $900m a year due to a range of factors including retention bonuses, increased health costs, moving costs and housing.

Defence chiefs were also grilled over the army's retired MRH-90 Taipan helicopters, amid criticism they were not gifted to Ukraine. The army's head of joint aviation systems, Major General Jeremy King, told senators that work to strip parts from the aircraft began almost immediately after the fleet was retired last year, and they could not be made airworthy again.

“We have not had an airworthiness framework around those airframes for nearly five months,” he said. “And that is a boring but important nuance in relation to how we manage these aircraft.”

The Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, said the aircraft's $45,000-plus per hour flying costs and poor availability record made them inappropriate for the casualty evacuation role Ukraine wanted them for.

“It is not suitable for that task. You need to have a reliable aircraft for that task,“ General Stuart said.

The army achieved only a 40 per cent availability rate for the aircraft due to long-running sustainment issues. But opposition senator David Fawcett said the New Zealand army achieved a far better rate of 70 per cent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADF under ‘stress' with staffing 7% below target
By Matthew Knott,The Sydney Morning Herald
Thursday 15th February 2024 at 12:00am

The Australian Defence Force is thousands of people short of its staffing targets, putting the nation's military under intense strain as it confronts heightened tensions in the Indo-Pacific and the risk of conflict between global powers.

The ADF's workforce crisis has pushed the government to explore ways to allow foreigners to serve under the Australian flag, slash recruitment times by 200 days and ease fitness standards for recruits.

Defence Force Chief Angus Campbell revealed yesterday that the ADF was 7 per cent - or 4308 people - below its authorised strength of 62,735 staff at a time when it is trying to expand the number of uniformed personnel.

The federal government has set an ambitious goal of boosting its workforce by 18,500 people by 2040, a 30 per cent increase on current levels.

‘‘Inflow rates remain below the level required to maintain our current force,'' Campbell told Senate estimates.

Campbell and fellow Defence leaders also came under intense questioning about why a Fijian colonel accused of torture was appointed as a deputy Australian Army commander, and why retired MRH-90 Taipan helicopters were being disposed of rather than being donated to Ukraine.

The army has been the hardest hit by lack of personnel, falling almost 2900 people below target staffing - a 9 per cent shortfall.

The navy is 880 people, or 6 per cent, below its targets while the air force is faring best at 536 people below its required staffing level.

‘‘It puts stress across the entire organisation in terms of being able to train, recruit, to conduct activity, and to sustain our people, support their families, continue our tempo of activity, internationally and domestically,'' Campbell said.

With low unemployment making it difficult for the military to compete with the private sector, Campbell said the ADF was especially struggling to recruit and retain employees with technical expertise. He said the ADF was exploring innovative ways to boost personnel numbers, including allowing ‘‘non-citizen enlistment on a pathway to citizenship''.

The Herald reported last year that the federal opposition and leading military experts were calling for the federal government to allow foreigners to serve in the ADF.

Longstanding Defence policy states that only Australian citizens can serve, with exemptions granted only in ‘‘very rare and exceptional circumstances''.

A Defence spokeswoman said: ‘‘Defence is developing a range of options for government consideration including the potential to expand recruitment of non-Australian citizens.''

The ADF's chief of personnel, Lieutenant General Natasha Fox, said it typically took 300 days to get a recruit into service, but the organisation wanted to slash that to 100 days with help from a new recruitment contractor.

Defence Personnel Minister Matt Keogh said this week that recruits had been required to be fit enough to serve on the frontline even if they are ‘‘more likely to be wearing a hoodie in a basement doing cyber ops than holding a rifle''.

He said the ADF would drop its one-sizefits-all fitness testwhich requires recruits to be able to complete dozens of sit-ups, pushups and sprints in a set time - and make it easier for people with medical conditions to serve in the military.

Opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said the nation's military was facing a recruitment and retention crisis. ‘‘We need to do a much better job of getting young Australians into uniform if they want to serve. There are a lot of barriers at the moment.''

Hastie said he believed submariner numbers were especially low, raising fears about Australia's ability to advance the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines pact.

Campbell conceded there were flaws in the process that allowed Fijian colonel Penioni (Ben) Naliva to serve as deputy commander of the Australian Army's 7th Brigade in Queensland.

A United Nations special rapporteur named Naliva as being involved in the savage beating of a Suva businessman, while former Fijian prime minister Laisenia Qarase made allegations of torture against Naliva in a memoir published in 2022.

Describing the allegations against Naliva as ‘‘very disturbing'', Campbell said the appointment process ‘‘did not function as it should have''.

Army Chief Simon Stuart said a lack of spare parts and a cost above $45,000 per flying hour meant the Taipan was not a suitable helicopter to provide to Ukraine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting re time to enlist

"The ADF's chief of personnel, Lieutenant General Natasha Fox, said it typically took 300 days to get a recruit into service, but the organisation wanted to slash that to 100 days with help from a new recruitment contractor."

100 days seems excessive ; 300 days if true would be comedic if it was not such a serious situation.

An aspirattional target of some three months to join up to be a grunt. Surely not.
Young folk get bored real quick.

Must be a much better and quicker way.

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

Interesting re time to enlist

"The ADF's chief of personnel, Lieutenant General Natasha Fox, said it typically took 300 days to get a recruit into service, but the organisation wanted to slash that to 100 days with help from a new recruitment contractor."

100 days seems excessive ; 300 days if true would be comedic if it was not such a serious situation.

An aspirattional target of some three months to join up to be a grunt. Surely not.
Young folk get bored real quick.

Must be a much better and quicker way.

Cheers S

When I joined the Army in 81, it took 3 weeks.

 

[Volkodav]

When I last tried to go reg in 92 it took a couple of years and two cancelled intakes before I gave up.

Yes I was already a reserve and had skills they allegedly wanted. It was crazy.

 

[old faithful]

When I last tried to go reg in 92 it took a couple of years and two cancelled intakes before I gave up.

Yes I was already a reserve and had skills they allegedly wanted. It was crazy.

I re-enlisted in 89, after discharging on completion of my 3 years contract in 88.
It was quick, however, only 3 of us were accepted from 76 that tested and did the medical, 1 was ex Navy who some skills they wanted, I was already para qualified, and they wanted riggers, not grunts and I was sent and trained as a rigger. It took me 18 months to get back to 3 RAR as a grunt, and they had not been recruiting for a long time. Who was the G.O.D in 89? ALP.
Same with you Volk, you tried to get into the ARA in 1992.....Keating was your hurdle, not the Army.

 

[Volkodav]

I re-enlisted in 89, after discharging on completion of my 3 years contract in 88.
It was quick, however, only 3 of us were accepted from 76 that tested and did the medical, 1 was ex Navy who some skills they wanted, I was already para qualified, and they wanted riggers, not grunts and I was sent and trained as a rigger. It took me 18 months to get back to 3 RAR as a grunt, and they had not been recruiting for a long time. Who was the G.O.D in 89? ALP.
Same with you Volk, you tried to get into the ARA in 1992.....Keating was your hurdle, not the Army.

Yes it was just prior to the ready reserve kicking off. Desert Storm had been and gone, they had some accelerated slots into 2 Cav etc. then cancelled GE for all but three ECNs I think, as well as a couple of intakes for Duntroon.

 

[Nudge]

Is there any way to expedite the security vetting process, which seems to take FOREVER.

My wife once applied for, and was accepted to a senior, highly skilled (PhD), civillian defence position. Were told the security clearance would take at least 18 months, even though she has no records, not even traffic, Australian born, Australian citizen, etc.

After 9 months, her current employer made her a better offer and she politely declined the ADF position. The recruiter said, "I knew that would happen' it happens to most of the people we try to sign up,"

 

[Morgo]

Has anyone seen any public results from the Defence Estate Audit? I saw some mention of “consolidation of underutilised Defence establishments” - presumably this is a pretext for selling off some of the land on Sydney Harbour, potentially to fund the new sub base?

Wouldn’t be the worst idea to be honest. HMAS Penguin, Waterhen and Platypus would be worth billions between them.

 

[Morgo]

[Duplicate post - please delete mods]

 

[spoz]

Platypus went years ago. Certainly, with the future direction of mine warfare clouded, and it seeming at least possible that it will not require dedicated platforms Waterhen might be vulnerable (and it would nice for “Chook” to be an actual ship again, together with VD, Vamps and Voyager).

I suppose you could move the diving school etc to JB or somewhere. Penguin’s hospital used to provide Defence in patient capability for inner Sydney; not sure how much utilisation it now gets.

As for desirable real estate, Watson tops the list - but moving it would be both very disruptive and very expensive.

 

[MickB]

ADF trialing Fractl:2 anti drone laser.
Claimed to be small sized and only have moderate energy requirments and acurate out to several kilometers.

If successful the army is an obvious user but such a system could be of benefit to other areas of the ADF.
Eg: the RAAFs ADGs to protect forward deployment of aircraft.
Perhaps as a suplement to CWIS on warships, layered defence with an extra layer.

A pool of units to be fitted as required to PBs and future amfibs (both army and navy) that may be operating in or around a regional conflict zone.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Is there any way to expedite the security vetting process, which seems to take FOREVER.

My wife once applied for, and was accepted to a senior, highly skilled (PhD), civillian defence position. Were told the security clearance would take at least 18 months, even though she has no records, not even traffic, Australian born, Australian citizen, etc.

After 9 months, her current employer made her a better offer and she politely declined the ADF position. The recruiter said, "I knew that would happen' it happens to most of the people we try to sign up,"

In Israel, any defense job requires a maximum 6 month process which typically takes 3-4 months, and for most positions it's possible to start working with a lower security clearance within 1-2 months. That's what I was told at least when I applied at Rafael (twice, received better offers elsewhere both times).
Lots of dual passport holders and potential "dangerous" demographics, and it still takes, at worst, just a third of what you described.
At 18 months one might forget he's even applied for a defense job.

 

[DDG38]

In Israel, any defense job requires a maximum 6 month process which typically takes 3-4 months, and for most positions it's possible to start working with a lower security clearance within 1-2 months. That's what I was told at least when I applied at Rafael (twice, received better offers elsewhere both times).
Lots of dual passport holders and potential "dangerous" demographics, and it still takes, at worst, just a third of what you described.
At 18 months one might forget he's even applied for a defense job.

Israel also has less than half the population of Australia, so whoever handles clearances there isn't doing the sheer volume of clearances that Australia has to process. Apples and oranges.