Australian Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Seems like that move away from France being a strategic partner in the indo pacfic was the right choice for Australia. after Macron has echoed his thoughts after a visit to China

Seems Macron is the new Neviile Chamberlian in regards to China
The ‘great risk’ Europe faces is getting ‘caught up in crises that are not ours,’ French president says in interview.
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanue ... interview/

Wonder what he would think if the US left europe to defend itself from a Russia. I think Macron would let Ukraine fall or where would France be now if it did the same in 1941 and concentrated on the Pacific
Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party have enthusiastically endorsed Macron’s concept of strategic autonomy and Chinese officials constantly refer to it in their dealings with European countries. Party leaders and theorists in Beijing are convinced the West is in decline and China is on the ascendant and that weakening the transatlantic relationship will help accelerate this trend.
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
swoop

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »


R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

SW1 wrote: 21 Apr 2023, 15:41
I knew defence was up against it when the ALP got into power but this is ludicrous either we have a major defence need against China or we don't.

What waste of time, why would any major manufacture consider building here in the first place anymore

There was zero point building the SPH in Australia

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

I can understand the concerns of reducing some of the scale of these projects but the review was about determining priority ,what the A.D.F will increase immediate funding to will better protect and deter

The secretary of the Department of Defence, Greg Moriarty, told a Senate committee this week that:

"We can no longer accept the fundamental underpinning assumption of Australian defence planning ... that we would have at least 10 years' warning time for any significant conflict that might involve Australia ... We are assuming that significant conflict might break out in the Indo-Pacific in less time than that."

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

R686 wrote: 21 Apr 2023, 21:00
SW1 wrote: 21 Apr 2023, 15:41
I knew defence was up against it when the ALP got into power but this is ludicrous either we have a major defence need against China or we don't.

What waste of time, why would any major manufacture consider building here in the first place anymore

There was zero point building the SPH in Australia
I do have to say I thought the idea of procuring 400 plus ifv in the 45 ton range was mad!

Has the whole defence review been released yet?

I personally don’t see the deterring of China as a land centric game if I’m honest.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Zeno

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

It gets released on Monday.

On the IFV decision, there are least two more election cycles before the production will be over, so there is time for a different government to make a different decision. A small chance, but not nothing. And they are being built in marginal electorates (which is why we have 1000 Bushmasters rather than the 300 we originally ordered).
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
SW1

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

If you were considering forming an armoured brigade similar to a U.S. army combined arms armoured brigade then you only really need enough ifv for a single infantry battalion and that’s all the contingency you really need for that type of warfare.

Lighter rapidly deployable protected mobility units with plenty of precision surface to surface and surface to air capabilities does more to deter China I think on land.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Repulse

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SouthernOne »

Mercator wrote: 22 Apr 2023, 00:32 It gets released on Monday.

On the IFV decision, there are least two more election cycles before the production will be over, so there is time for a different government to make a different decision. A small chance, but not nothing. And they are being built in marginal electorates (which is why we have 1000 Bushmasters rather than the 300 we originally ordered).
Yes. This review is after all, an independent review commissioned by government to assist in prioritizing projects. There will be other views and perspectives that shape decisions. And like most "point in time reviews" its underlying assumptions, particularly finances and project costs, will date pretty rapidly.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Deter China with a lot more long range missiles seems to be the general gist.

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/review ... gic-review

A thread on the highlights


R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

SW1 wrote: 24 Apr 2023, 07:58 Deter China with a lot more long range missiles seems to be the general gist.

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/review ... gic-review

A thread on the highlights

China will be laughing at the measly attempt, another review in Q3 for RAN what a joke!!!

Have been reading some much ado about nothing. its typical ALP kicking the can down the road Another Rudd/Gillard time for defence which is nothing

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Army to be transformed for littoral manoeuvre operations by sea, land and air from Australia.

●Land 400 -- the land combat vehicle system acquisition -- to be reduced to 129 vehicles.

● A second regiment of Army self-propelled howitzers to be immediately cancelled.

● An independent analysis of the Navy’s surface combatant fleet capability to be conducted later this year.

What the hell is Army going to do when it gets off the beach?

We on the slow boat to china so much for urgency

● Reaffirms the ending of the ten year “warning time” for Defence planning. Sets out three new time-periods for Defence planning to ensure a higher state of readiness including:

a) 2023-2025 (for urgent priorities);

b) 2026-2030;

c) 2031 and beyond;

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

Now I might be paranoid but I get the feeling from the review both T26 (Hunter) and SSN(R) AUKUS aren't going to be doing so well going forward. A reduced buy of Hunters and an increased buy of Virginas could well be one outcome.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Don't think anything will change with regard to the SSN program. I mean it's only a month old and signed off upon by two major allies. They won't revisit that for a long time. Hunters are hard to reconfigure as well. The existing build is already locked in for a decade and the shipbuilding unions and the state of South Australia are core constituencies for the Australian Labor Party. I doubt they wish to spook the horses there (the federal election is next year). There are hints they wish to revisit small Corvette vessels again, but there is nothing quick they can do about that by tinkering with the Hunter program. Much more likely that the existing OPV build will be revisited and/or up-gunned. Very obvious that there is no new money though, so nothing ambitious.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

I can’t see the ALP going early

Since campaigns are for a minimum of 33 days, the earliest possible date for a simultaneous House/half-Senate election is Saturday, 3 August 2024.and the latest being 24 May 2025
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Mercator

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

Mercator wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 00:24 Don't think anything will change with regard to the SSN program. I mean it's only a month old and signed off upon by two major allies. They won't revisit that for a long time. Hunters are hard to reconfigure as well. The existing build is already locked in for a decade and the shipbuilding unions and the state of South Australia are core constituencies for the Australian Labor Party. I doubt they wish to spook the horses there (the federal election is next year). There are hints they wish to revisit small Corvette vessels again, but there is nothing quick they can do about that by tinkering with the Hunter program. Much more likely that the existing OPV build will be revisited and/or up-gunned. Very obvious that there is no new money though, so nothing ambitious.
If things were continuing as is you wouldn't need a further review. It would appear that the reports authors think some amphibious shipping to turn the Army into the marines is more important also with the subs speed is of the utmost importance so more Virginias rather than AUKUS.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Thanks R686, I thought the last one was the year before – seems like forever ago.

Re-shipbuilding, I still think they will only fiddle at the edges. Just no money. They may need to build up some reasons to cancel the OPV contract (and annoy the Germans), but that's all I reckon.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
R686

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Also, the Australian Army has never been a Continental Army in the mould of European or American armies. The entire history of Australian armies is getting on and off boats in in exotic places. You'll often hear them argue that we don't need a Marine Corps because they are already doing that job (and commando roles as well). The Australian Corps of Infantry is a very jealous branch – they want all the jobs.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Gurkhas on Bushmasters was not on my bingo card for Anzac Day yesterday:
http://images.defence.gov.au/S20231076
Image

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Was probably inevitable:


R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 27 Apr 2023, 09:56 Was probably inevitable:

Thought they already had a majority shareholding. learn something new everyday

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

R686 wrote: 27 Apr 2023, 10:25
Mercator wrote: 27 Apr 2023, 09:56 Was probably inevitable:

Thought they already had a majority shareholding. learn something new everyday
Are they buying Northrop Grummans half or the founders half?

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

This article states the intention in long term to be fully owned by taxpayer
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ta ... 427-p5d3re

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

It appears to initially be one of the co-founders and Northrop Grumman (I think that's 74% shareholding) then the rest in 18 months time.
CEA’s Chairman, Mr. Peter Robson, AO welcomes the Commonwealth as a significant shareholder in the company and thanks the departing long-term minority shareholders for their unwavering support over the last four decades. In particular the invaluable contribution of co- founder, Mr David Gaul who has served the company in executive positions and as a valued Board member. Mr. Robson and the company executive also want to thank the departing longstanding shareholder, Northrop Grumman, for the impartial support provided through Board representation since 2006.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

The ALP just released the DSR and say we need long range missile. but we are not going to increase the defence budget and actually order them. :clap:

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/tra ... w-insiders
MARLES: Well, we've put the two critical ones out there, which are the self-propelled howitzers and the second tranche of them and the Infantry Fighting Vehicles. And I've listened to the commentary about the Infantry Fighting Vehicles. I mean, the point here is that we need to be thinking about projection, we need to be thinking about how we can have a more nimble Defence Force which can operate beyond our shores. We don't have the transport craft which would enable the 450 planned Infantry Fighting Vehicles to leave our shores. And so, unless you're talking about an invasion of Australia, the vast bulk of those numbers would have been stranded here. And that's an exact example of why we need to be thinking about what is the threat; what do we need to have a Defence Force for? Thinking about from first principles and working out how we prioritise. And we're doing a lot of prioritisation in terms of that, and we're doing that over the next four years. Over the decade, we are saying that there's going to need to be more money. And let me be clear about that; there is more money in the four years- defence funding was planned to grow by the former government- we accepted that- we committed to that-
Think the threat has already been defined and that's China, of which they would be looking at past wars especially WWII and the P.T.O


He talks of the Army being more able to fight in the littorals think they are going to need more than just replacing the existing Army watercraft under Land 8710 but maybe we actually need more support from a 2-3 JSS type ship like a HNLMS Karel Doorman, San Antonio class or even if they wanted to go cheap the UK FLSS concept by Prevail Partners.

But as I said before what are they going to do once they get there. The war in Ukraine shows the very need to keep up stocks for attrition hence the smart move to build up war stocks of munitions no point if there nothing left to actually lob those munitions.

Unless they are planning that all the HIMARS will use Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) most of the MLRS Family Of Munition are the rather short ranged variety my guess it would be vastly cheaper production of 155mm rounds with a SPH having more rounds available than HIMARS. Having both capabilities in in adequate numbers are needed not putting all your eggs in one basket.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by NickC »

Re: DSR - Hunter-class programme under threat?

New Albanese Labor government took office last June, their 110-page Defence Structure Review published and is scathing of the ADF’s current acquisition processes, declaring them not fit for purpose, was based on was based on a balanced force model capable of performing multiple different mission and the “Defence of Australia” doctrine and budget was over-programed by 24 percent for acquisitions, now a new strategy of denial for the ADF is key in our ability to deny an adversary freedom of action to militarily coerce Australia and to operate against Australia without being held at risk, including nuclear-powered submarines, long-range strike capabilities, and strengthening the country’s northern bases.

First outcome the Australian Army new IFV cut from 450 to 129 and any more SPH cancelled in favour of HIMARS and acquisition of medium and heavy landing craft and accelerated. The services plan to procure land-based anti-ship missiles, either the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) or LRASM, will be sped up plus acquisition of the PrSM Inc 2 with its seeker that can strike moving targets at sea.

The RAAF priority to acquire the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for its F-35A fleet, necessitating a fleet-wide upgrade to Block IV standard. This will also facilitate the integration of the LRASM aboard the F-35A. Australia is currently procuring LRASM for its fleet of F/A-18F Super Hornets.

There will now be an additional independent short follow-on study of the RAN surface combatant fleet, reporting in the third quarter, to ensure its size, structure and composition complement the capabilities provided by the new nuclear submarines. Naval News reporting it hints at a global trend towards a larger number of smaller ships and a shift away from surface fleet ASW to the more capable SSNs provided by AUKUS
That would appear to potentially impact the proposed fleet of nine Hunter-class anti-submarine warfare frigates, regarded as providing limited capabilities with just 32 vertical launch missile cells against 48 on each of the three Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ler-ships/>

Post Reply