Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Jura The idiot
General
Brumby
Major
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
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
Major
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.
Jura The idiot
General
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
inhttps://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
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
Major
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.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
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
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?
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
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
General
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
Major
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.
- Status