Australia:Defence Review

RE: Australia:Defence Review

Glad to hear that,i’m a fan of the ANZAC frigate.

RE: Australia:Defence Review

Bad workmanship on the ANZACs? This would be the first I have heard of it. I don’t recall any major problem arising over this in the media here, so I would say its probably not that bad.

As for under-armed and under-equipped, NOW there is an issue, and boy have there been some juicy arguments over that.

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Australia:Defence Review

I’m not an Aussie but is it true that the ANZAC frigates suffered from poor worksmanships? As far as i know,ANZAC is one of the best design vessels in the Australiasia region.The only setback-lack of weapons and sensors on board.

RE: Australia:Defence Review

Just a small comment… seeing as how Darwin was bombed you could say that at least the Pacific theatre of WWII wasn’t someone elses war for Australia.

I have heard a few bad things about the New Zealand ANZAC frigates… mostly regarding the quality of the welding of the hulls not being very good. Has there been much comment in the Australian press about this?

RE: Australia:Defence Review

Because we may be a huge country (size of the continental US), but we have a population and economy similar in size to that of the Netherlands. We simply can’t afford an aircraft carrier or two, whilst maintaining the current levels of equipment and training for the 3 main services (we have a defence budget of approx. USD$7bn, a CVBG would take a huge chunk out of this every year).

MinMiester

RE: Australia:Defence Review

The Australians dont have much to be afraid of, atleast in defending their homeland. Historically the Aussies have always fought other peoples wars – WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, PGW-2. I consider the Aussie military being more of an offensive force than defensive.

Also, the US would like to have the dominant force in the Indian Ocean to be Australia followed by India, both of these countries to act as a spoiler to any Chinese ambitions in that region. Consequently I see a lot of Australian – Indian co-operation in this region, which is already happening now.

BTW- why doesnt Australia have an air-craft carrier.? Such a huge country that frequently has to project its power far beyond its shores does require a capable air-craft carrier or two.

RE: Australia:Defence Review

Some more recent news from a couple of weeks ago.

Defence Budget set to rise

Gregor Ferguson | Adelaide

The Commonwealth government will make Defence its priority in the 2002-2003 financial year, with analysts predicting a budget rise of up to eight per cent to cover the cost of Australia’s contribution to the US-led campaign against terror and increased border security.

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello, who is scheduled to reveal the 2002-2003 federal budget on May 14, said on April 5: “I want to make it clear that …in this Budget round our priority is strong defence and strong border protection. And what that means is we will have to be very tight in other [national budget] areas because the priority we are giving is to our soldiers, to the fight against terrorism and to the defence of our borders.”

In the 2001-2002 financial year Australia’s defence budget was $12.75 billion in cash terms. This included a $500 million increase over the previous year, which had been promised in the White Paper. But the budget still required augmentation earlier this year to the tune of a further $362 million to cover the cost of Australia’s contribution to the US-led campaign against terror since September 11 and the resulting blow-out in equipment operating and maintenance costs.

The government has promised a further $500 million, or four per cent, rise in the coming budget to meet a White Paper commitment to increase defence expenditure annually by at least three per cent in real terms. But the additional costs of sustaining a naval and special forces task group in the Gulf and Afghanistan, along with the increased cost of patrolling Australia’s northern approaches to deter people smugglers and other illegal activities, could see the budget rise this coming year by as much as a further $500 million, according to analyst Derek Woolner of ADFA’s Australian Defence Studies Centre (ADSC).

And that doesn’t take into account the possibility of US action against Iraq, and the cost of Australian support for such a move.

Costello refused to be drawn on speculation that Australia could act alongside the US in any action against Iraq. “There is currently no military action by allies in Iraq,” he said April 5. “If that were to occur and if Australia were to be asked to make a contribution we will consider that at the time. But it is far too premature to be speculating in relation to Iraq. There is still a job to be done in Afghanistan, it has got to be brought to completion, we are committed to seeing that through. Our troops will be funded to see it through.”

If Australia were to become involved in any operation against Iraq, the extra costs would likely be met by a budget supplementation later in the 2002-03 financial year, Woolner said. But the likely scale of such costs might already have been discussed at senior levels within the Commonwealth government to ensure that the financial implications of such action on Australia’s budget don’t come as an unpleasant surprise to budget and defence planners if and when the issue arises.

Both Costello and the Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, have declined to put a dollar value on the coming year’s defence budget. But regardless of any possible increase, Australia’s defence budget will likely still be ‘tight’, sources have warned. The government remains committed to the ambitious, $47 billion capital equipment program outlined in the Defence Capability Plan announced last June. However, this Plan is subject to periodical review, and the first major update is due later this year; it’s impossible to rule out the possibility that priorities will be re-ordered and certain programs deferred or stretched out to ease short-term pressure on the defence budget, ADSC’s Derek Woolner said.

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Australia:Defence Review

>Is there any tangible plans to replace the
>Hornets/further upgrading?

The F/A-18A/Bs are currently in the process of upgrading and have been for a while, in fact phase II has just started and this will inlcude the new radar fit, which will be the APG-73. The replacement programme is called AIR 6000, and the first new type selection is due by 2006/7, and the first Hornets are expected to start retiring from 2012.

>How about the much debated AEW requirement? Which a/c or system?

Contract signed already but initial numbers cut back to 4 from the original 7. 737-700 with the Northrop Grumman MESA radar it will be.

Link for MESA

http://www.northgrum.com/tech_cd/es/es_mesa_fact.html

>Since the last C130J have
>been delivered,is there a plan to beef up the stategic
>deployment capability by purchasing C17/A400M?

Nothing definitive at the moment, but Project AIR 5216 – Strategic Airlift Capability has seen the C-130J replace the C-130E of 37 SQD but the replacement/upgrade option for the still remaining C-130Hs of 36 SQD is pending. The 2000 White Paper did mention an upgrade. The RAAF has shown interest in the A400 as a future type from what I have read in Air international.

>Is it true that the govt decided to retire the Loepard 1A3 and totaly disband the armoured forces?If it is true,can the ASLAV/M113
>combo really defend Australia vast outback from hostile
>MBT(not likely to happen)?The army RDF are quite small and
>Blackhawk do not have the range needed.

Not true, the Leos are still there. Hostile MBT on our shores? Like you said, not likely to happen. And don’t forget we are now inline for the Tiger Recon/attack helo which will improve our defences against those unlikely invaders. The former labour opposition leader did propose an SOF unit with long range helos but this suggesstion didn’t amount to anything as he lost the election that followed. The Blackhawk is doing us just fine and we have the Herc for long range SOF deployment if required.

>ANZAC frigate seems to be ‘toothless’w/o certain systems,even RMN NGPV(read Corvette)will have comprehensive defensive/offensive
>suite.Any plans to further upgrade this fine vessels?

You mean the ANZAC class over-sized patrol boa….. whoops I mean the Frigates..Yes they are deinitely under-armed and under-fitted, Australian procurement practises are a joke I am afraid, and if you have been following events of the last decade you would understand.
As for upgrades, the original WIP (War-fighting improvement) programme was shelved, but there has been a compromise. The ANZACs will eventually get better ASMD (Anti-ship missile defence) systems fitted and perhaps Harpoon at a later date. ASMD will inlcude an extra fire control channel and ESSM. I also believe the Super Seasprite Helos will be deployed from them as well in future.

>Australia defence posture is important to this region,most of us cannot really depend on the US to fill this part of the world power vacuum.They busy at the moment.Any body got something to say???

Malaysia is gearing for greater self-reliance, and Australia I believe should be heading the same way.

Hope this helps, its all from memory and I may have missed some details, but I am sure someone else will provide further info.

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Australia:Defence Review

Like you say, it is unlikely that any hostile nation will invade Australia.

This realisation changes the focus of defence planning somewhat…