Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Jura The idiot]

Excellent.

Either a Hobart hull for the RAN FFG or a Type 26 derivative.

Either would be GREAT.

...

... and me armchair-admiraling: MEKO, armed to teeth!

View attachment 16262

View attachment 16263

View attachment 16264

View attachment 16265

Hmmm? It's a pretty convincing presentation if the Australians can afford it. It would allow for the tech transfer and the building in Australia.

 

[Jura The idiot]

now I read at NavalToday
Australian Defence White Paper doesn’t go unnoticed

Australian Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence announced unveiled the long-awaited 2016 Australian Defence Wite Paper February 25.

The plan is set to increase defence spending by AUS $29.9 billion (approx. US $21.5 billion) over the following ten years.

A Defence Industry Policy Statement (DIPS) and a Defence Integrated Investment Program (IIP) were also released on the occasion.

What will certainly make the Australian shipbuilders happy is the fact that navy is at the center of the defense paper as the country aims to double the submarine fleet to 12, add another three destroyers, 9 anti-submarine frigates and 12 new patrol boats.

Controversy

Long talks of the Australian submarine bid and the competitors for it coupled with the complicated political situation in the South China Sea made sure the document doesn’t go without controversy.

The core reasoning behind this focus on the navy is China’s rising military might and the current diplomatic situation between China on one side and Australia, the U.S. and Japan on the other.

The document stated: “Australia does not take sides on competing territorial claims in the South China Sea but we are concerned that land reclamation and construction activity by claimants raises tensions in the region. Australia opposes the use of artificial structures in the South China Sea for military purposes.”

This bit got Chinese officials “seriously concerned” wrote the Associated Press, quoting the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying as saying: “China is seriously concerned about and dissatisfied with the White Paper’s negative statement on issues concerning the South China Sea and the development of China’s military strength.”

The Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said at a regular briefing: “We are firmly opposed to the accusations against China’s construction activities on the islands and reefs in the South China Sea. The islands and reefs in the South China Sea are inherent Chinese territory from ancient times. China’s construction activities on these islands and reefs are conducted on its own territory and within its sovereign rights.”

The spokesman added that the South China Sea issue was not an issue between China and Australia, and that freedom of navigation was enjoyed by all countries including Australia.

At home, both South Australia and West Australia are competing to get the most out of the proposed naval program. The Australian Defense Minister Marise Payne had to react to criticism from South Australia Defence Industries Minister Martin Hamilton-Smith who said the frigate contract which was under the White Paper awarded to South Australia would be cold comfort for the state if West Australia ends up building the patrol boats, AAP reported.

What got the minister worried is the fact that the paper did not specify where exactly the patrol would be built.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

RAAN 6 Collins normaly 12 new ocean going AIP SSK big

I don't believe Australia is interested in AIP because the downside more than outweighs the benefits. I understand it was an option that was not taken up with the Collins for the same reasons. I think LIBs is a more attractive proposition.

OK what I meant was that if I had read (sorry I didn't) for example
Defence White Paper 2009

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

would I have found it connected more to

• some actual procurement processes (going on now: 7 years after, that's how one could tell I guess), or
• promises of a procurement

?

Sorry I am unclear on your point. Are you saying that the recent white paper; (i) did not conform to the format previously or; (ii) or that the recent white paper did not provide a report card on what was prescribed in the previous paper; or (iii) there is no bridging between the two papers?

 

[Brumby]

now I read at NavalToday
Australian Defence White Paper doesn’t go unnoticed

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The document stated: “Australia does not take sides on competing territorial claims in the South China Sea but we are concerned that land reclamation and construction activity by claimants raises tensions in the region. Australia opposes the use of artificial structures in the South China Sea for military purposes.”

This bit got Chinese officials “seriously concerned” wrote the Associated Press, quoting the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying as saying: “China is seriously concerned about and dissatisfied with the White Paper’s negative statement on issues concerning the South China Sea and the development of China’s military strength.”

The Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said at a regular briefing: “We are firmly opposed to the accusations against China’s construction activities on the islands and reefs in the South China Sea. The islands and reefs in the South China Sea are inherent Chinese territory from ancient times. China’s construction activities on these islands and reefs are conducted on its own territory and within its sovereign rights.”

The spokesman added that the South China Sea issue was not an issue between China and Australia, and that freedom of navigation was enjoyed by all countries including Australia.

As I said before the white paper was released, we will see a shift in Australia's posture and direct acknowledgement of the security issues in the SCS. It is simply the nature of the country where we say things as it is. No dancing around. We also don't believe in the flat earth hypothesis.

I believe in the past, Australia's security posture towards China was threat neutral. I suspect in the White paper to be released today, we will see a shift in posture and an acknowledgment of a growing China threat because of its activities in the SCS and its non adherence to rule of law. However I also expect the choice of language to be politically constrained because of trade reasons.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Sorry I am unclear on your point. Are you saying that the recent white paper; (i) did not conform to the format previously or; (ii) or that the recent white paper did not provide a report card on what was prescribed in the previous paper; or (iii) there is no bridging between the two papers?

I think it's none of i) - iii): I'm just being curious, and originally I thought somebody would school me on
2016 Defence White Paper
where I see for example

Australia’s defence strategy and capability plans have been aligned with funding.

which is the type of statement I tend to disbelieve, that's why I asked

yeah while reading posts on the previous page I was wondering ... how binding is it to actually FINANCE the Royal Australian Navy build-up?? (binding to those who would take the funds from the country budget, not to the Navy itself, of course)
maybe it's possible to guess based on the fate of previous White Papers (am just bluffing now) ... is it?

and in response Brumby gave some generic comment in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/australian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t5727/page-88#post-390420
so I briefly looked into the 2009 file I quoted in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/australian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t5727/page-88#post-390495
where I see (chapter 9.11 at p. 74 out of 144 in PDF):
"In order to enhance the air defence capabilities of the AWDs, the Government will equip them
with with (sic!) the Standard Missile 6 ..."
and can't see anything about SM6 in 2016

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BUT

chapter 9.13 of 2009 document starts with
"The Government will also acquire a fleet of eight new Future Frigates, which..."
while in 2016 document, in the 1st paragraph of p. 21 out of 191 in PDF, I see
"The surface naval capability will include ... new class of nine future frigates ..."
(I put the numbers in boldface)

My point, and now I'll be pithy: what's fantasy, and what's reality?

 

[Brumby]

I think it's none of i) - iii): I'm just being curious, and originally I thought somebody would school me on
2016 Defence White Paper
where I see for example

which is the type of statement I tend to disbelieve, that's why I asked


and in response Brumby gave some generic comment in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/australian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t5727/page-88#post-390420
so I briefly looked into the 2009 file I quoted in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/australian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t5727/page-88#post-390495
where I see (chapter 9.11 at p. 74 out of 144 in PDF):
"In order to enhance the air defence capabilities of the AWDs, the Government will equip them
with with (sic!) the Standard Missile 6 ..."
and can't see anything about SM6 in 2016

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BUT

chapter 9.13 of 2009 document starts with
"The Government will also acquire a fleet of eight new Future Frigates, which..."
while in 2016 document, in the 1st paragraph of p. 21 out of 191 in PDF, I see
"The surface naval capability will include ... new class of nine future frigates ..."
(I put the numbers in boldface)

My point, and now I'll be pithy: what's fantasy, and what's reality?

The white paper is a strategic blueprint and not an annual budgeting and appropriation bill. As such its efficacy will likely degrade with the passage of time due to changes and relevancy. It is a planning document. It is not a report card and neither is it a budgeting document. A close loop decision model will align those documents as part of the management process. The programs in the white paper are not fantasy but neither are they cast in stone because when you are dealing with a 20 year planning horizon there are bound to be changes along the way.

 

[FORBIN]

To Stirling, close Perth, 5 Anzac all which are homeported there, 1 on 6 Collins and the big Oiler Sirius.
The Adelaide in visit the 3 based with 3 ANZAC to Kittabul/Sydney, with a surprise there
GE 33°51'50.75"S 151°13'30.29"E

If later later RAAN get 12 SSK thinking interesting based 6 others especialy close Darwin.

32°13'52.77"S 32°13'52.77"S

 

[Jura The idiot]

The white paper is a strategic blueprint and not an annual budgeting and appropriation bill. As such its efficacy will likely degrade with the passage of time due to changes and relevancy. It is a planning document. It is not a report card and neither is it a budgeting document. A close loop decision model will align those documents as part of the management process. The programs in the white paper are not fantasy but neither are they cast in stone because when you are dealing with a 20 year planning horizon there are bound to be changes along the way.

actually I was interested in probabilities, based on the previous similar announcements, of Australia getting at the time specified, let's say 2030, for example twelve new submarines (an example of the answer: 0.8) ... but since I had opened both 2009 and 2016 documents LOL I just wish you good luck down under!

 

[Brumby]

actually I was interested in probabilities, based on the previous similar announcements, of Australia getting at the time specified, let's say 2030, for example twelve new submarines (an example of the answer: 0.8) ... but since I had opened both 2009 and 2016 documents LOL I just wish you good luck down under!

Your good luck comment is well warranted. In the example with the submarine program, the risk is not one of commitment or funding but in execution. Australia has very limited track record in this and the most recent with the Hobart program does not offer any confidence particularly the submarine program will be many folds greater in scale; technical complexities and localization issues. You then overlay the future frigates and OPV program into the mix and you end up with a cocktail of challenges which Australia might not have the capacity to manage successfully. If Australia is able to learn from the Hobart mistakes and not repeat them then maybe it might not be a disaster in the making.

 

[FORBIN]

Sirius Oiler and 2 ANZAC !