Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Muscular or meek? Australia's defence balance
fall out    12/16/2008 1:55:16 AM
Australia could become a strong regional power with a large fleet of advanced jet fighters, submarines, warships and even aircraft carriers if it's willing to spend an extra $101 billion over the next 15 years, a new study says. Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) analyst Dr Andrew Davies said that would mean Defence spending 2.67 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020. Spending on defence in Australia currently equates to 1.8 per cent of GDP. Dr Davies said the government had to decide on the strategic challenges it wanted the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to be able to meet, and then design the force structure appropriate for that job. "... The sort of costs associated with even the more ambitious models for the ADF should remain within the national means for decades to come," he said. "It really is a case of pay your money, take your pick." The ASPI study outlines some possible force structure options the government could take in the upcoming Defence white paper, set for release next year. It will be the first Defence white paper since 2000, and will take into account the war on terrorism and the rise of China and India as global powers. Dr Davies said that at the lower end would be an ADF configured for mostly peacekeeping, stabilisation and humanitarian operations with no new advanced warplanes, warships or submarines. This would be the cheapest option, costing an estimated $35 billion by 2025. At the top end, Australia could become a muscular regional power with 12 extra submarines (the navy has six), 250 Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (100 are planned), as well as extra warships and army battalions. He said the practicality of this program would be questionable and it would be very costly, requiring a Defence budget of $43 billion by 2025. If Australia truly sought to be a strong regional power, it could aim to acquire aircraft carriers. A pair of the new UK Queen Elizabeth II class carriers, plus 36 of the naval version of the JSF, would add another $101 billion to the Defence bill between 2010 and 2025. "At the upper end, Australia would have a powerful military capability for a nation of its size, to the point where explaining our intentions to the neighbours could present a challenge," he said. Australia has earmarked $22.7 billion for Defence spending in 2008-09, a substantial increase made possible by the economic boom. ASPI defence budget analyst Dr Mark Thomson warned that an ageing population and rising defence costs could place the ability to operate a high-tech defence force under increasing strain. "While we should be able to maintain a defence force like we have today or even somewhat larger out to 2050, our relative economic weight is set to decline in the decades ahead along with, more than likely, our strategic weight," he said. AAP ----- Any thoughts? FO :)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Volkodav       12/16/2008 7:16:23 AM
The smaller our recruiting pool the smaller our defence forces and unless we are prepared to spend up big on first tier capabilities and force multipliers, the less capable and effective our forces will become as they shrink in size.
 
At the moment we have regional overmatch in terms of the quality of most of our front line capabilities which compensates for the smaller size of the ADF vs the size of forces maintained by our neighbours and any potential rivals.  As nations within and surrounding our region upgrade and modernise their forces the edge the ADF currently enjoys is eroded.
 
Basically we either invest in state of the art capabilities that the majority of nations don't have access too or we fade into irrelevance and continue to exist unmolested only on the good graces of others.
 
Increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP seems a small price to pay for my kids to grow up in the same secure environment I was able to grow up in during the 70's and 80's.  Also it should factor in to the assessment that once defence spending passes a certain point the industry will become self sustaining to a degree and will actually help tip the trade balance in our favour through increased local production and greater value added exports.
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       12/16/2008 9:16:27 AM
I note that even the 'muscular' ADF was to cost 2.73% of GDP at its high mark.
 
In the actual report on the ASPI website, it is mentioned that a larger ADF wouldn't cost as much as some might think as there are efficiencies in operating larger number of platforms for which we already pay the price in overheads whilst maintaining a 'balanced' force.
 
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       12/16/2008 10:42:32 AM
Dr Davies said that at the lower end would be an ADF configured for mostly peacekeeping, stabilisation and humanitarian operations with no new advanced warplanes, warships or submarines.


The good Doctor has obviously not been listening to the world around him for the last half decade or so (at the least). We ARE getting advanced warplanes and associated force multipliers.

This would be the cheapest option, costing an estimated $35 billion by 2025.

At the top end, Australia could become a muscular regional power with 12 extra submarines (the navy has six), 250 Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (100 are planned), as well as extra warships and army battalions.

Stop press: Legislation has been passed in the Senate that requires all females in Australia presently under the age of thirty-five to give birth to three children each in order to satisfy future recruitment demands. Baby bonus pending.
 
Awesome. We get an airforce the size of Israels. All we need now are some competant enemies with matching numbers of jets. 

He said the practicality of this program would be questionable and it would be very costly, requiring a Defence budget of $43 billion by 2025.

If Australia truly sought to be a strong regional power, it could aim to acquire aircraft carriers.

A pair of the new UK Queen Elizabeth II class carriers, plus 36 of the naval version of the JSF, would add another $101 billion to the Defence bill between 2010 and 2025.

What, just another four or five thousand sailors? No worries.
 
         
 
Gobsmacked.

 
 
Quote    Reply

fall out       12/16/2008 6:15:32 PM

Dr Davies said that at the lower end would be an ADF configured for mostly peacekeeping, stabilisation and humanitarian operations with no new advanced warplanes, warships or submarines.





The good Doctor has obviously not been listening to the world around him for the last half decade or so (at the least). We ARE getting advanced warplanes and associated force multipliers.



This would be the cheapest option, costing an estimated $35 billion by 2025.



At the top end, Australia could become a muscular regional power with 12 extra submarines (the navy has six), 250 Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (100 are planned), as well as extra warships and army battalions.



Stop press: Legislation has been passed in the Senate that requires all females in Australia presently under the age of thirty-five to give birth to three children each in order to satisfy future recruitment demands. Baby bonus pending.

 

Awesome. We get an airforce the size of Israels. All we need now are some competant enemies with matching numbers of jets. 



He said the practicality of this program would be questionable and it would be very costly, requiring a Defence budget of $43 billion by 2025.



If Australia truly sought to be a strong regional power, it could aim to acquire aircraft carriers.



A pair of the new UK Queen Elizabeth II class carriers, plus 36 of the naval version of the JSF, would add another $101 billion to the Defence bill between 2010 and 2025.



What, just another four or five thousand sailors? No worries.

 

         

 

Gobsmacked.



 


 
How did you come to the conclusion of needing an additional 4/5k naval serviceman for 2 QE CVFs when the crewing demand is put around 600 per ship with an additional 300 for the airmen/women, 1,800 (plus I'm sure we could reduce crewing demand by 2025 with more automation)...
 
Also, Australia's population is booming, we are growing at a faster rate now than any other developed country in the world (which is also putting Melb back in her rightful place as Australia's biggest city again), these crew intensive projects
aren't going to be needed to be manned for another 15 years at least. 
 
Still, we are right in the middle of a 19th century build up of arms, alliances, detente', rivalry and competition for finite resources rapidly running out and if Oz took the pointy option here then I'm sure most of our SE Asian and Northern Asian neighbours will be adding extra beef to their budgets, on top of the increases already.  We don't and then the decline of American power and the rise of the multipolar world will hit us harder and make us even more vulnerable.
 
Welcome to the 21st century; coming soon to all corners of the globe for you is World War III with the sequal expected soon after billed as 'Climate Change'; both causing human suffering on a scale we have never seen before, passing even the horrors of WW1+2 and the leftovers of humanity will be left wondering what could have we done differently to avoid this monumental fuc*up and catastrophy...
 
I love this world! :)
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       12/16/2008 6:27:30 PM
I would have thought that Australia could become a strong regional power with something like 12 - 14 submarines; 120 F35's,  36 F35B's  40 F22's.  and 2 carriers each about 66% to 75 % the size of the R.N. Queen Elizabeth.  No where near the man-power required.
 
Quote    Reply

In-the-can       12/16/2008 6:41:29 PM
We need something that is sustainable and credible.
 
NAVY
Two carriers is a large overhead (and large target) that we probably don't need. The new amphibious ships should be able to carry a small number of F35C's (buy a couple of squadrons worth), plus some organic defences plus an AWD on station at all times. Increase the numbers here to three or four. These could be supplemented by UAV carriers (something like the LCS).
A fourth and maybe fifth AWD is a must.
12-18 subs - yes supplemented by UUVs, cruise missile launch capabilities etc.....
See what the Kiwis can purchase to supplement.
 
ARMY
Extra regular infantry brigade.
All regular brigades "hardened and networked" with MBTs, IFVs and SPGs.
Old stuff doesn't get sold off - give it to Second Division. A Leopard tank is too young to be a gate gaurd.

AIR FORCE
A modest increase in the number of F35s but we probably can't sustain 250 (even including the naval versions). maybe 150. A couple of heavy/medium bomber squadrons (send the message we don't just defend!). Plus cruise missiles.
What about space? 
 
DMO
Stop the block obsolescence problem and have a rolling purchase program.

 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       12/16/2008 9:14:02 PM
How did you come to the conclusion of needing an additional 4/5k naval serviceman for 2 QE CVFs when the crewing demand is put around 600 per ship with an additional 300 for the airmen/women, 1,800 (plus I'm sure we could reduce crewing demand by 2025 with more automation)...
 
I came to the conclusion after consuming another great Brown Brothers product.
 
Seriously though, the Pommy flat tops may only (yeah right!) require a small crew as such, however, my figure represents a ships crew over several years of its life. You don't actually think those 600 folk are going to stay with the boat for thirty odd years and not be replaced by new sailors over the course of its service do you?


Also, Australia's population is booming, we are growing at a faster rate now than any other developed country in the world (which is also putting Melb back in her rightful place as Australia's biggest city again), these crew intensive projects
aren't going to be needed to be manned for another 15 years at least.
 
 
Pop might be booming but less young chaps are interested in going boom in jets or spending months away from their XBox's like generations past.
 
 
Welcome to the 21st century;   (thanks for having me)  coming soon to all corners of the globe for you is World War III with the sequal expected soon after billed as 'Climate Change'; both causing human suffering on a scale we have never seen before, passing even the horrors of WW1+2 and the leftovers of humanity will be left wondering what could have we done differently to avoid this monumental fuc*up and catastrophy...
 
I doubt I will see WW3 in my life time.
 
I love this world! :)
 
Yep, it rocks.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/17/2008 1:49:05 AM

DMO

Stop the block obsolescence problem and have a rolling purchase program.


what the ferk has DMO got to do with block obsolesence?
You do realise that it is due to successive governments that we are in our block obsolesence position?  DMO acts at the pleasure of the Minister and does not have anything to do with the decision to suspend mecessary procurements decisions - the end signatures will the Minister, the current PM (because he wants to be a 1 man cabinet) or the NSC.
Govt sets the procurement policy - not a division with the DoD.
and if you want to stop scope creep, then that also is a decision of Govt pleasure.  ie kill them off before they get to 2nd Pass.
Perhaps it would be worth your while to have a look at the Kinnaird Process which governs how DMO operates.  (and operates under Govt direction)




 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/17/2008 7:42:33 AM
I remember reading about the verious life extention and MLU programs planned and implemented from the early 90's under both Labor and Liberal governments....they all had one thing in common....extending the service of the gear in question to around 2015.
 
From memory by 1999 the list for equipment to be replaced from 2015 consisted of :
FA-18
F-111
Orion
C-130H
FFG's
Success
Westralia
Kanimbla
Manoora
Life extended Fremantles
LCH's
Leopard's
M-113
ASLAV
Hammel
M-198
 
There may have been more and there were definately other capabilities that were ment to be replaced prior to 2010 but were retired without replacement such as the Nomad and DDG's.
 
Some of the stuff was replaced earlier than planned but over all the plan for 20 years seemed to be to put every decission off until 2015.  Why?
 
If a sustained program of replacing and enhancing capabilities at regular intervals had been implemented from the early 90's the ADF would have been able to maintain greater capability at lower cost.
 
The F-111 should have been replaced with F-15E's during the mid 90's, the F/A-18 with SH's and the DDG's with AWD's between 2000 and 2010 etc.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       12/17/2008 8:36:52 PM

 

I think Australia should become a much stronger, but this doesn't mean we have to go nuts.

* The 2 LHD to be fitted out for temporary fixed wing air ops. Training to be conducted (cost is almost nothing). Armed with CIWS and ESSM.

* A specific carrier to be purchased. Does not have to be QE size, can be Cavour or simular (40,000 t would be nice). Something that could carry 24 F-35B and say 8 helicopters and several large UAV's. (Cost would be ~1.5-2 Billion for the ship). Additional crew would need to be found (300 sailors and simular number of aircrew).

* A 4th AWD must be purchased and a 5th would be a wise decision. I honestly believe we will get a 4th anyway so there is another billion.

* Purchase 75 F-35 A, 35 F-35B. Again, this is nothing over and above numbers already mentioned. SH to continue but upgraded with EW.

* Purchase an additional 24 x Tigers

* Purchase an additional 8 x Chinooks

* Purchase of NH-90 or Merlin AEW aircraft

* Purchase an 18 x 27J with 1 to be adopted as "gunship"

* Purchase 6 x 400m or 2 more C-17

* Purchase of additional NH-90

* Purchase SM-3, SM-6 and Tomahawk (~24)

* Purchase of a heavy sealift ship (50,000t)

* Missile shield (land and Navy)

* Extensive upgrade of the Army, with harder hitting and tougher equipment and auxiliary equipment.

* Operation of 8 combat subs fitted with Tomahawk, Harpoon cells (say 16), and USV?s and fitted for SAS missions.

* 3 x HSC ~130m for intra theatre movement etc.

* 2 x land based CIWS

* 4 x LCAC

Even in that list there is some to cut back on. Costing maybe 10 billion on top of existing spending. That would allow Australia to fight anything it really wanted except for a nuclear superpower, but with a missile shield, we are better placed than many. With only one carrier, the LHD will have to act as carriers when its not available, but this is a fairly small compromise.

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics