Defence Upgrades

[dan warna]

lol
i concur about indonesia, much of their army is a paramilitary force, policing duties etc.

they do have a navy that is reasonably new and about twice ours in numbers, and similar their airforce is about twice ours and of equivalent age.

they have little or no airlift capacity for a serious invasion, but they do have a reasonable capacity to deploy by sea a substantial force.

while we don't really fear a threat of invasion by indonesia, should it ever become a 'rogue nation', it is capable of deploying small terrorist units, assault groups, demolitions experts etc, and could seriously damage our mining, agriculture, water, electricity resources.

not just indonesia, any country.

in fact our defence have moved from a decentralised supply system to a centralised supply system to emulate industry, which means one whack and our capacity to fight is seriously damaged.

sigh.

no one ever listens...

 

[anonymous Joe]

Originally posted by dan warna
lol
i concur about indonesia, much of their army is a paramilitary force, policing duties etc.

they do have a navy that is reasonably new and about twice ours in numbers, and similar their airforce is about twice ours and of equivalent age.

they have little or no airlift capacity for a serious invasion, but they do have a reasonable capacity to deploy by sea a substantial force.

while we don't really fear a threat of invasion by indonesia, should it ever become a 'rogue nation', it is capable of deploying small terrorist units, assault groups, demolitions experts etc, and could seriously damage our mining, agriculture, water, electricity resources.

not just indonesia, any country.

in fact our defence have moved from a decentralised supply system to a centralised supply system to emulate industry, which means one whack and our capacity to fight is seriously damaged.

sigh.

no one ever listens...

Its good to know we're so well prepared

 

[1jasonoz]

i concur about indonesia, much of their army is a paramilitary force, policing duties etc.

They do have a big military, but yes its to busy supressing their own people at the moment in places like Aceh and West Papua.

they do have a navy that is reasonably new and about twice ours in numbers, and similar their airforce is about twice ours and of equivalent age.

Their navy is rubbish, their old science minister come defence minister thought it was a good idea to buy complete ex East German naval vessels to modernise with. They only problem is that when East Germany went, so did any after purchase support spares and training. They where left with a fleet that is rusting and run down. The dangerous part of their navy isn't the ships, its actuall the French made exocet which is a complete moduler weapon, which means not to many moving parts for the indos to stuff about with, just find a target, fire and forget, the missile does the rest. In general they are pretty good for supporting their army in its operations, see above post.

while we don't really fear a threat of invasion by indonesia, should it ever become a 'rogue nation', it is capable of deploying small terrorist units, assault groups, demolitions experts etc, and could seriously damage our mining, agriculture, water, electricity resources.

Totally agree see my recent posting in support of this;

Pretty easy to shut Australia down, 1 main gas line in to Perth from Dampier. 1 main gas line into Victoria. 1 main shipping channel into Dampier/Port Headland which 1 iron ore carrier could block by being sunk for years. One main shipping channel into Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane, 1 ship could shut them down for months. Unchecked foreign merchant ships allowed to sail around our coast without basic custom and immigrantion checks. The US and UN warning against the dangers of allowing these foreign vessels unfetted access to our coastline, what do we do, we go to the High Court argueing in support of a foriegn company saying the government shouldn't have any power over these foriegn shipping companies. These same vessels sail around our offshore oil and gas rigs with no Navy to stop them. If you are going to attack Australia, you wouldn't land troops here or attack us directly, you just hit these massive infrastructure areas.

I spent 6 years in the military, am in the oil and gas industry now, I put a submission into the defence white paper 3 years ago about the danger. Was pulled aside by a captain in the army who told me everything i said and put forward was true.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by Weaver
Considering that many of the purchases are a 10 year program, and that the life of many of these weapons is 30 years we really need to be looking into the future.

Who knows exactly how Indonesia might look in 30 years. The Phillipines has a problem in Mindanao with a seperatist group. How stable is the regime in Cambodia, or Myanmar?

Myanmar? Cambodia? Even if they turn rogue, they have some rather large neighbours that will be involved long before us? They aren't exactly camped on our doorstop.

And as you point out, building military strength takes time, why do you think Indonesia can do it much quicker than Australia? If they do have a massive militay build up, then we respond by doing the same, but only 'if'.

 

[BlueMark]

Interesting thread. Lots of good debate. For mine I think that for once the proposed mix is about right. The current Leopard fleet is almost antique and dies not operate well in the tropics, it also has no night fighting capability. The Abrams has a proven ability to operate in extreme conditions, as does the Challenger. The big disadvantage of the Abrams is that guzzles fuel at a enormunous rate, suspect we will purchase the Arbams as it is Cosgroves perferred option.

The fighter replacement is interesting, personally I think we should go for the Eurofighter as we can palce it in service within the next fives years. The JSF is 10 to 15 years away and by then even though the Hornets have been upgraded to C/D standard will be well and truely wornout. If we go the JSF option suspect we will lease some F18F Super Hornets to cover the gap. The F 111s while an excellent aircraft are barely operational now due to age and will be lucky to be operational beyond the next five tears.

What we really need is at least 3 AWACs aircraft, Jindalee does not work and needs to be scrapped. We do not have any early warning and proper longrange control capability.

The Collins class subs, now having thier design deficencies sorted out and the new attack system being retro fitted are about the best convential subs in the world ATM, we should have purchased 8 instaed of 6. We do need new destroyers and quickly and in particular ones that can fight unlike the current figrates who are really big fat sitting targets.

As for force mix. The reality is that we need to have a balance between a light highly mobile force able to react quickly and a force that can fight a high instensity war, to achievce this will mean trade offs in certain areas. The Americans have not come to grips with this as yet, as demonstrated in Iraq. While I believe that we have done well in the light force concept we have degraded our capability to conduct a campaign that involves a enemy with advanced equipment. At some point our habit of intervening in other peoples wars (East Timor expected) will see us biting off more than we can chew.

For the record I spent over 6 years in the Military and would be still there if I was not a largely single parent.

And I would not urinate on Bush or Howard if they somehow caught fire. Bush is a lying coward and Howard well he uses the Military to boost his own delusional statesman obession.

 

[B2..]

Great post BlueMark. I agree entirely, esp. the bit about JWH using the military for his own mean ends, namely our 'Iron Curtain' to keep the hordes from invading from the North.

It was not all that long ago that the number of qualified F/A-18 pilots were about one third that of the number of aircraft available. The ratio of pilots would increase if they were paid reasonable salaries, and given retention benefits that actually meant something. As it is, why hang around flying a desk for 30 hours a week when you can get a squillion with Qantas?

Our military has a right to feel disillusioned when they are shipped off with a wave and photo opportunity, knowing if they are killed in action they can expect their widows to be treated with a complete lack of respect, ala Kylie Russell (see my rant on another thread).

Firepower is one thing, keeping the personnel is important too.

 

[dan warna]

I think its easy to be 'couragious' and a 'man of steel' etc when you don't actually have to fight. like the 3 amigos bush, blair and howard

I reckon put all the scumbags in a big cage and let them fight it out.

bush saddam blair gaddafi putin sharon obl howard etc etc and let us lead the majority of peace loving folks live their lives.

the winner gets to live.

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by Weaver
As for New Zealand ... well I have long harboured ambitions to invade and conquer NZ. I think all Australian military spending should be focussed on building an Aussie empire, starting with New Bondi.

NZ was offered a place in Australia at Federation but turned it down. May as well be a part of Oz, though. I call it the seventh state of Australia.

Know what I think? I think its time we did a Germany '39 and annexed New Zealand! Then our triumphant roll through the Pacific!! WE CAN BE THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! THEN PEOPLE WILL LEARN TO SAY G'DAY AND MATE PROPERLY!!!!

Sorry, started channelling Adolph there.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Myanmar? Cambodia? Even if they turn rogue, they have some rather large neighbours that will be involved long before us? They aren't exactly camped on our doorstop.

And as you point out, building military strength takes time, why do you think Indonesia can do it much quicker than Australia? If they do have a massive militay build up, then we respond by doing the same, but only 'if'.

I think you miss my point. I was not saying that one of these nations would invade or threaten us. I was saying that one of them could descend into the type of civil war where we felt we had to commit troops. Similar sittuation as Malaya, Korea and Vietnam. I could see a similar war in Indonesia, Philipines or Myanmar in time.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by Weaver
I think you miss my point. I was not saying that one of these nations would invade or threaten us. I was saying that one of them could descend into the type of civil war where we felt we had to commit troops. Similar sittuation as Malaya, Korea and Vietnam. I could see a similar war in Indonesia, Philipines or Myanmar in time.

Well if they are not directly threatening, then it's not going to hurt us too badly if we miss any of these particular stoushes because we haven't spent a squillion on big ticket items.

So why spend a lot preparing for a war, which will probably never eventuate and even if it did eventuate, wouldn't affect us? Especially when you're talking about wars, that if they did eventuate, are much more likely to be of a guerilla style than of a Korean or Vietnamese style (communism is dead you know) in which tanks or jsf's will be next to useless.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by Jim Boy

So why spend a lot preparing for a war, which will probably never eventuate and even if it did eventuate, wouldn't affect us? Especially when you're talking about wars, that if they did eventuate, are much more likely to be of a guerilla style than of a Korean or Vietnamese style (communism is dead you know) in which tanks or jsf's will be next to useless.

If you had read my original post, you would see I was refering to a situation where one of these countries might find themselves in a civil war. Possibly an Islamist revolution. We might consider this a threat and elect to militarally support one party in the conflict. We backed Korea and Vietnamese governments in a civil war because of our fears of communists, we might become involved in Indonesia or Malaysia because our fears of a fundamentalist Islamic regime.

As for worrying about wars that don't effect us, well Myanmar is a lot closer than Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't think any nation can afford to be isolationist.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by Weaver
If you had read my original post, you would see I was refering to a situation where one of these countries might find themselves in a civil war. Possibly an Islamist revolution. We might consider this a threat and elect to militarally support one party in the conflict. We backed Korea and Vietnamese governments in a civil war because of our fears of communists, we might become involved in Indonesia or Malaysia because our fears of a fundamentalist Islamic regime.

Can I point out to you that these countries are already Islamic, although not fundamentalist. However there is next to no fundamentalism in these countries, and even if there were, then there would be no massive armies or military action as there were in Vietnam or Korea because there there is no superpower to back them. If we did feel a rather foolish ned to intervene, then it would most likely be in the form of logistics or at worst a peace keeping force. Your argument simply isn't valid.

Originally posted by Weaver
As for worrying about wars that don't effect us, well Myanmar is a lot closer than Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't think any nation can afford to be isolationist.

Myanmar is closer to Afghanistan than Australia and is many thousands of kilometres away. Not to mention the fact that is wedged between two nuclear powers in India and China, then Australia would be extremely bloody silly to put anything in other than a UN sponsored peace keeping force.

I agree, Australia shouldn't remain isolationist, but I can still can't see even the remotest chance of a need requiring us to have massive firepower and abundant heavy armoury. The cost is compromising the more mundane realities and daily duties of the armed forces including poorer conditions and equipment for personnel.

 

[BlueMark]

The was a couple of really good articles in yesterdays Australian about the defence debate will post links later, anyone else see them.

 

[jim boy]

Tank wise, it looks like we are set for the Abrams. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/19/1069027187696.html I can't see how this purchase will be at all useful in our region.

Meanwhile our aging and rusting fleet of APC's are getting a fresh link of paint so that they can go around for another 15 years before they finally get their yellow canaries.

Blue Mark, any sign of those links? I had a quick look and couldn't find them.

 

[Lionel Lyon]

Hmm, I guess the story regarding this new toy they're proposing can go on this thread.

 

[B2..]

Thanks for the link, Lionel. That's some piece of technology!

It reminds me a little of the Poms' decision in the late 1950s-early 60s to stop funding of new manned-aircraft projects, most notably the TSR2, in favour of guided missiles and the like.

Despite the success of the Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado and a few others (the latter being partnerships with the Frogs), their aviation industry never recovered.

Granted, this technology is much more sophisticated, and should succeed, I would think given that the sensors would be more than a match for the human eye.

BlueMark?