Defence Spending Increase

[GTPete]

The government have just announced a huge increase in defence spending.
The Navy seem to be getting the most attention.
I think its a great move, not sure how we are going to pay for it all but its reasurring to see our defence forces getting some overdue funding.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

[4Vman]

Im speechless......

[Elks]

1100 personnel carriers..some 4x4 and 8x8's we have at work, bullet proof grenade proof etc.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by J_Tank

considering the difficulty we have in crewing the current submarine fleet some work will have to be done to keep the sardines happy! Looks reasonable, at leat we haven't bought any more Abrams tanks.... : although I struggle with the concept of a "new" chinook..

Agreed on the subs...while I would love to see a full size squadron of 12 Aussie subs, they're struggling to find crews for 3 of them. That's the Navy's real problem.

Originally Posted by Bent8

In my opinion, the Leopard 2A6 is just as good as the Abrams with the added benefit of being able to operate the turret with the engine off!

Huh? The AS1 Leopard offers nowhere near the level of crew survivability as the Abrams. The Leopard 1 was Germany's first main battle tank that was conceived after WW2 and entered service there in the 1950's. That's right, the 1950's. Accordingly it was designed to meet the threats of the time, not 50 years from that point.

As it stands I don't think the Australian Govt should have bought the Abrams either, but that's my view.

Originally Posted by J_Tank

There's nothing necessarily wrong with them... But when was the last time an Australian Main Battle Tank served overseas?

Vietnam war, one of the firebase sieges if I recall correctly.

Originally Posted by J_Tank

I hardly see your point? Surely Our defence forces should be equipped with the tools to carry out the missions they are sent upon, and therefore our defence spending should reflect this? Whether or not the defence forces are defending Australian soil or fulfilling our treaty/political obligations overseas is irrelevant. My point was that Australian Tanks have not seen combat since Vietnam and none of our current defence obligations involve tanks. Whether you agree with the decisions that see Australian servicemen and women serving overseas is not my concern. I only hope that their political masters have seen fit to allocate funds to resources that will best serve their needs.

I think he's taking the p1$$ mate. Also, the AWD destroyers were on the cards for the past 4-5 years, that particular project isn't anything new.

[JG66ME]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Vietnam war, one of the firebase sieges if I recall correctly.

Coral & Balmoral was the big one. In my view this was the best executed set piece battle the Aussies where involved in in that theater.


The Leopards we had where a real white elephant. Could not be deployed in any of the recent theaters unless you want to see them brew up.

One heavy tank regiment is not extravegant in my view. Our army is one of the best trained in the world but lacks hitting power. To much is placed on our special forces.

[IDT]

[QUOTE=JG66ME]Coral & Balmoral was the big one. In my view this was the best executed set piece battle the Aussies where involved in in that theater.
QUOTE]

Since when was Coral a set piece battle?

Australia needs more infantrymen kitted with the worlds best gear, provided the worlds best training and facilities and paid a hell of a lot more than they are. Not just when they are on active service.

There is only one truth in the military, you don't own it unless your standing on it.

But I am biased :

[J_Tank]

considering the difficulty we have in crewing the current submarine fleet some work will have to be done to keep the sardines happy! Looks reasonable, at leat we haven't bought any more Abrams tanks.... : although I struggle with the concept of a "new" chinook..

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by J_Tank

considering the difficulty we have in crewing the current submarine fleet some work will have to be done to keep the sardines happy! Looks reasonable, at leat we haven't bought any more Abrams tanks.... : although I struggle with the concept of a "new" chinook..

Whats so bad with the Abrams tanks? IMO They're one of the best tanks.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by Daymoe

Whats so bad with the Abrams tanks? IMO They're one of the best tanks.

The Abrams is a superb tank, but this comes at a price...

In the event the depleted uranium armour is penetrated, the crew (if they survive) have just inhaled deadly uranium 234 dust!

If you find this hard to believe, some light reading for you here... http://www.naturalnews.com/020978.html

And yes I know none of the Aussie spec Abrams are fitted with DU armour.... but this can change in the future.

The range is quoted as 465km which is not great, going by modern battle tank standards.

Also, the heat signature given off by the 1500hp gas turbine is seen as a battlefield negative.

In my opinion, the Leopard 2A6 is just as good as the Abrams with the added benefit of being able to operate the turret with the engine off!

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Bent8

The Abrams is a superb tank, but this comes at a price...

In the event the depleted uranium armour is penetrated, the crew (if they survive) have just inhaled deadly uranium 234 dust!

If you find this hard to believe, some light reading for you here... http://www.naturalnews.com/020978.html

And yes I know none of the Aussie spec Abrams are fitted with DU armour.... but this can change in the future.

The range is quoted as 465km which is not great, going by modern battle tank standards.

Also, the heat signature given off by the 1500hp gas turbine is seen as a battlefield negative.

In my opinion, the Leopard 2A6 is just as good as the Abrams with the added benefit of being able to operate the turret with the engine off!

Fair enough, but isn't depleted Uranium 238? I think they cost something like $4.3 Million USD each right? Thats one pretty expensive vehicle haha.

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by Bent8

The Abrams is a superb tank, but this comes at a price...

In the event the depleted uranium armour is penetrated, the crew (if they survive) have just inhaled deadly uranium 234 dust!

If you find this hard to believe, some light reading for you here... http://www.naturalnews.com/020978.html

And yes I know none of the Aussie spec Abrams are fitted with DU armour.... but this can change in the future.

The range is quoted as 465km which is not great, going by modern battle tank standards.

Also, the heat signature given off by the 1500hp gas turbine is seen as a battlefield negative.

In my opinion, the Leopard 2A6 is just as good as the Abrams with the added benefit of being able to operate the turret with the engine off!

You're an Idiot.

[GasoLane]

Hell yeah, spend up big. Who knows when new Zealand will invade!



Oh, hang on, they have.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Bent8

In my opinion, the Leopard 2A6 is just as good as the Abrams with the added benefit of being able to operate the turret with the engine off!

The 2A6 Sir is a Tier 1 MBT, built to destroy Russian MBT's on the Central Plains of Eastern Germany. No need for that here.

There was NEVER any requirement for the 2A6 with it's tank killing capacity (and it's huge cost) for the ADF when the project was put forward.

The Abrams AIM decision was made on the basis of inter operatibility with the US M1A1 / 2 and the 'el cheapo' price offered by the US.

I'm tipping Aussie tankers will crew US Abrams' on an overseas operation in the not to distant future.... a political decision.

Our tankers, their Abrams tanks on operation......

Leopards would have cost twice as much !!

In the end the decision came down to the Abrams OR the 2A4 variant from the Swiss (Pz 87), the cost was the clincher, as well as the political needs..

[J_Tank]

Originally Posted by Daymoe

Whats so bad with the Abrams tanks? IMO They're one of the best tanks.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with them... But when was the last time an Australian Main Battle Tank served overseas?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by J_Tank

There's nothing necessarily wrong with them... But when was the last time an Australian Main Battle Tank served overseas?

When was the last time our Navy was engaged in active battle in/defending Australian waters? let alone our army on our soil???? :

[J_Tank]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

When was the last time our Navy was engaged in active battle in/defending Australian waters? let alone our army on our soil???? :

I hardly see your point? Surely Our defence forces should be equipped with the tools to carry out the missions they are sent upon, and therefore our defence spending should reflect this? Whether or not the defence forces are defending Australian soil or fulfilling our treaty/political obligations overseas is irrelevant. My point was that Australian Tanks have not seen combat since Vietnam and none of our current defence obligations involve tanks. Whether you agree with the decisions that see Australian servicemen and women serving overseas is not my concern. I only hope that their political masters have seen fit to allocate funds to resources that will best serve their needs.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

When was the last time our Navy was engaged in active battle in/defending Australian waters? let alone our army on our soil???? :

There's some free target practise off the coast of WA towards Christmas Island I hear at the moment?

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

When was the last time our Navy was engaged in active battle in/defending Australian waters? let alone our army on our soil???? :

What that's ridiculous. In these times the future can be unpredictable, technology is getting dangerously too advanced we need to keep up.

[CPOCSM]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

When was the last time our Navy was engaged in active battle in/defending Australian waters? let alone our army on our soil???? :

We were attacked in 2004 by 3 suicide boats actually - and that was a major unit in it was an attack on a frigate by the dhows 4 Americans killed and 9 wounded plus approx 13 terrorists deceased.

2001 - Aussie navy ships shelled the Al Faw peninsula - called it 5 inch friday

Nah I dont think we have been involved in war-like situations :

Nuff said! :

[Yellow_Festiva]

If this saves us from all speaking Mandarin one day or worshiping a God that dictates what meat we can and can't eat I don't see a problem with protecting our shores.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Hey myts,

Some nice hardware there. Are the fuel tanks also protected? I would assume they were better mounted further within the chasis, not as exposed as they are?

[Daymoe]

Should make use of our Abrams tanks and send a few over into Afghanistan

[Gammaboy]

Being realistic, our airforce is massively outclassed by any of our potentially agressive neighbours - F111s and F/A-18s are really just expensive target practice.

But here's some comic relief.

Navy Rules for Gun Fighting

1. Adopt an aggressive offshore posture.
2. Drink Coffee and eat donuts.


Air Force Rules for Gun Fighting

1. Kiss the wife goodbye.
2. Drive to the base in your sports car.
3. Fly to target area, drop bombs, (try not to hit the Canuks) fly back to your home base.
4. BBQ some burgers and drink beer in your back yard, and talk about the Navy and Army.

[CPOCSM]

Originally Posted by Gammaboy

Being realistic, our airforce is massively outclassed by any of our potentially agressive neighbours - F111s and F/A-18s are really just expensive target practice.

Try hitting one when they are heavy inbound and at 40 feet off the water at 750++kts (that is supersonic and 12-15 miles a minute)- we dont see them on radar until 8 miles at that altitude - and by then it is too late. F-18s wont come below 1000ft ASL - poor training aids at best.

The first sniff we get of raid inbound is EW and a single scan of an attacking aircrafts fire control radar and that is probably about 1-2 seconds. Then we may get a paint as they pop up to launch the missile and then the missile itself we may not see until it turns on its terminal course and paints the ship - at 10 miles a minute we dont have a lot of time...

All well and good - we are off the coast sipping on our brews apparently :rolleyes: - choose your rate and choose your fate is all I can say- I chose Navy as I didnt want to carry my house on my back for my career...lol!!

In defence of the RAAF - they are pretty good pilots and can mix it with the best. Red Flag in the US is testament to that with aussies factoring in a lot of the kills in the exercise - consider also the Kiwi pilots in our old A4 Skyhawks - they were impossible to hit and even harder to hold a track on with radar!! Mad men and women (their senior pilot instructor was a woman who ran a mockery of our best efforts to get a tote on her...brilliant to watch and with no terrain following radar on the A$, skimming the wavetops at 30-40 feet ASL!!

If you are going to walk the walk..... :evil3:

Hooroo

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by CPOCSM

Try hitting one when they are heavy inbound and at 40 feet off the water at 750++kts (that is supersonic and 12-15 miles a minute)- we dont see them on radar until 8 miles at that altitude - and by then it is too late. F-18s wont come below 1000ft ASL - poor training aids at best.

The first sniff we get of raid inbound is EW and a single scan of an attacking aircrafts fire control radar and that is probably about 1-2 seconds. Then we may get a paint as they pop up to launch the missile and then the missile itself we may not see until it turns on its terminal course and paints the ship - at 10 miles a minute we dont have a lot of time...

Awful easy to spot with modern Look down/shoot down systems - Mighty big IR signature too.
Facing reality, our handfull of F111 and F/A-18s won't last 5 minutes against a numerically superior enemy equipped with much newer Russian equipment (Mig29/SU27etc). Wedgetail might make things a little better for us, but it's not far off trying to defend the Phillipines with P-40s...

If you're putting a fighter within 8 miles of a warship, you're doing it wrong :P

Originally Posted by CPOCSM

All well and good - we are off the coast sipping on our brews apparently :rolleyes: - choose your rate and choose your fate is all I can say- I chose Navy as I didnt want to carry my house on my back for my career...lol!!

In defence of the RAAF - they are pretty good pilots and can mix it with the best. Red Flag in the US is testament to that with aussies factoring in a lot of the kills in the exercise - consider also the Kiwi pilots in our old A4 Skyhawks - they were impossible to hit and even harder to hold a track on with radar!! Mad men and women (their senior pilot instructor was a woman who ran a mockery of our best efforts to get a tote on her...brilliant to watch and with no terrain following radar on the A$, skimming the wavetops at 30-40 feet ASL!!

If you are going to walk the walk..... :evil3:

Hooroo

Yeah, the Kiwis in the A4s used to be impressive when they had an airforce - but unless both sides are playing to Visual ID ROE, gunslingers like the old A4 won't know what hit them... In a way, the current combat model has returned to the Pre-vietnam era of missile only engagement - F22 and F35 are about spotting and engaging the enemy before they know whats hit them (which is why F35 is suck a high wingloading - kinda a modern F105 Thud). But of course, even though we're paying some of the development costs of F35, just like every other paying customer apart from USAF and USMC/USN, we get given a knobbled version of the system...



As for F14 - maintaining up time in the damn things would have sent the RAAF broke.

[ZA-289]

You blokes seem to know a hell of a lot more about the defence force than I do. Aside from that, I'm always happy to see money being spent on defence.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by ZA-289

You blokes seem to know a hell of a lot more about the defence force than I do. Aside from that, I'm always happy to see money being spent on defence.

Same here, although I'm the opposite on the spending.

I just can't see how Australia can defend itself - no matter how much we spend. With a population of ~20mil, even if every single able-bodied person were to enlist, we couldn't defend such a massive area from a sustained attack.

Maybe I'm missing something and someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Same here, although I'm the opposite on the spending.

I just can't see how Australia can defend itself - no matter how much we spend. With a population of ~20mil, even if every single able-bodied person were to enlist, we couldn't defend such a massive area from a sustained attack.

Maybe I'm missing something and someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me.

Its better having a chance than no chance at all and just bending over.

[Manix77]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

I just can't see how Australia can defend itself - no matter how much we spend. With a population of ~20mil, even if every single able-bodied person were to enlist, we couldn't defend such a massive area from a sustained attack.

Maybe I'm missing something and someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me.

Actually our geographic/strategic circumstances are the opposite. Defending mainland Australia is relatively easy. Anyone who's ever served/worked in northern Australia can tell you that the environment up there is our best defence. If an adversary landed in Darwin and tried to attack south they'd have huge land based supply lines along ONE ROAD! If they landed in a southern sea port they'd have huge sea/air based supply lines with plenty of opportunity for interdiction. That said if we don't have a reasonable military then we're vulnerable.

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Point taken, but you've gotta ask the question - why aren't there more MBT's in A-stan right now? Most if not all of the coalition members there have them in service but not in service in A-stan! I've seen pictures of Dutch tanks that are currently there (look funny covered in fabric and anti-rpg skirts all over them) but that is all.

Most of the troops in Afghanistan are special forces. Those nations that have conventional forces there like the Dutch and Canadians back them up with tanks (Leopard 2 in both cases). Given that the Taliban are now mobilising in larger organised groups (because they get trounced by small special forces patrols) I think you'll see more forces using heavy fighting vehicles, check this link out.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...tury__Feature_



regards

Manix

[Keepleft]

18Mb, Pdf. Read ladies. (You can save this).
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs...eport_2009.pdf

http://www.pacom.mil/

See also;-
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=53559