Defence Spending Increase

GTPete · 01-05-2009, 07:18 PM

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 · 01-05-2009, 07:29 PM

Im speechless......

J_Tank · 01-05-2009, 07:31 PM

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 · 01-05-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-05-2009, 08:17 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-05-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

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.

J_Tank · 01-05-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-05-2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

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????

:

Yellow_Festiva · 01-05-2009, 08:51 PM

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.

J_Tank · 01-05-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

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.

Gammaboy · 01-05-2009, 09:00 PM

Quote:

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** · 01-05-2009, 09:03 PM

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

Oh, hang on, they have.

**Elks** · 01-05-2009, 09:06 PM

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

Road_Warrior · 01-05-2009, 09:19 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Yellow_Festiva · 01-05-2009, 09:21 PM

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?

4Vman · 01-05-2009, 09:22 PM

Quote:

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.

Absolutely.. i've got no issue ensuring our serving troops have the latest and best equipment. But equally what are our greatest threats on home soil?, and how is our navy relevant? The Airforce and Army would be our greatest military assets...

Daymoe · 01-05-2009, 09:36 PM

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

JG66ME · 01-05-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

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.

JG66ME · 01-05-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Absolutely.. i've got no issue ensuring our serving troops have the latest and best equipment. But equally what are our greatest threats on home soil?, and how is our navy relevant? The Airforce and Army would be our greatest military assets...

To project power you need a good Navy.

4Vman · 01-05-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG66ME

To project power you need a good Navy.

We already have one: the US Navy.....

Yellow_Festiva · 01-05-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

We already have one: the US Navy.....

True.. but the question is for how long?

JG66ME · 01-05-2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

True.. but the question is for how long?

Well that is a point. How much longer can the US maintain 12 Nimitz size carriers?

4Vman · 01-05-2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

True.. but the question is for how long?

"IF" and that's a huge "IF" anyone ever tried to invade us our Airforce would be the first and most effective defense... We spend a sheetload of money on equipment that is used elsewhere and will never see active duty here (why is a separate debate). Im not sure how or why the navy needs bolstering over the AF or Army.....

mowog · 01-05-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Absolutely.. i've got no issue ensuring our serving troops have the latest and best equipment. But equally what are our greatest threats on home soil?, and how is our navy relevant? The Airforce and Army would be our greatest military assets...

The more modern way to look at things is as the ADF all arms of the service compliment each other. All are dependent on each other.

The Chinook one is a surprise. I spent many years on Helicopters both Chinook and Iroquois and the Caribou in the RAAF and for years they have been looking for a Caribou replacement. The Chinook is an incredibly complex aircraft that is expensive to fly and maintain. Add to that the fact that they will be Army aircraft and not Airforce. Army are still having issues being the owners of the battle Field Helicopters. Army has never been able to manage the fleet effectively the main reason behind this is the grunt first techo second attitude of the Army.

By sounds of it many of you live in a strange world of who think is a threat to Australia. Trust me you don't have to look very far to the North to see who is our main threat. We have had an undeclared war with this country to think it cant happen again is naive.

Only a generation ago we were running covert ops against them. Consider also how close we came during Timor.

The single biggest surprise is this spending is coming from a Labour Govt.

Road_Warrior · 01-05-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daymoe

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

Why? It's not like there are enemy MBT's to fight, and they'd be pretty much useless on much of the mountainous terrain there. Most if not all of the heavy hitting gunfire support that is needed is provided using man portable weapons and through close air support (of which there is definitely no shortage). What limited role there is for a battle tank in A-stan is already occupied by NATO tanks (Dutch if I recall).

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Yes the Coral firebase battle was pretty epic - the stuff movies are made of. I think the Leopard would have served it's purpose well, as I recall the Army had a Sabre squadron ready to roll during Op Stabilise in the (unlikely) event the militia and the Indonesian Army got their collective acts together. I think they would have done a reasonable job. It wasnt until the Iraq war when some more sophisticated anti-armour RPG's started getting used against coalition tanks that the defence chiefs back here started worrying and wringing their hands about a tank replacement.

Even though there were documented instances of Abrams getting knocked out by anti-armour RPG7's in Iraq, the difference is that the tank only got put out of action, whereas if it were a Leopard in the same situation, the end result would be some dead crewmen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

"IF" and that's a huge "IF" anyone ever tried to invade us our Airforce would be the first and most effective defense... We spend a sheetload of money on equipment that is used elsewhere and will never see active duty here (why is a separate debate). Im not sure how or why the navy needs bolstering over the AF or Army.....

Because the Navy has significant capability gaps. Those gaps are getting smaller but they're still there. The Navy and RAAF are co-dependent as our first line of defence. One can't do the job without the other.

rodderz · 01-05-2009, 10:29 PM

Quote:

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?

**GasoLane** · 01-05-2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodderz

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

I thought that was just a misquoted fire sale

IDT · 02-05-2009, 12:31 AM

[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

:

JG66ME · 02-05-2009, 01:28 AM

[QUOTE=WAForce8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coral-Balmoral

Since June 1968

My understanding of a "Set Piece Battle" is where both sides move about on a battle field.

They didn't hang about in the FSB. NVA attacked the base. Aussies moved out and attacked NVA with armour supported by infantry. If they had just established the FSB and defended it then it wouldn't be a set piece.

The battle included use of Armour (heavy) and Cavalry, Infantry and Artillery.

The Centurion tanks of C Squadron where not used as self propelled artillery. The moved about the battlefield.

Happy to be proved wrong in my assumption.

You have to agree it was a great outcome.

Oh and I agree with all your other points. I take your an infantry man?

Steve

Another battle with Australian tanks in Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Binh_Ba

DoreSlamR · 02-05-2009, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

"IF" and that's a huge "IF" anyone ever tried to invade us our Airforce would be the first and most effective defense... We spend a sheetload of money on equipment that is used elsewhere and will never see active duty here (why is a separate debate). Im not sure how or why the navy needs bolstering over the AF or Army.....

I think it has something to do with the recent increase of China's naval fleet.

12 subs and 8 sub hunting frigates is also a big clue to this as well.

As for the air force, the 100 JSF F35's are a welcome inclusion, as much as we all love the F111's they are too old.

Havign said that, it might be prudent if they keep a squad or two for any longer range missions that the F111 does so well.