Australia has released its National Defence Strategy & Integrated Investment Plan 2024. What does this mean for the future of the ADF in terms of new & enhanced capabilities, & when they will be delivered?
See related briefings:
Australia’s New Fighting Force: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai6lcMXer-A
Australia’s Missile Force: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2hYikvTQnE
Australia’s New Combat Ships: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do4LJFnx00I
source
Triple fighter numbers, "find" a couple of squadrons of aircraft with similar characteristics to a modern version of the F111. Multiply the quantity of tanks and IFVs by 4 at least. Purchase or manufacture a drone force aerial and marine equivalent to Ukraines achievements, but 10 times the quantity. Find, purchase or steal, frigates or destroyers with both anti air and land attack features. Most importantly, REBUILD AUSTRALIAS ABILITY TO MAKE "STUFF". If we can't get supplied, due to adversary intervention and we can't make it (Quickly) we will be F…………….
I will try to give it a chance, defences biggest problem is always the na sayers mostly old bastards fighting old wars that aren’t relevant to the current or future situation. I don’t fell any political party owns this space both have screwed the pooch too many times. Both major parties should agree that they would support each other when it comes to the military and a committee made up of both parties would work on the Department Defence and treat it as no go area for political point scoring. That’s what the military should lobby for it couldn’t be any worse than what we have had.
I would like to see a video about drones for all services in all areas of operation in particularly the dangerous and dull ie mine detection, base security and logistics.
Also the automation of systems to reduce personal requirements to help with current personal shortages. The K9 with auto loaders, driverless trucks, smaller tanks the AS21s with 120mm guns and 3 person crews. If Japanese frigates can have 90 people in crews could that technology not be transferred into the exisiting fleet in part at least. Is there not a chance to look at how the commercial world makes this work at times.
There are many problems and issues with the new National Defence Strategy (NDS). My personal view of these in order of importance is:
1. The NDS strategy defines an "area of interest" that is more in line with our role as the South Pacific deputy sheriff for the United States. The NDS is much too reliant on an ongoing relationship with the US. Any sensible analysis of US politics would highlight the problems of such a relationship particularly if the Republican Party is in power over the next few years. We need to look for alternative relationships. A NATO like arrangement with ASEAN states where each member has primary responsibility for their homeland and the seaways adjacent to them. This would considerably reduce the area of interest for Australia from that shown in your opening maps.
2. Submarines – AUKUS will never happen! It's too expensive, too aggressive and too difficult for a country the size of Australia to maintain. Two minor issues: where are we going to get the personnel to man 3 Virginia class subs, 8 AUKUS class subs and keep the 6 Collins class subs going? Just 🐂💩! and where are we going to handle the nuclear fuel (loading, unloading and long-term storage)? Again, just 🐂💩.
The Navy ought to be looking at what many other navies are doing, move to smaller sized frigates and corvettes and increase the number of submarines. If we were to acquire the german submarine we could have 12-15 of them for ¼ the price of AUKUS.
The Army plans look Ok except for all this littoral guff. The Army's primary area of operation should be the Australian mainland. Look at Ukraine, where are all the cheap versatile drones?
The Air Force lacks any real long-range strike capability. The F-35 has been a disaster but given the 70+ we have it's too late to change; we need to keep them for close defence. The FA-18s have been a great acquisition and perhaps we should look at getting more of these. We really need to look for a longer range fighter/bomber type aircraft. For the foreseeable future more long-range aircraft like the MQ-4C Triton should be acquired.
Politics and diplomacy ought to be our primary defence strategy. For a country/economy the size of Australia it is just plain stupidity to think we can compete against the likes of China or any of the other major powers of our region (New Zealand excluded 😆🤨😑😬).
Sorry to be a bit long-winded but we are being badly served by our current defence establishment and their political masters.
Keep up the good work, I enjoy your videos.
We need long range air defence (Patriot) to create an effective multi-layered system. We cannot assume air assets will be available or able to deny missile strikes on critical domestic assets
And Ukraine has shown how assets need active protection against should fired missiles and FPV’s. How will be give landing craft their own layer of protection?
Australia's National Defence Strategy – New capabilities, but when? On the 12th of never.
As I think most would agree the f35, triton, agm 158 LRASM combination is an extremely potent one but can anyone who actually knows what they are talking about tell me how vulnerable they are while at raaf bases. As they are so powerful should they be store in bunkers and if you do not know what a triton or agm is please do not comment as that means you have no idea of what you are talking about.
As an ex-serving Aussie, thanks for the clarity of breakdown on this. My thoughts put simply: 6 years is optimistic. I'd put something kicking off in the next 2 years, perhaps earlier, in the South China Sea/Taiwan. We are massively under-prepared for any significant conflict, and the long lead-up time for any new tech acquisitions is going to hurt us. The single biggest problem I see, however, is the appalling state of recruitment and retention, and the notion of Service more broadly. We have just cut the budget to ADF Cadets drastically – a recruitment tool whereby up to 80% of cadets go onto some form of Service – Police, Fire, Rescue, Reserves, Regulars, etc. We can have all of the boondoggles and widgets we want, but if we don't have a crew, it ain't going nowhere.
looking at eastern europe at present there seems to be a large turnover of men and machinery. so in a war environment (that im assuming will involve conscription), what are the extra formations going to do? do we have any spare anything for them? even small arms? it sort of seems our strategy is to just have enough to last us until the cavalry arrives.
anyway love your work
Another brilliant briefing mate! And the closing comments highly accurate, the threat is within the next 5 years and we won’t have the required capability. Defence planners and their political masters have failed to realise this for decades!
Army will have a combined arms mech brigade and two other brigades – 1st which will have one battalion (5/7), no armour and artillery? 7th will hopefully be motorised with wheeled fleet and hopefully we will keep the ASLAVs and upgrade them (handy because the Kiwis have trained on LAV 6’s) Townsville will get the priority for people (just like the old ODF days), 7th will reflect the old 6th brigade prior to ready reserve & 1st brigade will really be a reenforced battalion! Navy will be able to transport stuff but won’t be able to protect it and the airforce will be impressive – until the fuel and. munitions run out! Those northern bases particularly Townsville and Curtin can only be resupplied by road or air from southern Australia (Townsville could be resupplied by rail if it is cross docked from standard gauge) As for our partners, some will have their own problems & some maybe more of a threat than an ally. So all in all we are in for some interesting times!
You do note that we had a chance of having 3 fully equipped battle groups to one….
And somehow that improves our defence ability.
We are relying on holding off an enemy from our shore instead of being able to defend that land if we are invaded.
That is not a balanced defence.
We are gambling on long distance defence instead of a balanced defence in depth.
How can we have THREE combat brigades when we have only enough armoured vehicle on order for ONE?
That is one tiger and two paper tigers.
Brilliant.
Albo's defence strategy, to cut the guts out of the military, to please his masters in china! Next?
When labor came to office 2 year ago Australia had 48 sships in its navy today we have 32 and albo just announced another will be decommissioned later this year, that should tell you all you need to know?
You summed it up perfectly, "too little, too late". Our politicians have been asleep at the wheel for far too long. Now we are well and truly exposed for years to come as a result and some people question our alliance with the USA. WOW
We couldn't beat eggs.
As an outsider it is hard to see the threat to Australia or what they would have to gain getting directly involved in a Taiwan scenario. Closest distance between Hainan island and the Northern territory is 4000 km with a gazillion Indonesian islands in between. The only way China gets a foothold on Australian soil is by first Occupying Indonesia or Papa new guinea and build up forces and infrastructure there before attempting an invasion, all of this would be completely impossible if the U.S intervenes.
Joint to integrated sounds like an excuse for budget cuts.
I'd like the ADF to create a Gurkha Regiment, just like the UK has had for years. 🇦🇺
nice briefing, when will you be doing a in depth analysis on the NDSII plan? ie "conflict with peer or near peer" is that meaning aussie or usa peer? us congress reduced their order for submarines, how does that effect our ssn deliveries? ukraine war shown us drastic changes in war fighting (drones on sea, land and air), also the devastating effect of attritional warfare on equipment, production capacity of a country and human death toll, is our proposed purchases out dated? imho we will never see a peer on peer war, why because that would mean MAD. what we will see is more ukraine style wars where vassal states are used to batter the enemy. if i am right will that mean the aussie gov has got its purchasing fit for purpose?
Thanks for the update and sober analysis….it would be interesting if you could do a deep dive in to the preparedness and development of military capability of Australia prior and during previous major military events i.e. WWI, WWII, Vietnam or even East Timor….thank you
WTF are we having anything to do with NATO? Just where/against whom are we planning on deploying this force in the next 10-20 yrs? A certain well known Country has boasted of its capability to interdict Chinese Trade through the Malacca Straits. A lot of the countries in this area do a lot of their trade with China, and may not look kindly on it being interdicted. Has this plan taken into account the lessons learned in the conflict in Ukraine?
25 million people land the size of mainland USA force projection needs to be the focus.
We cant defend what we have we need to prevent attacks and to do so effectively we need Nuclear Strike capability. Anything less is just playing Army.
I believe Australia should become a neutral country and have land based nuclear ICBM's on Christmas island. . Tasmanian and interior desert locations maybe something like the LGM-35A Sentinel ICBM or maybe something purchased from another nation ..
deterrent is what we need not projected aggressive capabilities we are an island nation not in Europe or high density Asia …
An excellent and succinct analysis as usual. My comments are not a critique of your presentation, so much as a critique of what we know of the national defence strategy.
Situation – none of our recent scenarios have involved a sustained high level conflict, and they are not useful models for current strategy – WW2 in the Pacific is probably the last example of a relevant event – history never repeats itself, but it does rhyme – The Pacific war was not only 'to our north', but throughout much of the Pacific, notably to maintain a supply route from the USA to Australia (e.g. the Solomons campaign), actions along the Australian west and east coasts (extensive submarine activity), and air / submarine reconnaissance and raids on Australian cities (even Hobart was overflown). Technologies and capabilities have changed, but I contend we should not expect anything less in any similar future conflict.
Sustainment – It is not enough to have a suitable selection of fires – if an adversary is large, well resourced and culturally resilient against losses, its strategy may be to out-last the mutual attrition – local production and storage of munitions is relevant – so is hardening of key sites, and a well conceived and practiced system of dispersion (something like a Swedish model). Haven't seen much about the latter.
Assumptions – We have always relied on 'great and powerful friends' – Historically the USA has at times wavered between isolationism and deep external involvement. There are many there who wish they were not the world's policeman. They are virtually the only country in the world with the skills, resources and internal market to economically isolate themselves from everyone else, and remain affluent. It is also a country regularly convulsed by internal discords that distract them from other events, and take years to resolve. Culturally, Australians love smooth sailing, whereas Americans love stormy seas. It would be unwise to assume they will always be there and ready, to the extent we don't choose to develop our own independent defence capabilities sufficiently.
Geography – Australia is a big place surrounded by a wide moat. That makes large scale invasion more difficult, but intimidation through threatening presence, incursion and raiding easier – Creating a credible ability to rapidly expand local defences provides dilemmas for an adversary relying on attrition of military capacities – We arguably had such a system in the 1930s suited to that time, but not since – It is a relatively cheaper and quicker approach, but being human based (rather than technology based), may be outside current defence paradigms.
Time and People – It is quite conceivable that major conflict could occur before 2030 – Most of the strategic defence items discussed will not be here by then, and even then in not much quantity or depth – In the interim, developing a 'third tier' of defence (differentiated from current Permanents and Reserves) is a cheaper and cheaper initiative – By 'Tier 3' I mean they would be locally defensive (not expeditionary) – recruited from a much wider age and fitness base – not be required to make an extensive commitment to service, or being moved to locations far from family – designed to be attractive to people like tradies, supervisors and medical personnel – use 'off the shelf 'equipment – provide part time pay, meaningful vocational qualifications and local community engagement as incentives – trained in basic military skills, local intelligence and defensive skills, and support to the civilian community – Models include Switzerland, Singapore and (with some modifications) the USA.
Such a 'third tier' could provide the following – a demonstrated and growing capability for larger scale, rapid mobilisation – a place for defence personnel in the 'evening of their careers' to continue to contribute while being close to home – a source of selected recruits for higher level tiers from young people with an appetite to do more, demonstrated levels of interest, and already known aptitudes – Freeing higher tier full-time and reserve formation from being a source of support to communities during natural disasters – Freeing higher tier units from static defensive roles to engage more in expeditionary offensive roles – Naturally it needs some full time support (similar to the role of the AIC within the Australian Army in the 1930s), administration, and some specialised supporting units. It probably also needs a catalyst to be created; something perhaps like the Fujian and an attached task force making a 'good will' cruise through the Coral and Tasman seas.
The best Defence strategy is to remind the Nationalist in Formosa they lost the war. Excellent presentation. !! thank you
It is too little, too late, our overall defence spending, should be yearly 5% of GNP minimum and if necessary up that to 10%. A major conflict is coming and we are not going to be ready as it is, we do not have 10 years.
Ooh you guys planning for Commonwealth Army 3.0 seeing as the defence white paper is primarily focused on going on the offensive. Replace the acronym "ADF" with "USN" and it makes perfect sense. 😄
Some food-for-thought:
1) The distribution of large bases looks beautiful. Treat the vast interior of Australia as one gigantic fire pocket for your air force and mobile defense units and you should be able to give any invaders hell. (Sucks for those living in W.A. though, it looks to be the sacrificial lamb.)
2) Traditionally, non-british troops in the Commonwealth Army were used as auxiliaries or for assaulting/defending highly risky positions… just saying.
3) If WW3 is what Canberra is planning for, then you should make an expedited contingency plan – on paper – that lists out the priority projects which can be fully realized by 2025 – 2027. For eg. don't fret over the things the US already has plenty of when you want to build up your own capabilities fast.
4) The ADF is woefully undermanned even at full strength (short of conscription) so firepower will have to substitute for troop count (–> point #1).
5) Still waters run deep, and Australia has some very good thinkers but somehow they're all spontaneously NOT in the government. 😄😄😄
Sobering analysis
There seems to no clear bang for the buck and more importantly how much bang per defence person…? PLUS no seeming thought to diversification of critical defence resources and platforms. PLUS no clear approach to provide overwhelming force concentration over vast and unpredictable geographic points where enemy attacks plural may occur. A vast area to defend with a small force…HOW? With WHAT??😮😮
It is incredulous to see the ADF joining the US today to provoke a conflict with China. The ADF is so small that a retaliation from China would be disastrous for Australia.
What happens if the US loses or chicken out leaving Australia and Japan holding the ball?
Labor has done nothing and will do nothing
Outstanding briefing / presentation
We're not going to be able to manufacture new fighters here but we sure as hell should be making as many consumables as possible.
We should urgently create production lines( licensed from USA) for AMRAAMs and AIM9X IIR missiles/ countermeasures flares/chaff which would soon run short in high intensity combat.
Long range tanks, available in numbers, for our F-18s and F-35 squadrons…anything that will be used fast in battle should be on the list of urgent requirements for the Air Force.
And more tankers…
It is to little to late , solution = U.S base's in Australia , subsidised by Aus gov
I watch your show often, and even though I can only understand part of it through subtitles, I still respect your work. But I have a question. Can you explain it?
I don’t know what Australians think. China and Australia are very far apart. Why do you have to interfere in matters between mainland China and Taiwan? ?
Anyone who understands China's history and has relatively fair values can figure out that this is China's civil war. Why must Australia follow the United States and interfere in the Taiwan Strait? ? Is the Australians the American Shepherd? ?
Everyone is equal, and countries should also be equal. (2:05) Why can Americans set up the first island chain and the second island chain to restrict China? ? Who gave Americans their rights? ? God or American military supremacy? ? Where are the freedom, rule of law, and justice that the Western world talks about now? ?
Im an Aussie 25 yr in vet and that was a great brief and lays it all out no BS and gabe the information i was actually having trouble keeping up to daye with. Great job mate appreciated
Australia should replace the 24 – F-18F with the F-15-EX which has far better capabilities.
Interesting no 2xJSS nor no UAV helicopters, frigates will have be built overseas to meet time line. Although RAN should order block 2 of more Hobart destroyers. As for rest defence everything seem ok although more Redbacks should be order.
Australia or some other nations main strategy is defend free trade with china from being harmed by China, that is not a joke, that is the truth.
a free trade with china means you do not have to handle unfair trade with America, if you do not know what i mean check Mexico and Brazil, they are actually handling unfair trade with America.
if you do want a free trade with China, there are 3+1 solution, first is you are strong enough to protect your free trade with China, these nation including Russia, DRPK, and Vietnam, the second way is you joined US and harm free trade of other nations with China, these includes Australia Japan Korea, India are trying to do these but maybe they have to defeat China first, which is high risk of make India the third type. the third type is you are a weak enough nation and US forgot you.
the plus 1 solution is either you are America or you are China.
While this does look underfunded right now it is worth considering that funding for programs doesn't usually come in a single block and instead delivered through successive allotments of funding over years>
Adopting a system similar to the US one where we provide greater support to prospective recruits is a good one for improving recruitment rates and retention.
Otherwise everything is moving in the right direction, it's just a matter of whether or not we'll get it done fast enough. Recent years we've made good efforts on domestic production and a lot of the DSR was saying "We're doing the right things but we need to move faster."
Suggestion for a future video? Maybe one on the prospects of an Australian Fixed-wing carrier? That idea gets bandied around from time to time.
Well done captain, hope your well
The ADF and particularly the RAN have rocks in their heads if they don't massively upgun the LHD's (including both Phalanx and RAM launchers). If it were up to me I still say I would spend the money to purchase about 50 of the F-35 "B" model and modify the LHD's to operate them. Canberra and Adelaide would each have a dozen jump jets in their air wings, with another 12 serving as the training squadron and 14 airframes in reserve for accident and combat attrition replacements. I mean, I kept hearing all through this video about the new emphasis in the ADF on combined arms amphibious power projection. If that doesn't shout "aircraft carrier" I don't know what does. The LHD's still have their Spanish ski jumps and even a dozen F-35s per ship would greatly enhance Australian capabilities while greatly complicating any enemy's planning and response.
The RAAF is quite respectable and fairly large relative to the size of Australia's population and defence budget. The Air Force appears to be the strongest component of the ADF at present.