Defence Spending Increase

[JG66ME]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

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.

I think you are 100% correct. Also I think that we are finally waking up to the fact that the US may decline in power in the next 20 years and we are going to have to stand on our own feet.

I think we could do with a couple of light carriers (Invincible size) to give CAP to the fleet as well as air support to Infantry in the battle field when they are operating in areas far from RAAF land bases. I think the Fleet Air Arm should get its teeth back. Not sure if the 2 proposed flat tops are capable of operating STOVL aircraft.

[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.

[MethodX]

Whats happening with the F35 JSF?
Is it still behind schedule and not meeting expectations?

Would it have been worth considering planes from other countries?

[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! :

[CPOCSM]

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.....

4V - this is just the stuff that makes each of the services hate each other. True we have to rely on the Army and RAAF IF they (whomever they may be) invade. Think about what the navy has been used for in battles past - we SUPPORT the other services as each of the services support us (yes I am still a serving member and a senior sailor with conflict experience!! I also have served in the Army so I am justified in both to comment on).

I would suggest visiting the ADF Warfare Centes' website and have a look at what we actually do and the tactics/doctorine we use - not what the general public perceive us to be doing. Party line is we are but instruments in the serving governments policy - it isnt a democracy with serving in the ADF!

Bring on the "discussion"

Hooroo

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

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.

China is our biggest threat. We have what they want / need, simple as that.

They have been recently trying to buy their way into our country and I fear that some day they will stop being nice to us and just come by force.

Indonesia is also a worry. While I agree that more planes are good to have, in the event of an emergency neighbouring friendly countries can supply air support within a matter of hours, on the other hand naval support needs to be here and now.

This debate has a lot of crystal ball gazing and even more 'what if's'..

From NineMSN news:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=808774

New challenges spark defence shakeup
00:02 AEST Sat May 2 2009
10 hours 18 minutes ago
By Kate Hannon, National Political Editor

The growth of terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a global economic realignment have led to a major reshaping of Australia's defence needs over the next 20 years, according to a new Defence White Paper.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will release the paper at Garden Island navy base in Sydney on Saturday, unveiling a major expansion of Australia's maritime capability and an overhaul of the defence force.

Commissioned by the government early last year, the 140-page white paper is the first produced in nine years, and the first since the September 2001 terror attacks and allied involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030" details defence and strategic planning and signals what it calls a major new direction aimed at building a "heavier" naval, air combat and logistics capability in the Asia Pacific.

For the first time, the government will invest in "cyber warfare" including the establishment of a Cyber Security Operations Centre within the secretive Defence Signals Directorate which will monitor threats to critical infrastructure.

It said its capabilities, while highly classified, will assist responses to "cyber incidents across government and critical private sector systems and infrastructure".

The paper examines the economic emergence of China and India and notes that China will play an increasingly important role globally, warning that management of its relations with the United States will be crucial.

It says China will be Asia's strongest military power "by a considerable margin" and that the pace and scope of its growth has the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern if not properly explained.

Australia was in a key position to develop a closer defence relationship with China because "China is critical to stability in northeast Asia and the wider region".

"Greater engagement is essential to encourage transparency about Chinese military capabilities and intentions, understand each other's approaches and secure greater co-operation in areas of share interest," the paper says.

In his foreword to the paper, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said the world had changed significantly since 2000 with increased threat of terrorism and cyber warfare.

But the biggest change has been the emergence of China and India and the beginning of the end of the dominance for almost the past 20 years of the United States, Mr Fitzgibbon said.

While Defence will benefit from a massive spending spree on military hardware, the government will require it to embark on its own massive overhaul - a Strategic Reform Program - to find $20 billion in savings which will be reinvested in increased capability.

In the hardware expansion, which has been estimated by some commentators as likely to cost around $100 billion, the government will replace its fleet of six Collins Class submarines with 12 new subs.

It will buy as a matter of urgency 24 new naval combat helicopters, a fleet of eight new Future Frigates to replace the smaller Anzac Frigates, and it will purchase 20 new single class vessels to replace patrol boats, mine sweepers, hydrographic and oceanographic naval ships.

The army will receive 1,100 armoured vehicles and land forces will be based around three combat brigades of about 4,000 troops each.

The paper said the army would be able to combine its combat and combat support units to generate 10 battalion-sized "battlegroups" tailored for a wide range of operations.

A Force Command will be set up in Sydney which will take care of all training to provide troops ready for operations and logistics organisation including a helicopter brigade.

The paper calls for an increase in the full-time military forces to 57,800 personnel, up from its current 53,100.

It acknowledges Australia's continued involvement in Afghanistan which will increase in the next few months from 1,100 troops to 1,550 and the need to respond in emergencies as well as peacekeeping commitments and other contingencies.

The government is committed to three per cent real growth in the Defence budget to 2017-18 and then 2.2 per cent real growth from 2018-19 to 2030.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by CPOCSM

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

Aah yes, the infamous five inch Friday. Epic stuff. Bet you guys thought twice about using those poxy aluminium-cased shells from the Americans after that little skirmish. Caused lots of problems with the gun I'm told.

Back on topic, as has been mentioned above, it would seem that the government (NOT Defence, just so we're clear on that) is finally waking up to the rise of China and the probable decline of the US over the next 30 years. There is going to be a significant power shift (in terms of economics and military strength) from the West to the East in this period. Having a sometimes belligerent Communist state with that sort of power in our region may not necessarily be a good thing (although some would argue the US has been little different over the past 10 years). This power shift is going to cause friction between the US and China as China seeks to exert it's growing power in the region, while the US seeks to contain it.

This obviously has ramifications for us as we are smack bang in the region, and are dependent on both parties as trading partners. China is also dependent on our raw materials. This could be an issue in the future. This is why we need to be, in my view, a 'muscular regional power' so if the Commies tried anything funny, we could break an arm and give them a bloody nose and send them packing. I don't think we need an aircraft carrier though, and I believe the JSF/F35 purchase is flawed. We should never have gotten involved in it.

But it's not all about China. There are other possible flashpoints in our region that we shouldn't ignore either. But the biggest problem facing Defence over the next decade isn't what ships or planes to get, or which country to ally ourselves with, it's recruitment and retention. All that fancy military hardware will be useless in a shooting war without people to operate it.

[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

[vxssm6]

Originally Posted by CPOCSM

..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..

Was going to remind 4Vman of the same thing. Some people either have very short memories, or a quick to criticise things they don't understand. :

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by rodderz

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

Seems their transport sometimes helps us out though :

[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.

[nb_351]

why cant they update the ageing army vehicles i work on everyday...
the macks and the unimogs from the early 80s, and the rovers.. apparently theyre the first thing getting changed over by 2012 or something i heard at work the other day...
maybe they should throw the macks in for those MAN APCs...
i had to tow a trailer yesterday that was dated from 1966...

[bd737]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Whats happening with the F35 JSF?
Is it still behind schedule and not meeting expectations?

Would it have been worth considering planes from other countries?

Why don't we consider the Russian equivalent, the SU35? Slightly cheaper, dual engined and will achieve the same thing. Of course we wouldn't like to upset our American friends though by doing that

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by nb_351

why cant they update the ageing army vehicles i work on everyday...
the macks and the unimogs from the early 80s, and the rovers.. apparently theyre the first thing getting changed over by 2012 or something i heard at work the other day...
maybe they should throw the macks in for those MAN APCs...
i had to tow a trailer yesterday that was dated from 1966...

Apart from being old, what's wrong with them? Incidentally, having just flicked through the White Paper I can tell you that there is a program in play to replace the Army's wheeled vehicle fleet (everything) with around 7000 new ones. I think Pinzgauer might get the nod for the Unimog replacement? Not sure. Expect the Landrovers to go eventually as well.

Originally Posted by bd737

Why don't we consider the Russian equivalent, the SU35? Slightly cheaper, dual engined and will achieve the same thing. Of course we wouldn't like to upset our American friends though by doing that

An old generation airframe that has no industry support here for it's engines and avionics, that aircrews have no skill base with and that can't accept our US-sourced munitions, for something that probably still won't do the job better than any 5th-gen jet fighter. They look cool, but looks alone don't get the job done.

If I had had a blank cheque back in the early 1980's when the ADF was going through the hoops with the Mirage replacement, I wouldnt have looked twice at the Hornet. I would have walked straight up to Grumman and said "give me 100 of them there F14's please". The combination of the F14's range, the AIM54 Phoenix missile and the F14's powerful combat system would have made it a brilliant choice for our wide open spaces.

[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.

[envyyvne]

To the person who asked before if the new LHDs the navy is getting can support VTOL, im sure (thou not 100%) that they can.
VTOL F35 would be a nice lil addition to those.

I find it interesting that atm we have ordered 78 F35's to replace the hornets, with the option of another 22 to replace the super hornets when there time is up.
22 F22's would be a much nicer replacement, after all the US secertry of defence has been quoted saying he dosnt have a problem with australia aquiring them, congress just have to change the law preventing there export ;)

[Wally]

CPOCSM what's your wish list?

[Elks]

Originally Posted by nb_351

maybe they should throw the macks in for those MAN APCs...

As Road_Warrior notes. the ADF has let a tender for some 7000 vehicles to be replaced. Those MAN's and the several others we have have hanging around are evaluation vehicles. I believe they are now at the short listing stage, the MAN are the std NATO spec items.

Not being a military man, I don't understand why, other than (some very proud) history, we still have the 3 branches and don't just have one entity called the Australian Defence Force or whatever. They all seem to work in as they must.

Another thought is as the F1-11 is so effective, but old, why don't we commission a modern version of the same?

Lastly beefing up the ADF is a much better idea than another stimulus cabbage payment so every one can buy a new ipod. This is also a requirement as medium term the USA (Receivers and Managers Appointed) may not have the ability to run the big brother defence role we are used to it playing.

[Rooster]

http://www.australia.to/index.php?op...r&catid=70:war


Defence White Paper, should answer most questions.

If there is any more doubts, ask the Dutch Army or U.S. Delta Force for references. Relax, we're doing ok.

[Manix77]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

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).

Went to a briefing in an allied country (to remain nameless) where they said they were getting rid of their tank fleet because they were only going to engage in low and mid intensity conflict. Try telling an infantry section commander that the machine gun cutting his troops up is only firing "low intensity" bullets! We need tanks and fighting vehicles anywhere our guys are likely to be shot at (always take a gun to a knife fight!). You'll find that most of the fighting in Afghanistan occurs in country where you can easily maneuver tanks. You'll also find that tanks can get to most places where there's likely to be a fire fight.

Incidentally the above mentioned country has since reversed that decision, bought a fleet of current generation tanks and is using them on operations right now. Ask any infantryman if he'd rather go into a fire fight with or without tank support and I can be confident his answer will be "give me the tanks"!

As for the wisdom of the Abrahms purchase, I think it was a good decision and, yes, we should be using them in Afghanistan right now. Some may argue that Leopard 2 is better, possibly, but the difference is marginal where as the price difference was not.

As for the white paper and proposed Navy build up, I think it's ambitious and likely to be unachievable in dollar and manning terms. I also question the logic of building a Navy while our Army continues to bare the greatest burden. I agree there needs to be balance and consideration of longer term strategic aims but on the whole I believe that Army should be Priority 1.

My 20c worth

regards

Manix

[Hardtopxb]

Just a matter of interest, australia will NOT use DU shells in our M1 tanks. We will be using HM114HVAP ammo..

[CPOCSM]

Originally Posted by Wally

CPOCSM what's your wish list?

The F35 is a gap-fill at best as there isnt a lot included in the package and the manufacturer has admitted that there will be some stuff not included. Personally the F35 is a poor choice as it is a knee-jerk by the government to replacing the ageing F-111.

Personally I would have liked the F-22 raptor however the US hasn't signed off on the bi-lateral agreement in which we can share in the technology associated with the F-22 - in short the yanks will not sell it to anyone without Congress' blessing - apparently we aren't blessed!!

The destroyers we are getting are ok but I do agree with theAbrahms - they are a good choice.

As for DU ammo - we have not used it since 1992with the last weapon in the navy to use it being the 20mm CIWS Phalanx system for AAW (anti air warfare for those who no abla...) - however we still have to clean up the discarded sabot from the flight deck (on the FFG's anyhow!!). The rounds now use tungsten and/or cobalt in the projectiles so still pretty lethal.

Not an exhaustibe list so will add some more when I think of it.

Hooroo

[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.

[Road_Warrior]

Yes, we know now that F14's were maintenance whores by today's standards, but back then...we didn't.

Whilst it would be great to see F22's in Aussie service, I doubt the US Congress would approve such a sale. Because if we get them, then the Japanese would want them. Then the South Koreans, and then Israel. With all those end-users of such a sensitive piece of equipment, some secret tech is bound to end up in the wrong hands. Yes Israel, I'm looking at you.

Oh and while the proposed LHD's may be able to support STOVL aircraft like the STOVL F35, the variant that we are getting is not the STOVL version.

Personally I would have liked to have seen a Eurofighter in RAAF colours...

Originally Posted by Manix77

Stuff about battle tanks

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.

[GT69]

Road warrior, i believe the terrain in which the fighting is being done is mountainous where a MBT isnt required, look what happened to Russia when it had mechanised divisions is A-Stan ;)

[GT69]

Not to start the navy v air force v army arguement.

In WWII Great Britian had the largest Navy, Yet only exists today because of fighter command ;)

I also would like to see the eurofighter optioned.

[Cobra]

At least all this defence spending will boost the SA economy and employment prospects slightly...

[CPOCSM]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yes, we know now that F14's were maintenance whores by today's standards, but back then...we didn't.

Oh and while the proposed LHD's may be able to support STOVL aircraft like the STOVL F35, the variant that we are getting is not the STOVL version.

.

The decks will be rated to VTOL to be able to support other navy/air forces aircraft - the steel is the same as what the Nimitz although not quite as thick. HR30 is its designation I think. It is the same stuff we build our hulls out of.

Hooroo