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 »

Don’t know how much stock you could put into this report into B21. They seem to think high level talk between US/AU on B21

Around the 23 minute mark when talking numbers of airframes


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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Will US supply Australia with AUKUS subs? ‘That’s not going to happen,’ key US lawmaker says
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/wil ... 1670200784

“There’s been a lot of talk about well, the Australians would just buy a US submarine. That’s not going to happen,” Wittman, currently the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower subcommittee, told Breaking Defense in a Saturday interview. The issue, he said, is that the US cannot afford to interupt its own submarine buy: “I just don’t see how we’re going to build a submarine and sell it to Australia during that time.”...

“The US doesn’t have spare submarines it can sell to Australia, and it won’t have them anytime soon. Giving Australia submarines that the USN needs, particularly when its own numbers are declining or at best flat-lining, is just not an option that the US political leadership will consider,” Hellyer said. “Ultimately, Australia will have to learn to build SSNs if it wants them, but what exactly ‘build’ looks like is still very unclear.”...

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by abc123 »

Mercator wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 04:56 Will US supply Australia with AUKUS subs? ‘That’s not going to happen,’ key US lawmaker says
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/wil ... 1670200784

“There’s been a lot of talk about well, the Australians would just buy a US submarine. That’s not going to happen,” Wittman, currently the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower subcommittee, told Breaking Defense in a Saturday interview. The issue, he said, is that the US cannot afford to interupt its own submarine buy: “I just don’t see how we’re going to build a submarine and sell it to Australia during that time.”...

“The US doesn’t have spare submarines it can sell to Australia, and it won’t have them anytime soon. Giving Australia submarines that the USN needs, particularly when its own numbers are declining or at best flat-lining, is just not an option that the US political leadership will consider,” Hellyer said. “Ultimately, Australia will have to learn to build SSNs if it wants them, but what exactly ‘build’ looks like is still very unclear.”...
Not good. :thumbdown:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

The original headlines of the agreement were very catching, but the practicalities of mkaing it happen seem trickier.

I had queried before the possibility of the RAN buying / being gifted one or more of either Los Angeles Class or Trafalgar Class to use even as a training sub. Especially given that RN decommissioned both Trenchant and Talent on the same day in May 22, to then commission Anson in Aug 22.

RAN crew serving on USN and RN boats is a good first step towards them getting experience on SSN, expecially building up experience bank of officers and nco, as it takes a while before can take command. I can only hope that this accelerates, especially if RN are struggling to crew their SSN's, as that would in a way kill two birds with one stone, especially if depolyed to Pacific.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »


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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

With regards to AUKUS and the announcement of submarines we will have to wait till march next year all else is speculation ,but we could do so for money of course in the interest of fairness send your money and bets on this to me
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-08/ ... /101746970

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

A New XL-AUV has been shown in Sydney by the R.A.N AT 5.8 metres and 2.8 tonnes this is to be a test bed vehicle the full size version the size of a school bus with an operating depth of six thousand metres
https://www.navyleaders.com/news/austra ... host-shark

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... .html?btis

Australian defence spending must keep rising to put the nation on a “self-reliant” footing against regional dangers, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has declared after receiving an interim review that calls for a new approach to potential military conflict.

The Coalition pledged to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence and Labor has promised to match the target, but Albanese made it clear that the spending could rise above that level because the need for new capabilities was so great.

Now, our defence assets need to not be about fighting a land war defending western Queensland because that is highly unlikely, but a lot of our assets are not really the ones that we necessarily need for this century and for the times — and also their location as well.”

Albanese said the US alliance was critical for Australia and the AUKUS agreement was part of strengthening that relationship.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Yeah, but these are politicians. They might be talking to two audiences saying two different things. There was a headline two days ago in the (Australian) Daily Telegraph with the headline: "Australian Army to get more tanks in Defence Strategic Review". I'm not a subscriber, so I don't have a copy of the full article, but I presume the headline is not too misleading. (I know). https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 4c1b8449e2

That said. I wouldn't expect a left-wing government in Australia to be too generous. But, given the circumstances, and the strategic uncertainty right now, they might not throttle back too much on army equipment plans. It's small beans anyway compared to nuclear submarines and strategic bombers. Army equipment plans, in total, are a small percentage of the capital equipment plan. I could also write 5000 words on how the continual strategic arguments about minor army equipment plans (read: tanks) are really just a proxy for competing strategic visions (expeditionary vs "Defence of Australia") – but, I'll spare you. Just note it is not really about tanks.

My point would be just to be a little careful right now. Australian political operatives are very skilled at communicating just what each constituency wants to hear. I wouldn't get too invested in a narrative until the actual review is published. I'm still quite uncertain myself.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Update. friendly Twitter pal saw this in the Sunday papers:
Image

So stir that into the mix and let it simmer until March next year...

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Mercator wrote: 19 Dec 2022, 01:27
That said. I wouldn't expect a left-wing government in Australia to be too generous. But, given the circumstances, and the strategic uncertainty right now, they might not throttle back too much on army equipment plans. It's small beans anyway compared to nuclear submarines and strategic bombers. Army equipment plans, in total, are a small percentage of the capital equipment plan. I could also write 5000 words on how the continual strategic arguments about minor army equipment plans (read: tanks) are really just a proxy for competing strategic visions (expeditionary vs "Defence of Australia") – but, I'll spare you. Just note it is not really about tanks.
I think that has been the competing strategic argument for generations and not just in Australia. The principle of both strategies are merging with the absolutes of both no longer relevant
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Mercator

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

An interesting rebuttal on a defence article from the Australian and from Greg Sheridan


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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Yeah, for all that, not one aircraft shelter in Australia, let alone northern Australia, has hardened overhead protection. Commercial drones could take out aircraft parked in Australia, to say nothing of cruise missiles which are certainly in range from the SCS. So while Sheridan is an idiot and poorly informed about the threat, all this nonsense about somehow keeping the threat out of range while we get around to hardening up is really just another way of trying to frame DOA as a reliable strategy to keep the threat at bay. And it really isn't. And while China may not deploy hundreds of ballistic missiles in range of Australia, they might deploy two to some of their SCS islands and that's all it would take to destroy our fuel storage facilities in the NT. A strike on the refineries in Singapore would probably cripple our whole country. We presently do not possess a single weapon system that could stop them, and we have no other fuel storage facilities in the NT, let alone any hardened ones, so it doesn't matter about the state of the aircraft revetments at Darwin and Tindal after that. Roggeveen is smug about all the potential things we could do to negate a threat he doesn't believe has materialised, but Sheridan is right to freak out a bit about the very real possibility of threats right now.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 21 Dec 2022, 23:19 Yeah, for all that, not one aircraft shelter in Australia, let alone northern Australia, has hardened overhead protection. Commercial drones could take out aircraft parked in Australia, to say nothing of cruise missiles which are certainly in range from the SCS. So while Sheridan is an idiot and poorly informed about the threat, all this nonsense about somehow keeping the threat out of range while we get around to hardening up is really just another way of trying to frame DOA as a reliable strategy to keep the threat at bay. And it really isn't. And while China may not deploy hundreds of ballistic missiles in range of Australia, they might deploy two to some of their SCS islands and that's all it would take to destroy our fuel storage facilities in the NT. A strike on the refineries in Singapore would probably cripple our whole country. We presently do not possess a single weapon system that could stop them, and we have no other fuel storage facilities in the NT, let alone any hardened ones, so it doesn't matter about the state of the aircraft revetments at Darwin and Tindal after that. Roggeveen is smug about all the potential things we could do to negate a threat he doesn't believe has materialised, but Sheridan is right to freak out a bit about the very real possibility of threats right now.


Yes agree thought it was interesting none the less

Don’t think they even have to do any of what you said. From memory someone years ago made a home made motar tube and was planning to lob a few rounds into Mobil spotswood Vic until the relevant authorities got wind of it


With all the rhetoric from both sides of government I think we are sleeepwalking to war


There was a paper about our fuel supplies a few years back interesting read

https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/f ... s_No_7.pdf

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Yep don't get me started on fuel refineries. We are so fucked.
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 »

Looks like Varly are proposing a new toy for the ADF

Varley Ganyarra Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel - Amphibious concept design

These users liked the author R686 for the post (total 3):
serge750wargame_insomniacMercator

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SKB »

^ That proposal reminds me of the British Army's Alvis Stalwart, or "Stolly" amphibious vehicle.



Stolly thread: https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=24450
These users liked the author SKB for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

R686 wrote: 22 Dec 2022, 07:06 Looks like Varly are proposing a new toy for the ADF

Varley Ganyarra Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel - Amphibious concept design

Can cope with Sea State 5? That's impressive.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... e-systems/

CANBERRA, Australia — Australia announced Thursday it will boost its defense capabilities by spending more than AU$1 billion (U.S. $683 million) on new advanced missile and rocket systems, including American-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, already successfully used by Ukraine’s military.

The Australian government said its HIMARS would include launchers, missiles and training rockets, and that they would enter service by 2026. It said the system had a current range of 300 kilometers (186 miles), which was expected to increase with technological advances.

The government said it had also signed a contract with Norway-based Kongsberg to buy Naval Strike Missiles for naval destroyers and frigates, which would replace aging Harpoon anti-ship missiles from next year.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/ ... 4-52444149

The quality of reporting is getting very shallow in regard to Collins replacement

Not sure why they just cannot wait until the report is released and then if it finds that getting nuclear submarines are too far along then maybe look at other alternatives
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Mercator

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Bergmann, the editor, always has a bit of a 'father knows best' tone about him in his editorials. You pretty much have to skip the first page of APDR these days if you don't want to cop another rant. He is heavily into building everything in Oz, as well, despite obvious problems with an exclusive approach to that. I mean, half of our helicopter problems could probably be laid at his feet, and folks like him. He's been around that long and there are precious few Australian defence mags.

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Former PM Turnbull is weighing in again on the submarine subject

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... aea5e6889a
"Almost completely overlooked in Australia is the fact that nuclear powered submarines to be acquired from the US will not be able to be operated or maintained without the supervision of the US Navy," he wrote.
Think he is being obtuse here, whilst there will be cooperation between USN/RAN any boats will come under the soverign right of the AusGov

But yes, I agree that parts will have to be brought in from offshore no different from 99% of current equipment in the ADF inventory
"As far as the defence of Australia is concerned, we must be able to defend ourselves and that means that all of our defence capabilities must be sovereign Australian ones, able to be maintained, sustained and deployed by Australia without the approval or supervision of any other nation," Mr Turnbull said.
Just imagine what caveats the French would have placed on the Attacks, i seem to recall the opposition from the French to the RAAF Mirage fighter to STH Vietnam for who knows why the reason of that
He argued the best option would be to acquire nuclear-powered submarines from France, which had a deal with Australia for conventionally powered boats but it was torn up under Scott Morrison.
He doesn't have a clue does he, he goes on about sovereign capability and any potential overreach of the USN. but thinks that a reactor that has to be refueled every ten years will not compared to a reactor that will last the lifetime of the boat :lol:
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Mercator

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Letter to President Biden from US politicians in regard to construction

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5cbqb.html

and the actual letter

https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/hub/ ... letter.pdf
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Mercator

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

This is also confirmed via the Defence Minister. There's a few questions about basing these aircraft (Townsville has been omitted in media dumps so far), and the numbers are a little low on a straight replacement basis. However, there could be other SF aircraft that turn up later on after the review – so that could be it. Speculation about the MH-60M etc. A few commentators think there will be a second batch. Hard to say. There's definitely a good chunk of the previous capability that's being replaced here.



Just think, you guys. For just over £1 billion, you too could have 40 Blackhawks. Think of the money you could save! ;)

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

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

eh. Later updates have the purchase at AU$2.8 billion. Still cheap, and you know what you're getting.


Post Reply