What is the ADF for?

[Oddjob]

I saw this article come up and I was interested in the response from the defense department.

"Key points:
-A report recommends the ADF only be deployed in extreme circumstances
-Community leaders describe help from the ADF during floods as a "godsend" and "morale boost"
-But the report found natural disaster have "negatively impacted force preparedness"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07...disasters-queensland-floods-defence/102593424

I'm wondering if it's time to re-introduce national service:
-If the ADF is the option of last resort, what do we do in the face of ever increasing natural disasters?
- The war in Ukraine has shown the value of having a territorial defence force in quickly preparing a country to defend itself.
- NATO is looking closely at the Finnish and Swedish models of national service and dispersed force capability. National service is standard for all of the Scandinavian countries and is thought to be a key part of social cohesion.

This all comes in the wake of the AUKUS deal and the release of the Defence Strategic Review
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-24/defence-strategic-review-key-takeaways/102260364

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

[safreek]

I saw this article come up and I was interested in the response from the defense department.

"Key points:
-A report recommends the ADF only be deployed in extreme circumstances
-Community leaders describe help from the ADF during floods as a "godsend" and "morale boost"
-But the report found natural disaster have "negatively impacted force preparedness"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07...disasters-queensland-floods-defence/102593424

I'm wondering if it's time to re-introduce national service:
-If the ADF is the option of last resort, what do we do in the face of ever increasing natural disasters?
- The war in Ukraine has shown the value of having a territorial defence force in quickly preparing a country to defend itself.
- NATO is looking closely at the Finnish and Swedish models of national service and dispersed force capability. National service is standard for all of the Scandinavian countries and is thought to be a key part of social cohesion.

This all comes in the wake of the AUKUS deal and the release of the Defence Strategic Review
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-24/defence-strategic-review-key-takeaways/102260364

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

Definitely need national service, even if just to reorientate the youth with society in general.
You know, social interaction and such. They will then realize life isn't all about them.

If not in the ADF in some sort of emergency task force.

 

[mike14]

National service, at a military level is a fucking stupid idea and I've never met a current serving member who supports it (and this is no slight on the Viet Nam era Nashos who did an incredible job). It involve staking massive amounts of resources (both personnel and material) away from where they are needed, reduces standards across the board, provides practically 0 additional capability and would be a nightmare to administer.
We don't have the equipment, and it takes too long to train up people, at a cost where we'd just be better off introducing a UBI

I could see the benefit of an emergency taskforce type thing, potentially built around something similar to the Reserve, but there would be a lot of issues regarding moving those people to where they are actually needed, what it does to organizations like the SES, the logistical and operational burden, and what we do with all these people when there's no distaster to respond to etc.

Maybe get the yoof out on job sites building infrastructure, holding stop signs and waving at cranes if we want them to be productive members of society (and most of them are anyway)?

The size of Australia, and the massively dislocated population, means that it's basically impossible to defend and some extra grunts doesn't change. The good news is, those factors plus our distance from everything and the insane amount of logistics required means that it's very unlikely anyone would be be stupid enough to invade for occupation purposes.

Overall, the DSR is such a half-arsed effort. For 'the most important strategic document in over 30 years' the level of analysis is laughably brief and it's clearly designed to just support decisions that have already been made or are in the process of being made. It doesn't challenge anything, it doesn't ask questions, and other than naming China as 'the threat', it doesn't really guide or shape.
Having said that, it seems to have made Marles feel good about himself, and few US Company's and their Australian subsidiaries will make bank, so good for them I guess...

 

[mike14]

But to answer the thread title question; it's to provide strike and support capability to US forces working in the region, force generate combat power that can be integrated into US units, conduct autonomous operations in our region, and provide basing and logistics for Pacific campaigns

 

[Oddjob]

I've never served in the ADF but have some friends who are/have.

The general impression I get is lions led by donkeys, procurement is a joke, and special forces are over used.

In my mind, the ADF should be for:
- Defence against external threats (duh!).
- Peacekeeping.
- Maritime patrol and interdiction.
- Counter-terrorism.
- Disaster management.

Recent experience shows that the ADF isn't particularly well placed for any of those tasks.
- The ADF can't really project force into the Indo-Pacific.
- We have very limited long range strike capability.
- Despite having excellent infantry, we only sent small contingents of mainly special forces to Afghanistan and couldn't effectively hold Uruzgan province.
- Our rotary air fleet is a joke.
- Despite having 2 landing helicopter dock (LHD) ships, we don't have any VTOL fighters, and very limited amphibious capability. And as noted, our rotary fleet is a joke. So our LHD ships are just fat targets for Chinese anti ship missiles.
- We focus our domestic manufacturing capability on ships when we have a desperate need for long range missiles, remote sensors, drones and anti-aircraft/drone systems.
- The ADF is a large resource of able bodied personnel who spend most of their time training. There simply isn't another large resource available that can be pulled from their day jobs when natural disasters occur.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

[Flow-Rider]

You know the stupid amounts of money that get spent on disaster cleanups, if they spent that on the ADF it would be advantageous. I was in North Queensland during one of the cyclones and a mobile crane company charged over $1000 to drive 1km down the road and remove a log off the road. That was a lot of money for a job like that in 2007.

 

[johnny]

National service, at a military level is a fucking stupid idea and I've never met a current serving member who supports it (and this is no slight on the Viet Nam era Nashos who did an incredible job). It involve staking massive amounts of resources (both personnel and material) away from where they are needed, reduces standards across the board, provides practically 0 additional capability and would be a nightmare to administer.
We don't have the equipment, and it takes too long to train up people, at a cost where we'd just be better off introducing a UBI

I could see the benefit of an emergency taskforce type thing, potentially built around something similar to the Reserve, but there would be a lot of issues regarding moving those people to where they are actually needed, what it does to organizations like the SES, the logistical and operational burden, and what we do with all these people when there's no distaster to respond to etc.

Maybe get the yoof out on job sites building infrastructure, holding stop signs and waving at cranes if we want them to be productive members of society (and most of them are anyway)?

The size of Australia, and the massively dislocated population, means that it's basically impossible to defend and some extra grunts doesn't change. The good news is, those factors plus our distance from everything and the insane amount of logistics required means that it's very unlikely anyone would be be stupid enough to invade for occupation purposes.

Overall, the DSR is such a half-arsed effort. For 'the most important strategic document in over 30 years' the level of analysis is laughably brief and it's clearly designed to just support decisions that have already been made or are in the process of being made. It doesn't challenge anything, it doesn't ask questions, and other than naming China as 'the threat', it doesn't really guide or shape.
Having said that, it seems to have made Marles feel good about himself, and few US Company's and their Australian subsidiaries will make bank, so good for them I guess...

Without wanting to know details, can I ask whether you're in yourself or work in an analytical/policy role?

 

[mark22]

We used ro hear things like "they should get the Army in" when there was a major bushfire with the CFA.
The Army is not equipped nor experienced to fight fires, they do however have a lot of recourses to help deal with the aftermath following a major event, this seems to work OK in my view.
However this is not their primary purpose nor should it become.

 

[mike14]

Without wanting to know details, can I ask whether you're in yourself or work in an analytical/policy role?

Ex ADF (ARes then ARA). Now work for a small company (all ex-ADF) who provide 'services' in the defence and law enforcement area. Mainly training and simulation focused but we take what we can get

 

[mike14]

I've never served in the ADF but have some friends who are/have.

The general impression I get is lions led by donkeys, procurement is a joke, and special forces are over used.

In my mind, the ADF should be for:
- Defence against external threats (duh!).
- Peacekeeping.
- Maritime patrol and interdiction.
- Counter-terrorism.
- Disaster management.

Recent experience shows that the ADF isn't particularly well placed for any of those tasks.
- The ADF can't really project force into the Indo-Pacific.
- We have very limited long range strike capability.
- Despite having excellent infantry, we only sent small contingents of mainly special forces to Afghanistan and couldn't effectively hold Uruzgan province.
- Our rotary air fleet is a joke.
- Despite having 2 landing helicopter dock (LHD) ships, we don't have any VTOL fighters, and very limited amphibious capability. And as noted, our rotary fleet is a joke. So our LHD ships are just fat targets for Chinese anti ship missiles.
- We focus our domestic manufacturing capability on ships when we have a desperate need for long range missiles, remote sensors, drones and anti-aircraft/drone systems.
- The ADF is a large resource of able bodied personnel who spend most of their time training. There simply isn't another large resource available that can be pulled from their day jobs when natural disasters occur.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

We basically had a Brigade (minus) in Afghan for the full duration (plus all the logistics in neighboring countries supporting it), which is about the limit Australia can support for any ongoing operation at this point in time. It was effective enough in holding Uruzgan that it could almost exclusive focus on rebuilding and then mentoring as the Taliban could not muster enough combat power. It's also the reason why most attacks in Urazgan were against the police rather than ANA.
Yes, the decision to focus 'outside the wire' operations on SOCOMD rather than just letting everyone else do their thing was stupid (and political).

Longe range strike was a focus of the DSR (and why are we buying HIMARS), but it comes down to the questions of what are you wanting to strike at long range and is it actually feasible? Does a HIMARS Bty (or 2) make a difference in a large scale conflict? Operationally, the second they fire counter-battery fire is going to be all over them like white on rice.
Same , same with strike aircraft. Sure we should probably have something bigger than the JSF but who is flying it, and how many can be put in the sky versus what's really needed? The ADF can't meet current recruiting targets, how are they going to get more kids with the aptitude required to fly a combat aircraft?

The one thing that the DSR made clear (and that has been an open secret for a long time) is that a military the size of the ADF, recruiting from a population the size of Australia's, cannot 'protect' in a conventional sense a land mass this big. Extra people having basic training and maybe access to basic, working equipment in a time of crisis doesn't really change that.

Your last point is the interesting one though. The ADF does have a lot of people whose main activity is training. The general consensus is that there aren't enough days in the year to get through the training required, nor enough resources. In it's unique way modern soldering is highly complex and needs a lot of practice.
Each training activity also has be co-ordinated in terms of logistics (rations, full etc) and de-conflicted in terms of training spaces. If a poorly timed emergency event pulls a unit away from training they will consume resources that were required for training, and lose their training area as another unit will require it and not want to give it up. The outcome being that training, and therefore readiness, is diminished.
But, if we are ok with this slight in readiness in order to assist with emergency assistance (which can easily be argued is far more important in supporting Australian interests, and far likely to occur than a shooting war that we need to be involved in), the question could be asked as to whether it would be feasible to actually reduce the size of the full time ADF with the majority (especially Army) moving to some kind of hybrid/part-time/reserve model.
You could split their focus between military and disaster relief skills, ensure depots are equipped with the correct equipment to support both, and save $$$ (remembering that the cheapest qualified Private costs you $70k per plus) on having to pay and support that force full time

 

[johnny]

Ex ADF (ARes then ARA). Now work for a small company (all ex-ADF) who provide 'services' in the defence and law enforcement area. Mainly training and simulation focused but we take what we can get

Cool, sounds interesting.

I'm not going to get deep into the discussion as I basically don't have time, and TBH, the inclination. But, with increasing frequency and severity of climate driven events at a time when geopolitical tensions are spilling over into confrontation and conflict, the ADF will no longer be able to provide the aid to the civil power that it has in the past.

Volunteerism is down and the recent floods (particularly in Lismore) show us that there needs to be some trained and coordinated organisational core to work in concert with community to ensure that we have the resilience required to adapt to what's coming - and already here in some cases. National service - not just military, but community support, emergency management and crisis response, environmental protection etc. - is being discussed. I would also suggest that as we are moving toward likely disruption to the labour force, thanks to AI, this might also serve as a way to keep some engaged and retrain as their capabilities are eclipsed by technology.

 

[indica]

Volunteerism is down and the recent floods

There is a drive within state government for volunteers of a sort - you can go and get paid as if you were working and assist where required, at least where I am, perhaps that is a good idea for that.

 

[Dales Cannon]

Cool, sounds interesting.

I'm not going to get deep into the discussion as I basically don't have time, and TBH, the inclination. But, with increasing frequency and severity of climate driven events at a time when geopolitical tensions are spilling over into confrontation and conflict, the ADF will no longer be able to provide the aid to the civil power that it has in the past.

Volunteerism is down and the recent floods (particularly in Lismore) show us that there needs to be some trained and coordinated organisational core to work in concert with community to ensure that we have the resilience required to adapt to what's coming - and already here in some cases. National service - not just military, but community support, emergency management and crisis response, environmental protection etc. - is being discussed. I would also suggest that as we are moving toward likely disruption to the labour force, thanks to AI, this might also serve as a way to keep some engaged and retrain as their capabilities are eclipsed by technology.

On one of the community projects I am working with an ex-army big cheese who was called in for a few relief efforts. Interesting his take on the recovery effort. Very different focus compared to the commercial outlook I had to have at the time. Volunteers are hard to come by at the moment and some token pay or recompense is a great idea.

 

[Sky_Collapsed]

The size of Australia, and the massively dislocated population, means that it's basically impossible to defend and some extra grunts doesn't change. The good news is, those factors plus our distance from everything and the insane amount of logistics required means that it's very unlikely anyone would be be stupid enough to invade for occupation purposes.

adding on to this if they attemped it, it also severely limits the areas of attack too. look at a map of aus, the only real areas of any possiblity is Exmouth, karratha, Darwin (But people) and the thuresday Island area but that's a sigficiant disadvantage when it comes to supply otherise next area from there is cooktown but first they gotta get here lol.

 

[fimpBIKES]

Start of last year I was working at a mobile equipment supplier to defence, fire, ambulance & SES
From what I can tell we would be fair better off redirecting at least 1 submarine or jets worth of money back to the RFS and SES
These rely far too much on public donations of time and money

I designed the new unimogs the SES has, everyone was creaming themselves over how much they helped in the floods even though they werent even half finished.

Welcome to our newest fleet additions | The NSW SES is delighted to officially welcome into our fleet three high clearance vehicles, which have already played life-saving roles in this year’s... | By NSW SESFacebook

The NSW SES is delighted to officially welcome into our fleet three high clearance vehicles, which have already played life-saving roles in this year’s...

www.facebook.com

NSW SES orders Unimogs to assist with flood response

The NSW SES has received its first three Mercedes-Benz Trucks Unimog emergency response vehicles, with another three on the way.

bigrigs.com.au

Imagine the positive impact they could have with a few bushmasters!!!

 

[steve jobs' pancreas]

Spending tonnes of dollars on the ADF is a waste unless it’s for surveillance purposes or for keeping in good with NATO because if we ever need to defend ourselves physically it wont be from Vanuatu or NZ, and we will need lots of help.

Besides it’s too late anyway, Clive Palmer is already here.

 

[mike14]

Start of last year I was working at a mobile equipment supplier to defence, fire, ambulance & SES
From what I can tell we would be fair better off redirecting at least 1 submarine or jets worth of money back to the RFS and SES
These rely far too much on public donations of time and money

I designed the new unimogs the SES has, everyone was creaming themselves over how much they helped in the floods even though they werent even half finished.

Welcome to our newest fleet additions | The NSW SES is delighted to officially welcome into our fleet three high clearance vehicles, which have already played life-saving roles in this year’s... | By NSW SESFacebook

The NSW SES is delighted to officially welcome into our fleet three high clearance vehicles, which have already played life-saving roles in this year’s...

www.facebook.com

NSW SES orders Unimogs to assist with flood response

The NSW SES has received its first three Mercedes-Benz Trucks Unimog emergency response vehicles, with another three on the way.

bigrigs.com.au

Imagine the positive impact they could have with a few bushmasters!!!

Nice one! Going to assume these didn't have asbestos in them like a bunch of the ADF ones had...

Apparently there's an accessory pack you can get for the C-130 that turns it into a firefighting plane. If we weren't going to buy dedicated aerial water bombers I'll never understand why these weren't purchased, with a few extra C-130s added to the fleet. That would be the one instance where the ADF could have really provided specialist, immediate disaster support. Over summer have 2 planes ready to go in this configuration, if they are needed pilots are still getting their hours and Defence doesn't sacrifice any lift capacity

 

[rockmoose]

Spending tonnes of dollars on the ADF is a waste unless it’s for surveillance purposes or for keeping in good with NATO because if we ever need to defend ourselves physically it wont be from Vanuatu or NZ, and we will need lots of help.

Besides it’s too late anyway, Clive Palmer is already here.

We could always float him as an aircraft carrier.

HMAS Fatty McFatface

 

[Dales Cannon]

We could always float him as an aircraft carrier.

HMAS Fatty McFatface

You need a stable firm surface to land fixed wing aircraft.

 

[Stredda]