Australia's New Fighting Force - the ADF after the Defence Strategic Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Australia has released the public version of its Defence Strategic Review, what does this mean for the future of the Australian Defence Force?
Related briefings:
KF41 Lynx or AS21 Redback - Infantry Fighting Vehicles for Australia: • KF41 Lynx or AS21 Redb...
Australia's Nuclear Submarines: • Australia's Nuclear Su...
B-21 Raider for Australia: • B-21 Raider: U.S. - ye...
HIMARS for Australia: • HIMARS for Australia -...
Extremism by choosing between quantity and quality is a wrong equation, and the stick must be caught in the middle. The Australian army has good equipment, especially that it will get in the coming years, but at the same time the numbers are limited, and we have seen in the Ukrainian war that quantity is also important because losses in the war It is possible and there will always be a need for a reserve force and large numbers
Thank you for the comment. Yes, there should always be a balance between quality and quantity.
What this presentation highlight is the chasm between "Strategic Reviews" and reality. The Australian military is too small, under-gunned and Quixotic. Tor deter a potential enemy such as Chine you need grunt, hard unequivocal destructive capability. The amphibious force might be dandy for impressing the Pacific Islands but it would be laughable to the Chinese military. Are we really serious? Australia must acquire long range nuclear strike capability. It tends to make the bad guy think twice,
@@bosunmate7301Australia already has long-range Nuclear strike capabilities: It falls under both the U.S. and U.K.'s core Defense umbrella. Maybe even France, too.
your videos are superb ... just the facts no fluff.. KIS keep up the excellent work great info.
Thank you. Much appreciated. Yes, that is my goal, KISS.
@@Strategy_Analysis hi thank you for your video
I do not see the reasoning behind the RAN acquiring Corvettes. While a class of 6-8 patrol frigates along the lines of the Mogami-class or Type 31 makes sense in exchange for three of the Hunters. Anything smaller than that is entirely unfit for service in a high threat environment due to decreased survivability and decreased striking power which is counter to the other points set out in the DSR. For that reason I believe we are more likely to see a class of general purpose/patrol frigates rather than corvettes.
Thanks for the comment. You could well be right. The review of the surface fleet still needs to occur. I think what "they" want is more vessels, so as I suggest whatever number of Hunter-class aren't built, a larger number of smaller vessels will be. The main concern here will be cost, as we can see from other projects that have been curtailed or canceled.
@@Strategy_Analysis As is so often the case, time will tell. Thanks for the video. 👍
@@Strategy_Analysis I think they should scrap the Hunter class too big too little armed for its size. Instead build more AWDs with ASW capability and build more smaller frigates that's more in budget with similar capabilities as the Hunter class in terms of payload such as the German new F126 MKS180 frigates it will save dollars they look good too
@@Nathan-ry3yu I think the review into the surface fleet will tell us a lot.
@@Strategy_Analysis defiantly needs doing. I just hope the US admiral they got reviewing it knows what he's doing.
Bell icon clicked as requested. I always look forward to these briefs
Thank you. Unfortunately, most of my subscribers haven't yet hit the Bell icon, and Tube won't necessarily highlight to them I've done a new video.
Best Chanel for real information and analysis 👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thank you. Really appreciated.
It certainly is quite the Shake up.
I did note on my own perusal of the DSR that they were quite enthusiastic on the Acquisition of SSN.
I also noted that a fair bit of what was in there was stuff we were already moving to acquire, or had been acquired and this was more a shuffling of the numbers.
Also worth noting was the greater emphasis on a Holistic approach to defence which included better regional engagement/diplomacy. As well as continued strong application of local production.
I am a bit saddened by the Reduction of the Tracked IFVs under Land 400, Phase 3. But given that local production is a planned component of that program there remains a strong possibility of increasing the numbers again, at a later date.
I don't recall seeing much about Anti-Aircraft systems, either in enhancement or the need for new capabilities which was I thought was odd.
Especially given the Universal nature of the New IFV Platforms they could become the basis for a Self-Propelled Short range Air defense System. Something that the Ukrainian Conflict has told us is valuable.
The Hunter Frigates are the biggest question mark for me. The Hunter seemed more under armed compared to the British version of the type 26.
Thanks for the comment. Excellent post. The main point I took away from the Review re air defence was that it needs to be urgently addressed, and that the Navy and Army are just as important as the Air Force in this field.
@@Strategy_Analysis Excellent synopsis and analysis of the SDR. Re Bird Monster Air Defence comment there is a Land project Land 19 Phase 7B that is acquiring surface launched AMRAAM AS Army's component of the ADF's Integrated Air and Missile Defence System.
@@Strategy_AnalysisI think the acquisition of $2.5B worth of NASAMS is well underway, having been decided on a few years ago now. They finally got their hands on some actual equipment in May this year after a long wait
@@robman2095 Yes, a positive development.
but we went about SSNs the wrong way
I still think it is a hodge podge of gear with no real over arching strategy. Like could we defend ourselves from a single carrier group attack from china? Or could we sustain something like a armoured brigade combat team in SE asia while mainting a strategic reserve or somethign for home defence. I personally would focus our resources on UAVs, unmanned seaborne, missile defense and early warning
love your channel! good work
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Excellent foresight well done. Probably consider the procurement of the future PSM for the HIMARS Batteries for Littoral defense systems.
Thank you, much appreciated.
The only thing that I wish Australia to consider is 24 f15ex fighter bombers equipt with long range ship killer missiles to get any nasty aircraft carrier flying Sukhoi knock offs. The Eagles are cheap, fast and make good long range strike aircraft.
They are the closest thing available to recover some of the lost capabilities of the F-111 fleet. I think a wing of F-15ex would be a very wise acquisition. However I think we also need a wing of F-35b and another Canberra class or two. This is the only way we could possibly project a serious force into the ADFs area of defense (SE Asia). And we need those subs yesterday! If we stand a chance of denying a serious naval force access to our approaches, we are going to need a much better equipped navy with SSN subs and fixed wing carriers...
Why? In 2 exercises that involve F15/16 against F35. The F35 shot down multiple enemies before being detected.
We don't need F111 ability anymore you either use Tomahawks/NASM or build a carrier group.
F15 works if non stealth is needed like when the enemy is next door. The Growler with Super Hornets can do Anti-Ship now why replace. When the Ghost Bat and Lighting are heading towards Anti-Ship too.
If it is Chinese carrier group we could learn to use Rapid Dragon LRSM dropped from C-17 and C-130.
F15ex offers nothing new for Australia.
@@thomasb5600 Truly, nothing 'new', but we've lost the ability to exceed mach 2. Significantly reducing our ability to intercept. The range and speed of the F-15 would go a long way to restoring that. For a pretty reasonable price too I think.
A carrier group is critical for projection. The missiles, critical for enforcing an area of denial in that asymmetric warfare we must needs now get right!
Cutting the amount of hunter class would be a massive mistake for Australia, if anything the need 12 not 9 imo
Thank you very much for your report it is appreciated by me thank you 🙏
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.
I understand the delays to landing craft due to waiting on the IFV purchase. But like the US it now been delayed way to long.
Lets hope they don't just buy lots of HIMARS M142 and buy lots of Strikemaster so we can both locally build and can be easily adapted to new or different missiles, it would be nice to use the same missile across all services too.
While the DSR did not say the Army would be restructured. I do hope the you are right that 1 becomes a little more aviation and another becomes more amphibious while keeping a heavier Mechanized.
As for the fleet I hope they keep the Hunters numbers but modified the late ones to be better armed for other roles. We have the OPV with little weapons that is an issue that could be looked at. We have 2 classes of small patrol ships but neither is designed for warfare or support combat fleet.
The LHD these need to handle either F35B or a new Drone like Ghost Bat.
There was meant to be 2 JJS but LCH and LCM I think is needed more, it is great to be able transport large amounts of troops around but we should be able to get them on shore quickly if there is no docks that is a big gap.
Don't know if you are aware but there has been recent purchases of modules for ships one is ASW and the other self protection(MASS) apparently these can be easily fitted to ANZAC and Horbarts.
Thanks for the comment, Thomas. Yes, there certainly is more detail to be provided. Some important things could still change.
@@zonkedtoaster1348 based on video by the ADF, the army sends 2 RAR in dinghys to take and hold the beach.
As for me I would be looking at buying Armoured Amphibious Vehicles or even modifying the current ASLAV to assist with this.
The LCH and LCM should have some kind of support weapons and LHD should be able to provide copter support and as I said above aircraft/drone. Depending on the LCH size it should have the ability to support copters too.
@@zonkedtoaster1348things are very different now, no country can use waves of troops as cannon fodder. 1) Artillery and Missiles are too powerful and accurate. The size of the fleet China needs to invade Taiwan successfully is so big I doubt even China can get the ships and each year means even bigger fleet/troops are needed.
2) Total war. Russia is showing signs of failing in production of goods due to numbers needed to fight v production. Ukraine does not suffer this as long as the west supplies.
Beach landings will need to be light to none, however troops might need air/armour support further inland.
You and my grandfather would of gotten on really well, he served for 24 years in the navy after that he wrote a lot of the manuals for the navy 🇦🇺
Thank you, I am honoured. I had 2 uncles who served in the Navy. Fought in Korea.
So assuming any forward deployment for protection of the mainland would also include some of our strategic partners, would partner's assets and contribution be compatible with this mix? The SSN is a big resource sucking investment that is coming at a cost to the ADF budget and won't be available for years. Also recruitment will be a question. Lots of ships without crews is a stranded asset. Devil is in the deterrent detail. One thing for sure, we need to stop the political messing around and get a real budget that reflects the world we are entering.
It is unlikely the ADF would deploy forward without at least some support from strategic partners, partners that the ADF regularly trains with. So compatibility, which is more about familiarity than other factors, shouldn't be a concern.
This is pretty reminiscent of the shake up during the kokoda campaign, where heavier artillery and matilda tanks were re-assigned to divisional level from regimental/brigade level.
We need to more at Curtin and Learmonth along with the Ports located nearby to them so many Exercises over the years have shown significant issues for the ADF Force Projectiing to these areas.
I agree with, we currently have no combat aircraft based west of the West Australian border and you just can't fly in to (say) Curtain and conduct operations from there.
I don't know why they dismissed the B21 stealth bombers though. What is Australia using other than submarines for long strike capability? Tomahawks has range of 2500km. All good if Australia strategic is to only strike Indonesia in terms of distance. Australia has no aircraft carrier to project our aircraft in the south China or strike around the spartly Islands if Australia ADF had to strike near the spartly Islands to eliminate DF41 missile China has stationary there that can hit anywhere in northern and central Australia if they was to be launched at us.
I'm all for the longer range strike weaponry HIMARS ect. And good land base air defence system. But Australia needs a aircraft carrier or long range bombers. If we to have a decent offensive capability. B21 can evade any modern radar system. 11,000 km range. I don't understand how Australia defence review claims the B21 wouldn't work.. I find that very strange set up.
It is not the B21 won't do its job, it is that ability is not needed for its cost. Why?
Because 1) SSN can be fitted with things like Tomahawks and be in range within 3 days leaving Perth.
SSN could also be configured to deliver drones or special forces strike teams.
2) Rapid Dragon can deliver lots of Long Range Strike Missile if needed.
3) Drones like Ghost Shark or Ghost Bat could be fitted to deliver LRSM.
4) P8, Wedgetails and Tanker transport should be modified now to handle drone drop or LRSM.
That is before any adjustments to the navies surface fleet.
@@Nathan-ry3yuAustralia is never going to be able to go toe to toe with China so why do we need to strike the mainland of China? Blockade trade routes and being able to hit targets that threaten Australia is better.
Cargo planes and P8 don't need to get close as currently the LRSM range is 1000km that means escort Ghost Bat or fighters could be used from Australia.
Ghost Bat or Ghost Shark are locally built and could be easily modified to carry locally made missiles.
If Ghost Shark can only use torpedoes then the current harpoons will work.
Ghost Bat is a first generation AI fighter locally designed and built so a 2nd generation carrier version could be built or we could steal the tech from the US. As for a carrier we have 2 LHD which was originally designed to handle aircraft so could be adjusted back to handle drones.
I don't question the ability of the submarines. Sure they be great. But for the dollar Australia could had gotten 12 Barracuda class or KSS III submarines that has 18000 nortical milies range and a vls to launch tomahawks it could do the same thing.
Rapid dragon wepon system gets launched from P8 or Hercules or other cargo aircraft. Although thoughs platforms can reach the south China sea under refuelling , they be more likely be shot down before they could get a chance to bring thoughs missiles in range to strike. The south China sea is loaded with China man made military islands with fast jets and long strike missiles. Our P8 get harassed now. I couldn't see them getting a chance during a conflict without support of fast jets.
MQ28 ghost bat is a drone on the same size scale as an F35A and range. It needs a air craft carrier to be able get in strike range. These platforms can't even strike Indonesia our closest neighbour due to lack of range.
The other platform is a small drone submarine. The best they can be armed with a torpedo. I can't see how Australia can use against land target's.
Like Keating said 8 nuclear powerd submarines will be like throwing pins at a mountain. It won't bring enough damage to a enamy to make a difference for the amount of money been spent.
Australia really needs a aircraft carrier and long range bombers.
They should scrap the Hunter class ASWs frigates also. They too large and undergunned for it's size. It has a payload of warships half its size but its as expensive as AWDs. They better of building more AWDs and build new F26 MKS 180 frigates for ASW. Half the price of Hunter but has same capabilities too
@@Nathan-ry3yu1) The Barracuda would be absolute stupidity for Australia. Around every 10 years it has to go back to France to be cut in half to have its reactor replaced which can easily take 2 to 3 years. So over a 30 year life span it is out for a third sitting in the docks.
2) P8 got harassed over the East Vietnam sea. If you are concerned that we can not get within 1000km of the SCS then you may as well rule out B21 too for that same reason.
3) Actually the Ghost Bat is smaller than the F35. You are making assumptions that needs a carrier. We are talking 1st gen AI test fighter. What next gen can do is still open like range, carrier launch or dropped from under a wing of a bigger plane.
4) Again Harpoon torpedoes, you are only looking at 1st Gen AI submarine drone. It is already the size of a bus.
Sorry but Keating is a dickhead. He wants defence around or in Australia only. Quoting or listening to him is a big mistake on defence.
5) What is the point the Hunter is 10,000t and the F126 is 10,000t their armament are the about same doing the same role. Switching would only end up with another sub fiasco. Costing is more to do with where they are built. Building F126 would end up costing about the same.
BTW the Hunter has twice as many VLS.
There is still room for different and more weapons systems like MASS.
It really worries me that people seriously want the capability to attack China. That's the job of the USA and we are not the USA.
I believe we can add that if 3 brigade becomes an air assault force, then 7 will be rolled as a littoral manoeuvre brigade, much like how 2 RAR is being used currently. The boxers intended for 3 being rolled into 7. 1 Brigade, being the concentrated mechanised brigade with all the M1, AS21/KF41. 9 Brigade will most likely be scrapped at this stage and 7RAR and 1AR being rolled back to first brigade, unless they decide to have two Littoral manoeuvre brigades, an air assault brigade and a Mechanised brigade but details on this where extremely limited in the DSR. f this is the case then a further tranche of Boxers would need to be procured which I doubt given the current governments aversion to protected mobility.
Further to this I can see that the LHD’s of the Navy should be hard decked, especially if protection is required for littoral units are deploying to islands and setting up long range strike assets, the time for land based fighters to cover this units is too much and the time and resources required to get to these areas would be too much for the current F35 to cover reasonably. Will be interesting to see where the Naval review leads us but this should probably have been included in the DSR in the first place.
Thanks for the very detailed comment, David. I plan on doing a briefing on what the 3 combat brigades might look like sometime in the next month or so.
Look forward to it
@@Strategy_Analysis that would be interesting.
Yeah a detailed look at the brigades would be exellent.
@@reyvan3806 I will definitely get to it.
LO3 and LO4 with 16 x F35B's pls to strengthen the LO1 and LO2 amphibious units. 605 liked. Salute you Sir
Great clip, as usual. Just an honourable mention for the new (4th) combat brigade (13th Brigade in WA), the Joint Fires Brigade (re-rolled 8th Brigade) and the curious re-rolling of 12/40 Battalion in Tassie as a 'lower latitude' Regional Force Surveillance Unit.
While everyone else is speculating about how the two combat brigades without tracked IFVs will cope; I'll throw in a random suggestion that they will end up with AMPVs.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, still much to be revealed concerning the reorganisation of the Army, both Regular and Reserves. I wasn't aware of 12/40 Battalion change.
Your mention of 12/40 re rolling makes me wonder just how concerned the govt are with China in the Antarctic. They are apparently increasing the size of their base down there. I am puzzled how they have any claim to it, considering they are no where near it.
my main criticism for the DSR is not asking for even more naval vessels, specifically missile slinging destroyers and maybe a token "helicopter" carrier, i seriously doubt 9 new destroyers can do much
If purchased Roto tilt cargo planes could be utilised of the aircraft carriers we have with a mini version of rapid dragon this would give valuable strike capability at range
Great video. Think the they might split the IFVs up so 3 infantry Bns each have a company's worth? That may be a way to sustain a deployment of the capability... at an obvious cost in mass.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, they could do that. I get the sense thought that it will be one full battalion.
I hope they don't. Doesn't seem like a great idea. What to do with all those M113 hey? Keep as is? Upgrade? Replace with Bushmaster/ Hawkeye/ boxer? Or maybe go back to light infantry? No easy options.
No they will going to 7RAR & as mentioned the 3rd brigade will go back to an airborne airmobile brigade and 7th brigade will be resolved to light infantry brigade. In my opinion of course!
I always wonder who makes decisions about defence acquisitions and "the way forward" for our military. Why aren't assets like AEGIS ashore being looked at across out northern border to provide that area of "impunity" in which are forces can operate in throughout. Arleigh burke flight III ships are half the cost of the hunter frigate and provide forward deployed fire power to support island hopping air and ground forces.
As for landing ships wouldn't the USAV LSV-7 style of ship be a better option or an LPD like the San Antonio class with LCAC's.
Just seems like everytime we have the ability to really make a different to defence as a whole and not tri-army we fumble the ball the way army aviation does with their programs
Any future LCH should have a modified medium lift chopper on the back that has at least a 30mm cannon and an anti-tank weapon - as the war that we're preparing for will involve contested landings etc.
I'll be covering the new LCH soon.
we still need to replace those 1960s m113...they are death traps, lack any real offensive capability and the upgrades were a joke...a lighter weight, mobile unit with a 25 mm + ATGM is needed...maybe a new LAV if cost is an issue...
Do you think it would be worthwhile to get more air defences systems such as more NASAMS 3 and MIM-104 patriot? As far as im aware we are only getting 2 batteries of NASAMS, that is not nearly enough to protect anything more than Canberra. Without ground based air defences, we will have to rely on ships to provide air defence against ballistic and cruise missiles. They will likely not be effective against cruise missiles so that is a big weak point. China could easily destroy infastructure such as fuel reserves, energy infrastructure, air bases and ports. We also need ground based air defences to support fighter jets as we are likely to be overwhelmed by chinese fighters, fighting a SAM system and a fighter jet at the same time is hard so air defences could suppress them while our fighters take them out.
👍
An arsenal hull, manned / unmanned... designed to accompany the frigates & desstroyers etc , may well compensate our lacking missile capacity.
the hunters should of replaced the Adelaide Class Frigate
it will be 3 history repeats
Why would we invest in HIMARS when it's already been defeated? ATACMS would seem a better bit. The longer the range the better. Why do people not understand this?
Correction: ATACMS has also been defeated. We need to focus on a non-ballistic missile, a long range steerable one whose flight path is not predictable.
Unfortunately it sounds more like Australia will primarily be used as a huge US base, for *their* interests. "Increased US force posture in Australia, joint patrols with US forces" - basically the US calls the shots, Australian defense forces taking commands from US leaders. (Some politicians are okay with that, others hopefully have more backbone, but consider that the US does not do anything "out of the goodness of its heart", ever.)
Well, the pointy end of all that is, the US is looking to Australia as a safe bastion country to fight from long-term, if they get into a war with China, and then lose Taiwan and possibly the Phillipines in rapid succession. Indeed, if China comes to utterly dominate the South China sea as they intend to, the US may not be able to prevent that. However, the US could gradually fight their way back through Indonesia and other jungle-y island places, and that's where Australia's assistance comes in. US bomber bases, US navy bases, US intelligence bases - all for continuing a major long term war even if the US loses some key allies in more frontline areas of the west Pacific. That means all the waters around Indonesia become contested, with control of those areas by friendly or expeditionary forces being crucial, otherwise if those are lost the global shipping lanes have to suddenly shift much further south, and Australia becomes the only friendly link between the Indian and Pacific oceans.
East Asian primary adversary, Phillipines invaded, Australia threatened while jungle battles occur just north of it. This all sounds really familiar. Maybe someone even gets nuked at the end. 🤪
Wait until you find out Singapore will basing 6,600 troops in Australia next year and by 2028 up to 14,000 do you think this mean Singapore calls the shots in Australia or maybe a traiming base it just a training base 😂😂😂
I live on UA-cam lol
And coming across this channel is amazing i am slowly getting stuck into all the videos.
For a many years especially now days i see all the problems in Australia and it drives me mental. Between the yanks and the UK and here we all got eachothers backs
(I hope so anyway)
Between Australia, USA and the UK we need to focus building up a the most undefeatable superior defence force in the air, on the ground and at sea. Keep things away from the stupid media such as building subs and buying aircraft and tanks and whatever else.
Its got me absolutely stumped how stupid we are the government monkeys scream what we are getting and building THEN China screams and starts crying and throwing threats around because they are trying the own the world and be the undefeatable.
I think its time we keep things under wraps and well away from the shady fools AND next time we get any kinda security problems or threats from them
Just take them out instead or tip toeing around everything. I thing it just makes us look soft and stupid and a somewhat easy target.
Am i right or wrong ???
We should be looking after ourselfs and if the USA and UK have our back we have their back also and not beat around the bush.
Thank you, much appreciated. If you haven't already please subscribe, and hit the Bell icon so you'll be notified of future briefings.
Here is a interesting situation.
Christmas island is occupied by a small forces of 3 ships and 500 troops. Could Australia retake without any other countries support?
An interesting question. Even without outside support, many variables to consider.
You might be interested in novel An Act of War by Michael O'Connor
“An Act of War (Random Century, 1990) explored what Australia would be able to do, and not do, if a regional power seized Australia's distant
Cocos Islands territory in the Indian Ocean. While the scenario posited a future militarist India as the notional adversary, the point of the exercise was to
highlight the strategic complexity of defending mainland Australia and its far-flung territories in a multi-polar region. Given current South China Sea tensions it's now well worth a read again.” (Australian Defence Association, 2017).
Great novel & an excellent example for why they are moving to this force
It would depend entirely on who took it in the first place, and who was backing their play. Without fixed wing aircraft carriers, there is not a lot the ADF can do about anything outside of the mainland.
@@SteepSix well there would be very few forces that could - obviously the Chinese & why would they? The mob in the novel, but currently their in with the US. But previously they were close to the Russians, currently they are too worried about the Chinese. The US of course, but again why? If asked we would gift it to them. The old British navy could based on the recapture of the Falklands. That’s about it and there are only to major backers, the Chinese or the US.
As for the scenario above - it really depends why they did it in the first place. Leverage? Believe it’s theirs? Strategic interests?
If it was a small force you would basically starve them out using naval assets and air assets out of cocos islands and fighter & tankers using Curtin.
But if it was either of the big two backing the play - you would really have to ask is it worth it?
Cocas island and Norfolk are the same, you would seriously have to think about a direct confrontation rather than a blockade.
Cheers
- The australian army appears to be morphing into the US marine corps.
I dont know if we have the domestic production of crayons to support this change.
I think the biggest hole in our defense is anti submarine
Will this happen with our subs? Sometime after 2050!
hmm... the razor gang review has succeeded, manufacturing our own missiles is a good strategy to maintain supply, I don't see any plan for manufacturing semiconductor chip sets, if not then this undermines the strategic value of making our own missiles.
I am assuming that that the reduced number of armoured vehicles, will be replaced with Hawkeye and Bushmaster using drones, plus additional tanks. No mention of quickly deploy-able low earth orbit satellites for surveillance and maintenance of GPS. So my cynical view is that this is a contraction of the ADF in order to balance the budget.
I shake my head, if Australia going have forward mobility force, Australia will still home force. Army needs hold numbers war fighting vehicles. RAN had order more Seahawks but will that be enough to man all warships? RAN should build block 2 of DDG whether they were built here in or Spain. Hunter class should be reduced to 6 this will balance future replacement. As for corvettes they need be frigates size for better sea keeping but Australia can’t wait decade for these corvettes to be build so Spain might be best bet, unfortunately Japan is tied up. Luerssen offer is not good enough if they have delays with OPV build.
The Surface Fleet review will be interesting. If Corvettes are selected, I think they will be quite large.
I think Australia may want to look to South Korea the way Poland did.
$380+Bill would pay for a lot of other hardware--rather than investing in SSN's
They could had just suck with the Barracuda class and saved billions. 80 billions for 12 vs 368 billion for 8 nuclear powerd. They could had purchased a jump jet carrier and b21 stealth bombers and still would had been cheaper with 12 Barracuda class. Could had have plenty left over for HIMARS long range missile all 450 IFV and self propelled howitzers and build more surface ships. Destroyers corvettes ect.
The review is idiotic with the expensive submarines it don't give Australia much option or a number of platforms for the dollar. It's just idiotic
Australia may get shafted yet anyway. If Trump gets back in as president of USA the first thing he will do is cancel AUKUS. Apparently he's against it. What's the government going to do then? Spend maybe 20 billion dollars between now and 2025 towards the set up for the submarines only to find out we can't have them anyway.
ADF is living on dream road till 2040. Any American president can pull the plug and we be stuck. And billions of dollars lost. It's a significant risk they are taken.
Not like it's a signd a deal with the US. Australia has no concrete legislation signd to safeguard itself during this procedure. Anything can happen. If Australia can't meet the staff for it's subs on time will also be another problem.
The review is a fuck up if you ask me. A very dangerous one
@@Nathan-ry3yu Yes Harriers or F35B's would give a lot of clout to the Navy
Australia being an island needs to keep its shipping lanes open. The subs are a must. Yes they are stupidly expensive but in my opinion they are our top priority and should be.
Consider the Saab A5 Ocean sub variant (larger). Non- nuclear, so cheaper making other defense needs possible. It defeated US Navy during extended exercises. Very high-tech & quiet. From Sweeden, so no US Gov involvement...
@@rossg4788 Yes , nuclear, is "gilding the lily"
I was hoping the army would be 5 lieutenant general where a lieutenant generals 45,000 troops is just a 1/5th division,
That's what you could have three lieutenant general for democtatic overview defence an have 2 lieutenant general on attack in war times,
I believe in a pentadecagon war federation that non political rudimentary order of chain of command subject to time relitive to motion, force an stationary space.
15 Microstates of equal square km mass that intercept centrally each Microstate with 15 seats of equal square km mass, overlapping this is three patchwork commission nationally that every three seats of a Microstate battlefield science area of Impartial representation of three commission, for incontrovertible capability at a localized level, the three commission nationally divide population into three political minorities to dismantle the dictatorship system.
That seats break down into 15 large patches of equal square km mass that intercept centrally in the seat, every three large patch close together breaks down into 5 smaller patches of equal square km mass, to have a 25 small patch system overlapping a 15 large patches system.
Out of war times the lieutenant general with 45,000 troops command three Microstate,
During war times three lieutenant general take a commission each for democtatic overview defence an two lieutenant generals are attack pulling straws to determine who's who,
Yet out of way the lieutenant general get three Microstate,
A major general with division of 15,000 troops gets a Microstate,
The major with 5,000 regiment gets a commission of Microstate that's five seats,
The lieutenant with 1,000 battalion gets a seat,
The captain with 200 company gets five patches of seats in patchwork, one of each of the small patches of each 5 small patch segment,
The sergeant with 40 troop platoon gets a small patch of seat,
Sergeant outrank 40 in their jurististion an command a squad of 8 soldier out of one platoon.
Captain outrank 200 in their jurististion an command 40 soldier platoon from five squad of 8 soldier from 5 platoon.
Lieutenant outrank 1,000 in their jurististion an command a company of 200 made up of 25 squad of 8 soldier from 25 platoon.
The major outrank 5,000 strong regiment in their jurististion an command 1,000 strong battalion from 125 squad of 8 soldier from 125 platoon.
The major general outrank 15,000 strong division in their jurististion an command a 3,000 strong university from 375 squad of 8 from 375 platoon.
An lieutenant general commands all 1,125 platoon from 45,000 troops,
That depending on population of seat that one seat could have more platoon non politically because of population than others, that's how I see it, 1% of the population want to enlist,
One field martial is a middle weight defence system.i think we are big enough to be heavyweight defensively.
So you say what's the 15 large patches about of seat, it's about three major general of three lieutenant general to be Impartial by commissons in the war situation so they can put a platoon in each seat from the major generals universities one major general each commissons for a skeleton crew 1/5th the size so you put two soldier each large patch an mobilize ten from a central location of seat a 4 corporal system , three stationary corporal an one mobilized corporal star force group.
The 9,000 skeleton crew system is 1/5th the size of 1 lieutenant generals force not including commanding officers
The skeleton crew of one lieutenant general compared to the five in total works out a company of 200 in each seat non politically,
That the 9,000 troops is the skeleton crew of the skeleton crew engine room, yet it works out one lieutenant general has three major generals that that take a commission,
Then the major take a third of the commission 25 seats in patchwork, then the lieutenant takes 5 seats an the captain takes a seat an the sergeant take 5 small patch each that leaves a capability of a squad of 8 soldier in each small patch, it's just about non political rudimentary order of chain of command, the only thing that complicate this is population density of each seat that if higher than average would have more platoon an if lower than average have less platoon.all commanding officer get a jurististion
1st viewer🙂
Well done! Apologies for the long break between briefings.
The failure of the Army to transform started in 2010 with the omission of water capability of the LAND400
This decision was derived from the failute of the USMC IFV program which pronounced it impossible to design an affordable replacements to the LVTP-7 'interim' APCs.
The APCs eventually chosen are designed for a land army, not an Army intended to function in the maritime-littoral area of operations. Wrong tools for the job is what makes the Army unfit for purpose.
The proposal to purchase the large landing craft is an absolutely idiotic decision because these cannot conduct missions in support of likely strategic contingency.
The greatest problem for the Australian Army is a lack doctrinal development, not technology.
A technological transformattion of the Army must be doctrine-led, and this means divesting the century-old obsolete doctrine inherited from the USMC and adopting a new design for maritime-littoral operation.
DSR support for the new class of landing craft is therefore in itself a decision not fit for purpose, and must be revoked.
I doubt the Yanks would sell us the B21 even if we wanted it, too much tech that they want to keep close. Was there much detail on the long-range cruise missiles we could base in the North and threaten chinas shipping corridors?
The B-21 point is largely moot now, but I think it likely they would have been available had Australia sought them. Re long-range strike capability, the plan is for them to be launched from the F-35 and F/A-18F, the Destroyers and Frigates, and eventually the Army with the Precision Strike Missile fired from the HIMARS.
@@Strategy_Analysis Thanks for taking the time to answer.
450 IFVs for three battalions????!!!!
Yes. That also includes training vehicles and attrition reserve (vehicles keep as replacements for damaged/destroyed vehicles over the service life).
we would hav a lot more and a lot better if the government didn’t send money all over the world in there good will effect
Could not Afford the rest after the F-35 and most likely the 35 Million dollars a day for 30 years Submarine the nwxt thing will be Health and Pensions
No mention of c130 sea planes not even considered that’s extremely poor planning
Are you referring to the U.S. MC-130J Commando II Amphibious Capability? Last I heard the U.S. has put it on the backburner. Would be a useful capability.
Algorithm.
Australia I think needs three of our own big ship building yard big enough to take on building amphibious vessels that each vessel could take 6 yrs an I think we need 15 of them with spiffy decks to take 3 F-35b each vessels, build the vessels the Spanish way in sections it's take 30 yrs to build 15 of them it's mean the army could have a division at sea with 15 vessels that's be a three brigade maneuver element an a two brigade base of fire system , with three ship yards we could build three of them in 6 yrs an that'd give us a triangulate an encapsulate system similar to the Falklands war defence strategy we could sincerely defend alliance an be a soldier moving mechanism for alliance to deploy alliance in something like a world war .
We are going to have to build our own vessels a lot better, it's the F-35B strike capability that'd extend our strike capability with the amphibious mechanism you could fire himars off the deck, I think we need to invest in some gepard tanks for the amphibious vessels decks , I'd even build something like a Armidale vessel an put gepard guns on it a vessel a squad of 8 could handle something we could send to the red sea , send three of them there to be a air defence battery with only 24 military personnel low expendability
With three F-35b on each vessel we could cycle the F-35B to sustain attack from a amphibious vessels,you could cycle himars an gepard on an off the decks to be sustained fire power of the amphibious
What’s am I missing here……vertical launch cells and a surface fleet capable of a missile defence for ….o well let’s just say Sydney for example surly we have learned something from Ukraine!!!!!
Maybe something like the Sa'ar 6 Corvette class with same mix but different variants would be a possible solution to the Corvette question.
Eg NSM INSTEAD OF Gabriel V and ESSM instead of Barak-8.
@@glenncooper3414How about more Hobarts?
@joemaloney1019 cost benefit wouldn't support More Hobart's. More capable platforms around Australia's vast coastline hence corvettes.
it saddens me that we won't get as many IFV's as we need, but then again I personally would like to see our land army increase up to 80k. with what we are seeing with Russia war and the massive buildup of Chinese forces, the times of the lean and mean is over and we need some warm bodies prepared to defend the main land against incursion.
I know recruitment will be difficult with all the blue haired youths these days, but the effort should still be made. maybe allow it as a fast track towards citizenship to get more of the migrants interested.
I think Australia should consider State National Guards like the US has to bolster the active ADF. They could consist of heavy air transports,, fighter units, transport, medical and round out Infantry and armor. Naval Guard could consist of those corvettes and amphibious cargo ships. The states would provide the funds and they would answer to the state government except when the PM nationalizes them for war.
@@joemaloney1019the 2nd Division is state based now. There is a big difference between the US national Guard being state based and an Australian national guard state based. Taxes US states raise and have taxes, Technical all taxes collected in Australia are Federal.
Our defence Force is a joke. We just lost another Infantry battalion. We can only kit out one battalion with IFV. SF Counter Terrorist Squadrons have no helo capability at present. No MRH and we only have three new Blackhawk which are not SF capable. When are our senior officers going to kick up a stink instead of being yes men and snivelling their way to the next rank? 2023 and we still have no SPA or MLRS. I will be dead before the Nuclear subs get here. We should have gone Nuclear when we got the Collins. We are 30 years behind the 8 ball. I give up. The world is a tinder box at present and the ADF is an undersized joke.
Seems the overlords in Washington want us to storm the beaches in the south China sea. I can already hear them humming "the halls of Montezuma". If we get one less sub, will my auntie be able get her new knee before 2025?
🤡
its a very strange strategy choice Australia made. Australia military force wont be powerful enough to threat China in the foreseeable future, at least in areas near China. and China also wont want to attack Australia in the foreseeable future, how heavily Australia defend itself really doesnt matter. all the attitude just will make their diplomacy relationship worse.
Most changes are designed for the East Vietnam sea and trade routes around that, not attacking mainland China.
China has claimed to have a weapon that has a range from the occupied island that could hit about two-thirds of Australia. As such to blockade trade routes and strike those islands is what will be needed not a force that goes toe to toe.
@@thomasb5600 those "a weapon" are designed to attack the US to be honest, and it could hit the whole Australia, and China has SSBNs. but they are too expensive to attack not-that-important Australia. Australia is just not worth attacking.
but I think you made it clearly Australia is indeed hostile towards China and would want to attack it when possible, this makes it a rightful target for Chinese military.
@@yuey0602Who has threatened Australia with nuclear weapons? And building more.
Who has targeted Australia vessels near Australia? Just the same has been done to other countries.
Who has been going through a rapid military build up for the last few years?
You just stated that China can strike Australia now so why bother. Yet tried to makeout Australia is being aggressive for building weapons to stop that.
Bullshite that China is only building weapons to target the US. Xi is like Hitler, Hitler was only building up military forces to protect Germany and had no plans to wipe out minorities or a greater Germany empire.
@@yuey0602 Its strange that you say say that Australia is hostile towards China when it is China that has the SSBN submarines, Balistic missiles and bombers all with the range to strike Australia, I think we all kmow what side of the fence you sit on
@@jimmyjames7529 having a stick in your house is different with waving it in front of you neighbor's door, right?
Australia's Politicians must be on the Chinese payroll. Building an offensive Armored Ground force and naval landing craft when the Homeland has no hardened strategic oil reserve not enough munitions of all types No Missile Shield to defend the homeland and not enough Air or Sea power to keep China's Submarines and Surface ships is madness. Australia should not build its ports, bases, and airfields to support American forces Australia should give a 99-year lease to America to build its own bases and ports in Australia there for make a yearly income stream from the USA and use those funds to buy weapons and Equipment from the USA. Australia should also offer the UK, Canada, and other Nato Nations Areas to establish joint Ports and bases including Japan and South Korea.
4 or was it 5 personnel just died in the recent chopper crash while taking part in Amerikan led drills to go up north to "fight China one day". Do we have any initial guesses as to what happened to the chopper? This is the cost aussies pay for being a vassal state. Sailing 10,000 km up north to the other side of the world to go fight China in its own backyard is the definitiion of aggression.
🤡
@@cattledog901 When the reply is a clown emoji, it really shows.
@@dyong888 When you write a comment as ignorant and asinine as that there is only one conclusion. You are a clown.
You guys are always spewing how the USA is the aggressor, the US enjoyed close relations with China and are having á difficult time coming to term with Xi's plans for Taiwan and the countries bordering the South China Sea. But the US is honoring its commitments especially to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines Australia and New Zealand. The US is also working with other countries in the region. It is up-to the PRC to play nice, if it doesnt start nothing there won't be nothing.
Lol, it’s a chopper that was destined for replacement next year and has been replaced this year due to the accident.
Definition of aggression, yes unless you consider that Great Britain, the United States and Australia all have the same exact defence strategy. Forward defence. We will fight anyone anywhere any time. But we don’t play home games. We fought Germany in France, Belgium and North Africa. We fought japan in png and assorted south East Asian countries. We fought turns in the Middle East and turkey. We fought china in North Korea and we will do it again in Taiwan the 1 true china.
I’ll gladly live under American vassal status over Chinese slavery and oppression.
I agree with the reduced purchase of heavy IFVs. A country the size of Australia makes them irrelevant because of their low capability to maneuver long distance. The Muti-role brigade is a jack of all trades but master of none. The Army should have invested in Mech Wheeled vehicles with a 105mm AT capability to support Mech(W) battalions on the lines of the PLA light Mech Brigades.
They should concentrate the 3rd Brigade for Airmobile operations. The Parachute trained 3RAR should never have been dropped.
What an obscene waste of money.
Freedom is not free.
I'll wait for your reply stating China is not a threat 😂