ADF General discussion thread

[Bob53]

On 3AW melbourne today they had a defence recruitment consultant talking about what would be required to increase the number of young people joins the ADF.

1 of the suggestions was to to come up with ways to assist in getting them into a property. Significant bonuses kicking in for each of the years over 3 years ( eg commit to 5/6/7/8 years to achieve a retention bonus) and defence force property loans at the reserve bank cash rate ..2-3% lower than the banks and greater tax breaks for ADF members ( first $40 k tax free).,

 

[Volkodav]

On 3AW melbourne today they had a defence recruitment consultant talking about what would be required to increase the number of young people joins the ADF.

1 of the suggestions was to to come up with ways to assist in getting them into a property. Significant bonuses kicking in for each of the years over 3 years ( eg commit to 5/6/7/8 years to achieve a retention bonus) and defence force property loans at the reserve bank cash rate ..2-3% lower than the banks and greater tax breaks for ADF members ( first $40 k tax free).,

One thing that would do wonders is to bring back variations of the old pension schemes. They were expensive but I think if you look at it holistically, it would be cheaper to give people who stay 20 years a pension that starts the day they leave, than to have to replace them three times over as people leave for better opportunities.

 

[Takao]

One thing that would do wonders is to bring back variations of the old pension schemes. They were expensive but I think if you look at it holistically, it would be cheaper to give people who stay 20 years a pension that starts the day they leave, than to have to replace them three times over as people leave for better opportunities.

I've never been sold on the 'bring DFRDB back' argument for retention. While I just missed out on the scheme, none of the people around me who left did so because MSBS < DFRDB. There were a couple of peeps who were annoyed they had been 'forced' to transfer, but most of that came out when the new super scheme to replace MSBS was being discussed/rolled out.

But, having commanded a CASG unit that was about 1/3 APS, almost all of whom had done 20 years then jumped across, I'm more sold on it being a Government or Department retention tool. As good as my younger APS peeps were, and there were some absolutely brilliant ones, you just couldn't replicate the ADF experience when dealing with the kit or the units

 

[Volkodav]

I've never been sold on the 'bring DFRDB back' argument for retention. While I just missed out on the scheme, none of the people around me who left did so because MSBS < DFRDB. There were a couple of peeps who were annoyed they had been 'forced' to transfer, but most of that came out when the new super scheme to replace MSBS was being discussed/rolled out.

But, having commanded a CASG unit that was about 1/3 APS, almost all of whom had done 20 years then jumped across, I'm more sold on it being a Government or Department retention tool. As good as my younger APS peeps were, and there were some absolutely brilliant ones, you just couldn't replicate the ADF experience when dealing with the kit or the units

It's sort of what I was thinking as well. I worked with some great people in government and industry who had 20 years ADF and DFRDB, and then 20 years in their civilian role.

The thing is when you have people with two income streams the low pay in APS technical areas doesn't hurt so much, and the other benefits make up for it. When you don't have that, then you need to try and attract those people back as above the line contractors.

 

[DDG38]

Couple of recent ASPI articles that may be of interest to some :
Why defence warning time requires urgent attention (not sure this really will come as a shock to anyone on this forum but good to see it being raised)

Defence’s electromagnetic spectrum challenges (some excellent points raised about how there needs to be more investment in ADF EW)

 

[old faithful]

It's sort of what I was thinking as well. I worked with some great people in government and industry who had 20 years ADF and DFRDB, and then 20 years in their civilian role.

The thing is when you have people with two income streams the low pay in APS technical areas doesn't hurt so much, and the other benefits make up for it. When you don't have that, then you need to try and attract those people back as above the line contractors.

I'm a bigger fan of dfrdb than I am of ndis.
I see first hand everyday the absolute cash cow ndis is. In my street alone there are two 3 bedroom houses occupied by 1 disabled person each, with 3 full time ,24 hour around the clock carers every day. $millions of welfare for 2 people. Both could be in one house, with 3 carers. Oh, there is a rental crisis as well....

 

[Volkodav]

I'm a bigger fan of dfrdb than I am of ndis.
I see first hand everyday the absolute cash cow ndis is. In my street alone there are two 3 bedroom houses occupied by 1 disabled person each, with 3 full time ,24 hour around the clock carers every day. $millions of welfare for 2 people. Both could be in one house, with 3 carers. Oh, there is a rental crisis as well....

Well would you rather they be in a nursing home or a hospital, full time, at much greater cost?

Check out the funding for those houses, they are great investments, and they save the tax payer money.

 

[old faithful]

Volk, my mum spent 11 years in a nursing home, it was soul destroying for everyone, but I see 1st hand the absolute rort of NDIS. It's a shameful waste of of tax payers money, and wide open for abuse .

 

[Volkodav]

Volk, my mum spent 11 years in a nursing home, it was soul destroying for everyone, but I see 1st hand the absolute rort of NDIS. It's a shameful waste of of tax payers money, and wide open for abuse .

Those houses aren't part of the rorting, the rorting is more on the side of the rent seeking Aholes who transitioned from nursing homes, to job net work providers now to NDIS. They are a Lambo driving sleazes who follow government subsidies from industry to industry.

One example is the ABA practitioners who torture autistic kids into acting as if they are neuro typical. Our cleaner does NDIS contracts as well and they are contracted at a lower hourly rate but is worth doing because the work is consistent.

The scheme got out of control because of a lack of regulation and accountability, that has changed a lot. A few group houses were originally slums, but now they are built to spec. i.e. larger doorways, bathrooms, lifting beams in the ceilings, sprinklers for fire safety.

They are paid for by investors and the carers and rent comes from the NDIS clients. It's means tested too, the rents, and they pay a share they can afford.

A much bigger rort is a lot of the tax benefits on shares, there are cashed up retirees who get tax credits on-top of there investment dividends that are much more expensive per person than the old age pension.

 

[old faithful]

Back to military matters now, I just spent a month in a workplace where millions of $ are spent on, forget it......

 

[swerve]

One example is the ABA practitioners who torture autistic kids into acting as if they are neuro typical. ...

My wife's a speech & language therapist with a specialism in autistic young people. I recall seeing a report she'd written, saying that X (IIRC there wasn't actually a name - they often use coded names) should sometimes be allowed to be autistic . . . . I liked that, a lot.

I sometimes remind her of it when she finds me too exasperating.

 

[ADMk2]

Defence confirmed during Senate Estimates June 06, 2024, that Project AIR-6502 - Medium Ranged Air Defence and AIR-6503 - Ballistic and High Speed Missile Defence, have both been cancelled. The excuse given is the long-lead times that present systems would have had. If this is actually true, they were clearly only considering Patriot / LTAMDS. A strange decision as we didn’t even get to the point where we requested pricing and delivery options.

Project AIR-6500 will now focus on delivering an “Integrated Air and Missile Defence” Command and Control system and maintain a “watching brief” on possible effector systems for review in 2026 when the next biannual National Defence Strategy document will be generated.

Our “IADS” capability will now rely on our traditional strategic policy (aka - hope), our operational battery of the short-ranged eNASAMS, pending availability of an air warfare destroyer and the existing capability RAAF presently has to engage air and missile threats.

Not exactly “iron dome” like. But there it is.

 

[old faithful]

I'm really at a loss as to why our anti air is such low priority, and has been for decades.
With cruise missiles becoming more common, drones even more so, I would have thought that AA would be far more important. Fighter aircraft need air strip's to function.
Cruise missiles are a great way to take out airfields.....

 

[ADMk2]

I'm really at a loss as to why our anti air is such low priority, and has been for decades.
With cruise missiles becoming more common, drones even more so, I would have thought that AA would be far more important. Fighter aircraft need air strip's to function.
Cruise missiles are a great way to take out airfields.....

The”official” reason given during Senate Estimates in June, is “long lead times” meaning there is is no benefit to ordering now, which is why it will be revisited in 2 years time (aka NDS 2026),

I assume from this, they were only considering Patriot / LTAMDS. Would there be ”long lead times” for SAMP-T or Israel‘s ‘David’s Sling’ of the 3 main Western Medium Ranged AD systems?

Not according to publicly accessible defence news sources…

 

[Takao]

I would consider, hmmm....., three things.

1. What is the status of technology for medium range SAMs/ABM? ie, if we buy something today, how much life has that got against a threat that is rapidly evolving? And if the answer is not much, how far away is the tech that can cope with those threats? If both answers are a handful of years, why buy now? Remember the Government's direction about MOTS/COTS and Australian modifications.

2. What are the production lines like? Noting there are currently at least three countries (two in a shooting war) that use the same/similar weapons to what could fulfil ADF requirements, how long until we get a weapon? And, if the answer is a few years, see (1).

3. What are we defending? There are very few single points of failure within Australia, and when you compare the beating that British, German and Japanese cities took in the 40s and kept on operating, what exactly are we defending? And what is the actual cost of defending those areas?

There seems a really bizarre thinking of IADS in and out of uniform. Cruise missiles aren't magical beasties, you need dozens and dozens to hit and destroy targets that are defended by Syrian air defence, let alone anything modern. Even then, generally speaking, they are no bigger than a Mk 84 bomb. They'll shred what they hit, but the cant do much around that. Look at how hard NATO worked to design weapons to kill airfields, because a bunch of HE won't do it. Further to that, SAMs are part of the answer. At the moment, we have SM-2, F-35, F/A-18E, EA-18G, E-7, eNASAMS, 30/35 mm, EW, ISR and a whole bunch of other stuff that helps shape our response. It's about layers, and we have a bunch that is getting better and better and being integrated. Could we do with more layers? Hell yes. Let me add that to the list of things we could do with more of...

All of that assumes that killing incoming is the answer. There are other answers too. Why not distributed airfields and likely targets? Hitting two fuel tanks on RAAF Darwin is easy? Fine, make 40 tanks that are 5 km of either side of the Stuart Highway between RAAF Darwin and Humpty Doo. That's nearly 400 sq km - good luck getting a raid big enough to kit them all. Make more runways, comms nodes, hospitals. Find the single point targets and duplicate. Remember how hard it was to kill a Syrian airfield, now kill 4. Or 5. There are 324 km between RAAF Darwin and RAAF Tindal - how many rudimentary airfields can be made within 25 km of the highway? Hell, within 100 km of the highway? Concrete is cheap, make them all match RAAF Darwin's runway, have a pre-sited area for a truck with ATC arrive, have hardened comms nodes and some hardstanding to temporarily hold some civilian fuel tankers and hey presto - a good enough for war site. Apply that across those critical points and guess what, you now have national resilience. There is only one power station in Darwin? Make 3. Have Defence pay half. Now it doesn't matter if Cyclone XXX or a H-6 raid comes over, Darwin has power.

Like I said, IAMD simultaneously bewilders and amuses me. When you factor in the the tech required, its capabilities and what people claim they want protected, it pretty much makes Attack SSKs look cheap. The harsh reality is that Australian soil will be struck, Australian civilians will be killed. We need to start having that discussion to start building national reliance. And the most horrible thing? Some of those casualties will be from Australian ordnance falling back to earth...

 

[Bluey 006]

I would consider, hmmm....., three things.

1. What is the status of technology for medium-range SAMs/ABM? i.e., if we buy something today, how much life has that got against a threat that is rapidly evolving? And if the answer is not much, how far away is the tech that can cope with those threats? If both answers are a handful of years, why buy now? Remember the Government's direction about MOTS/COTS and Australian modifications.

2. What are the production lines like? Noting there are currently at least three countries (two in a shooting war) that use the same/similar weapons to what could fulfil ADF requirements, how long until we get a weapon? And, if the answer is a few years, see (1).

3. What are we defending? There are very few single points of failure within Australia, and when you compare the beating that British, German and Japanese cities took in the 40s and kept on operating, what exactly are we defending? And what is the actual cost of defending those areas?

All of these are fair and probable points of consideration, but of course, there is always another.

4. Let's push this down the road until it becomes someone else's problem, or to a later date when it will be easier to justify cancelling the capability. At a time when it doesn't conflict with our own threat assessments and our strategic assumptions/justifications for the re-posturing.

i.e. the "missile age" had removed the "comfort of distance" for Australia, and we may have to face long-range conventional precision strikes by advanced ballistic and cruise missiles, cyber attacks, and ever-more sophisticated counter-space systems. We also need to prioritise our own long-range strike capabilities above everything else.


Wasn't the generally held view among partners that the period 2027–2037 would be a particularly dangerous time?


Leaving a further assessment of IADS until 2026 would be leaving things pretty late to choose, order, and bring to IOC. Especially if other conflicts around the world are still underway (see point 2), and there is a backlog of orders with even more pressure on supply chains.

The harsh reality is that Australian soil will be struck, and Australian civilians will be killed. We need to start having that discussion to start building national reliance. And the most horrible thing? Some of those casualties will be from Australian ordnance falling back to earth...

True story

 

[Volkodav]

I would consider, hmmm....., three things.

1. What is the status of technology for medium range SAMs/ABM? ie, if we buy something today, how much life has that got against a threat that is rapidly evolving? And if the answer is not much, how far away is the tech that can cope with those threats? If both answers are a handful of years, why buy now? Remember the Government's direction about MOTS/COTS and Australian modifications.

2. What are the production lines like? Noting there are currently at least three countries (two in a shooting war) that use the same/similar weapons to what could fulfil ADF requirements, how long until we get a weapon? And, if the answer is a few years, see (1).

3. What are we defending? There are very few single points of failure within Australia, and when you compare the beating that British, German and Japanese cities took in the 40s and kept on operating, what exactly are we defending? And what is the actual cost of defending those areas?

There seems a really bizarre thinking of IADS in and out of uniform. Cruise missiles aren't magical beasties, you need dozens and dozens to hit and destroy targets that are defended by Syrian air defence, let alone anything modern. Even then, generally speaking, they are no bigger than a Mk 84 bomb. They'll shred what they hit, but the cant do much around that. Look at how hard NATO worked to design weapons to kill airfields, because a bunch of HE won't do it. Further to that, SAMs are part of the answer. At the moment, we have SM-2, F-35, F/A-18E, EA-18G, E-7, eNASAMS, 30/35 mm, EW, ISR and a whole bunch of other stuff that helps shape our response. It's about layers, and we have a bunch that is getting better and better and being integrated. Could we do with more layers? Hell yes. Let me add that to the list of things we could do with more of...

All of that assumes that killing incoming is the answer. There are other answers too. Why not distributed airfields and likely targets? Hitting two fuel tanks on RAAF Darwin is easy? Fine, make 40 tanks that are 5 km of either side of the Stuart Highway between RAAF Darwin and Humpty Doo. That's nearly 400 sq km - good luck getting a raid big enough to kit them all. Make more runways, comms nodes, hospitals. Find the single point targets and duplicate. Remember how hard it was to kill a Syrian airfield, now kill 4. Or 5. There are 324 km between RAAF Darwin and RAAF Tindal - how many rudimentary airfields can be made within 25 km of the highway? Hell, within 100 km of the highway? Concrete is cheap, make them all match RAAF Darwin's runway, have a pre-sited area for a truck with ATC arrive, have hardened comms nodes and some hardstanding to temporarily hold some civilian fuel tankers and hey presto - a good enough for war site. Apply that across those critical points and guess what, you now have national resilience. There is only one power station in Darwin? Make 3. Have Defence pay half. Now it doesn't matter if Cyclone XXX or a H-6 raid comes over, Darwin has power.

Like I said, IAMD simultaneously bewilders and amuses me. When you factor in the the tech required, its capabilities and what people claim they want protected, it pretty much makes Attack SSKs look cheap. The harsh reality is that Australian soil will be struck, Australian civilians will be killed. We need to start having that discussion to start building national reliance. And the most horrible thing? Some of those casualties will be from Australian ordnance falling back to earth...

Very well put.

I get the impression that not many people have comprehended what "minimum viable capability" actually means, I know there are various interpretations of it within defence as the concept is digested.

It doesn't necessarily mean only buying existing MOTS and COTS but at time same time decades long projects that deliver little more than photo oportunities in marginal electorates are hopefully a thing of the past.

Often Australia has pivoted between buying unnecessarily unique gear, then the pendulum swings and we are getting near obsolete new gear so we have don't have a gap.

Unique is usually not due to good playing, it is often, because it promises required capability at lower cost, but the uniqueness is due to upgrades to address known failings, gaps, and incompatibilities. This leads to us paying more, for less.

Minimum viable capability may well mean paying more upfront to lift an FMS option, lock stock and barrel from the US.

During the F-111 procurement, when it hit technical issues, the alternative to the 24 C plus 6 RF initial plan was Phantoms. This wasn't a straight swap, the minimum viable Phantom alternative force was 36 F-4E, 6 RF-4C and 12 KC-135 tankers.

We are no longer talking number of platforms and unique modifications to get everything we can out of each platform, but holistic capabilities that may not be an imagined best value for money. Sometimes the minimum viable capability with be the biggest, most expensive option because it better integrates with and complement what we have.

 

[seaspear]

I believe the U.S is developing the Typhon missile system for road based deployment, not sure if this would meet the A.D.F requirements but could be considered

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12135

New US missile system ‘Typhon’ debuts in PH but fixed deployment unsure

OAHU —The United States has no plans yet to permanently station in the Philippines a new missile system, which saw action in recent large-scale military exercises between US and Philippine

globalnation.inquirer.net

 

[ADMk2]

I would consider, hmmm....., three things.

1. What is the status of technology for medium range SAMs/ABM? ie, if we buy something today, how much life has that got against a threat that is rapidly evolving? And if the answer is not much, how far away is the tech that can cope with those threats? If both answers are a handful of years, why buy now? Remember the Government's direction about MOTS/COTS and Australian modifications.

2. What are the production lines like? Noting there are currently at least three countries (two in a shooting war) that use the same/similar weapons to what could fulfil ADF requirements, how long until we get a weapon? And, if the answer is a few years, see (1).

3. What are we defending? There are very few single points of failure within Australia, and when you compare the beating that British, German and Japanese cities took in the 40s and kept on operating, what exactly are we defending? And what is the actual cost of defending those areas?

There seems a really bizarre thinking of IADS in and out of uniform. Cruise missiles aren't magical beasties, you need dozens and dozens to hit and destroy targets that are defended by Syrian air defence, let alone anything modern. Even then, generally speaking, they are no bigger than a Mk 84 bomb. They'll shred what they hit, but the cant do much around that. Look at how hard NATO worked to design weapons to kill airfields, because a bunch of HE won't do it. Further to that, SAMs are part of the answer. At the moment, we have SM-2, F-35, F/A-18E, EA-18G, E-7, eNASAMS, 30/35 mm, EW, ISR and a whole bunch of other stuff that helps shape our response. It's about layers, and we have a bunch that is getting better and better and being integrated. Could we do with more layers? Hell yes. Let me add that to the list of things we could do with more of...

All of that assumes that killing incoming is the answer. There are other answers too. Why not distributed airfields and likely targets? Hitting two fuel tanks on RAAF Darwin is easy? Fine, make 40 tanks that are 5 km of either side of the Stuart Highway between RAAF Darwin and Humpty Doo. That's nearly 400 sq km - good luck getting a raid big enough to kit them all. Make more runways, comms nodes, hospitals. Find the single point targets and duplicate. Remember how hard it was to kill a Syrian airfield, now kill 4. Or 5. There are 324 km between RAAF Darwin and RAAF Tindal - how many rudimentary airfields can be made within 25 km of the highway? Hell, within 100 km of the highway? Concrete is cheap, make them all match RAAF Darwin's runway, have a pre-sited area for a truck with ATC arrive, have hardened comms nodes and some hardstanding to temporarily hold some civilian fuel tankers and hey presto - a good enough for war site. Apply that across those critical points and guess what, you now have national resilience. There is only one power station in Darwin? Make 3. Have Defence pay half. Now it doesn't matter if Cyclone XXX or a H-6 raid comes over, Darwin has power.

Like I said, IAMD simultaneously bewilders and amuses me. When you factor in the the tech required, its capabilities and what people claim they want protected, it pretty much makes Attack SSKs look cheap. The harsh reality is that Australian soil will be struck, Australian civilians will be killed. We need to start having that discussion to start building national reliance. And the most horrible thing? Some of those casualties will be from Australian ordnance falling back to earth...

Fair points, yet defence had a MRAD requirement nonetheless and countries that I am sure are just as aware of future threats as we are, are lining up for Patriot and THAAD, both of which have on-going development programs design for just this very reason. Defending Australia is not the only point of such systems however and Australian personnel have actually been on the receiving end of ballistic missile attacks in Iraq with nothing more able to be done than “dig a pit” and we presently have nothing in our arsenal capable of defending against such, anywhere, under any condition. The “placing an air warfare destroyer off the coast” idea is nonsense, yet is literally the NSD’s answer to this point. Um, who is protecting the fleet if we did such a thing, given that is the AWD’s primary job? The other ONE available? Lol.

Want to future proof capability? Fine, join LTAMDS as a development partner as we have on PRsM and ensure we contribute to make sure we add our .05 cents to address future threats. Obviously we aren’t doing that either.

Your points about dispersal and base hardening are excellent. I agree completely. But once again, we aren’t doing that, either…

 

[CJR]

If medium/long range SAMs are currently not practical due to the waiting list we could still probably do more in the short/medium range category. I mean our NASAMS systems use a locally made radar and it looks like we also assemble much of the combat management system locally which only really leaves launch units as a gap to fill (and launch units are relatively simple....). So, ordering an extra NASAMS battery or two looks like a way to circumvent most of the queues...