This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Australian Defence Discussion

Jump to new

There are Rules of Engagement that have to be followed.

I know it's easy for us to sit back and make judgements, so let's just let the court case hear what happened and decide for themselves.
 
SirRumpole said:
There are Rules of Engagement that have to be followed.

I know it's easy for us to sit back and make judgements, so let's just let the court case hear what happened and decide for themselves.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are rules of engagement.
Unfortunately, in most of the situations where ADF members are required to perform, the enemy have no such rules, and its a free for all.
Notwithstanding that, the ADF Major in the video is asking how it is that accused Pedophiles and accused rapists are granted anonymity to protect them from vigilantes and others who might seek revenge. And yet someone serving in the ADF is not granted the same priviledge.
He does not suggest that soldiers should not be held accountable, its the publication of the names and addresses of SAS personnel who have been accused.
As has always been the case, Politicians and the top brass are always happy to send someone else off to do their dirty work, and will make "surprise" visits to the frontline to get a photo op. But when the going gets tough, they are nowhere to be found.
Mick
 
Yes good point about anonymity, especially when dealing with religious terrorists.
 
SirRumpole said:
Yes good point about anonymity, especially when dealing with religious terrorists.
Click to expand...

Yes, you and Mick are correct on the anonymity aspect to this. At the height of the Islamist and ISIS troubles, soldier's families were receiving death threats in the mail. Putting this guys name out there puts a target not just on his back, but his family and friends. It's quite unbelievable that he's been outed. I'm sure there's some sort of legal direction on this as well, so whoever has decided to name him might be in trouble.
 
The government redacted DSR will be out in the next couple of days. Distilled by the ALP so you see what they want you to see. It will be crafted in a way that they will be able to get away with cutting capabilities that they don't like and increasing some that they do. It won't necessarily be about capability, but about politics. I hope not anyway.

I doubt there will be any real increase in % of GDP on Defence but a redistribution of what's there. Since a RAAFie did the review, expect the RAAF to be spared any reduction in capability and perhaps enhanced. Potentially another squadron of F35s, UAVs and a squadron of B21s to be considered in X years.

Navy might get some more destroyers and some corvettes that are actually armed, but will lose some of the Hunter frigates. The submarines are obviously the elephant in the room that's going to start sucking up hundreds of millions in development almost immediately, so Navy won't be able to complain.

Poor old Army will lose out massively. Most will say rightfully so when the real threat is an enemies ability to reach Australia by air, sea or cyber and disrupt our SLOCs bringing in energy and supplies. So, our proposed 'Fires Brigade', that was going to have many more self propelled artillery will probably be a bit light on. We will get HIMARs but they were already planned on. The IFVs are going to be cut back massively. I guess troops will be riding into battle on e-scooters. But, war in the Pacific or SCS won't really require many IFVs. The proposed increase in the size of the Army by almost a brigade might be put on hold. Personnel costs are a massive part of our budget.

Overall, I think there will just be a shuffling of the deck chairs, overall spending will be put on hold, and will not really be prepared for what is supposed to be 'the most dangerous geostrategic environment since the 1930s'.

Meanwhile, China is on our doorstep.
 

Defence White Paper author Paul Dibb says threats to Australia are real, serious and urgent​

Australia faces a threat which has not been seen in 80 years, which will force us to change our defence weaponry and strategy, a former top defence, security and spy boss has revealed.

Charles Miranda
April 23, 2023

Australia faces a threat the likes of which has not been seen for more than 80 years, the architect of Defence’s national security blueprint for the last four decades has warned.

Former Defence Intelligence Organisation director and deputy secretary for Defence’s strategy and intelligence Paul Dibb said 35 years ago when he authored the Defence White Paper 1987 the threats were minimal.

But he said Australia’s security outlook had worsened substantially and the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) 2023 was more important than anything he had ever produced or had been done since.

Speaking on the eve of the DSR’s release, he said China’s expansion in the South China Sea, overt aggression toward Taiwan and push into the Pacific threatened to destabilise the region and throw Australia into a vulnerable position.

The DSR will be making sweeping reforms to national security and defence and including a shopping list of an arsenal of drones and missiles, new ships and other long-range weaponry.

It was Dibb’s White Paper 1987 that stated Australia had a warning time in advance of conflict of at least 10 years and he now said the notion clearly no longer existed.

“The Defence Strategic Review is infinitely more serious and infinitely more urgent than what I faced,” Prof Dibb, now emeritus professor at the Australian National University, said.

“We need to prepare … you and I know we face a potential threat from a country starting with C and ending with a and it’s not Cambodia or Canada. It is crucial and absolutely essential, we have not faced a potential threat like this since the Second World War. It’s just as plain and vital and means we really have to get a wriggle on and I would be disappointed if we are now going to get bogged down in acquiring these advanced platforms when the real urgency is to fix something up; short term is to buy lots and lots of long-range strike missiles from whatever launchers we can put them into.”

He noted the Army has long needed to evolve in their mission brief and said a future conflict would be a largely maritime-based contest.
 
Things have to be done in Defence we all know that, I just wish they would do it without the constant grandstanding and flag waving that the pollies love doing.

I'm sure the (military) opposition appreciate the briefings about what we are up to and how to counteract it.
 
Sounds like another vote for common sense, why we would need long range stealth bombers is beyond me, surface to surface and surface to air makes a hell of a lot more sense IMO.

Next-gen bomber off the wish list​

The government has ruled out buying the B-21 raider, the next-generation US stealth bomber, in its latest defence strategic review.
 
War makes a lot of money for some.

Sometimes I really wonder if any of the major powers really want peace to break out.
 
It all makes sense to me. Hope politics doesn't get involved.
We have to get with the times. As Switzerland knows, the best way of staying out of a war is to be too costly to attack.
 
We need to manufacture here.
We need to realise that we need to go hard and that is my criticism. I know we now have a huge debt but we need to go harder.

Tax the foreign gas giants and use the money for defence.
 
Knobby22 said:
We need to manufacture here.
We need to realise that we need to go hard and that is my criticism. I know we now have a huge debt but we need to go harder.
Click to expand...
I'm no military man, never had anything to do with it, but I just can't take it seriously when government acts as though this is all some great surprise and a new thing.

I mean, this stuff was being openly discussed at the level of tradesmen, unions and low level public servants late last century and that's about as far removed from the halls of political power as it gets. It beggars belief that those in much higher places didn't have the same information and couldn't see where it was heading.

Successive governments have created the entire situation either knowingly or through breathtaking incompetence.
 
The full statement from Justice Anthony Besanko on the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case has been released. Just the main findings makes a bracing reading.

I wonder if Ben Roberts-Smith and other ADF members are now facing the prospect of criminal charges for their actions in Afghanistan. ?

Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case: key findings from the complete judgment​

Australia’s most decorated soldier sued the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Canberra Times – and the case was dismissed. We examine what Justice Anthony Besanko found, and why

Ben Doherty and Elias Visontay
Mon 5 Jun 2023 11.00 EDTLast modified on Mon 5 Jun 2023 17.06 EDT

Days after Ben Roberts-Smith’s landmark defamation case was dismissed, the full details of the judgment have been released, including a conclusion that Australia’s most decorated soldier lied to court and that key witnesses he called were not honest or reliable.

Roberts-Smith had sued three newspapers – the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Canberra Times – and the result of the case made headlines when it was released last Thursday.

Justice Anthony Besanko initially only gave a summary of his findings, because of a commonwealth request to inspect the full decision for national security concerns. But on Monday the complete judgment – 736 pages long – was published, revealing how Besanko evaluated the evidence heard at trial.

Here are the key things the judge had to say about Roberts-Smith:

Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case: key findings from the complete judgment

Australia’s most decorated soldier sued the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Canberra Times – and the case was dismissed. We examine what Justice Anthony Besanko found, and why
www.theguardian.com
 
It certainly doesn't look good for BR-S.

Probably his best bet is to become a 'consultant' in a foreign country.

Ukraine perhaps.

 
"Response" from WQr Memorial to the Ben Roberts medals exhibit.

War Memorial to Honour Ben Roberts-Smith by Moving Medals to Special Exhibit​





After days of careful consideration, The Australian War Memorial has agreed to keep the medals of Ben Roberts-Smith on display but will move them to a more appropriate part of the museum.

A spokesperson for the Memorial said they needed to take into consideration the wide-ranging views of the general public. “A lot of people want the medals removed from the museum altogether. But we also know that many people – including many of Ben’s fellow SAS soldiers – want to pay their respects in their own special way,” she said.

As part of the interactive exhibit, visitors will be able to take out their ‘weapon’, aim and then fire indiscriminately, just as Ben would have done. “We think this is a fitting tribute,” the spokesperson said.
Visitors will be encouraged to deal with any mess that they make by covering it up.

War Memorial to Honour Ben Roberts-Smith by Moving Medals to Special Exhibit — The Shovel

As part of the interactive exhibit, visitors will be able to take out their ‘weapon’, aim and then fire indiscriminately, just as Ben would have done.
theshovel.com.au
 
Good morning,
Has been reported today (01/07/23):

The Australian Defence Minister has revealed the army’s new Apache helicopters will be based in Townsville from 2025.

The army’s 1st Aviation Regiment, which will fly the attack helicopters, is incrementally relocating to Townsville from Darwin.

The federal government is investing $692.4m in Townsville to support the new AH-64E Apache helicopters; RAAF Townsville will be renovated and new facilities will be built for the helicopters and their crews.

Defence is replacing the Airbus Helicopters Tiger with the Apaches; the former will be withdrawn from service in 2028.

In Townsville, Boeing Australia will provide maintenance support to the Apache and Chinook helicopters.

The Australian Army has ordered 29 Apaches from Boeing, which are due to be delivered in 2025.

Kind regards
rcw1
 
There has been a lot of defence news.

South Korea Hanwha Redback selected over the German option to be built here.

Deal with USA to build long range missiles.

20 new Hercules planes.
Plenty of stuff happening.
Good to see.
 
Australia announced in January that its army and navy would stop flying the European-built Taipans by December 2024, 13 years earlier than originally planned, because they had proven unreliable. They will be replaced by 40 U.S. Black Hawks.

Good decision but unfortunately too late. The Taiwan's have had previous failures. Another dud bought by Australia. New Black Hawks will cost us 3 billion.

We are so behind. Need to do more. We need long range missiles.

The nuclear subs are too far away and now we can't even be sure we will get them if some Republicans get their way.
 
Knobby22 said:
Australia announced in January that its army and navy would stop flying the European-built Taipans by December 2024, 13 years earlier than originally planned, because they had proven unreliable. They will be replaced by 40 U.S. Black Hawks.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that this wasn't implemented a bit earlier. I knew one of the crew who went down during TS.

In other news, apparently Left unions (are there Right unions?) are demanding changes to the AUKUS deal specifically in regards to where the subs are going to be built, amongst other things. There's a '32 line addition' of union stuff. So, defence capability is now being dictated by the unions. God help us.
 
Another wretched ghost coming out of the woodwork.

Australia’s biggest AUKUS risk? Our allies’ Plan B

There is no precedent for building a submarine hull in one country, installing another country’s technology and assembling it in a third which has no nuclear expertise.
www.smh.com.au

The biggest enemy of AUKUS is not the resistance of ALP branches and unions but its own over-engineered grandiosity, its naive ambition.

A vote wrung from a conference doesn’t deliver the cash for what is the biggest transfer of wealth outside this country in its history. The government places the cost between $268 billion and $368 billion. That gap of $100 billion is a warning that nobody knows and bureaucrats are taking stabs.
I recall a conversation with a journalist about the French subs before the Morrison government’s announcement of AUKUS. “That $55 billion seems very high,” I said. He assured me it wasn’t, over the life of a contract to 2050. Press a fast-forward button and that $55 billion had metastasised into a simply incomprehensible $368 billion.

Recent developments point to blowouts beyond even that budget-smashing figure. They are bound to crowd out spending on other defence platforms and on any social reforms or nation-building that a government 10 or 20 years off might want to pursue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ARMR - Betashares Global Defence ETF
Replies
11
Views
3K
Sean K
DFND - Vaneck Global Defence ETF
Replies
5
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Robotax
Replies
2
Views
740
Craton
Music & Entertainment News
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
ShareSuccess
A Sure Thing?
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
farmerge
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...