Australian Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Unless your prepared to have industrial strength logistical forces and significant spares holding the ability to move heavy armour the distances req and then sustain a war fighting drumbeat at brigade plus scale your pretty much just wasting your cash to look good.

If your looking at what your high end contribution to a Russian or in Australia’s case Chinese conflict looking at how the US marines are developing the configuration of there marine littoral regiment would seem more appropriate but with a more mlrs land oriented focus where by your denying the opposition access and disrupting it. It’s not a million miles away from where the army’s strike brigades were going but I think it’s a much more sensible option for armys that are required to move a long way to fight.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

SW1 wrote: 12 Feb 2022, 16:49 Unless your prepared to have industrial strength logistical forces and significant spares holding the ability to move heavy armour the distances req and then sustain a war fighting drumbeat at brigade plus scale your pretty much just wasting your cash to look good.

If your looking at what your high end contribution to a Russian or in Australia’s case Chinese conflict looking at how the US marines are developing the configuration of there marine littoral regiment would seem more appropriate but with a more mlrs land oriented focus where by your denying the opposition access and disrupting it. It’s not a million miles away from where the army’s strike brigades were going but I think it’s a much more sensible option for armys that are required to move a long way to fight.
That would be correct, but the USMC have the US Army to back them up with the heavy equipment

Because of size and scale the ADF need to be the jack of all trades but master of none

Tanks have there place in the ADF case in point the battle of Balmoral/ Coral.

Is the ADF going to fight against a chincom in a battle like Battle of Medina Ridge in the 1st Gulf War. But the ADF needs a balanced force to combine elements to participate with coalition forces the bricks are there to be added if need

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

R686 wrote: 12 Feb 2022, 18:38
SW1 wrote: 12 Feb 2022, 16:49 Unless your prepared to have industrial strength logistical forces and significant spares holding the ability to move heavy armour the distances req and then sustain a war fighting drumbeat at brigade plus scale your pretty much just wasting your cash to look good.

If your looking at what your high end contribution to a Russian or in Australia’s case Chinese conflict looking at how the US marines are developing the configuration of there marine littoral regiment would seem more appropriate but with a more mlrs land oriented focus where by your denying the opposition access and disrupting it. It’s not a million miles away from where the army’s strike brigades were going but I think it’s a much more sensible option for armys that are required to move a long way to fight.
That would be correct, but the USMC have the US Army to back them up with the heavy equipment

Because of size and scale the ADF need to be the jack of all trades but master of none

Tanks have there place in the ADF case in point the battle of Balmoral/ Coral.

Is the ADF going to fight against a chincom in a battle like Battle of Medina Ridge in the 1st Gulf War. But the ADF needs a balanced force to combine elements to participate with coalition forces the bricks are there to be added if need
I doubt US army tank divisions will be doing much in the pacific to be honest.

Aus like most are contributing to a bigger operation most of the time the US aren’t looking for contributions in the heavy armour category because allies simply can’t keep up with the logistical demands of the operation.

AUS army can decide what it needs to defend Australian territory aft, after that it all comes does to what it thinks it can deploy and sustain and at what distance from Australia independently.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

While you can't predict what politicians may agree to, the Australian Army has been institutionally against piecemeal detachments to allied forces (predominantly the US) since the Vietnam War (many unhappy company level detachments went bad in that conflict). At a minimum, they would want to preserve at least battalion-sized battle groups in any larger allied conflict and it would be tricky to match CSS at the right scale for anything less. Also, to preserve some level of Australian command with reach back to government at a workable level (with all the right intelligence enablers and communications capabilities), they'll probably wish to maintain a brigade sized formation as much as possible. That's the level that can apply a sovereign veto, if need be, and/or reach back for guidance before committing to major operational plans. It would be difficult to do that and try and perform tactically at any other level below brigade. Hence some of the unhappy experiences in Vietnam.

And there will be plenty of opportunities for Australian brigade sized units in a large-scale Chinese conflict. Ports and airfields in the first island chain will need to be secured/taken/retaken in order to prevail in that conflict. Just securing a modest regional airport for fighter sized detachments in a place like north-east Borneo or the south-western Philippines would require something like a brigade, even if the threat was only special forces. Given the threat of airborne forces or marine landings (even if it's a remote one), you'd be crazy not to have something more substantial than light infantry.

Air supremacy is not a given in that area at any time in a conflict like that. Ballistic and cruise missile attacks could shutdown the airfields for enough time to allow the Chinese some opportunities for troop movements of their own. And while the US Marines may plan to deny Chinese landings with SSMs, they've got to be there and in place for that strategy to work. Given the politics of the Philippines/Indonesia/Malaysia, that's hardly a given in the opening stages of any conflict, and the Chinese themselves may pull off an operational or strategic surprise. US Marines on their own, especially with their future force structure, may struggle to dislodge an established force. There is plenty of difficult terrain, both urban and natural, that would require the full spectrum of land force capabilities of (at least) the battalion level, just to dislodge a company size raid – and I think the Chinese would have plans for that, at a minimum. The history of dealing with separatist groups in these same areas gives you some idea of the complexity of the task.

Finally, Australian brigades are deliberately balanced between Armour, Mech and Motorised forces in order to maintain flexibility. The investment in heavy forces lately is simply to replace similar capabilities that date back to the Vietnam War. The overall force structure is remarkably similar, even going back 50 years. (The operating terrain in the first island chain will be similar to Vietnam's and we sure as heck used Mech and Armour there). We've only ever had one regiment of tanks. The only difference nowadays is that that regiment is split up so that each brigade has one tank squadron. It's not much, but it gives you options. The rest of the cavalry regiment in each brigade is simply two squadrons of wheeled reconnaissance vehicles.

These are hardly heavy armoured brigades. They are comprised of: one tank squadron, two wheeled reconnaissance squadrons (forming the cavalry regiment), plus one mechanised and one motorised battalion-sized battle group (and associated artillery/engineer units). If they're lucky and reserves are mobilised in time, they might gain one extra reserve Infantry Battalion (motorised) for rear echelon security. Every Australian infantryman is familiar and capable of air mobile operations (to a limited degree at least) at very little notice, so with the provision of aviation assets, some air manoeuvre is possible as well. To operate successfully in Borneo and the Philippines during any conflict with the Chinese, I reckon we'll need all of that and more. I wouldn't want to be watering it down – not when I think we will need just about every capability at some point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure ... alian_Army
These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 3):
seaspearwargame_insomniacLord Jim

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

The need to move rapidly to secure ports and or airfields or set up there own FARP and then deny that area to an enemy but using surface to surface and surface to air systems is largely what the marines are talking about from what I can see.

I’m not sure how you do that with 70 tonnes tanks or 40 ton plus tracked vehicles or how Australia manages to move say 100 of them (if they buy 400 plus) over any distance in any time scale and then have it sustained to do that. There will need to be significant surface to air capability deployed with them to allow them to stay where they go.

I’m not suggesting light infantry but for operating in difficult terrain and aid there deployment putting the infantry in Stryker vehicles (or equivalent) maybe more relevant or indeed adding a formed airmobile capability. Given historically a need for 3 to 1 advantage to dislodge an enemy I struggle to see the significant cost justification of battle tanks and heavy IFV for arguably a battle group action.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 13 Feb 2022, 11:16 The need to move rapidly to secure ports and or airfields or set up there own FARP and then deny that area to an enemy but using surface to surface and surface to air systems is largely what the marines are talking about from what I can see.

I’m not sure how you do that with 70 tonnes tanks or 40 ton plus tracked vehicles or how Australia manages to move say 100 of them (if they buy 400 plus) over any distance in any time scale and then have it sustained to do that. There will need to be significant surface to air capability deployed with them to allow them to stay where they go.

I’m not suggesting light infantry but for operating in difficult terrain and aid there deployment putting the infantry in Stryker vehicles (or equivalent) maybe more relevant or indeed adding a formed airmobile capability. Given historically a need for 3 to 1 advantage to dislodge an enemy I struggle to see the significant cost justification of battle tanks and heavy IFV for arguably a battle group action.
What is the Australian equivalent of the British 16 Air Assault Brigade or RM Commandos?

Presumably you would need such a rapid reaction force, whether deploying by parachute, helicopter or amphibious, to initially deploy to such locations? And then need the Brigades desribed by Mercator above to be able to deploy either from HMAS Canberra / Adelaide or C17 Globemaster III to reinforce and then subsequently hold such locations?
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
MercatorLord Jim

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

SW1 wrote: 13 Feb 2022, 11:16 The need to move rapidly to secure ports and or airfields or set up there own FARP and then deny that area to an enemy but using surface to surface and surface to air systems is largely what the marines are talking about from what I can see.

I’m not sure how you do that with 70 tonnes tanks or 40 ton plus tracked vehicles or how Australia manages to move say 100 of them (if they buy 400 plus) over any distance in any time scale and then have it sustained to do that. There will need to be significant surface to air capability deployed with them to allow them to stay where they go.

I’m not suggesting light infantry but for operating in difficult terrain and aid there deployment putting the infantry in Stryker vehicles (or equivalent) maybe more relevant or indeed adding a formed airmobile capability. Given historically a need for 3 to 1 advantage to dislodge an enemy I struggle to see the significant cost justification of battle tanks and heavy IFV for arguably a battle group action.
Mate, if you want to put SAMs in place quickly, by all means send all or part of one of our SAM batteries. The artillery guys will have the SSMs and HIMARS when they come online as well. But they don't exist in the multipurpose Mech/Motorised brigades, so it's hard to argue the vehicles in that brigade are the wrong fit. Those anti-air capabilities are held at divisional level, mostly in 16 Arty Regiment. Similarly, if you want to quickly set up a FARP, by all means call upon the capabilities of one of the three aviation regiments. All those capabilities exist separately and can be called upon as necessary.

Of course there will have to be precursors to any deployment. The Air Force security squadrons and particularly 4 Squadron have the capabilities, alongside the Commando regiments, to rapidly secure airfields. All the lead elements are parachute capable, if need be. And any of the infantry battalions could deploy as light infantry (with their vehicles following on), or you could deploy a small amount of the motorised infantry via air. But that's what we have a permanent and reserve commando regiment for, really. As far as follow-on forces are concerned – this is not that far away. Even with little to no warning, a good portion of the ready brigade would be on its way within a week (via existing amphibious vessels) and arrive a few days later. Given any sort of strategic warning, other vessels can be secured and ready to go. (Like the fast ferry HMAS Jervis Bay that was secured in the lead up to East Timor). With even a few weeks of strategic warning, I think it would be feasible to plan on most of a brigade being established within a week of the order to go. While that's underway, you could send in whatever light elements you want via air, if that's permissible.

I think it would be a mistake to only rely upon wheeled vehicles for two reasons: one is terrain and climate. Australians remember the difficulties of East Timor. Wheeled vehicles really struggled in the washed out roads under monsoonal rain. The second reason is simply tactical. You can crash through heavy jungle to get to an objective with a tracked IFV and, you know, IFVs by their very nature are designed to fight right up to the objective and have the armour to survive the experience much better than Boxer or Striker. I would not discount motorised forces for their mobility in some circumstances – and there's plenty of good roads in that part of the world where they could make a useful difference – but there's plenty of shit terrain too. "Why not both?", I say. And no matter what, most of any fighting force you choose to send is going by boat. It will be a big fucking fight. To win, the US and its allies (including Australia) will need, at some point, to hold a diverse collection of major airfields in the Philippines, and most probably, Borneo. Securing them will be the work of divisions of troops with only a fraction being air mobile and even fewer arriving that way. So, if they're going by boat, being wheeled or tracked isn't going to make a huge difference to their deployability. Might as well send some of your fighty bits.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 2):
seaspearwargame_insomniac

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Plus there's a project to buy some LSTs (or their equivalent) to replace our older ones. They'll do a lot of heavy lifting here too, I imagine.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Not arguing that the vehicles in the mech brigades are wrong because they don’t have artillery and sams. I’m arguing there going the wrong way because they will become way way too heavy to operate over distance and to be deployed quickly in support deploying forces.

I was arguing that sam and long range artillery are the main means of denying access to the enemy and therefore should be the primary focus. Rather than being a mere supporting arm.

But if STUFT is how the AUS Army is intending to deploy them fair enough.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Image

Royal Australian Navy ships HMAS Supply (left) and HMAS Adelaide conduct a replenishment at sea during Operation Tonga Assist 2022.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

Quick question for anyone who know, but is the Australian Army converting its existing Mechanised (3) and Motorised Infantry(3) Battalions into Armoured Infantry(6) given the number of IFVs it plans to order? To do so would require around 420 vehicles in various configurations, but the number planned already exceeds that. This would also free up three Battalions worth of Bushmasters to be given to the Reserves.

If this is not the case, what is the Army planning to do with the remainder after replacing the M113s in the three Mechanised Battalions?

If I remember rightly each Brigade currently has;
1 Cavalry Regiment with M1A2 and LAV.
1 Mechanised Battalion with M113.
1 Motorised Battalion with Bushmaster.
1 Signals Battalion with various platforms
1 Engineering Battalion with various platforms.
1 Artillery Regiment with M777A1.

With three of theses self contained Brigades, the Australian Army maintains a readiness cycle that always has one on the three Brigades at available at high readiness. To this they also have Divisional level units, though no Division HQ. These include the SF , Logistics, Commandos, together with Air Defence and Aviation assets and so on. This is a very balanced force structure and one the British Army should look at closely given its reduction in size whilst still wanting to retain the ability to deploy formations up the Brigade strength globally. The programmes the Australian Army is currently running will only improve the capabilities of its three Regular Brigades as well as that of its three Reserve Infantry Brigades. The latter will ensure that there are enough boots on the ground to hold and administer any territory deemed necessary in any given operation.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

As far as I'm aware, the new IFVs will only be going to the 3 Mech Infantry battle groups (and associated enablers like engineers and artillery forward observers*). Motorised units will remain so with Bushmaster, so far as I'm aware. Boxer will only replace the LAVs, at this point.

There are two divisional headquarters. 1 Div is the permanent formation and 2 Div reserves. 1 Div is the ADF's deployable joint force headquarters and is held at pretty high readiness. I doubt 2 Div is deployable in any useful timeframe. Would most likely provide reinforcement for 1 Div in any long term deployment (like Timor). There are a few units held at divisional level (like 2 RAR, the pre-landing force), but otherwise separate aviation, artillery and logistics brigades.

*These forward observer types have a fancy name, but I can't remember it.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

The full Phase 3 requirement is understood to comprise 400 IFVs made up of 281 turreted platforms and 119 non-turreted variants, although most reports continue to refer to ‘up to 450’ IFVs. The non-turreted variants will fill recovery, repair, combat engineer and ambulance roles. Only manned turret variants, each mounting a 30mm cannon, are being used in the RMA...
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... 3-rma-path
A decision on this one is due quite soon. With an election weeks away from being called, I'd be amazed if they don't make the decision on this one beforehand. Too much free pork in it to pass up.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 17 Feb 2022, 04:52

The full Phase 3 requirement is understood to comprise 400 IFVs made up of 281 turreted platforms and 119 non-turreted variants, although most reports continue to refer to ‘up to 450’ IFVs. The non-turreted variants will fill recovery, repair, combat engineer and ambulance roles. Only manned turret variants, each mounting a 30mm cannon, are being used in the RMA...
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... 3-rma-path
A decision on this one is due quite soon. With an election weeks away from being called, I'd be amazed if they don't make the decision on this one beforehand. Too much free pork in it to pass up.
Queensland or Victoria which needs more pork?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

Thanks for the info on the Divisional HQs. Still the number of IFVs and related variants is far more then is needed to re equip three Mechanised Infantry Battalions. How many other units use M113 variants such as M577 Command vehicles and so on?

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Mercator wrote: 17 Feb 2022, 04:52

The full Phase 3 requirement is understood to comprise 400 IFVs made up of 281 turreted platforms and 119 non-turreted variants, although most reports continue to refer to ‘up to 450’ IFVs. The non-turreted variants will fill recovery, repair, combat engineer and ambulance roles. Only manned turret variants, each mounting a 30mm cannon, are being used in the RMA...
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... 3-rma-path
A decision on this one is due quite soon. With an election weeks away from being called, I'd be amazed if they don't make the decision on this one beforehand. Too much free pork in it to pass up.
I can't help wishing that British Army had done something siilar to Australians, going for Boxer wheeled IFV for motorised formations where speed of startegic and tactical mobility was key, such as US Army Stryker brigade combat teams using the Stryker. But for Armoured divisions I wish they had gone for a tracked IFV to replace the Warrior.

Where are we most likely to have to commit armoured divisions? Norway? Poland? Estonia? The former is where we are about to join the artic Cold Response 2022 exercise. The latter two are where we currently have troops committed to NATO.

I am concerned that British Army relying on Wheeled vehicles in winter environments is like turning up with a knife to a gun fight. As another example look at German Army where the mechanised infantry battalions have Puma tracked IFV and infantry battalions have Boxer Wheeled IFV.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Lord Jim wrote: 17 Feb 2022, 06:57 ...the number of IFVs and related variants is far more then is needed to re equip three Mechanised Infantry Battalions. How many other units use M113 variants such as M577 Command vehicles and so on?
Well, the number will probably tend closer to 400 rather than 450 (as the article above suggested). I think there's also a desire to have enough vehicles in reserve (in maintenance/storage) so that units maintain a higher readiness rate – but I would suggest that's a very modest number. (The project budget is under enough pressure without being extravagant about the numbers).

Most of the existing M113s are already in the Mech battle groups, though there may be some in brigade and the division headquarters as well. In the past, there were a few in the reserve units, but I don't think that's the case right now. Most of those have Bushmaster instead now.

Otherwise, I don't think there's anyone else involved in receiving these vehicles. 400 seems about right to me. Remember, in your units, a lot of the support vehicles are not IFV variants – so it is not an apples and oranges comparison. ie. Ours will all be variants of the Redback or Lynx, whereas your existing units are Warrior+FV430.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

R686 wrote: 17 Feb 2022, 05:09 Queensland or Victoria which needs more pork?
I think both are great and we will be lucky to have either of them, but my preference would be for the Redback, everything else being equal.

The Germans are just not impressing me with their reliability, lately. I wouldn't want to have to rely on them for spares in any conflict with China. But then, I guess Korea will either be under attack or neutral in those same scenarios, as well. Hopefully we have the good sense to stockpile the shit out of the IFV spare parts.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 2):
R686TheLoneRanger

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

The Scandinavian countries seem to have little trouble operating large fleets of 6x6 and 8x8 AFV in the Arctic. Conditions where they have difficulties also affect IFVs and so on, and that is where the Vikings come in.

I do agree that the model the Australian Army is using would work for our new BCTs. Something like this;

Cavalry Regiment (Challenger 3, Ajax).
2x Mechanised Infantry Battalions (Boxer IFV, Boxer APC, Boxer FSV, Boxer Boxer SPM, Boxer SPAAG).
Artillery Regiment (Archer/MAN).
Engineering Regiment (Titan, Trojan, Terrier, Boxer).
Signals/ISTAR Regiment (Boxer, Bushmaster).
Logistics Regiment (Protected MAN 8x8)/

Three of these supported by divisional assets such as the Deep Precision Strike BCT, further Air Defence, Engineering, Electronic Support and Logistical assets. We would still have 16 Brigade as well as the Ranger Regiment and SFG, and we could have three Infantry Brigades made up of say fifty percent Regular and fifty percent Reserves, with limited mobility from Bushmasters and other lighter platforms.

All of the above would reduce the logistical tail needed to support them on deployments, just like the Australian Army, and again like the Australian's be able to have a better readiness cycle, improving the work life balance for the troops.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Mercator

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Mercator wrote: 18 Feb 2022, 01:29
R686 wrote: 17 Feb 2022, 05:09 Queensland or Victoria which needs more pork?
The Germans are just not impressing me with their reliability, lately. I wouldn't want to have to rely on them for spares in any conflict with China.
I completely agree with this - once this Ukraine situation is over (either way) we really need to reassess how integrated we want our military supply lines to be dependent on the likes of both France and Germany. We in the UK have a different outlook to the world compared to the French and Germany and more in common with the USA. I do think it is time, for the UK to reassess its military supply lines and look to strategically redirect them all to the USA ( imho .... ) for things we in the UK cannot do or for which there is no economic efficency to attempt to do so.
These users liked the author TheLoneRanger for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

You must of slept thru the last 2 years and the US use of the defence production act. We need to stop this inferiority complex idea where we need continual reassurance that we’re Americas bestie.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Seems the French cannot let go of the sub deal and quite possibly the Taipans and Tiger fleets, well I’m sure they will still would like us to buy more KC-30A
France dumps Aussies from ‘strategic partnership’ citing AUKUS sub deal
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/breakin ... -deal/amp/

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Defence Minister Dutton tells a local Sunday morning politics program that the decision on the nuclear submarine will be made within the next two months:



It's a bit shocking for some of the journalists, and its obviously timed for release just before our federal elections, but overall there is no real good reason to delay the decision if they know what they want and how to get it (IMHO).
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 2022, 23:21 Defence Minister Dutton tells a local Sunday morning politics program that the decision on the nuclear submarine will be made within the next two months:



It's a bit shocking for some of the journalists, and its obviously timed for release just before our federal elections, but overall there is no real good reason to delay the decision if they know what they want and how to get it (IMHO).
Wonder if that will include where it will be built, just can’t see it being UK build but could see another joint venture in a US or Aus yard that will give more flexibility to both US/AU fleet for future maintenance

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

Think going to be an US /AUS boat also tbh,uk just doesn't have the bandwidth ,be lucky to get all our boats built on time as is

Post Reply