Australia Defence Review

[ORAC]

General Mick Ryan

https://www.csis.org/people/mick-ryan


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1554643328578121728.html

Yesterday, a review was announced into Australia’s defence posture and force structure. This is timely, necessary and may also provide a good foundation for a subsequent National Security Strategy. Some thoughts on the review follow.

https://twitter.com/warinthefuture/status/1554643328578121728?s=21&t=G-1LOdKpXjIPbj3peymhfA

[golder]

While I don't disagree with a new gov doing a review. A politician and general, both retired 10 years ago, may not have their fingers on the pulse. It smells like 'jobs for the boys'

This is the current 2020-2040 force structure plan and is worth a look.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2020/australia-2020-force-structure-plan.pdf

[Doors Off]

While I don't disagree with a new gov doing a review. A politician and general, both retired 10 years ago, may not have their fingers on the pulse. It smells like 'jobs for the boys'

This is the current 2020-2040 force structure plan and is worth a look.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2020/australia-2020-force-structure-plan.pdf

It will definitely be jobs for the boys. Of note is the already cancelled Dedicated Special Forces Support Helicopter. Interestingly, the paper makes no mention of Fire support in relation to Battlefield Aviation. Is the Apache Guardian next on the cancellation list?

The Australian Army Air Corps is self promoting the requisition of a fixed wing capability in lieu of the RAAF divesting the King Air capability. Be interesting to see where that money will come from. Far bigger requirements with far bigger price tags on a paupers budget are required for the Army.

[ORAC]

A forecast of the outcome…

https://www.themandarin.com.au/188488-defence-planning-whatever-the-question-theres-only-one-answer/

Defence planning: Whatever the question, there’s only one answer

….Three brigades, 10 ships, six submarines, and about 100 combat aircraft…..

[golder]

There are no shortages of opinions and I accept his sarcasm. Our guess is as good as his 6 subs. We were getting 12 French subs and now probably 8 nukes.

When we even outsource catering. Doing anything inhouse is gone. DST is a skeleton of bygone years. The primes have got their heads in the trough and make pharma look like Sunday school teachers

[Asturias56]

" We were getting 12 French subs and now probably 8 nukes."

Since the UK can only afford 7 SSN's and the French 6 I think that's hope over experience

[golder]

It's always worth getting in front of a camera about a defence review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSsxaaSeU2o

[tartare]

I get the `balanced force' argument of 3 brigades, 10 ships, 6 subs etc.
But M1 Abrams - really - to protect expeditionary infantry embarked overseas?
What are we thinking - that there'll be a ground war in our backyard big enough to worry us but too small for the Yanks to care?
And big surface ships?
The environment seems to have changed to one where projecting force at a distance in denied areas seems paramount.
So under that scenario wouldn't you:
Cut back on land force spending.
Cut back on surface fleet spending.
In the short term, invest heavily in anti missile defence - particularly around airbases and other key installations.
Go all out on medium and large underwater drones (armed) to fill the capability gap before the SSNs arrive.
Medium term - under AUKUS:

Install a modern SOSUS around northern Australia (if there isn't one there already :E) to compliment Jindalee and the South East China sea `hook'.
lobby the Yanks to buy the B-21
look at a land based, mobile, long range strategic missile capability (5000kms +) conventionally armed.

Sure - a fever dream born out of my own ignorance - but Australia is dangerously complacent.

[Asturias56]

"What are we thinking - that there'll be a ground war in our backyard big enough to worry us but too small for the Yanks to care?"

The big question in my mind is does Australia need to be able to strike at the Chinese mainland on their own? A " land based, mobile, long range strategic missile capability (5000kms +) conventionally armed." isn't going to work - if you are in it with the USA any ICBM will be assumed to be N tipped whatever you say, If you're on your own that's a very expensive delivery system with the effect of the V2 campaign on the UK in 1944/45 - irritating but pointless. You fire 100 missiles and hit about 100 hectares of China...............

And any non -nuclear war that only affects Australia without the USA will be fought in Indonesia, the Philippines or in the S Pacific. I can't see the point of a high end bombers like the B-21

[tartare]

The big question in my mind is does Australia need to be able to strike at the Chinese mainland on their own? A " land based, mobile, long range strategic missile capability (5000kms +) conventionally armed." isn't going to work - if you are in it with the USA any ICBM will be assumed to be N tipped whatever you say, If you're on your own that's a very expensive delivery system with the effect of the V2 campaign on the UK in 1944/45 - irritating but pointless. You fire 100 missiles and hit about 100 hectares of China...............


Not talking about striking the mainland necessarily - I would have thought the ability to hold anything strategic within a 5000km radius at immediate threat from a launcher you couldn't find would be quite handy.
Ships, installations, you name it.
Combined with subs and a long range stealthy airborne platform - and you effectively have a long range conventional triad capable of precision strikes at distance.
And it doesn't necessarily have to be a conventional ICBM - think hypersonics - there's work being done here now - and has been for a long time.

[rattman]

But M1 Abrams - really - to protect expeditionary infantry embarked overseas?


Abrams are being purchased for use in australia. Australia is perfect for armored / mechanised warfare. It was something we knew even back in the WW2, when Japan entered the war, Australia started to concentrate on armored/mechanised forces for the defence of australia. So much so that they never had any suitable forces to send to PNG so had to a send militia reinforced by units from africa.

[FakePilot]

Abrams are being purchased for use in australia. Australia is perfect for armored / mechanised warfare. It was something we knew even back in the WW2, when Japan entered the war, Australia started to concentrate on armored/mechanised forces for the defence of australia. So much so that they never had any suitable forces to send to PNG so had to a send militia reinforced by units from africa.

Sorry for the ignorance of Australian terrain, is this because in many areas the terrain provides cover but doesn't form natural barriers? This would benefit the defenders, right?

[rattman]

Sorry for the ignorance of Australian terrain, is this because in many areas the terrain provides cover but doesn't form natural barriers? This would benefit the defenders, right?

70% of australia is arid or semi arid, the majority (like 90% +) of people live in cities on east coast. theres no water very limited roads, most scrub is waist high, no rivers or natural obsticles you can see to the natural curvature of the earth

[ORAC]

So you envisage spending billions buying tanks and all the logistics necessary to defend and perform a fighting retreat over the GAFA?

Whilst the enemy would, logically, attack the few major littoral cities where 90% of the population live and tanks aren’t the optimum means of defence?

You can fight WWII over again with a scenario of a landing around Darwin from New Guinea, but it don’t think China thinks that way…

[rattman]

So you envisage spending billions buying tanks and all the logistics necessary to defend and perform a fighting retreat over the GAFA?

Whilst the enemy would, logically, attack the few major littoral cities where 90% of the population live and tanks aren’t the optimum means of defence?

You can fight WWII over again with a scenario of a landing around Darwin from New Guinea, but it don’t think China thinks that way…

Yeah naval invaisions are so easy to do

[tartare]

So you envisage spending billions buying tanks and all the logistics necessary to defend and perform a fighting retreat over the GAFA?

Whilst the enemy would, logically, attack the few major littoral cities where 90% of the population live and tanks aren’t the optimum means of defence?

You can fight WWII over again with a scenario of a landing around Darwin from New Guinea, but it don’t think China thinks that way…

My point exactly.
I had thought the Abrams were bought to be embarked (by ship or C-17) for infantry cover in the near island chains.
If the expectation is that they'll be used to defend the homeland - then that's just laughable and the Australian Army needs a brain transplant.
By the time anyone reaches Australian shores - the future war will have been long fought and won.

[SpeedFanatic]

My point exactly.
I had thought the Abrams were bought to be embarked (by ship or C-17) for infantry cover in the near island chains.
If the expectation is that they'll be used to defend the homeland - then that's just laughable and the Australian Army needs a brain transplant.
By the time anyone reaches Australian shores - the future war will have been long fought and won.

Check out your PM's om here, please

[Asturias56]

"I had thought the Abrams were bought to be embarked (by ship or C-17) for infantry cover in the near island chains."

there are 17,00 islands in Indonesia - you'd better choose the right one to put a tank on as once the balloon goes up moving them about is likely to be a bit risky.

The Abrams is only on the list because the Army models itself on the US Army - so if they have tanks Australia needs tanks.

It's not necessarily so as a number of contributors here have pointed out

[ORAC]

https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/occasional-papers/worst-both-worlds-analysis-urban-littoral-combat

The Worst of Both Worlds: An analysis of urban littoral combat

[tartare]

So it seems the lessons of WW2 have not been learned.
From memory it was the Japanese Army that wanted to invade Australia - and it was the Japanese navy that said "Don't be idiots - look at the length and vulnerability of the supply chains."
Or it may have been the other way round.
I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to invade and subdue us... and therefore why we need tanks.. or why we need the big floating targets that are surface ships.
But I can see why we would want to be able to hold threats at distance - hence the argument for very long legged stealthy bombers (getting back to aviation subject matter) - unmanned subs (also stealthy) and mobile long range missiles (can hide anywhere in the GAFA - the next best thing to being stealthy).
And a smaller, highly mobile army that can arrive from the air to whack-a-mole any local threats.
The likely war is Jim Molan's scenario... they don't need to invade at all.
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/we-wont-have-a-clue-its-coming-jim-molans-chilling-warning-on-war-with-china/video/3d59709cd456bd035a4f55cd0ad6eb48
Australia's beautiful little airforce with it's jets all lined up in rows and nary a hardened shelter to be seen - hit by conventional long range missiles.
Pine Gap, Learmonth and every other base - the same.
Australia therefore unable to assist the US.
I must be missing something...

[Asturias56]

"But I can see why we would want to be able to hold threats at distance"

and hold a lot of exercises with the Indonesian and Philippine armed services - they and their people will be the ones doing the fighting on the ground.

Can you imagine trying to hold down the whole of Indonesia - it would be an elephant trap