ADF General discussion thread

[old faithful]

In war time, yep, multiple airstrips and fuel farms dispersion is definitely the way to go, as well as having the infrastructure in place, ready to build them.
In peace time, it's never going to happen.
Yes 324 km between RAAF Darwin and Tindal, who will maintain these in peace time?
That's the thing, it's tropical, things grow. Fast.
It's dusty.....very dusty in the dry.
What does Australia have, or will Australia have to intercept a nuke?

 

[Bluey 006]

What does Australia have, or will Australia have to intercept a nuke?

Fleet Base East? Gallipoli Barracks? RAAF Tindal?

Sorry, I thought it was a joke.

 

[Wombat000]

post deleted.

 

[ASSAIL]

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...

The concept of distributed airfields was used in northern Australia during WW2.
Over 40 airfields were built along the northern Stuart Highway (between Alice Springs and Darwin) from 1942 onwards.

Australia’s Air War

One of the most vivid images of the Territory in wartime remains the roadside airstrips. Flat tracks carved out of the tropical bush; home to the courageous pilots and aircrews who fought the Air War over Northern Australia and the enemy to the North.

northernterritory.com

 

[Bob53]

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…

But wouldn’t the lead time if ordered 2 years later…just add 2 years to the lead time? Dont we just get in the queue and hope the demands prompts an increase in production.

 

[ADMk2]

But wouldn’t the lead time if ordered 2 years later…just add 2 years to the lead time? Dont we just get in the queue and hope the demands prompts an increase in production.

I suspect, as do most this “excuse” is simply a convenient spin on a lack of authority from Government to go and spend the funds. Of course there is a long lead time, with acquiring complex SAM systems. How could there not be? But we haven’t even got to the point of a formal Letter of Request for such systems, so the reality is we don’t even truly know. Nor have we truly explored any other system (such as SAMP-T or David’s Sling for instance) which doesn’t seem to lave long lead time production issues, which shows how invested we really are in the idea. There are solutions available, but the program has just been canned, but defence officials are not allowed to admit such, for some reason.

A reoccurring theme in modern Australian defence…

 

[DDG38]

The ADF has launched a new recruitment campaign, the new ad can be viewed on the ADF Careers YT channel :

 

[hauritz]

The ADF has launched a new recruitment campaign, the new ad can be viewed on the ADF Careers YT channel :

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old misogynist no, just no. Men are simply phisically more suited to the military. There are places for women but you wouldn't want to find yourself under fire in a trench with a DEI hire.

 

[DDG38]

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old misogynist no, just no. Men are simply phisically more suited to the military. There are places for women but you wouldn't want to find yourself under fire in a trench with a DEI hire.

No risk at all, you totally sound like one.
I've served with women since 1987 and have seen them do everything men can do and sometime better. And given the extreme personnel shortage the ADF is experiencing, you really want to apply that attitude to 50% of the population ? If I'm in a trench under fire the only thing I think I'd be caring about is how well trained the person next to me is and how well they can shoot, I wouldn't be giving a flying F what gender they were. But that's just me.

 

[d-ron84]

No risk at all, you totally sound like one.
I've served with women since 1987 and have seen them do everything men can do and sometime better. And given the extreme personnel shortage the ADF is experiencing, you really want to apply that attitude to 50% of the population ? If I'm in a trench under fire the only thing I think I'd be caring about is how well trained the person next to me is and how well they can shoot, I wouldn't be giving a flying F what gender they were. But that's just me.

100% Agree!
Since 2003 I have been serving with many competent and capable ADF members that some on here would refer to as DEI hire's, I just call them mates

 

[Takao]

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old misogynist no, just no. Men are simply phisically more suited to the military. There are places for women but you wouldn't want to find yourself under fire in a trench with a DEI hire.

That is the single largest pile of crap I have read on this page - and I just finished reading about putting F-35B and 128 VLS onto Arafura along with F-22 engines to make it supercruise. @DDG38 and @d-ron84 are 110% spot on. I've relied on women in barracks, in the field and deployed (including being shot at) and I've never felt let down. We have women absolutely kicking butt in combat roles, in support roles, in logistic roles and in HQ roles.

Misogynistic shit like this has no place in the modern military. Women proved their place in the last parts nearly a decade ago - and for most areas well before that. We need women, the numbers and the diversity boost the military in so many different ways.

Gosh, just the idea of a 18-21 year old Takao being in an infantry Bn would make all the olds and bolds laugh; I'd have been broken within the year...

 

[old faithful]

As an ex grunt, I would love to have had a hot 21 year old blonde,female fwd scout to share a pit with for a couple of weeks at a time! Imagine, while I am shaving after stand down, she could make me a coffee and breakfast! (Please, it's a joke ok!)
But there was a valid point made in one of the replies. I am 100% certain that a woman can fly a fighter jet equally to a man.
She could command an aircraft carrier as well as any man.
She could command an armoured vehicle as well as any man.
Could she hold her own in close combat? If it came to hand to hand or bayonet? Not so sure.
Men can do some jobs better than women.
Wo.en can do some jobs better than men.
So long as the best person fits the job, no problem. If a woman can meet the SAME standard as a man then so be it. But standards need to be the same for any gender, and not compromised. Why don't we have mixed NRL football sides, or mixed cricket teams?
I know that given the state of our men's cricket team, someone of the calibre of Alysa Healy would probably hold her spot!

 

[Volkodav]

Way back when I was in the support platoon of a reserve officer training unit, we were training aid for the officer cadets on exercise. Officer cadets would replace our NCOs and platoon leader, rotating roles, building their experience and knowledge.

The thing I remember is some, not all, of the females, were as good as or better than many of the males. There were females who would have made better platoon leaders than some of the males who were posted to infantry units after graduation.

I look at some of the privileged, self entitled prats I've had to work with over the years, the current and ex SNCOs and officers, the ratio of males I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire is about 20 to 1 versus the females. That is there are many many more males I would never want to serve with or trust than females.

 

[old faithful]

You come accross as a very bitter man Volk.
I can say that I never had a bad RSM. You can't fake or bullshit your way to an RSM in RAR.
I had 1 bad CSM. He was pathetic, all the others were awesome.
I had a couple of terrible OCs (majors) 1 however was the best leader of men I have ever worked with, and would follow him with confidence anywhere, he ended up a Maj General.
I have seen a female para rigger pushed through the system, given a free ride so to speak, to be the 1st female to do this and to do that, she was competent. But there were several men that were just as good or better who missed out because she was to be the example.
Platoon comanders.....I had 1 that was average, all the rest were competent. No real stand outs.
I did see two very bad ones, one didn't last and quietly "moved on" the other, a minority, became a bad CO, Lt Col. The only bad one I saw.
All in all, I found that the leadership in the RAR was pretty good, especially when compared to managers I have worked with since.
I can't speak for other services or corps, or Regiments. I did spend 12 months at RMC as an instructor/ training aid.
I saw a lot of cadets . Exercise Timor, was a very demanding exercise. Probably the hardest task an officer will do bar SAS selection.
Lots of difficult tasks, no sleep, difficult terrain and conditions, no food till day 3.
Then for the men, they got a live chook.
The women, they got a live white fluffy bunny wabbit, complete with a pink ribbon around its neck.
The women ate that bunny quick smart!
They did very very well, and I was impressed with their efforts. However, their platoon finished last.

 

[Bob53]

As long as promotion and advancement is based on merit no one really cares. The war on on merit effects organisational outcomes.

 

[Volkodav]

You come accross as a very bitter man Volk.
I can say that I never had a bad RSM. You can't fake or bullshit your way to an RSM in RAR.
I had 1 bad CSM. He was pathetic, all the others were awesome.
I had a couple of terrible OCs (majors) 1 however was the best leader of men I have ever worked with, and would follow him with confidence anywhere, he ended up a Maj General.
I have seen a female para rigger pushed through the system, given a free ride so to speak, to be the 1st female to do this and to do that, she was competent. But there were several men that were just as good or better who missed out because she was to be the example.
Platoon comanders.....I had 1 that was average, all the rest were competent. No real stand outs.
I did see two very bad ones, one didn't last and quietly "moved on" the other, a minority, became a bad CO, Lt Col. The only bad one I saw.
All in all, I found that the leadership in the RAR was pretty good, especially when compared to managers I have worked with since.
I can't speak for other services or corps, or Regiments. I did spend 12 months at RMC as an instructor/ training aid.
I saw a lot of cadets . Exercise Timor, was a very demanding exercise. Probably the hardest task an officer will do bar SAS selection.
Lots of difficult tasks, no sleep, difficult terrain and conditions, no food till day 3.
Then for the men, they got a live chook.
The women, they got a live white fluffy bunny wabbit, complete with a pink ribbon around its neck.
The women ate that bunny quick smart!
They did very very well, and I was impressed with their efforts. However, their platoon finished last.

So your experience pretty much reflects mine, what is the problem?

I have worked a lot longer in the project and sustainment space than many. I've worked with a lot of current serving and ex sergeants, POs, CPOs and WOs/WOFFs, as well as middle ranking officers. Initially in tent pole projects the talent was good to very good, problems were more likely to be from the civilians who had never served.

The problem was and remains the mediocre seat warmers who got the job because of who they knew or, often, because there was no one else. You know they type, we all do.

Some keep to themselves and you work around them, others however justify their existence by setting themselves up as gatekeepers, moral and cultural police. They don't actually know what their job is because they have never done it. They spend all their time spying, stalking, checking up on subordinates, colleagues and superiors. Gossiping, undermining, labling others as unworthy.

They are the ones who deem others as not belonging because of their gender, race, sexuality, disability etc. sometimes even because they got to where they are through a different pathway.

They hide in roles where others do the heavy lifting and they spend their days throwing stones, while sucking up to their protectors.

 

[jeffb]

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old misogynist no, just no. Men are simply phisically more suited to the military. There are places for women but you wouldn't want to find yourself under fire in a trench with a DEI hire.

Maybe people have pulled this apart enough already but... in the modern ADF gender, race or even identity do not and should not matter at all. It is your ability to perform which is paramount. Your message undermines the melting pot that is modern Australia, it seeks to divide us and make us weaker. Would it be too much to call you un-Australian for belittling people volunteering to serve their country based on your outdated ideas where the apex predator on the battlefield was an SLR? Where is the mateship and fair-go in that?

More directly to your trench warfare concerns, the ADF's current focus is the Airforce, the Navy and lastly the Army. The Army is focusing on systems & platforms looking at a littoral future to our north. Systems & platforms that care very little about the gender or race of the operator.

The gates during training remain for medical care under fire, marksmanship, and fieldcraft even if the courses are reduced in length. To go into combat roles there are further gates and more training. Going further into more selective combat roles requires passing more gates and significantly more training.

Why would you not trust the person next to you in combat if they have passed the same training you have?

The issue of people perhaps getting promoted too quickly is not just restricted to women and has more to do with retention than any desire to meet some imaginary quota.

The ADF has made some major missteps and does have some problems concerning generational change and personnel management which allows incompetence to not only survive but sometimes thrive, among others, as Volkodav is talking about. Are we surprised good people walk away from a peace-time ADF rather than deal with these toxic attitudes?

I feel like the attitudes that hide deeper under your message are the same ideas that are undermining our political system as well, there is no regard for true growth or the future but I guess that is a completely different discussion.

 

[spoz]

I wasn’t going to join this discussion, but I will. I have commanded men and women for almost all of my RAN service which goes back to the time when women were a separate service. In general terms, I have never seen a difference between the genders; there are weak men and strong women, strong men and weak women - physically, mentally and morally.

The best Officer I ever had working for me was a woman who is now a Rear Admiral, but in the males I’ve also had a couple of previous CNs, three Rear Admirals and half a dozen Commodores, so I’ve seen some good ones. Then, I’ve had to sack both men and women; not often, thank God, but occasionally. (Disrating of sailors is another story, and one not flattering to males, but that is an altogether different post…). Each person good or bad or, mostly, in between; but as individuals, not stereotypes.

Try telling Liz Taylor, as she then was, that she was not a good officer when she was serving in the WRANS in the 1970s - sister to two high ranking officers, one a Commodore who later became a successful politician and public servant, the other a Chief of Navy; and in my view one of the best to hold that position. Had she had the opportunities they had she would have easily equalled them.

While there is no doubt that early on, say in the beginning of the 1990s, some women were put in positions for which they were not really suitable as the integration began, I don’t believe that is true today. Even then, it was the fault of the system (and the policies of the then immediate past) not in most cases the individual. Although I do believe that women still, unfortunately, sometimes have to work harder to be accepted for what they are.

As I said to Sam Bateman back in the 80s when he was doing his seminal study into women serving at sea, and has been said in an earlier post, we cannot afford to waste the talent and potential of half the human race.

 

[rossfrb_1]

On a lighter note - enable audio for full enjoyment.

60K views · 507 reactions | AUS v Marines ! A soldier from the US Marines was no match for the “Mother of Diggers, Khaleesi of Australian soldiers”, Steffani Grace. That’s a whole... | By Defence Kidz | Facebook

AUS v Marines ! A soldier from the US Marines was no match for the “Mother of Diggers, Khaleesi of Australian soldiers”, Steffani Grace. That’s a whole...

www.facebook.com

Regards
rb

 

[old faithful]

So your experience pretty much reflects mine, what is the problem?

I have worked a lot longer in the project and sustainment space than many. I've worked with a lot of current serving and ex sergeants, POs, CPOs and WOs/WOFFs, as well as middle ranking officers. Initially in tent pole projects the talent was good to very good, problems were more likely to be from the civilians who had never served.

The problem was and remains the mediocre seat warmers who got the job because of who they knew or, often, because there was no one else. You know they type, we all do.

Some keep to themselves and you work around them, others however justify their existence by setting themselves up as gatekeepers, moral and cultural police. They don't actually know what their job is because they have never done it. They spend all their time spying, stalking, checking up on subordinates, colleagues and superiors. Gossiping, undermining, labling others as unworthy.

They are the ones who deem others as not belonging because of their gender, race, sexuality, disability etc. sometimes even because they got to where they are through a different pathway.

They hide in roles where others do the heavy lifting and they spend their days throwing stones, while sucking up to their protectors.

My experience was that the leadership I witnessed was good and you say the leadership you experienced was bad, crusty old Snr Ncos and upstart prats of officers.
My experience with leadership, during my time was excellent. NCO s were held accountable, very few people slipped through the system.
The two very bad examples were the junior officer who later became CO of 3RAR. He was definitely not a good leader, maybe a good tactician,but no leader.