ADF General discussion thread

[Murse]

Not sure what this means exactly. By "Trump copycat" do you perchance mean a president who has enthusiastically backed AUKUS "Full steam ahead" (the literal words he used...) as Trump has done? Just like JD Vance has done and just like Joe Biden (who signed the thing in the first place) and the democrats did?

The only doubt is media generated nonsense. The state level relationship between us has experienced no such doubt.

They are not the trusted partner they once were as noted by Mark Carney. So forgive me for being a little sceptical WRT getting a vital capability, I just dont have that confidence right now. And yes, i do hope I'm wrong. Time will tell....

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

They are not the trusted partner they once were as noted by Mark Carney. So forgive me for being a little sceptical WRT getting a vital capability, I just dont have that confidence rught now. And yes, i do hope I'm wrong. Time will tell....

Als de boodschap nog niet duidelijk was overgekomen op Europese hoofdsteden, kan niemand er nu meer omheen: Amerika is geen betrouwbare bondgenoot meer. Erger nog, de VS is zelfs een mogelijke rivaal op het wereldtoneel.

I think this is quite correct what we can read in this news website: the US is not anymore a reliable ally, it has become a potential rival on the world stage.

(Source: Trump bedreigt Groenland niet meer met geweld, maar breuk met Europa blijft)

As long such arrogant, impulsive and unpredictable person with superiority complex is in power in that country, we can not trust the US.

 

[ADMk2]

They are not the trusted partner they once were as noted by Mark Carney. So forgive me for being a little sceptical WRT getting a vital capability, I just dont have that confidence right now. And yes, i do hope I'm wrong. Time will tell....

Which is almost entirely untrue in reality, the antics of the “orange man” aside.

However given this “truism” you seem to believe in, please identify which capability have the US failed to provide that we have requested or why this one is this one any different?

Both sides of US politics have committed to it. The current and former US executives have committed to it and multiple Congresses (regardless which side of politics holds sway in such) have committed to it.

So please, enlighten us to the contrary to everything that points to the contrary?

Because at the moment your argument amounts to nothing more than “orange man is bad”…

 

[John Fedup]

Orange man will be followed by other MAGA fools. Although the smart people know better, they are being displaced so eventually MAGA will turn on you regardless of how special your relationship is. Any resistance to MAGA (worthwhile IMHO) will lead to violence and possibly regional civil wars by heavily armed discontented citizens on both sides. Both outcomes lead to a the US becoming unreliable.

 

[ADMk2]

Orange man will be followed by other MAGA fools. Although the smart people know better, they are being displaced so eventually MAGA will turn on you regardless of how special your relationship is. Any resistance to MAGA (worthwhile IMHO) will lead to violence and possibly regional civil wars by heavily armed discontented citizens on both sides. Both outcomes lead to a the US becoming unreliable.

Outstanding forecast, now can you let me know the lotto numbers while we’re at it?

In any case these opinions haven’t progressed the “Virginia Class aren’t coming” argument very far…

 

[John Fedup]

Outstanding forecast, now can you let me know the lotto numbers while we’re at it?

In any case these opinions haven’t progressed the “Virginia Class aren’t coming” argument very far…

This coming November will forecast the US situation more clearly.

 

[Morgo]

Any thoughts from the group on the appointment of Greg Moriarty as the new US Ambassador? Seems like a safe set of hands who should be able to not ruffle Trump’s feathers and keep the broader political and bureaucratic relationships in good order?

 

[SammyC]

Any thoughts from the group on the appointment of Greg Moriarty as the new US Ambassador? Seems like a safe set of hands who should be able to not ruffle Trump’s feathers and keep the broader political and bureaucratic relationships in good order?

Well he is a career diplomat and public servant, rather than a retired politician. That's a good start. I have a view ambassadorial positions should be a profession as opposed to a reward.

He is a bipartisan choice, having served under both governments. He knows defence well, being the current secretary since 2017. He has done some of the tougher overseas postings.

Probably a safe pair of hands choice.

 

[SammyC]

Outstanding forecast, now can you let me know the lotto numbers while we’re at it?

In any case these opinions haven’t progressed the “Virginia Class aren’t coming” argument very far…

The release of the updated US National Defence Strategy does move the US to a much more isolationist approach, both from Russia and China.

The pull back from Russia has been evident for some time, however the more overt language on China is a change. 12 months ago, the Trump presidency had China as their greatest threat, and the China hawks in the administration were on the asendency. This no longer seems to be the case.

In question, is will this be a pendulum, returning to the centre when Trump departs, or will it be a fulcrum move, lasting long afterwards, irrespective of the next President.

I think the money is moving to the latter, and the change will be set by the time Trump departs. Either American sentiment will have changed towards deglobalisation, or the Americans will be consumed with their own internal issues, or a realisation that they no longer have the capacity to be a worldwide (or even a Pacific) hegemon and are forced to retreat. It all leads to the same end point of America disengaging and conceding.

So, I view that Mark Carney's words are very poignant. In a lawless world, you need to defend yourself. Australia is perhaps slow to this understanding. Canada and Europe have already clicked onto this.

I do actually think this (perhaps counter intuitively) strengthens AUKUS. I think a disengaged America would actually be more comfortable sell Australia submarines, such that America can pull out of the region.

Counter ballancing that optimism, it might however come with the acknowledgement that Australian SSNs will operate in place of USN subs, rather than alongside them.

 

[hauritz]

We should not assume that America will not crawl back into isolationism. Three more years of Trump could see that.

I don't see this as the US neccessarily turning on Australia but without American security guarantees we will be faced with having to go it alone. Our current defence plans are heavily dependent on the US.

If Canberra is taking Carney's words to heart then we are going to have to do a lot more than is currently planned. Canada said it will double defence spending over the next decade. That will take it to about 2.8% of the GDP. Australia is only committing to 2.4%. Really we will have to do better than that.

The National Defence Strategy will be released later this year with much changing since the last one was released in 2024. It has really gone from us having a rock solid alliance with the US to now facing the prospect of being just another middle power trying to make its own way in an increasingly unstable world.

 

[swerve]

If Canberra is taking Carney's words to heart then we are going to have to do a lot more than is currently planned. Canada said it will double defence spending over the next decade. That will take it to about 2.8% of the GDP. Australia is only committing to 2.4%. Really we will have to do better than that.

According to NATO, Canada went from 1.01% of GDP in 2014 to an estimated (before all figures in) 2.01% in 2025, 39% more than in 2024.

Italy, Estonia (starting from a higher base), Finland (ditto), North Makedonia - nearly doubled.
Belgium, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden - doubled or a bit more.
Poland almost 2.5 times
Denmark- almost tripled
Latvia - almost 4 times
Lithuania - more than 4 times

Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland (highest) are now spending a bigger share of GDP than the USA & others are expected to join them soon.

Putin's a very good arms salesman - for western manufacturers.

https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf

 

[hauritz]

According to NATO, Canada went from 1.01% of GDP in 2014 to an estimated (before all figures in) 2.01% in 2025, 39% more than in 2024.

Italy, Estonia (starting from a higher base), Finland (ditto), North Makedonia - nearly doubled.
Belgium, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden - doubled or a bit more.
Poland almost 2.5 times
Denmark- almost tripled
Latvia - almost 4 times
Lithuania - more than 4 times

Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland (highest) are now spending a bigger share of GDP than the USA & others are expected to join them soon.

Putin's a very good arms salesman - for western manufacturers.

https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf

The levels of expenditure in Europe will put pressure on Australia to follow suit. That NATO has managed to hit these levels as quickly as they have adds even more pressure to Australia. Should be noted that a number of our own regional allies are boosting defence expenditure at a faster rate than Australia.

 

[spoz]

Using the same rules as NATO, including Canada, uses, Australia is somewhere close to 2.8% according to ASPI: How to count Australian defence spending as (almost) 2.8 percent of GDP | The Strategist

 

[Aardvark144]

Using the same rules as NATO, including Canada, uses, Australia is somewhere close to 2.8% according to ASPI: How to count Australian defence spending as (almost) 2.8 percent of GDP | The Strategist

The NATO rules have only been used since the current GOTD has been placed under pressure from both home and abroad, to increase the Defence Budget. Even ASPI details that a great portion of the quanta between 2.03% and the now often quoted 2.8% by DPM and others in Government is made up of Defence pensions which you would argue do not add to ADF capability.

 

[spoz]

No argument; but if you are going to compare expenditure levels they have to have the same basis, so far as is possible. So while Canada has increased, it is only to about the same level as Australia, not greatly more.

 

[Aardvark144]

No argument; but if you are going to compare expenditure levels they have to have the same basis, so far as is possible. So while Canada has increased, it is only to about the same level as Australia, not greatly more.

Same back at you. No argument from me. I think some of the NATO countries, whilst increasing budget were coming off horrendously low GDP figures. It is obvious that as far as Australia is concerned, the NATO comparison trotted out by DPM is his deflection tactic.

 

[John Fedup]

No argument; but if you are going to compare expenditure levels they have to have the same basis, so far as is possible. So while Canada has increased, it is only to about the same level as Australia, not greatly more.

You also have to consider what has actually been delivered.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia has been increasing its defence spending for a long time. Before Trump before Biden, Before Trump, before Obama.
Australia's big event was East Timor. That was 25+ years ago now.

Australia's built shipyards, build land vechicle production capability, built munitions factories, built aircraft production, built airbases, mostly over a decade. Australia is probably getting better value for its expenditure because its been doing it over a longer period of time, with greater planning and thought.

I don't expect a lot of new announcements. Australia has already created a vert fat pipeline for future defence spending. There could always be additional specific platform acquisitions, but the core of it is already there. We have Hunters, Mogamis, P8s, F-35, F-18, Land400, SPG, apache, mh60r, c-17, C130, Collins, SSNs, UAV, UUV, E7, JORN, base upgrades, PNG, Fiji, etc.

I think Australia has done quite well, in comparison to Canada. Who is waiting for pretty much every major platform, and has very little currently. The wait period is also quite long. If global conflict starts at the end of 2027, Canada will go into it with basically nothing. Canada also still has a very large Army, and IMO too focused on continental conflict. Historically that has only been useful through alliances. If that breaks down, Canada may need to rapidly shift. IMO.

 

[John Fedup]

Canada also still has a very large Army, and IMO too focused on continental conflict. Historically that has only been useful through alliances. If that breaks down, Canada may need to rapidly shift. IMO.

Canada's army isn't what I would call "very" large. You are spot on regarding long wait times for kit. As for continental defence focus, perhaps that is not a bad thing considering our neighbour.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Canada's army isn't what I would call "very" large. You are spot on regarding long wait times for kit.

Well you are on a continent, there are other countries on that continent. Europe is a continent. NATO. I get it.
I see the Canadian army is ~15,000 below its manpower target. Placing it pretty much same size as Australia's. So its only really upsizing aspirations. I think they should give up that 15000 target and grow capability. I'm not sure what 15,000 more soldiers gets them exactly, and I'm not sure its obtainable target in realistic timeframes.

Which is the the thing. The ADF has shifted from far away long term platforms to what can be acquired, in country and FOC before 2030. I think Canada needs to do the same thing. The window is narrowing.