The Defence Strategic Review: ASPI Explainer

[@ArisenfromDogma]

Its pretty clear ASPI doesn't pay the DOD or ADF any mind. The B-21 does not achieve the same effects as a submarine beyond the ability to deliver kinetic effects - and a HWT and a AShM are not the same thing by any margin. I'm confident this is the same as what the ADO is saying - but ASPI doesn't seem to be listening. I'm sure the next time we have to provide land power, as we have always done, the PMV and APC fleet will stand up to modern autocannons and AT weapons found across the region. It is undermining, rather than contributing. I wasn't sure until they started recommending entirelly new megaprojects to replace currently running projects, which despite what they say will not be economical or timely.

[@jamesmaddox7507]

On dispersion, I wasn't just mentioning Army, though you make valid observations in that field. I was generalising across the entire defence force. Following the theory of, 'the small, the cheap, and the many'. With the accuracy and speed of modern weapons, any target which is stagnant, no matter how advanced their defence, will have great difficulty surviving and executing battlefield duties. As such, spreading out and forcing potential advertisers to target many different systems, eg. Submarines, B52 bombers, long range fires, massively increases these systems survivability, as well as their potential to have battlefield effects. This in itself creates deterence, as it complicates an advisories planning and execution. I totally agree with your observation that our logistics is severely lacking. Not only in tonnage, but also in sea to land delivery.

[@Articulate_the_Unknown]

They are too trusting.

[@jamesmaddox7507]

I would like to hear the opinions of our defence force personnel. The media and academics tend to live in a theoretical bubble, but it is our soldiers on the front lines whose lives depend on the equipment we supply them. For my part, I believe force dispersion is our best way forward. To complicate our potential advisories options, and create deterrence. As for the submarine debacle, I think we are going to have to bite the bullet, and buy atleast a few systems off the shelf. This will plug the submarine gap, and save us money to spend on other assets.

[@ArisenfromDogma]

Gonna reply because I like writing about Defence and Natsec, plus you raise some interesting points which if talked about, I hope, might make their way to the ASPI team. Disclaimer though, I am not anyone official - just an enthusiast or freetime student. I agree with your first point completely, but your other two are interesting. On force dispersion, assuming it is under a Forward Defence construct (which I pray is our current philosophy), then how do these dispersed forces deter? If we assume a USMC 2030 kind of force (small distributed units with AShM and IAMD), Australia will only be able to generate a few of these as it is limited by the number of NASAMS we are procuring as well as the future LBASM and HIMARS procurements. I'm gonna assume a troop of NASAMS plus a battery of precision fires (assuming StrikeMaster or HIMARS), suitable for limited self-defence and the ability to overcome at least minor adversary missile defence (whether ship or shore based), as well as an infantry company or two for security (otherwise it is vulnerable to raiding). Add in engineers for fortification/mobility, signals for long-range comms, logistics personnel and finally a HQ to put it all together. Fuel, food and water will all need to be provided, including for the security and support elements (which without vehicles will result in a loss of mobility, allowing them to be fixed and targetted). We can only generate a few of these groups, limited mainly by the quantity of air defence and tactical long-range fires. This is before sustainment - we only have a limited amount of blue-water shipping (currently three in Navy but likely to grow a fair bit by middle of next decade, assuming funding still exists). Each supply run by one of these vessels will require one or more escorts, of which eleven currently exist (and only three with AEGIS). Based on these numbers, only two to three may be available to disperse into an operational area - which isn't a lot. It has potential though, and may fit into the USMC Force Design 2030 going forward. Any such force carries with it the risk of being destroyed entirelly however if its island is taken, not even considering the enormous risk to supply trains seeking to resupply them. On the submarine one, fleet structure is a hard game and (as Mahan stressed) requires both political and military cooperation. I personally believe we should commit to a LOTE of the Collins-class whilst pumping resources into any SSN program (which, based on an ABC article today, could be an AUKUS design rather than an existing platform). Based on Dutton's comments that the Collins is good out to about 2035, and based on the ABC article mentions (which indicates 2035 to 2040 in loose terms), there is a capability gap there where our subs are no longer "regionally superior" but are rather "subpar" or "average." LOTE means they are still working and good to have however, whilst Navy doesn't have to manage a whole new fleet of subs on top of everything else. It is two big projects, rather than three - and in my view prevents further political handballing. Our submarine capabilities go beyond just the Collins as well - various AUV projects are being initiated (Anduril's XL-AUV in particular) with room to expand by the 2030s, in addition to the undersea sensor project mentioned in the DSU and FSP. TL;DR: Force dispersion may be good operationally, but not necessarily strategically with our capacity (although I didnt consider air and sea power in addition) and fleet planning is hard, but I'd prefer not to add another megaproject to the Navy's list of things to manage.

[@carisi2k11]

@@ArisenfromDogma The thing with force dispersion is that you then don't end up in a Pearl Harbour situation where you can get hit all at once. Darwin is nice as a forward base but if we could get Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Broome, Towoomba, Cairns and other coastal cities to have ADF forces more permanently then it removes an ability that China or Russia has currently which is targetting Sydney could destroy 60% of our ADF.

[@ArisenfromDogma]

@@carisi2k11 I agree and there are efforts underway to help in that regard. I'm most familiar with Army, which is already fairly dispersed, though Navy also seems to be building the ability to rely more on infrastructure that isn't a Fleet Base (Plan Pelorus iirc). We should go dispersed - it complicates targetting by strategic weapons - though there are a lot of caveats to it. A dispersed force is going to have a harder time with logistics unless the necessary distribution is established, something Australia just doesn't have right now. It also impedes on administration, as a dispersed workforce is going to have a harder time raising, training and sustaining unless there is a proactive methid to keep it all in check. If there is one thing we continue to learn from modern conflict, its that quality tends to trump quantity; and this is hard to do when personnel are scattered. We shouldn't also consider conventional strategic weapons as necessarily crippling. I have no clue whether there are alternatives to the Russel Offices and HQJOC, which could be easily targeted and probably would be, but I'm not sure there are any potential adversaries (including the most often noted one) that can afford to dump huge quantities of such material when there is an entire superpower and other great powers it is in contest with.

[@kotahurt]

I liked the de Havilland mosquito

[@Birch37]

So the 2020 review recommended long-range strike capability and didn't address the Navy surface fleet shortfall. Neither has been addressed in 2024.

[@YaMumsSpecialFriend]

While we wait for B21 Raiders how’s about the inexpensive and quick to acquire Rapid Dragon deployment systems utilising LRASM ER payloads? A potential strike with a volley of dozens of stealthy anti ship missiles should give pause to any attempted embargo of Australian imports and exports. Meanwhile, an Australian SOSUS system and unmanned submarines for detection of hostile undersea platforms would surely be helpful.

[@carisi2k11]

A slightly longer Arafura that can have 16-32 VLS and only take 40-60 crew would be perfect. Loyal Wingman and the B21 makes a lot of sense as well. I just don't see us building nuclear subs here when we couldn't even get the attack class to work here. Our biggest problem is the lack of manufacturing, education and available educated workers to do the job.

[@ianrobinson8974]

06/10/2022. Not wrong but not right as well. Our manufacturing design and making skills are somewhat limited but they really are available; they would have to ramp up for big projects, but at this time we are doing ok. The Ghost Bat, Bushmaster, Hawkei, etc are works in progress, not to mention the creating of mobile missle defence machinery based up the Hawkei; etc. You should also be aware that we are continually overhauling and modifying our frigates and existing submarines. The over the horizon radar is another niche creation/device. I suspect our greatest problem is, now and moreso down the line is the demographics of Australia. Do we have enough people willing to defend Australia? I HOPE SO!

[@carisi2k11]

@@ianrobinson8974 The Ghost bat is not really an Australian project as it is being run by Boeing and just being funded by the Australian Government. Maintaining the frigates and subs really isn't the same as manufacturing new ones and the hawkei and bushmaster may be made here but again overseas companies are in charge.

[@ArisenfromDogma]

@@carisi2k11 designed by Boeing maybe but still built in Australia (Toowoomba iirc). We can and have built frigates and submarines in Australia before, including the three AEGIS destroyers and more or less continuous full-cycle docking of the subs. It will be a challenge (a national and strategic one), though its not as if its unprecedented - especially considering technological advancement in design and manufacturing. The real kicker is (good) political will and a key principle: "maintenance of the aim." We shouldn't allow ourselves to become distracted and chasing projects.

[@Bbouy1HD]

@@carisi2k11 We own the rights to the technology, so yes it is Australian.

[@DieselAddiction]

So the review is already floored, if you have a civilian with no strategic knowledge and one ex defence chief in charge who is RAF background how do yo you guarantee the review will not be biased? If you go down the road of submarines to defend Australia you would need at least 20 of them to do a competent job. That’s allowing for maintenance, crew rotation and the fact that we are surrounded by water with possible 360deg approach. I would argue that it would be more feasible to have under water early warning devices and autonomous drones with strike capabilities to defend our shoreline. Nuclear Submarines are more of a first strike long range capability rather than a very expensive early warning system! We don’t even have enough capable ships or the manpower to defend Australia from potential threats. I do agree that we need a long range bomber capability, but I do believe something like the F15E would be more useful and cost effective with a greater service life than F35. Tanks and IFVs, this is what we need if we not have the abilities to prevent an invasion force establishing a foothold on Australian soil. We would have to have the ability to conduct high speed manoeuvre warfare and an Amry of drones. The location and current mission objectives of major exercises needs to be totally reinvented to include hybrid warfare tactics instead of the same old Swift eagle bullshit. The Abrams Tank, although it is a brilliant platform is not suitable for our needs. A high speed Tank destroyer like the Italian Centouro with 120mm gun would be more versatile, economic, longer range and lower maintenance/ cost. The servicing and fuel requirements for an Abrams render it obsolete in a long term Logistics battle of attrition. The Redback IFV is on the right track but has to be battle proven. Our Artilery needs to be more mobile like the Caesar and Sweden’s Truck mounted system. I could do this all day but probably won’t make a difference.

[@shane-nicoledooley2499]

The new Japanese sub looks good,plus the B 21,Nuclear Submarines without Nuclear Weapons are a waste of money and AI and drones will make them Obsolete by by 2030.

[@DieselAddiction]

I vote for Gotland class Subs if we have to have any and I’m sure the Americans would turn up with all the bombers you can poke a strike at!

[@capmultser]

Is this bloke for real? Bombers over subs. The reason subs are stealth is to be undetectable, a Bomber is one of the easiest things to bring down. If you want a deterrent, it's has to be a sub.

[@nathanquinn3499]

They are stealth bombers mate ..not so easy to bring down...

[@benmacrae5638]

Virginia subs and B21 ....solved

[@carisi2k11]

Except the RAN sub force is too small for Virginia subs.

[@benmacrae5638]

@@carisi2k11 true, but it's harder to get subs, then more pers. Tackle one problem at a time. Make the decision first and build towards it.

[@carisi2k11]

@@benmacrae5638 Not in Australia it isn't. Getting the sub is much easier then trying to find people here to work on them.

[@benmacrae5638]

@@carisi2k11 yep, however, I'd imagine the first couple would come with their transfer of people...

[@swimminlane3566]

Give us all a brake, hurry up and wait for the next volume. Still keeping the Abrams tank deal a bargain for these 30 year old heavies at 4 billion dollars.😅 So much for prioritising self reliant defence industry on that one.

[@JohnDoe-do8fh]

"We have money for wars but can't feed the poor"

[@Articulate_the_Unknown]

They have flood issues and they have this weird thing with China

[@nathanquinn3499]

Can't feed the poor if we lose the country...and that is unfortunately the world we are living in right now...ask a Ukrainian if they thought 4 years ago they would be fighting like hell to keep their country. .....

[@nathanquinn3499]

@@Articulate_the_Unknown lol it's Australia...we are fine cheers....uh you'll find china is the issue not us ...

[@peterjames9610]

Yer, well all be poor or dead if we lose a war.

[@iainscott2748]

DSR is the worst planning document I have ever read

[@Articulate_the_Unknown]

Marcus is handsome.