NationStates Jolt Archive

For the first time in over a decade Australia's percentage of GDP spent on the millitary has increased to two percent.

In actual AUD that was an increase from $20 billion to $22 billion.

Discuss.

Not exactly a huge increase by the looks of it.

Spending that little on your military, no wonder you're getting invaded every five minutes!

Build More Tanks!

It is if you ask me....

It is if you ask me....

Is it really, though? Might buy a plane or two, I suppose.

Spending that little on your military, no wonder you're getting invaded every five minutes!

*Points at politicians & millitary generals getting twitchy when looking at Indonesia*

Build More Tanks!

Actually we bought some M1(not sure if it was A1s or A2s) off U.S.A a while ago.

Is it really, though? Might buy a plane or two, I suppose.

We are going to buy 2.9 billion (with total cost over 10 years being 6 billion) AuD worth of F18 super hornets (24 of them) from the U.S navy.

Then we are going to most likely buy about 100 F35s when they are available.

Of course the tanks probably would have been better if we had gotten a cheaper new tank from Europe (A Russian tank definately would have been cheaper but there is a much greater difference between Russian and U.S tech than U.S and European tech is).

The planes are unneeded as having the old F111s for another 5 or six years is not the end of the world and the F35 doesn't seem to be such a great plane that you can just replace the entire fighter/bomber/fighter-bomber/strike planes.

Sadly we can't say the same about the US. Top 2005 military budgets by spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwide_military_spending_2005_%28horizontal%29.svg

Remember...Walk softly, carry a big stick.

Unless you are a red blooded American, then you walk kinda soft and carry a M2 .50 cal machine gun, or maybe the good ol' M240B! Hooah!

:sniper: :mp5:

Remember...Walk softly, carry a big stick.

Unless you are a red blooded American, then you walk kinda soft and carry a M2 .50 cal machine gun, or maybe the good ol' M240B! Hooah!

:sniper: :mp5:

All i can say to you is this:

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/975/bunnyxg8.png

All i can say to you is this:

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/975/bunnyxg8.png

That pancake looks strangely like a red pepper.

Great. Maybe now they can hire some psychologists to rework the training and help reshape the organisational culture in the military. At the moment, it's mainly drunk men with a lot of colourful pills, liable to either waste my money or shoot themselves.

I'm more worried about the purchase planning groups and how they like to spend big (see air force) when they shouldn't have to. That and the idiots who run inventory management.

Though I suppose you could easily fit in some psychologists into the planned increase of 6k people in the millitary (to 57000) by 2020 (or was it 2030?).

South Lorenya: In terms of absolute spending or % of GDP?

I have to admit that if the U.S millitary was not as powerful as it is now we probably would have to spend more (though it'd probably no matter as we would get into a war with Indonesia before any serious expansion could be made).

Though perhaps that would force us to work with the people in the region. That would be nice for a change.

silly Australians the combined military of the commonwealth greatly exceeds that of its neighbors...what no more carriers...well er *calls NZ*

Great. Maybe now they can hire some psychologists to rework the training and help reshape the organisational culture in the military. At the moment, it's mainly drunk men with a lot of colourful pills, liable to either waste my money or shoot themselves.

*hides the fact CBT med's get the morphine* :p

We have something better than jet plane carriers. Helicopter carriers!

The reason why we have a high tech millitary is because we don't have the people to go against Indonesia. Though all we seem to be using it for is to take East Timor's ocean oil/gas fields...

Whats CBT?

Now our great nation (aka Australia) is one step closer to annexing Indonesia...then we will form Australonesia!

We'll also give West Papua their independence.

*evil laugh*

We have something better than jet plane carriers. Helicopter carriers!

[Indonesian accent]I ope zey don't av to get close to are stores to commit grund operations[/Indonesian accent]

cookie for who I tried to impersonate!

The reason why we have a high tech millitary is because we don't have the people to go against Indonesia. Though all we seem to be using it for is to take East Timor's ocean oil/gas fields...

oh noez not the unstable government with there ravaged military! :p

Whats CBT?

short for combat medical technician (medics basically), uh forget it I don't have any pics at the moment so me just saying makes me look silly

I live in Darwin, the M1 Abrams tanks are here (somewhere).

I live in Darwin, the M1 Abrams tanks are here (somewhere).
That was such a silly thing. They had Leopard 1s, they could have had Leopard 2s. Brand-new ones, if they wanted, or used ones because Germany is having a sale (they're getting rid of like 2000 of them in the next few years).

Instead they went with American museum-grade material. Just like with those helicopters...

That was such a silly thing. They had Leopard 1s, they could have had Leopard 2s. Brand-new ones, if they wanted, or used ones because Germany is having a sale (they're getting rid of like 2000 of them in the next few years).

Instead they went with American museum-grade material. Just like with those helicopters...

Yeah, depleted Uranium! Good for your health.
I'd buy the Challenger or Leopard 2.

Why would we do that? If we wentto the bother to destroy a millitary much larger (in terms of personpower) and in the future more capable (because of its modernising) why would we not annex it?

The most likely scenario would be forcing West Papua's independence then selling off most of its natural resources to Australian companies.

I personally like an Oceania Alliance. Would be an intersting bloc.

Near Oceania is the part of Oceania comprising Australia, New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The other part of Oceania is Remote Oceania. Most linguists and scientists consider this a natural division of Oceania.

Remote Oceania is the part of Oceania comprising Polynesia, Micronesia and island Melanesia southeast of the Solomon Islands, including islands such as Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.

I personally like an Oceania Alliance. Would be an intersting bloc.
Interesting indeed. A whole bunch of banana republics who can't contribute, but are pretty good in begging for money. But I suppose not for long, rising sea levels are gonna solve their problems for them.

Seriously though, I'm not sure you'd want an "alliance" with those countries. Especially since China's called dibs.

Interesting indeed. A whole bunch of banana republics who can't contribute, but are pretty good in begging for money. But I suppose not for long, rising sea levels are gonna solve their problems for them.

Seriously though, I'm not sure you'd want an "alliance" with those countries. Especially since China's called dibs.

Whilst I said interesting it doesn't necessarily mean good in the long term (asean would be more capable as it contains more people and a greater amount of industrialisation).

Well in 'near oceania' there is NZ and PNG, which once industrialised and has its HIV problem under control (which, unfortunately, it is at epedemic levels at this point) would be potent as a group.

Remote Oceania contains Indonesia (a big bonus).

If total sovreignty was imparted on Antartica then it could be more usefull.

Best option of all is a world government/alliance.

[Indonesian accent]I ope zey don't av to get close to are stores to commit grund operations[/Indonesian accent]

cookie for who I tried to impersonate!

Cheesy French accent? Bit odd, pre-Indonesia being a former Dutch controlled area and all...

[oh noez not the unstable government with there ravaged military! :p

The government isn't unstable there.

[short for combat medical technician (medics basically), uh forget it I don't have any pics at the moment so me just saying makes me look silly

Wouldn't it be morphine, not dimorphine then?

That was such a silly thing. They had Leopard 1s, they could have had Leopard 2s. Brand-new ones, if they wanted, or used ones because Germany is having a sale (they're getting rid of like 2000 of them in the next few years).

Instead they went with American museum-grade material. Just like with those helicopters...

The seasprites? Yeah, that is hillarious (seriously, it is)

I live in Darwin, the M1 Abrams tanks are here (somewhere).

You live in NT? I heard there was an outbreak of some disease there recently (I had to say that I had not been to NT recently for my blood donation)

Yeah, depleted Uranium! Good for your health.
I'd buy the Challenger or Leopard 2.

I don't think that we have DU rounds. Then again U.S.A will be loathe to send millitary technology here (which is yet another excuse to dissallow assembaly of equipment in Australia, which would decrease costs).

I'd have gone for the leopard 2 as first preference.

That was such a silly thing. They had Leopard 1s, they could have had Leopard 2s. Brand-new ones, if they wanted, or used ones because Germany is having a sale (they're getting rid of like 2000 of them in the next few years).

Instead they went with American museum-grade material. Just like with those helicopters...

Oh god. This could have been avoided by a little reading.

Lets consider some facts.

1) The Leo 2 sale is of their older Leo 2's, (as you pointed out yourself "they're getting rid of like 2000 of them in the next few years"). Is German museum-grade material better than American?

2) The main difference between the M1A1 and the Leo 2 is Network Warfare, which is damned important, and will only get more important.

3) The M1A1's were zero-clocked under their Abrams AIM program, they're practically new vehicles. Would the Germans have done this for us, at the same or a better price?

As for the Seasprites, you have a point there. All we needed to do was buy more SH-60's.

Best option of all is a world government/alliance.

You can't possibly be serious.

First off, I live in Australia.

But you see, why do we even spend so much in the military? If I remember correctly, the RAAF hadn't executed a combat mission since the Korean War.

The Army hadn't deployed a full fighting force since Vietnam.

The RAN is where the money's best spent. There are times the Persian Gulf Naval Security Force is commanded by an Australian. With our Frigates, we're good at escorting and checking ships.

So where has Australia truly made a difference? Peacekeeping missions in the Solomons, Fiji, East Timor. Relief operations, like after the Boxing Day Tsunami. We also provide patrols in Iraq and Afghanistan, though I'll be honest and say that's a coin flip if you want to debate effectiveness versus putting our soldiers in danger for no real effect.

So in my opinion, we purchased the M1A1 Abrams for no real reason. We're never going to commit them to a war. We only bought what, forty? That's not even a single battalion.

The F-35 JSF buy is a good buy. But if we're going to wait another fifty years to get our Air Force's hands dirty in a conflict, do we need to spend that much now?

Face it. Australia's buying programs aren't giving us a fully independent, self sustaining military force. What we're buying is favour with the Americans; and also (eventually in a future conflict) time to let America get its act together to save us.

Even if we are purchasing the correct hardware, the simple fact that we don't have the political and civilian will to go to war, get our hands dirty, means we're pouring money into the American arms industry, which isn't a bad thing, in a very circular way.

What we should be spending money on is an upgraded Navy that has more capacity for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. More Special Forces capabilities and more airlift.

Australia should spend the money where we want to use it the way we do best.

So in my opinion, we purchased the M1A1 Abrams for no real reason. We're never going to commit them to a war. We only bought what, forty? That's not even a single battalion.

You're sure they will never be committed? Australia bought 59, 41 of which will equip 1st Armoured Regiment in Darwin.

Now, Australia did commit its Centurions to South Vietnam, and according to a joint Army/DSTO study, Australian casualties declined sharply, while enemy casualties rose more sharply.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20776978-5002142,00.html

Another point about the Abrams: in terms of crew protection, it is the best protected tank in the world.

The F-35 JSF buy is a good buy. But if we're going to wait another fifty years to get our Air Force's hands dirty in a conflict, do we need to spend that much now?

It may not be a good buy, and if the trends hold, it will probably be in service in fifty years.

Soooo does this mean now you guys can shoot kangaroo's 2% faster?? :p

(in terms of personpower)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personpower

Stop making up words.

Spend more.

Another point about the Abrams: in terms of crew protection, it is the best protected tank in the world.

It depends. If we are getting the M1A1 then we are not getting a good tank. If it is M1A2 then it is. What I am also worried about is do we have the capability to repair them or would we haveto send them back to the U.S to get repaired?


It may not be a good buy, and if the trends hold, it will probably be in service in fifty years.

It seems that it would be very good in a battlefield bombing support capacity but it has a lower internal fuel tank, stealth on the tail end is much less than the front and we are going to replace all of the jet fighting planes (instead of having another type of fighter or superiority fighter).

Soooo does this mean now you guys can shoot kangaroo's 2% faster?? :p

Well they did want to make a cull of them near a base a coupleof years ago...

You can't possibly be serious.

What can I say? I'm a world state kind of guy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personpower

Stop making up words.

Personpower=manpower

Spend more.

Why?

Soooo does this mean now you guys can shoot kangaroo's 2% faster?? :p

We use our M1 tanks to get rid of terrorist kangaroos. Of course!

I don't think that we have DU rounds. Then again U.S.A will be loathe to send millitary technology here (which is yet another excuse to dissallow assembaly of equipment in Australia, which would decrease costs).

I'd have gone for the leopard 2 as first preference.

don't know why we got the M1 who are we going to face that we need them
the L2s are all we need to use against those who we may face

Personpower=manpower

Not in English.

If we are getting the M1A1 then we are not getting a good tank. If it is M1A2 then it is.

The M1A1 is the main tank in the US Army (by number, Saudi Arabia has more M1A2's than the US), and it is a good tank.

The M1A2 is also out of production, whereas zero-clocked M1A1 AIM's are coming off the line.

It seems that it would be very good in a battlefield bombing support capacity but it has a lower internal fuel tank, stealth on the tail end is much less than the front and we are going to replace all of the jet fighting planes (instead of having another type of fighter or superiority fighter).

Quite true, they probably aren't a good buy, especially considering the amount of airspace Australia must defend.

1) The Leo 2 sale is of their older Leo 2's, (as you pointed out yourself "they're getting rid of like 2000 of them in the next few years"). Is German museum-grade material better than American?
Well, firstly it probably is.

Secondly, Germany is only keeping the Leo 2A6 models. Which means that both A4s and A5s are on sale, the latter being very clearly superior to the M1A1.

2) The main difference between the M1A1 and the Leo 2 is Network Warfare, which is damned important, and will only get more important.
The difference is negligible. In my opinion what counts more is that the Abrams has actually been in combat on numerous occasions, while the Leo hasn't. That means that some of the more practical gremlins would have been addressed in the Abrams.

But then, most of those were due to a curious choice of engine.

3) The M1A1's were zero-clocked under their Abrams AIM program, they're practically new vehicles. Would the Germans have done this for us, at the same or a better price?
I have no idea. That would depend on the details of the deal. My suspicion is however that the Australian government didn't bother checking and that the choice was politically motivated more than anything.

As for the Seasprites, you have a point there. All we needed to do was buy more SH-60's.
Hehe, yeah, about that...

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21747523-5003402,00.html
THE Navy's troubled fleet of Sea King helicopters has been grounded indefinitely due to yet another maintenance problem.

Let's hope the NH-90 is a more reliable aircraft. I suppose at least they were built after the Cold War. :p

The M1A1 is the main tank in the US Army (by number, Saudi Arabia has more M1A2's than the US), and it is a good tank.

The M1A2 is also out of production, whereas zero-clocked M1A1 AIM's are coming off the line.

Quite true, they probably aren't a good buy, especially considering the amount of airspace Australia must defend.

Actually the M1A1 AIM is an old M1A1 cleaned to 'like new' condition (though it is a very good restoration in my opinion).

They also have roughly 1.5x-2x the fuel consumption of other tanks.

The only reason why people would prefer M1A1s to Leopard 2 A5 (or the A6, which has a better gun but would beout of our price range) is because it has been combat tested (though only against older generation tanks).

There was a review of the F35 and it came up with a reduction in covering ability of the F35 by about 33%.

I thought that the U.S were undergoing (or have undergone) M1A2 modernisation of most of their tanks.

Actually the M1A1 AIM is an old M1A1 cleaned to 'like new' condition (though it is a very good restoration in my opinion).

That doesn't make the case that the M1A1 AIM (which includes other upgrades, as well as zero-timing the tank) is going to be much worse than a used M1A2.

I thought that the U.S were undergoing (or have undergone) M1A2 modernisation of most of their tanks.

The haven't, most Army units, and all Marine units use the M1A1.

Which means that both A4s and A5s are on sale, the latter being very clearly superior to the M1A1.

In what way superior?

In any case, I've seen nothing indicating that there is a German, or European program for the A4's and A5's that is equivalent to the AIM program.

The difference is negligible. In my opinion what counts more is that the Abrams has actually been in combat on numerous occasions, while the Leo hasn't. That means that some of the more practical gremlins would have been addressed in the Abrams.

But then, most of those were due to a curious choice of engine.

You've gone from "clearly superior" to "the difference is negligible". Make up your mind.

I have no idea. That would depend on the details of the deal. My suspicion is however that the Australian government didn't bother checking and that the choice was politically motivated more than anything.

The Army does the checking, and makes a recommendation to the Minister, who takes it to Cabinet.

In what way superior?
A Leopard 2A5 entered service in 1998. It's got that wedged armour and all the other usual gadgets.

The M1A1 started in 1985. It has different armour which has been proven vulnerable particularly on the sides.

Plus, the Leo 2A5 can easily and relatively cheaply be upgraded with the new L55 gun.

In any case, I've seen nothing indicating that there is a German, or European program for the A4's and A5's that is equivalent to the AIM program.
They're not standardised programs like AIM, but pretty much all the European countries have taken advantage of the upgrade offers. A4s are turned into A5s, A5s into A6s.

I can't imagine that when the Spanish buy a few hundred A4s they're in a crappy condition. The tank is too much of a customer vehicle for there not to be proper service. And I think that's where the main difference is - the Leopard is built for export, part of the program is a huge focus on customer needs and design flexibility. That's why pretty much all of NATO uses the thing, including several new member states.

You've gone from "clearly superior" to "the difference is negligible". Make up your mind.
In this case I was speaking about once specific capability, namely network warfare. And that's something that the Americans have seen the use of earlier, and upgraded older tanks with that technology better than anyone else.

Newer or upgraded versions of the Leo have however pretty much all the same technology in there. They pretty much have to, I imagine these things run to NATO standard.

The Army does the checking, and makes a recommendation to the Minister, who takes it to Cabinet.
That's how it's meant to be anyways.

I can't work out why Australia bought "refurbished M1A1 tanks" instead of new M1A2 tanks. Tanks that have been pre-abused in Iraq aren't exactly the sort of tank you'd buy.

A Leopard 2A5 entered service in 1998. It's got that wedged armour and all the other usual gadgets.

The M1A1 started in 1985. It has different armour which has been proven vulnerable particularly on the sides.

Plus, the Leo 2A5 can easily and relatively cheaply be upgraded with the new L55 gun.

We don't actually know where the Leo 2 is vulnerable (because no one has taken serious shots at one), but I would suggest that it is also vulnerable to side, top, and rear attack because it is a Main Battle Tank, all Main Battle Tanks are armoured in that fashion (armour is strongest on the front, then the sides, then the rear, and finally the top is the weakest).

You could protect it equally well all around, just don't think of moving it in a hurry.

They're not standardised programs like AIM, but pretty much all the European countries have taken advantage of the upgrade offers. A4s are turned into A5s, A5s into A6s.

In theory, I am talking in reality, and in reality, the Germans don't have anything like the AIM program.

I can't imagine that when the Spanish buy a few hundred A4s they're in a crappy condition. The tank is too much of a customer vehicle for there not to be proper service. And I think that's where the main difference is - the Leopard is built for export, part of the program is a huge focus on customer needs and design flexibility. That's why pretty much all of NATO uses the thing, including several new member states

That is a distortion, the only new member state to use the Leo 2 is Poland, which received its first Leo 2's as aid.

In this case I was speaking about once specific capability, namely network warfare. And that's something that the Americans have seen the use of earlier, and upgraded older tanks with that technology better than anyone else.

Newer or upgraded versions of the Leo have however pretty much all the same technology in there. They pretty much have to, I imagine these things run to NATO standard.

I haven't seen anything that indicates the Leo 2 has NCW equipment and capabilities comprable to the M1A1 AIM.

I can't work out why Australia bought "refurbished M1A1 tanks" instead of new M1A2 tanks. Tanks that have been pre-abused in Iraq aren't exactly the sort of tank you'd buy.

There are no new M1A2's, you can't buy new when something is out of production, and if you had read the thread, and the numerous reports, its not just a polish up, they've been effectively zero-clocked by the M1A1 AIM program.

Soooo does this mean now you guys can shoot kangaroo's 2% faster?? :p

Yes, how astute of you.

2% military expenditures are not a lot.