ADF General discussion thread

[Big_Zucchini]

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.

Supply and demand. If it takes 18 months to grant security clearance, that's mostly laziness on someone's part. If the population is half, then normally the government would also be roughly half the size, wouldn't it? Therefore those providing clearance are halved (in number).
I assume there's more to it than that. There's a disparity as well in the number of defense jobs. Sources vary, but in Wikipedia it is said Australia has, as of 2016, about 25,000 defence jobs.
As of 2023, Israel's top 5 defense companies employed in total a little over 47,000.
I assume changes in criteria will massively alter these numbers. Lots of big companies mostly employ subcontractors which probably do not enter this total.
And more importantly, it's also a matter of defense ecosystem - how the army and industry interact, and how defense and the defense industry are viewed by the public and government.
I just don't see how in the current situation 18 months for security clearance can be considered "normal".

 

[DDG38]

I just don't see how in the current situation 18 months for security clearance can be considered "normal".

You should know better than to use Wikipedia as a reference, those numbers are far from accurate. And one anecdote about a clearance taking 18 months does not make it the norm. Because it isn't. There are publicly available stats on clearance times and for the one referenced the time frame benchmark is 180 days. But because you are dealing with human beings of varying age, life experience etc, no 2 clearances will take the same amount of time. FYI last year the agency responsible completed over 65000 clearances.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

You should know better than to use Wikipedia as a reference, those numbers are far from accurate. And one anecdote about a clearance taking 18 months does not make it the norm. Because it isn't. There are publicly available stats on clearance times and for the one referenced the time frame benchmark is 180 days. But because you are dealing with human beings of varying age, life experience etc, no 2 clearances will take the same amount of time. FYI last year the agency responsible completed over 65000 clearances.

As you can see I replied to @Nudge who said from his experience it was said to take at least 18 months. If you say it often takes less, I'll take your word for it. But don't you think such massive variation in clearance time is a problem in itself?

 

[DDG38]

As you can see I replied to @Nudge who said from his experience it was said to take at least 18 months. If you say it often takes less, I'll take your word for it. But don't you think such massive variation in clearance time is a problem in itself?

No I don't because I understand that security vetting is a process that isn't black and white, it's grey. Human beings aren't widgets, you can't make every single individual life experience fit into a neat box that complies with a KPI time frame. So, some people will get it sooner, some later. Go look at how long clearances take in the USA for some industries and levels.

 

[spoz]

FI, my last one (which I no longer hold as I am retired) at a level I’m not going to discuss but it was not the basic, and done about 2 years ago, took 10 days.

 

[At lakes]

FI, my last one (which I no longer hold as I am retired) at a level I’m not going to discuss but it was not the basic, and done about 2 years ago, took 10 days.

Mine took three weeks at a rather higher than your average level of clearance, I have had no issues with the procedure

 

[OldTex]

When getting an initial level of clearance the amount of information to be provided by the vettee is nothing onerous. It is when needing a higher level of clearance that the timeframe of the required information is extended and the added verification through referees is also extended. Often the vettees have not kept suitable records and documents which slows down the assessment. In the end the fewer holes in the information timeline the quicker the clearance can be issued.

 

[DDG38]

From the Guardian news blog this morning (5/4/24) :
"The defence minister, Richard Marles, has signalled that next month’s budget is likely to contain cuts to some programs within his portfolio, even as defence spending increases overall.

In a speech to the Sydney Institute on Thursday night, Marles flagged plans for “tough but necessary decisions to divest, delay, or re-scope” some projects in order to accelerate other projects “that will have the greatest impact on our strategic objectives”.

He said the former Coalition government had “adopted the habit of making large defence announcements without the money to turn these announcements into reality”.

Marles said Labor had “inherited a defence budget that was at historically high levels of over-programming”, meaning programs that were promised without enough money allocated. He said that in some years “that over-programming reached 30 to 40%”:

That means that for every $100 Defence had to spend it was planning to spend $140. Or, in other words, more than a quarter of what Defence had planned to buy or deliver, it had no money for.

Marles said some level of over-programming made sense, similar to the principle of managing a queue to allow for unforeseen circumstances or delays. But he said more than 20% over-programming was “costly for industry and ultimately dishonest” because not all projects could happen and “everyone is just waiting for the eventual train wreck”."

 

[spoz]

I ran the Defence future major projects plan, then known as the Pink Book, many years ago. In those days that level of overprogramming was in fact routine and planned for; projects at that stage were only roughly scoped in price terms, had a procurement schedule which was untested, and in many cases never came to fruition. To plan for any lower level of overprogramming would have been to virtually ensure that we would underspend. And projects have their expenditure patterns adjusted regularly in budgets as they progress and things change. While I do expect a cut to Defence other than SSNs, that being in appearance at least to be what the DSR was set up to do, that piece of reasoning seems like a fairly routine bit of political “blame the other guys” blather.

Overprogramming also allowed the GotD to approve projects which most met its aims from a list of things which could be got on with reasonably rapidly, while not proceeding with those it was not so keen on, whether for strategic, industrial, social or political reasons, while knowing they were still advancing Defence and meeting (some at least of) its needs. A government which seeks to prevent it would potentially be scoring an own goal.

 

[DDG38]

ASPI has published a report on discussing recruitment of Pacific Islanders into the ADF. Typical of think tank reports, it is big on ideas and short on solutions and how policies could be changed to accommodate foreigners serving and holding security access. For those who are interested a link to the full report can be found on the summary page here : Regional security and Pacific partnerships: recruiting Pacific Islanders into the Australian Defence Force

 

[hauritz]

ASPI has published a report on discussing recruitment of Pacific Islanders into the ADF. Typical of think tank reports, it is big on ideas and short on solutions and how policies could be changed to accommodate foreigners serving and holding security access. For those who are interested a link to the full report can be found on the summary page here : Regional security and Pacific partnerships: recruiting Pacific Islanders into the Australian Defence Force

Given the new emphasis on littoral operations perhaps recruiting south pacific islanders isn't such a bad idea. Horses for courses.

 

[Aardvark144]

I just love MINDEF - The Minister said doing this actually built morale within the defence force, “because people now know that what’s going on is real.” Frankly if that is not one of the best BS comments from a Minister I don't know what else could be.

 

[Redlands18]

Government announces new CDF - Australian Defence Magazine

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this morning announced that Vice-Admiral David Johnston has been recommended to the Governor General as the next Chief of Defence Force | Nigel Pittaway

www.australiandefence.com.au

Vice Admiral David Johnston has been named to succeed General Angus Campbell as Chief of Defence Force (CDF), becoming the first RAN appointment to this role in 22 years. The current Chief of Air Force (CAF) Air Marshall Robert Chipman will be named as VCDF and Air Vice Marshall Stephen Chappel the new CAF. The CDF and VCDF still have to be signed off by the Governor General, but that is really only rubber stamping.

The RAN has been struggling to get people into this position over the last 50 years with just 3 appointments out of 15 going to the RAN since 1977.

 

[Armchair]

Government announces new CDF - Australian Defence Magazine

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this morning announced that Vice-Admiral David Johnston has been recommended to the Governor General as the next Chief of Defence Force | Nigel Pittaway

www.australiandefence.com.au

Vice Admiral David Johnston has been named to succeed General Angus Campbell as Chief of Defence Force (CDF), becoming the first RAN appointment to this role in 22 years. The current Chief of Air Force (CAF) Air Marshall Robert Chipman will be named as VCDF and Air Vice Marshall Stephen Chappel the new CAF. The CDF and VCDF still have to be signed off by the Governor General, but that is really only rubber stamping.

The RAN has been struggling to get people into this position over the last 50 years with just 3 appointments out of 15 going to the RAN since 1977.

There has also been to my eye at least, an undersupply of former RAN personnel as governors general, as members of parliament, and in key government appointments and honours. I don’t think the Australian Army has benefited from an apparent oversupply of the same but it has meant there has been limited naval expertise in, and around, the corridors of power (during an era of captain’s picks of major naval platforms and politicization of naval shipbuiding).

 

[MARKMILES77]

Some key points from Myles' Speech and Press releases:

Defence spending will increase to 2.4% by 2033/34. Will be $100 Billion in 2024.

ADF will no longer be a "balanced force".
It will be a "Focused Force".
Focused on the threat in the Asia Pacific.
Focused on protecting our sea lanes.
Focused on "Forceful Projection".

Army will transition to being a Littoral force. (I presume more like the US Marines than the US Army.)
$7-10 Billion for Landing Craft both Heavy and Medium.
Precision Strike Missile buy to be sped up.

Will look to recruit Non Australian Citizens into the ADF. Some sort of Pacific recruitment programme?/Foreign Legion?

Hypersonic missiles for the SuperHornets.

Two large support vessels for Navy scrapped.

2024 Integrated Investment Program

The Albanese Government has boosted Defence spending to deliver the 2024 National Defence Strategy and build an integrated, focused force that is ready to deter potential threats.

www.minister.defence.gov.au

2024 National Defence Strategy

Today, the Albanese Government has released the inaugural National Defence Strategy, which sets out a fundamentally new approach to the defence of Australia and our interests. Developed in response to last year’s Defence Strategic Review, the 2024 National Defence Strategy outlines the...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

Launch of the National Defence Strategy and Integrated Investment Program

I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal people, and pay my respects to their Elders, past and present. As the Minister for Defence, I also pay my respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women who have served our nation in the...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Interesting document. Pleasantly surprised that Army keeps planned Armour, 30 SPH, 211 Boxers, 129 Redbacks and Helicopters, even as a littoral force. Air Force is getting 20 Hercules. All in all, I think I am happy with the documents.

 

[Redlands18]

Some key points from Myles' Speech and Press releases:

Defence spending will increase to 2.4% by 2033/34. Will be $100 Billion in 2024.

ADF will no longer be a "balanced force".
It will be a "Focused Force".
Focused on the threat in the Asia Pacific.
Focused on protecting our sea lanes.
Focused on "Forceful Projection".

Army will transition to being a Littoral force. (I presume more like the US Marines than the US Army.)
$7-10 Billion for Landing Craft both Heavy and Medium.
Precision Strike Missile buy to be sped up.

Will look to recruit Non Australian Citizens into the ADF. Some sort of Pacific recruitment programme?/Foreign Legion?

Hypersonic missiles for the SuperHornets.

Two large support vessels for Navy scrapped.

2024 Integrated Investment Program

The Albanese Government has boosted Defence spending to deliver the 2024 National Defence Strategy and build an integrated, focused force that is ready to deter potential threats.

www.minister.defence.gov.au

2024 National Defence Strategy

Today, the Albanese Government has released the inaugural National Defence Strategy, which sets out a fundamentally new approach to the defence of Australia and our interests. Developed in response to last year’s Defence Strategic Review, the 2024 National Defence Strategy outlines the...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

Launch of the National Defence Strategy and Integrated Investment Program

I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal people, and pay my respects to their Elders, past and present. As the Minister for Defence, I also pay my respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women who have served our nation in the...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

Nothing come out today that we didn't already know, except Budgets for the Hobart upgrade $6-8B, nearly as much as the original build cost and $7-11B for the GP Frigates, but we are only expecting to get four during this IIP period, so overall cost is probably going to be double that, by the time ship eleven is delivered.
Two major issues I can see though, no plans for increasing the AOR fleet and no plan for replacing the MCMV capability.

 

[meatshield]

Nothing come out today that we didn't already know, except Budgets for the Hobart upgrade $6-8B, nearly as much as the original build cost and $7-11B for the GP Frigates, but we are only expecting to get four during this IIP period, so overall cost is probably going to be double that, by the time ship eleven is delivered.
Two major issues I can see though, no plans for increasing the AOR fleet and no plan for replacing the MCMV capability.

I wonder what a Hobart flight II from Spain would cost?

 

[Redlands18]

Interesting document. Pleasantly surprised that Army keeps planned Armour, 30 SPH, 211 Boxers, 129 Redbacks and Helicopters, even as a littoral force. Air Force is getting 20 Hercules. All in all, I think I am happy with the documents.

Not quite sure why you are surprised, we have known those numbers since Apr 2023 with the release of the Defence Review. This is the IIP based on that Defence Review, wouldn't make any sense to do a review then change it when they finally release the forward budget for it.

 

[Reptilia]

I wonder what a Hobart flight II from Spain would cost?

They offered to build 3 more of the existing Hobarts for $6 billion in 2022.