Defence Spending Increase - Page 3

Manix77 · 03-05-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 03-05-2009, 01:42 PM

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

Keepleft · 03-05-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Indonesia is also a worry.

Not concerned:-)

Pt1 - US/UK view only.

Pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOkm...eature=related

Pt3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0b4U...eature=related

Spec Ops:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhN7f...eature=related

Ditto - 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUEl2...eature=related

Gammaboy · 03-05-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPOCSM

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.

They're tungsten. I have one on my desk.

atec77 · 03-05-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Another idiot idea , those of us old enough to remember a red under every bed realise how stupid such spending is from a govco which certainly is close to being tossed out . Being so far from the rest of the world we have little to fear that sinking a few junks wont fix and one doesn't need anything more than a gun barge to do that .

atec77 · 03-05-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

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.

Correct , we have fewer defense personal than many yank cites cops , Au is with this coastline basically indefensible with our budget bwyond a mild resistance with so few gus in the private sector

Road_Warrior · 03-05-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 ;)

Exactly. Also:

Not too many places an MBT can hide there, especially in relation to the 2nd pic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPOCSM

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

Not doubting you at all, but what I was saying is that the JSF/F35 variants that we have already committed to buy, are NOT the STOVL/VTOL version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atec77

Correct , we have fewer defense personal than many yank cites cops , Au is with this coastline basically indefensible with our budget bwyond a mild resistance with so few gus in the private sector

Huh? Unless it's the US or China trying to invade us we have the capacity right now to send any potential aggressor packing.

**Fordman1** · 03-05-2009, 09:32 PM

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!

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..

Manix77 · 03-05-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Exactly. Also:

Not too many places an MBT can hide there, especially in relation to the 2nd pic.

The ground in the first pick will restrict speed but I'd be happy to take a tank troop into the terrain in either photo against any of the threats in that region. There are plenty of undulations to hide in, in fact, the second photo is not unlike parts of Puckapunyal range where Australian tank crews train.

Remember that the terrain you have to negotiate is the same as the bad guys. Imagine being chased down by a troop of tanks in that country, where would the bad guys hide?!?

It may be stating the obvious, but an MBT will last significantly longer in this environment than a bloke wearing just body armour! Not to mention the fact that the tank crew will be able to see and accurately engage targets well out to 3km +.

Road_Warrior · 03-05-2009, 09:53 PM

Problem is Manix, the bad guys in this place don't fight like 'normal' bad guys. They use unconventional tactics because they are, in essence and their very nature, unconventional. Makes it very dangerous ground for MBT crews. Not to mention anyone who is deployed there. That's just my view however.

Manix77 · 03-05-2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Problem is Manix, the bad guys in this place don't fight like 'normal' bad guys. They use unconventional tactics because they are, in essence and their very nature, unconventional. Makes it very dangerous ground for MBT crews. Not to mention anyone who is deployed there. That's just my view however.

G'Day Road Warrior

They're exactly the bad guys I'm thinking off.

Rob · 04-05-2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Problem is Manix, the bad guys in this place don't fight like 'normal' bad guys. They use unconventional tactics because they are, in essence and their very nature, unconventional. Makes it very dangerous ground for MBT crews. Not to mention anyone who is deployed there. That's just my view however.

I agree with this post - it's not waves of Russian/Chinese infantry/AFVs that MBT's will encounter, it's a 2-3 man group with an RPG-7/LAW type weapons, who are indistinguishable from civilians.

Also, the current conflicts are centered around built up urban areas, where, as WW2 experience shows us, tanks are very vulnerable.

The Israelis have some interesting & useful ideas regarding AFV design whcih have not been adopted by the rest of the world; the Merkava has it's engine and gearbox mounted forward, idea being to protect the crew above all else. They're also fitted with internally loaded 60mm mortars for anti-personnel use, to save firing the 120mm unnecessarily. That is the sort of thing needed in Afghanistan/Iraq, not APFSDS DU penetrators with prodigious range.

**Fordman1** · 04-05-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

I agree with this post - it's not waves of Russian/Chinese infantry/AFVs that MBT's will encounter, it's a 2-3 man group with an RPG-7/LAW type weapons, who are indistinguishable from civilians.

Also, the current conflicts are centered around built up urban areas, where, as WW2 experience shows us, tanks are very vulnerable.

The Israelis have some interesting & useful ideas regarding AFV design whcih have not been adopted by the rest of the world; the Merkava has it's engine and gearbox mounted forward, idea being to protect the crew above all else. They're also fitted with internally loaded 60mm mortars for anti-personnel use, to save firing the 120mm unnecessarily. That is the sort of thing needed in Afghanistan/Iraq, not APFSDS DU penetrators with prodigious range.

The Abrams has an Urban upgrade called TUSK.

I hear the ADF has been "playing around" with some of these features on a couple of the tanks we have.

XWGT · 04-05-2009, 09:29 AM

[QUOTE=4Vman] and how is our navy relevant? QUOTE]

Its relevant because the modern submarine is considered the most potent weapon of any nations entire military inventory with the ability to remain completely undetected, gather and intercept intelligence, strike land tartgets with everything up to and including nuclear weapons, engage and destroy all water based craft including aircraft carriers and the ability to ensure an enemies fleet, even up to a battle fleet, will not enter waters where they cannot be absolutley certain there is no enemy submarine presence. i.e you own the water.

I know their not as sexy as JSF35 strike fighters etc, but the bottom line is a modern submarine is the most powerful force on earth at the moment. Having 12 of them if they can be fully crewed would certainly provide a massive deterant to any opposition both at home and abroad.

GT69 · 04-05-2009, 09:31 AM

Comment re aussie tank crews in yank abrams.

This could well be true as the arty boys do that with the british

Road_Warrior · 04-05-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

I agree with this post - it's not waves of Russian/Chinese infantry/AFVs that MBT's will encounter, it's a 2-3 man group with an RPG-7/LAW type weapons, who are indistinguishable from civilians.

Also, the current conflicts are centered around built up urban areas, where, as WW2 experience shows us, tanks are very vulnerable.

The Israelis have some interesting & useful ideas regarding AFV design whcih have not been adopted by the rest of the world; the Merkava has it's engine and gearbox mounted forward, idea being to protect the crew above all else. They're also fitted with internally loaded 60mm mortars for anti-personnel use, to save firing the 120mm unnecessarily. That is the sort of thing needed in Afghanistan/Iraq, not APFSDS DU penetrators with prodigious range.

Actually, the seppos put the Abrams tanks to rather good use in urban warfare during the peak of the insurgency in Iraq - battle of Fallujah if I recall. Made quite an effective 'strike team' in conjunction with a platoon of Marines to crack hard targets or buildings/areas in the city that were occupied by the insurgents that were in strategic locations that would have otherwise impeded progress. And in the alleyway slums that the bloodiest fighting was, it was simply too tight for a CAS helicopter to even get a lead on a target, let alone see one. Tight as well for a tank the size of the Abrams, but hey, that's what you've got a big gun for!!

Caption reads:

Quote:

A US Marine Corps (USMC) Marine M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT), 2nd Tank Battalion (BN), fires it main gun into a building to provide suppressive counter fire against insurgents who fired on other USMC Marines during a fire fight in Fallujah, Al Anbar Province, Iraq. These Marines are participating in Operation AL FAJR, which is an offensive operation conducted against Iraqi insurgent forces as part of a Security and Stabilization Operation (SASO) carried out during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. (Released to Public)

But I agree with you, the Merkava is an excellent, innovative machine that should have been considered. They can act as a quasi-APC as well - there is a rear scuttle access to the cabin of the tank with room for 4 soldiers and all their gear (in addition to the crew!)

**Fordman1** · 04-05-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

But I agree with you, the Merkava is an excellent, innovative machine that should have been considered. They can act as a quasi-APC as well - there is a rear scuttle access to the cabin of the tank with room for 4 soldiers and all their gear (in addition to the crew!)

The Merkava was never considered.

Too expensive, a low volume machine with no chance or inter operability.

The only two options that were seriously considered were:

Abrams AIM
Leopard

NB: Chally 2 was too expensive also.

The AIM was bought for peanuts in the overall scheme of things.

Back on topic, the Subs are a good choice, hopefully they're not a Collins Class debacle.

The JSF is great, but F22's would be the best choice if available.

Rob · 04-05-2009, 12:20 PM

RW - That's an awesome photo!

One thing to consider is the cost of a 120mm round vs a 60mm mortar round - obviously you'd rather expend mortar rounds before using the main gun. Still, the gun has a fair psychological impact!

Barraxr8 - do you know if the Leclerc was in the running? I'd have thought it would be attractive with the autoloader, given our personnel shortages. Not tested in combat though, which would count against it.

Re: the JSF, it'd want to be superior to SU-27/variants, otherwise the F22 may have been the wiser choice.

SB076 · 04-05-2009, 12:39 PM

I tend to disagree with most government decisions but I must say I agree with increasing spending on defence. If you are going to put members of the ADF in harms way to protect the country then they better have the best equipment money can buy. You never know what might happen, not many people have successfully predicted wars and its in our interests to be prepared as best we can (even as others have stated if our chances are slim - Australia has proved in the past that our forces have performed very well especially when our chances have been consider slim)

**Fordman1** · 04-05-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

Barraxr8 - do you know if the Leclerc was in the running? I'd have thought it would be attractive with the autoloader, given our personnel shortages. Not tested in combat though, which would count against it.

Hi Rob.

LeClerec wasn't considered.

Auto loading is a bit of a 'w%nk" coming from my tanker mates.

A Russian T-90 or T-80 with autoloading can't outshoot a M1A2 Sep.....

I have the Auditor General's report on the Abrams Acquisition in front of me.
A great reference. Try to google it !

There were 3 options:

Leopard 2 and variants
Abrams
Challenger 2

It all boiled down to interoperability, price, and Tier 1 capability not being required.

Leopards would have been awesome, but cost ruled them out. That, and the political decision on inter-operability with the US armed forces.

**Fordman1** · 04-05-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB076

I tend to disagree with most government decisions but I must say I agree with increasing spending on defence. If you are going to put members of the ADF in harms way to protect the country then they better have the best equipment money can buy. You never know what might happen, not many people have successfully predicted wars and its in our interests to be prepared as best we can (even as others have stated if our chances are slim - Australia has proved in the past that our forces have performed very well especially when our chances have been consider slim)

Agree.

Our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, etc, in the ADF deserve the best money can buy to do their job !!

SB076 · 04-05-2009, 01:07 PM

Interesting a few people think tanks will not be a great investment. I disagree although wars will be fought around cities, if their are wars (shudder) they wont be for citiies, they will be for resources.

I would have liked to see Oz get F-22's but it will be interesting to see what spec's or just how good the F-35's are. I am hoping some of the technology of the F-22 carries over or is even improved for the F-35. I think the subs are great (provided we can crew them) and would be a massive deterent. Things like Wedgetail (AWACS) are great. But I will leave it for the experts as to how and where they spend the $$$.

Its interesting to note that history has show than when times get tough (economically) sometimes it preceeds military action. I think its smart to be prepared.

**Fordman1** · 04-05-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB076

Interesting a few people think tanks will not be a great investment. I disagree although wars will be fought around cities, if their are wars (shudder) they wont be for citiies, they will be for resources.

The investment has been made and the Abrams are here.

The White paper 2030 scopes the replacement of the ASLAV and infantry support vehicles.

The ASLAV is sweet !!!

It'll be interesting to see what the next MTB will be - if any.....

Rob · 04-05-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Hi Rob.

LeClerec wasn't considered.

Auto loading is a bit of a 'w%nk" coming from my tanker mates.

A Russian T-90 or T-80 with autoloading can't outshoot a M1A2 Sep.....

Thanks for that.

I've read a lot of reports regarding the complexity and malfunctions with Russian autoloaders - apparently the Leclerc's turret was designed around the autoloader. Once it's loaded though, and I think it's 18 rounds per cycle, the rounds can't be swapped - ie AP for HEAT. Bit of a drawback there.

I must try to find that report..

pottsy44 · 04-05-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

omg haha is that an esky??

"hey boys, anyone want a beer?"
"yes please! watch your head though."

**Fordman1** · 04-05-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottsy44

omg haha is that an esky??

"hey boys, anyone want a beer?"
"yes please! watch your head though."

You'd be surprised by the stowage that some AFVs carry.

Eskys are the least of them

SB076 · 04-05-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

The investment has been made and the Abrams are here.

The White paper 2030 scopes the replacement of the ASLAV and infantry support vehicles.

The ASLAV is sweet !!!

It'll be interesting to see what the next MTB will be - if any.....

I passed the Abrams on the way to Puckapunyal they were being transported on large drop deck trailers - they are massive. I like the ASLAV's (especially with the different variants) How do they go against RPG's (I saw one kitted out with mesh around it which I presume was to protect against RPG's)

Road_Warrior · 04-05-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottsy44

omg haha is that an esky??

"hey boys, anyone want a beer?"
"yes please! watch your head though."

Heh, yeah that's not the first pic I've seen of an Abrams in action that's been packin' one or two eskies on the turret bustle.

And yeah, a lot of AFV's will have grille/slat type structures around them to decapitate the warhead of an RPG if used against the vehicle. Lots of pics floating around of US Army 'Stryker' AFV's in Irakk with these, as well as pommy Challenger tanks. Got an idea the ASLAV's in Iraq had them mounted too but I can't say for sure.

The idea isnt new though - in the last stages of WW2 in Europe the advancing Red Army tank brigades fitted bed frames to their tanks to decap the warheads of the German Panzerfaust anti tank rocket which was in widespread use in and around Berlin in the lead up to the German surrender.

The TUSK upgrade for the Abrams has this slat/grille thing at the rear protecting it's engine compartment as during the Iraq war some RPG-toting clowns got some lucky shots in against the rear/heat exchanger of the tank, which penetrated the engine compartment and disabled the tank.

pottsy44 · 04-05-2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Heh, yeah that's not the first pic I've seen of an Abrams in action that's been packin' one or two eskies on the turret bustle.

it just looks so out of place there, considering the rest of the boxes/containers are in the racking bit at the end. and while everything is shades of green and brown the esky is BLUE haha!!

**Fordman1** · 04-05-2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB076

I passed the Abrams on the way to Puckapunyal they were being transported on large drop deck trailers - they are massive. I like the ASLAV's (especially with the different variants) How do they go against RPG's (I saw one kitted out with mesh around it which I presume was to protect against RPG's)

ASLAV's have been fitted with anti RPG slatted armour.

Here's a good pic:

Both the Gun (25mm) and the APC Versions have the ability to fit the Slat Armor.

Our Boys have some good equipment over there. We don't see much of it on the news.

Over the next couple of decades they deserve the best available...