Australian Defence Strategic Review

GTX

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
15 April 2006
Messages
7,964
Reaction score
11,345
Website
beyondthesprues.com
See here: https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review

Australia is currently undertaking an independently-led review that will consider Defence's force posture and force structure. Arguably this is the most important such review in the last 80 odd years and from what I am already seeing will have significant outcomes.

This thread is for news and developments on this. It will be closely moderated though so please don't take it off track.
 
It would appear that the Australians have discovered that one, there is at the end of the day, there is only one set of tax payers. And two , if you plan to run the Mint's printing presses on overdrive 24/7 365 days a year .
Eventually bad things will start to happen.
 
Love release:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7pEa9aQLX8&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2F&embeds_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au&source_ve_path=OTY3MTQ&feature=emb_imp_woyt


Copy of actual public document:


A couple of immediate takeaways prior to full review:

  • L400-3 IFVs being cut from 450 to 129with both RDA and HDA to reprice based upon this
  • SPHs cut back but additional missiles/rockets a priority
  • SSNs continuing
  • Review of RAN Surface felt over next 6mths
  • B-21 looked at but rejected
  • MQ-28A to be prioritised as a collaborative program with USA
More to follow
 
I skimmed through it and some thoughts I had were
  • Indeed they mentioned no B-21s for now, but would the US even allow B-21s to be exported?
  • Land force shift to Northern Australia. I wonder if this means less heavy armor and something more mobile? I've never been to the northern part, just WA.. but I imagine its more swampy and humid, and something lighter and more mobile would be better?
  • Im still wondering if the MA-28 has an internal bay. I assumed it did, but close up pictures show no sizeable panel for one
 
helmutkohl said:
  • Indeed they mentioned no B-21s for now, but would the US even allow B-21s to be exported?
Click to expand...
I believe they would to the likes of Australia and UK but it is a moot point for now.
helmutkohl said:
  • Land force shift to Northern Australia. I wonder if this means less heavy armor and something more mobile? I've never been to the northern part, just WA.. but I imagine it's more swampy and humid, and something lighter and more mobile would be better?
Click to expand...
Indications are that the M1A2/M1074/M1150 acquisition is still going ahead with first vehicles due next year. A smaller buy of 129 KF41 or AS21 will also go ahead so overall there will be an increase in heavy armour (and at 40 - 50 tonnes each the IFVs are certainly heavy). There are also the Boxer CRVs coming on (another heavy vehicle). That all said, the north of Australia is humid and wet but only really in the wet season (duh! :rolleyes: ;)). There are already a number of significant airbases there:

42779878-9560193-The_location_of_RAAF_bases_including_bare_bases_north_of_the_26t-a-27_1620622398243.jpg


As it is though, the ADF is getting sharpened around its naval capabilities and missiles (lots of missiles). The Army is being reshaped around a fairly heavy, though small and mobile combat brigade.
helmutkohl said:
  • Im still wondering if the MA-28 has an internal bay. I assumed it did, but close up pictures show no sizeable panel for one
Click to expand...
The MQ-28 seen so far is more the demonstrator. Stand by to see what the production version is. Also though remember that it is meant to be an attritable platform, which costs less than a crewed platform, and can be replaced rapidly therefore it may not be fitted with such.
 
More commentary:

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Defence Strategic Review: Australian Army reshaped for strike capability

The Australian Army will be reshaped for long range strike capability, according to comments made by the Australian Government during the release of the Defence Strategic Review. The Defence Strategi
www.defenceconnect.com.au www.defenceconnect.com.au

www.abc.net.au

Two words are largely MIA from the Defence review — China and Ukraine

The Defence Strategic Review's calls for change and speed are crucial. But some aspects will require closer attention if Australia is to build the lethal and deployable integrated force it needs in the coming years, writes Mick Ryan.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

www.abc.net.au

Australia is entering the 'missile age' and is no longer protected by its geography, defence review says

The federal government announces a major shift in defence's posture as the world enters the "missile age", warning Australia's natural defences have been radically reduced.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

www.abc.net.au

Bushmaster future unclear as military refocuses on long-range missile capability

The Australian government has provided Ukraine with 90 Bendigo-made Bushmasters, but with no future contracts in the pipeline, the future of Thales Australia in regional Victoria is unclear.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

www.abc.net.au

Australia's military has begun one of its greatest shifts since WWII. Here's how it will change

The Defence Strategic Review is the first of its kind in a generation. Here's how it says Australia's military must change as it enters the "missile age".
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
www.aspistrategist.org.au

Reshaping the ADF to meet our strategic challenges | The Strategist

When the incoming Albanese Government tasked former Defence Minister Stephen Smith and former Chief of Defence Force Sir Angus Houston with writing the Defence Strategic Review (DSR), they spelled out the clear need for prioritisation ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au

www.australiandefence.com.au

Government moves fast on DSR response - Australian Defence Magazine

In order to imperil an adversary in Australia’s area of interest, the ADF will need a diverse array of missiles for long range strike - and the government has moved quickly.
www.australiandefence.com.au www.australiandefence.com.au

www.aspistrategist.org.au

The Defence Strategic Review: a revolution in Australian defence planning? | The Strategist

Public discussion of the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) has focused on the announced changes to major capability programs. On that score, the statement by Defence Minister Richard Marles that the DSR is ‘the most ambitious ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au
 
helmutkohl said:
I skimmed through it and some thoughts I had were
  • Land force shift to Northern Australia. I wonder if this means less heavy armor and something more mobile? I've never been to the northern part, just WA.. but I imagine its more swampy and humid, and something lighter and more mobile would be better?
Click to expand...
I have exercised in the Top End and visited it several times. Basically, it is flat and largely arid or semi-arid, except around the coastline and along the rivers. There are fairly large swampy areas mainly around the coast and along the rivers. During the Wet, low lying areas are subject to flooding. Indeed, at the moment it is suffering the after-effects of an el Nino event and floods are only slowly.clearing. The area is only at best slightly settled, with the most dense region being Arnhem Land, even there most of the population lives near the coast. Generally, the Top End is a wild area where the worst dangers are the local wildlife - Crocodiles, Buffalo, Sharks primarily, and an occasional crazy local. It would be ideal armoured country, except near the Mangroves and the Swamps. The Mangroves and the Swamps are fine infantry country, if you keep your wits about you - it was the only place where as a Section commander I was issued with a magazine of live ammunition to use on Crocodiles or Buffaloes we might encounter.
 
Looking on from the other side of the globe, Interesting developments, the optimist in me thinking announcements to expand the nations defence technology manufacturing base and job creation as I can't think of any actual live threat to Australia
 
TsrJoe said:
Looking on from the other side of the globe, Interesting developments, the optimist in me thinking announcements to expand the nations defence technology manufacturing base and job creation as I can't think of any actual live threat to Australia
Click to expand...

There is no actual existential threat to Australia. There are threats to Australian interests. The largest one is the Peoples' Republic of China in the South China Sea. Australia has since it's creation been a "fearful country". It has long feared the idea that a "great Yellow threat" will appear and take the continent away from the European colonisers, in exactly the same way the European colonises did to the Indigenous Inhabitants. To the Europeans it was a vast, empty land. Alan Renouf, ex head of the Department of Foreign Affairs wrote an entire book on the topic. Our fears appeared to become concrete with the Japanese. Since then, it seems to have been further made real by the Korean, the Vietnamese and the Indonesians. To the Conservative elements it was easier to fight them, "Over there" than "Over here". With the defeat of the Americans in Vietnam our fearfulness appears to have become somewhat more abated and our foreign policy has come to reflect that. Nowadays, we don't think an invasion is likely but conflict could happen, particularly over trading routes/partners like Taiwan.
 
TsrJoe said:
Looking on from the other side of the globe, Interesting developments, the optimist in me thinking announcements to expand the nations defence technology manufacturing base and job creation as I can't think of any actual live threat to Australia
Click to expand...
Definitely threats to Australia's interests in the IndoPac region and in the near term - hence the sense of urgency. The following quote is telling:

A stable relationship between Australia and China is in the interests of both countries and the broader region. Australia will continue to cooperate with China where we can, disagree where we must, manage our differences wisely, and, above all else, engage in and vigorously pursue our own national interest.
Click to expand...

And while more money is being put into Defence it does not automatically mean work in country if it is at the detriment of rapid capability development. Again another quote:
Australian industry content and domestic production must be balanced against timely capability acquisition. Previous government direction to meet mandated Australian industry content skewed the capability acquisition process so that capability outcomes were secondary to creating opportunities for Australian industry – even when a clear rationale was lacking.
Click to expand...

This is certainly not something aimed at job creation unless said jobs enhance capability in the immediate term. This is a government taking Defence seriously.
 
Wow, we're really getting desperate and beating those war drums to be part of this new Pivot to the Pacific club :rolleyes:

www.smh.com.au

The radical proposal to recruit foreigners to fight for Australia

Pacific Islanders should be allowed to serve in the ADF to boost numbers, military experts say, while Andrew Hastie backed it as a pathway to citizenship.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

 
Last edited:
Pioneer said:
Wow, we're really getting desperate and beating those war drums to be part of this new Pivot to the Pacific club :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
  1. This is a proposal from the Opposition and may therefore go nowhere. It is not yet government policy or action.
  2. The DSR and associated actions are not "beating ... war drums". It is part of a considered response to real world developments. The commentary often used within Defence or those associated with to describe the approach being undertaken with National Security now is "Shape, Deter, Respond". This describes things quite succinctly I believe and is quite evident both in the words within the DSR and mores, the actions of the current Government.
  3. "Pivot to the Pacific club"? Good thing we are in the Pacific... :rolleyes:
 
Looks rather like the US's recruiting of Philipino citizens from 1946-the late 1990s (part of the basing treaties provided for a certain quota of qualified Philipino citizens to serve in the US military).
 
Covers a lot of the aspects not mentioned elsewhere regarding the DSR, provides some perspective as regards Australia's defence strategies in the past, points out the dangers as well as major opportunities missed in this DSR due to its determination to prioritize improved interoperability with the US military over other threats to Australia's security.

A good read for a bit of perspective.

johnmenadue.com

‘National Defence’ takes Australia closer to war with China - Pearls and Irritations

The DSR overstates the threat China poses to Australia and understates the existential threat of climate change which it fails to confront.
johnmenadue.com johnmenadue.com
 
Australia has long recruited foreigners to fulfill specialist roles in the ADF. My present brother-in-law was British and rose to the rank of chief scientist for the Defence Science Organisation. I have known numerous South Africans, Zimbabwean, British who have enlisted in the ADF since the 1980s.
 
Last edited:
Rickshaw said:
Australia has long recruited foreigners to fulfill specialist roles in the ADF. My present brother-in-law was British and rose to the rank of chief scientist for the Defence Science Organisation. I have none numerous South Africans, Zimbabwean, British who have enlisted in the ADF since the 1980s.
Click to expand...
Indeed + Canadians, New Zealanders etc etc
 
I'm guessing this is relevant here:

www.abc.net.au

Auditor's scathing assessment of $45b future frigates program

Australia's troubled $45 billion project to build future frigates is facing a significant blow-out, with the auditor-general slamming Defence for failing to properly consider value for money during the tender process.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Particularly found this interesting:

"According to the ANAO, Defence records have revealed the department's initial assessment concluded the Italian FREMM and Spanish F-100 were better options for Australia than the British Type 26 design.

"The meeting records indicated that the Italian FREMM (Fincantieri) and Modified F-100 (Navantia) were considered the two most viable designs and that either the Type 26 or the French FREMM should be progressed as a third option."

"Defence did not conduct an effective limited tender process for the ship design. The value for money of the three competing designs was not assessed by officials, as the Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) proposed that government would do so.""

Well, I can't argue with that.
And accountability? Yeah right!:rolleyes:

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
I'm guessing this is relevant here:

www.abc.net.au

Auditor's scathing assessment of $45b future frigates program

Australia's troubled $45 billion project to build future frigates is facing a significant blow-out, with the auditor-general slamming Defence for failing to properly consider value for money during the tender process.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Particularly found this interesting:

"According to the ANAO, Defence records have revealed the department's initial assessment concluded the Italian FREMM and Spanish F-100 were better options for Australia than the British Type 26 design.

"The meeting records indicated that the Italian FREMM (Fincantieri) and Modified F-100 (Navantia) were considered the two most viable designs and that either the Type 26 or the French FREMM should be progressed as a third option."

"Defence did not conduct an effective limited tender process for the ship design. The value for money of the three competing designs was not assessed by officials, as the Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) proposed that government would do so.""

Well, I can't argue with that.
And accountability? Yeah right!:rolleyes:

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Not relevant here - the Hunter Class program was pre-DSR and the article highlighting issues is certainly not part of DSR. The closest might be the RAN Surface Fleet Requirements review underway but that is focussed upon future demand not current or past project performance.
 
GTX said:
Pioneer said:
I'm guessing this is relevant here:

www.abc.net.au

Auditor's scathing assessment of $45b future frigates program

Australia's troubled $45 billion project to build future frigates is facing a significant blow-out, with the auditor-general slamming Defence for failing to properly consider value for money during the tender process.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Particularly found this interesting:

"According to the ANAO, Defence records have revealed the department's initial assessment concluded the Italian FREMM and Spanish F-100 were better options for Australia than the British Type 26 design.

"The meeting records indicated that the Italian FREMM (Fincantieri) and Modified F-100 (Navantia) were considered the two most viable designs and that either the Type 26 or the French FREMM should be progressed as a third option."

"Defence did not conduct an effective limited tender process for the ship design. The value for money of the three competing designs was not assessed by officials, as the Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) proposed that government would do so.""

Well, I can't argue with that.
And accountability? Yeah right!:rolleyes:

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Not relevant here - the Hunter Class program was pre-DSR and the article highlighting issues is certainly not part of DSR. The closest might be the RAN Surface Fleet Requirements review underway but that is focussed upon future demand not current or past project performance.
Click to expand...
Ok, cheers mate.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Australia's review of the RAN surface fleet composition has finished and the government has immediately launched a new blueprint surface fleet.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1759853973240975536
View: https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1759853973240975536?t=tl_-vMJtjcLimL4VKoAShg&s=19

View: https://youtu.be/1PWRdDpwxe0?si=Cn_9VxVHuu-hMWU9


3 Hobart class DDGS (to be replaced in 2040s)
6 Hunter class ASW frigates (down from 9 planned before)
6 "Optionally Crewed" combatants derived from USN work on large, uncrewed ships
11 light, general purpose frigates (an existing design initially built abroad, then locally)


There will be immediate cuts to the Anzacs, and the process of buying the GP frigate is not fully laid out. But the endpoint of this program would have 20 crewed combatants and 6 optionally-crewed ships compared to 11 combatants today. It also appears to move the DDG replacement forward slightly, as they want to start that as soon as the Hunter class is completed in order to preserve the workforce
 

Attachments

  • 2024 National Defence Strategy_Public version_web.pdf
    3.9 MB · Views: 1
  • 2024 Integrated Investment Program_public version_web.pdf
    5.2 MB · Views: 0

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom