Australian Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Dibb leads a school of strategic thought that has never, not now and not even in the Cold War, ever wanted the ADF to have an expeditionary capability. A lot of it with a heavy strain of anti-American sentiment. They have never liked that Australia supports the US in its foreign policy objectives (and by extension, the UK and the West more generally) and preferred that Australia become much more isolationist.

They dress it up with words like defence of the Australian mainland and controlling the 'Air-Sea Gap', but mostly they just want us to be so robbed of any other useful capabilities that we can't get too adventurous in a foreign/defence-policy space.

It will be no surprise to anyone that these guys tend to dress to the left, if you know what I mean. I would love to be a fly on the wall when they discuss their views on Ukraine. I would not be surprised to find they are all closet Tankies as well.

These guys always have a constituency that will listen to them in the media and there are certain pockets of them that still thrive in Australian public servants. A few 'peace studies' departments in Australian universities also keep the hope alive. Sadly, the Australian Labor Party also enjoys this strain of strategic thought, though there are a few notable dissenters.

Although this perspective will get a good airing for a little while, and I don't doubt that a lot of air-sea capabilities will get a bit of a boost in the forthcoming Defence Review, I wouldn't bet on wholesale dismantling of the Australian Army. There would be too much noise on the right that would get a rightful hearing and I think these guys would be a little bit shy of that level of attention. The Australian Labor Party has been wedged on the right on defence policy too many times before, and I don't think they're that brave right now.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Brits urged to buy Australian...


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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Mercator wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 00:30 Dibb leads a school of strategic thought that has never, not now and not even in the Cold War, ever wanted the ADF to have an expeditionary capability. A lot of it with a heavy strain of anti-American sentiment. They have never liked that Australia supports the US in its foreign policy objectives (and by extension, the UK and the West more generally) and preferred that Australia become much more isolationist.

They dress it up with words like defence of the Australian mainland and controlling the 'Air-Sea Gap', but mostly they just want us to be so robbed of any other useful capabilities that we can't get too adventurous in a foreign/defence-policy space.

It will be no surprise to anyone that these guys tend to dress to the left, if you know what I mean. I would love to be a fly on the wall when they discuss their views on Ukraine. I would not be surprised to find they are all closet Tankies as well.

These guys always have a constituency that will listen to them in the media and there are certain pockets of them that still thrive in Australian public servants. A few 'peace studies' departments in Australian universities also keep the hope alive. Sadly, the Australian Labor Party also enjoys this strain of strategic thought, though there are a few notable dissenters.

Although this perspective will get a good airing for a little while, and I don't doubt that a lot of air-sea capabilities will get a bit of a boost in the forthcoming Defence Review, I wouldn't bet on wholesale dismantling of the Australian Army. There would be too much noise on the right that would get a rightful hearing and I think these guys would be a little bit shy of that level of attention. The Australian Labor Party has been wedged on the right on defence policy too many times before, and I don't think they're that brave right now.
Being less adventurous and keeping firmly away from the US and it’s foreign policy adventures over the past 20 years would not of been a bad strategy tbh.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
86thLeinster

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Mercator wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 00:37 Brits urged to buy Australian...

With the same industrial offsets Australia demands.

They’ve clearly not seen much U.K. defence procurement we are very gd window shoppers.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

SW1 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 08:08
Mercator wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 00:30 Dibb leads a school of strategic thought that has never, not now and not even in the Cold War, ever wanted the ADF to have an expeditionary capability. A lot of it with a heavy strain of anti-American sentiment. They have never liked that Australia supports the US in its foreign policy objectives (and by extension, the UK and the West more generally) and preferred that Australia become much more isolationist.

They dress it up with words like defence of the Australian mainland and controlling the 'Air-Sea Gap', but mostly they just want us to be so robbed of any other useful capabilities that we can't get too adventurous in a foreign/defence-policy space.

It will be no surprise to anyone that these guys tend to dress to the left, if you know what I mean. I would love to be a fly on the wall when they discuss their views on Ukraine. I would not be surprised to find they are all closet Tankies as well.

These guys always have a constituency that will listen to them in the media and there are certain pockets of them that still thrive in Australian public servants. A few 'peace studies' departments in Australian universities also keep the hope alive. Sadly, the Australian Labor Party also enjoys this strain of strategic thought, though there are a few notable dissenters.

Although this perspective will get a good airing for a little while, and I don't doubt that a lot of air-sea capabilities will get a bit of a boost in the forthcoming Defence Review, I wouldn't bet on wholesale dismantling of the Australian Army. There would be too much noise on the right that would get a rightful hearing and I think these guys would be a little bit shy of that level of attention. The Australian Labor Party has been wedged on the right on defence policy too many times before, and I don't think they're that brave right now.
Being less adventurous and keeping firmly away from the US and it’s foreign policy adventures over the past 20 years would not of been a bad strategy tbh.
Australia has never just been following along the US for the sake of it. For better or worse, we've joined the US in these 'adventures' for a combination of one or more of the following reasons:

1) there really is merit in a forward defence. Australia has been a member of the FPDA and fighting communists in the Malay Peninsula with the UK and NZ, plus the locals, long before we started doing it in Korea and Vietnam with the US. Australian troops and aircraft remain based in Malaysia to this day and do annual deployments of greater forces each year. Let's face it; we'll be doing the same thing in Borneo and the Philippines if we ever face off against China, despite what Dibb and Co might fool themselves into thinking.

2) Australia wants the international system to work. That is to say, all nations enjoy notional protections under the UN Charter and it's in our interests to see these protections enforced, even if it's at the edge of our direct national interest or regional strategic interest. Non-superpowers in particular rely on these protections. If we stay at home and let everyone else do it, no one is going to turn up when we need it. Everyone has to pay their dues. And that leads onto my last point...

3) Since WWII the US has been our number one strategic partner. No country has done more, or will do more, to contribute to Australia's security. At enormous cost – and I can't understate the enormity (well north of 5% GDP) – Australia could possibly go it alone, but at the end of the day we are a country of 20 million and being a good security partner of the US (where our interests align), and obtaining help from them when we need it, is cheaper. Maintaining a modest sized defence force with a broad range of useful expeditionary capabilities not only allows a useful forward defence posture where needed, it also allows us to contribute to maintaining the international system and support our principal ally.

It's also not a surprise that the cheaper option is the path Australian politicians have taken since the war. Dibb and his mates foolishly believe that they could convince our politicians to spend enormous sums of money on defence so we could go it alone. Look around today – how likely is that? Any such strategy would of course have been watered down into irrelevancy, and that's exactly what happened in the years following 1986 when Dibb convinced the ALP Hawke government to follow his strategy. Not long after, East Timor came along and we barely managed to get there, let alone do anything. Allowing the countries in our region to fall into anarchy will just allow China to gain a foothold. That's a crazy strategy and that's why we need an expeditionary army capable of intervening on a fairly robust scale. The people in the army who are most vocal about opposing the strategy of Dibb are mostly the guys who were junior officers who had to deal with the consequences in East Timor. They haven't forgotten and nor should we.

So yes, most happy to be adventurous, even if it means supporting the US sometimes.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

ITAR free – Australian manufactured. The big reveal just made at Avalon airshow:





A payload of 160 kg at 800 km reducing down to no payload and a range of 1500 km.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
R686

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Mercator wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 23:42
SW1 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 08:08
Mercator wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 00:30 Dibb leads a school of strategic thought that has never, not now and not even in the Cold War, ever wanted the ADF to have an expeditionary capability. A lot of it with a heavy strain of anti-American sentiment. They have never liked that Australia supports the US in its foreign policy objectives (and by extension, the UK and the West more generally) and preferred that Australia become much more isolationist.

They dress it up with words like defence of the Australian mainland and controlling the 'Air-Sea Gap', but mostly they just want us to be so robbed of any other useful capabilities that we can't get too adventurous in a foreign/defence-policy space.

It will be no surprise to anyone that these guys tend to dress to the left, if you know what I mean. I would love to be a fly on the wall when they discuss their views on Ukraine. I would not be surprised to find they are all closet Tankies as well.

These guys always have a constituency that will listen to them in the media and there are certain pockets of them that still thrive in Australian public servants. A few 'peace studies' departments in Australian universities also keep the hope alive. Sadly, the Australian Labor Party also enjoys this strain of strategic thought, though there are a few notable dissenters.

Although this perspective will get a good airing for a little while, and I don't doubt that a lot of air-sea capabilities will get a bit of a boost in the forthcoming Defence Review, I wouldn't bet on wholesale dismantling of the Australian Army. There would be too much noise on the right that would get a rightful hearing and I think these guys would be a little bit shy of that level of attention. The Australian Labor Party has been wedged on the right on defence policy too many times before, and I don't think they're that brave right now.
Being less adventurous and keeping firmly away from the US and it’s foreign policy adventures over the past 20 years would not of been a bad strategy tbh.
Australia has never just been following along the US for the sake of it. For better or worse, we've joined the US in these 'adventures' for a combination of one or more of the following reasons:

1) there really is merit in a forward defence. Australia has been a member of the FPDA and fighting communists in the Malay Peninsula with the UK and NZ, plus the locals, long before we started doing it in Korea and Vietnam with the US. Australian troops and aircraft remain based in Malaysia to this day and do annual deployments of greater forces each year. Let's face it; we'll be doing the same thing in Borneo and the Philippines if we ever face off against China, despite what Dibb and Co might fool themselves into thinking.

2) Australia wants the international system to work. That is to say, all nations enjoy notional protections under the UN Charter and it's in our interests to see these protections enforced, even if it's at the edge of our direct national interest or regional strategic interest. Non-superpowers in particular rely on these protections. If we stay at home and let everyone else do it, no one is going to turn up when we need it. Everyone has to pay their dues. And that leads onto my last point...

3) Since WWII the US has been our number one strategic partner. No country has done more, or will do more, to contribute to Australia's security. At enormous cost – and I can't understate the enormity (well north of 5% GDP) – Australia could possibly go it alone, but at the end of the day we are a country of 20 million and being a good security partner of the US (where our interests align), and obtaining help from them when we need it, is cheaper. Maintaining a modest sized defence force with a broad range of useful expeditionary capabilities not only allows a useful forward defence posture where needed, it also allows us to contribute to maintaining the international system and support our principal ally.

It's also not a surprise that the cheaper option is the path Australian politicians have taken since the war. Dibb and his mates foolishly believe that they could convince our politicians to spend enormous sums of money on defence so we could go it alone. Look around today – how likely is that? Any such strategy would of course have been watered down into irrelevancy, and that's exactly what happened in the years following 1986 when Dibb convinced the ALP Hawke government to follow his strategy. Not long after, East Timor came along and we barely managed to get there, let alone do anything. Allowing the countries in our region to fall into anarchy will just allow China to gain a foothold. That's a crazy strategy and that's why we need an expeditionary army capable of intervening on a fairly robust scale. The people in the army who are most vocal about opposing the strategy of Dibb are mostly the guys who were junior officers who had to deal with the consequences in East Timor. They haven't forgotten and nor should we.

So yes, most happy to be adventurous, even if it means supporting the US sometimes.
I note Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t feature in your comments and Vietnam wasn’t a success either. An Adventurous foreign policy is a fools errand.

It’s not about going it alone it’s about being less interventionist.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
86thLeinster

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

I consider, and considered at the time, Iraq and Afghanistan to be creditable contributions to Australia's strategic security. Our interests are aligned with all three points I made above. I didn't mention them because most people consider Australia's postwar support for the US to begin in Korea, and more uniquely in Vietnam (where other traditional allies were not present). I made the point that we were doing counterinsurgency in the Malay Peninsula long before any of that stuff. That's the only reason those two got a specific mention.

There is certainly a long list of foreign and security policy 'adventures' that Australia and the US have both embraced. Some were not successful – there is no doubt – and, after the fact, it is certainly permissible to dissect, regret and even assign blame for poor decisions. The thing is, a good ally isn't afraid of that when the time comes to make difficult foreign policy and security decisions. I suspect that some of that fearlessness is what is admired about both Australian and UK foreign policy, on occasions. There are regrets, of course, and with the UK you guys are still smarting after what went down in Iraq after you so robustly supported the US. Thing is, it's exactly that fearlessness that is admired in your foreign and defence policy in Ukraine – so I wouldn't be too ashamed of it. Goodwill from allies has real value that you may call upon one day. In Australia's case – yes, Iraq and Afghanistan went bad. There are regrets (and some small success), but the US and our other allies more generally are far from unhappy with our contributions. So our support for the international system is reinforced, our principal ally is happy with our support, and whatever strategic risks there were to Australian security in Iraq and Afghanistan are largely eliminated. That's a win, isn't it? A lot fucking better than sitting home squeezing money out of your health and education budget so that you can build the fortress you'll need when you're all on your lonesome. Nah, I'll take the win thanks.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Random pic of the day:

Australian NASASMS at the Avalon Airshow.
Image
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
Zeno

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Mercator wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 09:35 I consider, and considered at the time, Iraq and Afghanistan to be creditable contributions to Australia's strategic security. Our interests are aligned with all three points I made above. I didn't mention them because most people consider Australia's postwar support for the US to begin in Korea, and more uniquely in Vietnam (where other traditional allies were not present). I made the point that we were doing counterinsurgency in the Malay Peninsula long before any of that stuff. That's the only reason those two got a specific mention.

There is certainly a long list of foreign and security policy 'adventures' that Australia and the US have both embraced. Some were not successful – there is no doubt – and, after the fact, it is certainly permissible to dissect, regret and even assign blame for poor decisions. The thing is, a good ally isn't afraid of that when the time comes to make difficult foreign policy and security decisions. I suspect that some of that fearlessness is what is admired about both Australian and UK foreign policy, on occasions. There are regrets, of course, and with the UK you guys are still smarting after what went down in Iraq after you so robustly supported the US. Thing is, it's exactly that fearlessness that is admired in your foreign and defence policy in Ukraine – so I wouldn't be too ashamed of it. Goodwill from allies has real value that you may call upon one day. In Australia's case – yes, Iraq and Afghanistan went bad. There are regrets (and some small success), but the US and our other allies more generally are far from unhappy with our contributions. So our support for the international system is reinforced, our principal ally is happy with our support, and whatever strategic risks there were to Australian security in Iraq and Afghanistan are largely eliminated. That's a win, isn't it? A lot fucking better than sitting home squeezing money out of your health and education budget so that you can build the fortress you'll need when you're all on your lonesome. Nah, I'll take the win thanks.
I think there is a great difference between going to the aid of or helping to defend an ally that is being attacked by a foreign power as we did with Kuwait in 91, America in 2001 and Ukraine this past year, as opposed to being the aggressor with interventionism.

What happened post 2002 was not imo wise or has it improved the security situation it again imo has made things worse from a security perspective. So I would argue the policy and merits of an interventionist expeditionary defence posture are not wise.

Maybe we are trying to define the same thing from to different ends maybe I could best sum up my thoughts as a deployed defensive posture. Or to deploy to stop a war before it starts. Where this strategy becomes complex is if the country you deploy too has a large disconnect between its government and its population ie a civil war or potential for.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Phil Sayers »

SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 12:28
What happened post 2002 was not imo wise or has it improved the security situation it again imo has made things worse from a security perspective. So I would argue the policy and merits of an interventionist expeditionary defence posture are not wise.
The counterpoint to this is that a good argument can be made that failing to decisively intervene in the early stages of the Syrian Civil War (particularly at the time of the 'red line' fiasco) has been an utterly disastrous foreign policy. It has left north of 500k dead, large swathes of the country in ruins and pretty much all of it impoverished, destabilised the entire region, massively boosted our main regional adversary who has been thoroughly emboldened ever since and had a similar effect on Russia. It also then hit home by boosting domestic political extremists on both the far right and far left while probably tipping the scales in the Brexit vote.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Phil Sayers wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 13:33
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 12:28
What happened post 2002 was not imo wise or has it improved the security situation it again imo has made things worse from a security perspective. So I would argue the policy and merits of an interventionist expeditionary defence posture are not wise.
The counterpoint to this is that a good argument can be made that failing to decisively intervene in the early stages of the Syrian Civil War (particularly at the time of the 'red line' fiasco) has been an utterly disastrous foreign policy. It has left north of 500k dead, large swathes of the country in ruins and pretty much all of it impoverished, destabilised the entire region, massively boosted our main regional adversary who has been thoroughly emboldened ever since and had a similar effect on Russia. It also then hit home by boosting domestic political extremists on both the far right and far left while probably tipping the scales in the Brexit vote.
Syria is certainly a dreadful situation, but had we not intervened in iraq would the (it’s not the right word) lawlessness have spilled over into Syria and caused that instability. Or would it have happened eventually we destabilised the region with iraq, had we maintained a policing approach would things be different. We will never know, it has certainly caused significant migration issues into Greece and Italy and feed thru elsewhere.

Yeah difficult to make red lines then back away but then the shadow of Blair/Campbell and iraq very much influenced that.

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by GarethDavies1 »

The Yanks were going in without us anyway!

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »


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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Not sure what this is, but okay... Cool.


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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

All the Strix business in one article:


Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Timmymagic »

Looks like MBDA and BAE are going to go for the Australian Guided Weapon business...makes sense.

These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 3):
ZenoMercatorwargame_insomniac

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

So for a bit of fun before the announcement v soon ,what do people think will be the be next Australian submarine ,we kind of know its trilateral effort they have already said ,my pitch is a SSNR design but with an American reactor and systems for Australia built in Australia but I think possible the last astute sub will be operated in Australia and home ported there and crewed by mix of UK /Australians and possibly a USN sub with the same systems and reactors that the future Australian SSNR will be operating with ,, probably wrong but that's just my bit of fun prediction ,what are other peoples ? We don't know yet so I guess people can't argue too much with folks ideas 😁👍

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

inch wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 15:45 So for a bit of fun before the announcement v soon ,what do people think will be the be next Australian submarine ,we kind of know its trilateral effort they have already said ,my pitch is a SSNR design but with an American reactor and systems for Australia built in Australia but I think possible the last astute sub will be operated in Australia and home ported there and crewed by mix of UK /Australians and possibly a USN sub with the same systems and reactors that the future Australian SSNR will be operating with ,, probably wrong but that's just my bit of fun prediction ,what are other peoples ? We don't know yet so I guess people can't argue too much with folks ideas 😁👍
You won't get any reactors built in Australia there is not the infrastructure and know how to do so in any acceptable timeframe. The likely outcome is SSNR with the reactor\'back end' built in Barrow and the 'front' end built in Osbourne. As regards American influence the PWR3 reactor is at the least inspired by the S9G and SSNR will likely have variant of the Virginia Payload Module plus if based on previous prefrences the SSNR (A) will have American combat sonar systems.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
inch

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

tomuk wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 18:23
inch wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 15:45 So for a bit of fun before the announcement v soon ,what do people think will be the be next Australian submarine ,we kind of know its trilateral effort they have already said ,my pitch is a SSNR design but with an American reactor and systems for Australia built in Australia but I think possible the last astute sub will be operated in Australia and home ported there and crewed by mix of UK /Australians and possibly a USN sub with the same systems and reactors that the future Australian SSNR will be operating with ,, probably wrong but that's just my bit of fun prediction ,what are other peoples ? We don't know yet so I guess people can't argue too much with folks ideas 😁👍
You won't get any reactors built in Australia there is not the infrastructure and know how to do so in any acceptable timeframe. The likely outcome is SSNR with the reactor\'back end' built in Barrow and the 'front' end built in Osbourne. As regards American influence the PWR3 reactor is at the least inspired by the S9G and SSNR will likely have variant of the Virginia Payload Module plus if based on previous prefrences the SSNR (A) will have American combat sonar systems.
Agree unless RR kicks starts its PWR2 production no new as designed Astute will be built.
The US S9G reactor fits in a 10m beam hull Astute is 11.3 wonder if they can shoehorn length wise into Astute. theoretically possable?
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
inch

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Seems unlikely, but who knows?


But the prospective German contract could have an even bigger production run, with Berlin interested in acquiring several hundred vehicles as part of its €100 billion ($157 billion) spending spree on new weapons.

“The German government has now shared its intention with the Australian government to buy Australian-made Boxer CRVs for the German army,” German ambassador to Australia Markus Ederer told The Australian Financial Review in an exclusive interview.

“With the increased needs which we’ve seen because of Ukraine, many countries have to replenish their stocks of almost everything from vehicles to ammunition to air defence, so it’s only natural the Boxer vehicle is also in demand.”

“The German parliament has adopted a special fund of €100 billion and procurement decisions are now flowing from that.”
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
R686

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 23:15 Seems unlikely, but who knows?


But the prospective German contract could have an even bigger production run, with Berlin interested in acquiring several hundred vehicles as part of its €100 billion ($157 billion) spending spree on new weapons.

“The German government has now shared its intention with the Australian government to buy Australian-made Boxer CRVs for the German army,” German ambassador to Australia Markus Ederer told The Australian Financial Review in an exclusive interview.

“With the increased needs which we’ve seen because of Ukraine, many countries have to replenish their stocks of almost everything from vehicles to ammunition to air defence, so it’s only natural the Boxer vehicle is also in demand.”

“The German parliament has adopted a special fund of €100 billion and procurement decisions are now flowing from that.”

Agree seems very unlikely a few more extra Bushmasters maybe but I seriously doubt Germany would forego the production in the home nation for third orders

Maybe just a ploy to say if we build the LYNX KF41 we will get exports, I just want the best offering for the diggers potential foreign exports should be a very minor consideration

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Yes, that was my feeling too. Suspicious timing. It would be all too easy to change their plans six months from now, long after we've made a decision.

I think both designs are more than adequate, but my preference would be for the Bushmaster cannon on the Korean IFV. From what little I've read, there is greater flexibility in the ammunition natures on that weapon (in the fusing), and that might have utility one day.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

Just read an article in BREAKING DEFENCE about upcoming AUKUS announcement and SPECULATION that the submarine choice COULD be American sub with British reactor technology,,that could work I guess ,a PR3 reactor that is very closely designed of American tech I believe already in a Virginia class ,so would fit and be similar to whats already in class of boat ,gets Australia the boat it wants with US systems and probably save on barrow trying to build extra boats with no capacity to do so I'm assuming? ,but rolls Royce just starting to build or in process of building PR3 reactors for dreadnought and I assume future SSNR class,makes sense to me but as I say BREAKING DEFENCE state SPECULATION,but I think that's more doable than astute class to me as was my first choice lol ,but hey we just don't know yet , STILL guessing lol

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

inch wrote: 07 Mar 2023, 15:57 Just read an article in BREAKING DEFENCE about upcoming AUKUS announcement and SPECULATION that the submarine choice COULD be American sub with British reactor technology,,that could work I guess ,a PR3 reactor that is very closely designed of American tech I believe already in a Virginia class ,so would fit and be similar to whats already in class of boat ,gets Australia the boat it wants with US systems and probably save on barrow trying to build extra boats with no capacity to do so I'm assuming? ,but rolls Royce just starting to build or in process of building PR3 reactors for dreadnought and I assume future SSNR class,makes sense to me but as I say BREAKING DEFENCE state SPECULATION,but I think that's more doable than astute class to me as was my first choice lol ,but hey we just don't know yet , STILL guessing lol
That only makes sense if the problem is an inability for the Americans to export the reactors, which I think has been the issue all along.

Post Reply