Defence Upgrades

Remove this Banner Ad

jim boy

jim boy

Umpires Association Head
Veteran 10k Posts Geelong Cats - Gryan Miers Player Sponsor 2018 Meet-Up Master Podcaster Casey Tutungi Future Fund
Jun 4, 2002
14,397
8,048
Location! Location!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
pivotonians
This is a few days old however I'll start.

Firstly the facts

Australia is spending $50 billion on new defence equipment, see http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/07/1068013395514.html or any of a number of other articles.

The major purchases include a new fleet of 100 US-made planes, three air warfare destroyers, an unspecified number of tanks and five giant unmanned surveillance planes.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said the Defence Force would be "rebalanced" to meet the threats posed by global terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and a deteriorating region.


My opinion

$50 billion dollars is a pretty significant amount of money, about 5% of GDP. It's something people should voice their opinion about. How is this going to be paid for, or is it coming out of existing defence budget allocations (roughly 20 billion a year)?

I was disappointed to note that the new jets will be US-made. This is disapppointing considering the current Hornets, although US planes, were manufactured locally.

But most curious was the emphasis on tackling global terrorism (whatever that is), WMD's and a deteriorating region. I can understand troop carriers and the surveillance planes, but how are tanks or fighter jets going to be any use in the targetted areas?

Lets face it, fighting global terrorism is a meaningless term, at least in terms of purchasing military hardware. And WMDs, I'm not sure what Hill has in mind, but the only way to stop WMDs (other than having your own) is by stopping them existing in the first place, which is the same for terrorism.

So why aren't ther any plans for addressing the root causes of these evils.

And as for regional stability, there is such a thing as overkill. We can really only lord it over the Pacific region, and all of the pacific islands are tin pot little countries, mostly without any military hardware at all, not much point sending in tanks.

And what about the three anti-warfare destroyers? These things cost $4 billion dollars each, but it is quite hard to see how they can be truly effective, they can't exactly protect Australia on their own, and again it's hard to imagine who might really pose a threat.

Realistically Australia's defence requirements over the next few years are going to be of the sort of East Timor or Solomon Islands type of affair. The requirements for these sort of operations are low scale ground and sea based light artillery with a need for fast reactions. Buying tanks or monolithic antiwarfare destroyers will do stuff all. We will undoubtely have to follow the US into whatever war they decide they want, if only to keep the geriatric old timers happy when they point to WW2. But the US need for us isn't from a military point of view but a political point of view. Whatever we can spare will be just fine.

The most vulnerable part of Australia are our maritime resources, for that we need good surveillance and fast ships. I'm not convinced that only three planes can really do enough surveillance and I see no evidence of fast ships.

Overall I think the whole strategy is misguided and loaded towards plenty more excursions like the one we have just had in invading Iraq.

Does Howard really think that will make us safer?
 
Originally posted by Jim Boy
The major purchases include a new fleet of 100 US-made planes, three air warfare destroyers, an unspecified number of tanks and five giant unmanned surveillance planes.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said the Defence Force would be "rebalanced" to meet the threats posed by global terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and a deteriorating region.


My opinion

$50 billion dollars is a pretty significant amount of money, about 5% of GDP. It's something people should voice their opinion about. How is this going to be paid for, or is it coming out of existing defence budget allocations (roughly 20 billion a year)?
Click to expand...

"With the heavy expense of the planned purchases, delivery of some projects will be delayed and equipment retired early to avoid additional funding boosts."

"A fleet of up to 100 US-made joint strike fighters to be delivered from 2012 should cost between $10 billion and $15 billion. The three new air warfare destroyers are to be introduced within 10 years at about $4 billion each."

"To offset some of the spending, the navy will retire two of its six guided-missile frigates and decommission two minehunters. "

I was disappointed to note that the new jets will be US-made. This is disapppointing considering the current Hornets, although US planes, were manufactured locally.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have the capability to build them here now. Also, I suspect they are cheaper if we buy the JSFs from them.


But most curious was the emphasis on tackling global terrorism (whatever that is), WMD's and a deteriorating region. I can understand troop carriers and the surveillance planes, but how are tanks or fighter jets going to be any use in the targetted areas?

Lets face it, fighting global terrorism is a meaningless term, at least in terms of purchasing military hardware. And WMDs, I'm not sure what Hill has in mind, but the only way to stop WMDs (other than having your own) is by stopping them existing in the first place, which is the same for terrorism.

So why aren't ther any plans for addressing the root causes of these evils.

And as for regional stability, there is such a thing as overkill. We can really only lord it over the Pacific region, and all of the pacific islands are tin pot little countries, mostly without any military hardware at all, not much point sending in tanks.

And what about the three anti-warfare destroyers? These things cost $4 billion dollars each, but it is quite hard to see how they can be truly effective, they can't exactly protect Australia on their own, and again it's hard to imagine who might really pose a threat.

Realistically Australia's defence requirements over the next few years are going to be of the sort of East Timor or Solomon Islands type of affair. The requirements for these sort of operations are low scale ground and sea based light artillery with a need for fast reactions. Buying tanks or monolithic antiwarfare destroyers will do stuff all. We will undoubtely have to follow the US into whatever war they decide they want, if only to keep the geriatric old timers happy when they point to WW2. But the US need for us isn't from a military point of view but a political point of view. Whatever we can spare will be just fine.

The most vulnerable part of Australia are our maritime resources, for that we need good surveillance and fast ships. I'm not convinced that only three planes can really do enough surveillance and I see no evidence of fast ships.

Overall I think the whole strategy is misguided and loaded towards plenty more excursions like the one we have just had in invading Iraq.

Does Howard really think that will make us safer?
Click to expand...

I don't see the need to buy a lot of tanks, although we need some and they haven't said how many we plan to buy.

The destroyers are hardly "monolithic" and can be quite useful supporting ground troops near coasts (eg: on islands) and supporting the air force. The planes are also necessary for some of the local work (eg: peacekeeping).

The global terrorism and WMDs are a silly argument for what they are buying, however the things they are getting are not unreasonable. What's missing though is more small naval vessels to scout the coast.
 
The defence budget under labour was about 12 billion, under the libs they pinned it down to about 10billion and funded a bucket of money to their stooges for useless projects like torpedoes that don't fit the subs, and 500M to look at a fighter we might not even buy etc.

last year they jacked up the budget to about 13.5 billion with more increases to cover the money they p@ssed up against the wall.

I think they'll have to give a lot of kickbacks to US corporations to ensure that Bush gets elected,
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think the problem is there are two different competing, yet both at least partially valid philosophies when it comes to our Defence force.

On one hand, there's the practical argument which correctly observes that for the foreseeable future, the most likely sort of incidents to be involved in are small scale police-action type situations like East Timor or the Phillipines, where the worst things our troops are going to run up against are lightly armed, unsupported militia maybe toting the occasional RPG.

If thats the case, all we need is a ****load of well trained infantry and lots of nifty methods of getting them around; landing boats, helicopters, APCs and so on. Add to that an enormous coastal surveillance presence, and voila, you have yourself a defence force which can deal with 99.98% of all problems they are likely to encounter.
Now that all probably makes good sense, because chances are, that is what we are most likely to run up against, but there is another way of looking at it.

Defence forces, by their very nature, tend to deal at least partially with the 'doomsday scenario' of a mid-to-high intensity conflict with another nation in the region. Anyone except Pauline Hanson would probably agree that that is extremely, maybe astronomically unlikely for the foreseeable future, but I don't think its impossible. Conflicts between middle power countries do happen in the modern era- the best example I can think of is the Falklands war. International affairs can alter so bloody quickly that the whole point of having a defence force is to be able to respond to whatever situation is thrown up immediately- because its probably a bit late to go shopping for destroyers and AWACS systems and so on when the foreign devil marines (tm) are landing in Sydney Harbor. Economists tend to hate defence spending, because chances are most of the expensive weapons systems will do a full tour of duty and be sold off or turned into dive wrecks or whatever without ever actually being used, but thats just the nature of the game.
I'm guessing that 90% of fire extinguishers in buildings are never actually used before being replaced, but does that mean they are a waste of money?
When you come down to it, all the neat bells and whistles we're sinking a significant proportion of our GDP into are really just for the same reason that police get to carry guns. Its a last resort, for emergence situations which they might never have to deal with, but it acts as a deterrent without even being used, and you'd really regret not having one if you got to a situation where you needed it.

Just for arguments sake- what would have happened if the situation in East Timor had unfolded differently?
Say that at the point where we landed the first soldiers, the Indonesians troops on the ground had got uppitty, ignored their orders, and started a fight? And if then, simultaneously, Wiranto and Co had launched a military coupe (always a real possibility in indonesia) and declared war on Australia for invading their sovereign territory? As is the case with pretty much all South East Asian countries, we'd be enormously outmatched in terms of manpower, and could only redress the balance thanks to the better technology we have access to, thanks to the alliance with the US, and the preparedness to sink big money into defence development.
 
and you are such a sheep.

why do think we paid hundreds of millions to buy torpedoes that don't fit our subs?
why do think we handed over 500m for a fighter we might not even buy?
why do think we buy so much crap from the US that doesn't work, like flak jackets that don't stop bullets, helmets that had to be upgraded, the ASLAV 25 which the contracting managers recommended we DON"T buy and whose armour can't stop 7.62 rounds etc etc.

we buy it to brownnose the US, which you seem to like to do.
 
who is a left clown boy, Im an advocate for additional defence spending!

I was dissapointed when the libs cut defence spending, and where they spent our money.

but of course you can't think for yourself, why not just cut and paste what Rummie said, still looking for those WMDs?

ANd is it so wrong to believe in democracy and the market economy?

your quick with the insults and bs but slow with the facts...

probably enjoy being defended by the 500m spent on fighters we'll never see, and be glad to know the torpedoes your taxes went to buy are still in a warehouse in moorebank, because the don't fit our subs.

and no doubt you'd like the flak jackets that were trashed if you had the balls to join to the army...

your so full of crap and ignorance you must be a liberal staffer.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by dan warna
Click to expand...

Yawn... maybe if you could write clear sentences and produce cogent arguments, rather than spilling rants thrown onto a page like a three year-old throwing paint onto a canvas, you would be more understandable and treated more seriously...
 
Is it my fault you can't read, or think for yourself and resort to abuse the person who points to facts, while you merely spout the stoogie words of a politicians lap dog?

go back to your young lapdogs meeting, or even better, put your body on the line, join the army and go fight in iraq so the US can get their cheaper oil.
 
If you are going to have an Air Force at all, the J-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the aircraft. It's not just a US plane. It was developed in conjuction with British Aerospace as an allied aircraft concept. The UK, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Turkey also kicked in funds for its developement and deployment.

It flies freakin' circles around the F-111 that you currently have. As a matter of fact, other than the US F-22 Raptor, it is the best air-supremacy fighter in the world.

The beauty thing about the J-35 is that it performs tactical missions (air to mud) as effectively as it does dogfight. It has stealth capability, and can be used for penetration/recon missions, precision strike, and can directly attack ground-based anti-aircraft weapons. It can be used in an anti-tank/anti-infantry role like an A-10 Warthog. It also comes in three versions. A standard runway fighter, a carrier version, and a STOVL similar to the Harrier.

Keeping the F-111's will only make your Air Force obsolete. The J-35 is an excellent value, and will modernize your air capability far ahead of anything yet on the drawing board of nations deploying 'Russian type' aircraft. Like I said, if you don't go with the J-35, you would be just as well not to have an Air Force in the future at all.

As far as it goes with the tanks, I'd recommend you stay with the German Leopards. It can be deployed anywhere, and is more suited for the types of terrain found in Australia than is the Abrams or Challengers. The 120mm smoothebore cannon uses ammunition interchangeable with all NATO types.

Peace,
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Originally posted by Mooster7
Peace,
Click to expand...

Or not as the case may be?

Two things you said interested me (not that the rest didn't, but anyway..)
I got the impression the new joint strike fighter was certainly the shiznit, but how widely available will it be? just the countries putting in the investment dollars? Getting the latest toy is a bit less cool if everyone else in the region also have access to them.

Also, I'm curious about why the Leopard is better for Australian terrain, and how it compares in other respects to the Abrams, Challengers or the latest Russian models?
 
The prob with the current leopards is that they were not designed for the humidity where they are currently located.

no one really noticed with 1armd regt was based at seymour, but now they are up north, they are suffering badly.

I haven't seen the specs on the l2, but it was designed for the euro theatre.

as MBTs the Abrams has done well in desert conditions, and seems a more flexible weapon platform for environments as it was deployed against the serbs also.

the chobham armour used in the abrams and challengers seems far more advanced than that in our leopards and the l2.

the challenger did have problems with it environmental system in the high temperatures which again leads to the abrams as the superior platform.

as for the actual gun, the Brits have had the edge on everyone since the centurians and chieftans, which were the world beaters through the 60s to early 80s

the f111 is obsolete and will be run out in 2010, however it our only long range aircraft.

the fa18 has a combat range of about 500nm or about 800k, which can be extended with external tanks or inflight refueling but given that we only have 70 and cover an area of close to that of the US and a larger coast line, they are a tactical strike fighter designed for use on a mobile platform such as a carrier and not as useful for a us, except in a mixed force.

the Eurofighter seems to be a heavier aircraft, with a longer range and a bigger payload and can use most nato ammunition and technologies than the raptor and the JSF which are quality aircraft.

While not the tactical fighter of the JSF or the raptor, the strike capabilities and the range of the Eurofighter, might meet our needs more than the US jets, but I can't see us buying outside the US stocks in the current environment.

Another theory put forward by the europeans was to buy russian airframes and put allied tech in it, as a cheap option, the russkie airframes are solid, effective and well built, but their technology is like stuck in the 80s.

Cost Per Unit would be cheaper though.
 
Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yawn... maybe if you could write clear sentences and produce cogent arguments, rather than spilling rants thrown onto a page like a three year-old throwing paint onto a canvas, you would be more understandable and treated more seriously...
Click to expand...
Thing is NMWBloods, Dan Warner's been putting forward arguments. You've just been playing the man. Why is what he's writing wrong?
 
Originally posted by Mooster7
Keeping the F-111's will only make your Air Force obsolete. The J-35 is an excellent value, and will modernize your air capability far ahead of anything yet on the drawing board of nations deploying 'Russian type' aircraft. Like I said, if you don't go with the J-35, you would be just as well not to have an Air Force in the future at all.
Click to expand...

I'm sold. Put me down for 4 and I'll forward you my credit card details.
 
Originally posted by moistie
Thing is NMWBloods, Dan Warner's been putting forward arguments. You've just been playing the man. Why is what he's writing wrong?
Click to expand...

This is an argument?? - "I think they'll have to give a lot of kickbacks to US corporations to ensure that Bush gets elected"??
 
The US is getting tired of basically subsidising Western defence spending. They are uncomfortable with countries spending nothing on defence simply relying on the US to bail them out. This means that many of their allies spend a lot of their GDP on trying to knock of US trade while the US effectively spends their GDP taking up the slack in their allies' defence budgets.

The US wants its allies to spend more money and to develop forces which integrate with their own. In this way the next time the US launches a foreign adventure they hope that they can call upon more of their allies to bear the burden, under US command of course.

I would have thought a condition of any free-trade agreement was more of an effort to pay our own way.

Mead suggested 2 competing scenarios. The first a small peace-keeping or police action, and the 2nd a major conflict between mid-sized nations. I think a 3rd scenario is the real fear. A military or religious coup in a near neighbour followed by the need to dedicate forces in support of the government. Effectively taking sides in a civil war. If for example Indonesia were to splinter and an anti-Western Islamist group were to take control of a third of the country, we might then support the Indonesian government to put down the uprising.
 
Originally posted by NMWBloods
This is an argument?? - "I think they'll have to give a lot of kickbacks to US corporations to ensure that Bush gets elected"??
Click to expand...
:D No, but its not the only statement he's put forward. If you don't agree with what he's saying and can prove it, then do so. I like these sorts of arguments because it gives me a chance to learn about a topic I'm not fully conversent in.
 
Originally posted by moistie
:D No, but its not the only statement he's put forward. If you don't agree with what he's saying and can prove it, then do so. I like these sorts of arguments because it gives me a chance to learn about a topic I'm not fully conversent in.
Click to expand...

Its actually funny Moistie, im an ex serviceman, ive got a far idea from some of the posts ive read on here over time that are a few other ex-servicemen. Ive seen them post stuff which only those of us who have servied would know, i.e. how crappy some of the stuff is, some of the rubbish that goes on behind the scenes, and the response from people who have never served is that you are a Lefty looney communist because you don't verbatim follow the government line.
 
Originally posted by Weaver
Mead suggested 2 competing scenarios. The first a small peace-keeping or police action, and the 2nd a major conflict between mid-sized nations. I think a 3rd scenario is the real fear. A military or religious coup in a near neighbour followed by the need to dedicate forces in support of the government. Effectively taking sides in a civil war. If for example Indonesia were to splinter and an anti-Western Islamist group were to take control of a third of the country, we might then support the Indonesian government to put down the uprising.
Click to expand...
Any full scale intervention in Indonesia would be a long and very bloody affair. As an offensive force, Indonesia does not pose much of a threat. We are better equipped and better trained than their soldiers and any invasion force on our territory could be dealt with.

BUT, as a defensive force, the Indonesians are ones to be feared. Their society is based around the army and if invaded they would take to the hills and run a non-stop guerilla campaign. Their miliary is trained for such occurrences, which is why they're having so many difficulties in subduing the Aceh province in Sumatra. Many of the Aceh freedom fighters have been trained by the Indonesian military, finished their tour of duty and gone back to fight against the Indonesian military.

So I agree Weaver, the third scenario is one to be truly feared and is why the government would and should be doing everything in its power to support democracy in Indonesia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aristotle Pickett
Jackie Lambie refers Australian Defence Force senior command to the International Criminal Court.
Replies
1
Views
350
Big Papa Ted
B

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top