Defence 2016 white paper

SB076 · 25-02-2016, 11:53 PM

It appears Defence will get an increase in spend in future with the government pledging approx 2% of GDP.

I was surprised that we are going to retire the Tigers early (mid 2020's) i thought they would have lasted longer thsn that. In addition i have heard a few people suggest they were a poor performing. I thought they were a great bit of equipment so was wondering what others thought and why and if anyone here has knowledge on them?

**PridenJoy** · 26-02-2016, 02:17 PM

About time really. Our Defence force is too small for a nation of our size, both in terms of personnel and equipment, which makes us too reliant on our 'allies'.

On the other hand China accuses Australia of 'Cold War mentality' in the news today.

superyob · 26-02-2016, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB076

It appears Defence will get an increase in spend in future with the government pledging approx 2% of GDP.

I was surprised that we are going to retire the Tigers early (mid 2020's) i thought they would have lasted longer thsn that. In addition i have heard a few people suggest they were a poor performing. I thought they were a great bit of equipment so was wondering what others thought and why and if anyone here has knowledge on them?

What are these?

SB076 · 26-02-2016, 02:21 PM

I am for the increase, to me there are certain things our government should spend money on (Health, Education, Roads, Defense, Welfare) 2% of GDP is a relatively small amount. Plus if you are going to send our men and women out in harms way you want to make sure they have the best equipment possible to increase their safety and chances of returning in one piece

SB076 · 26-02-2016, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

What are these?

Eurocopter Tigers - Attack helicopters, two person helicopter fitted with rockets, missiles and a cannon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Tiger

superyob · 26-02-2016, 02:59 PM

I think Oz should arm itself to the teeth as it really is not a kumbyah world out there...

Franco Cozzo · 26-02-2016, 04:00 PM

Budget emergency, can't afford education and health care apparently.

Nekminit $195,000,000,000 on weapons.

SB076 · 26-02-2016, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Budget emergency, can't afford education and health care apparently.

Nekminit $195,000,000,000 on weapons.

Education approx. 5% GDP
Health approx. 10% GDP
Edit Roads/Rail apparently 1% GDP

olfella · 26-02-2016, 05:26 PM

Defence with new guns etc = 2%GDP?

Makovic · 26-02-2016, 05:56 PM

Military Lessons Taught:

The Germans tried it, twice. They are now permanently defeated.

The Japs bombed Pearl Harbour and then Australia. They are still licking their wounds.

The Arabs attacked New York. They have been dealt with.

The Chinese have been getting more and more belligerent. The South China Sea land-grab is their latest stunt.

Time for another lesson.

**Fordman1** · 26-02-2016, 06:01 PM

2% of GDP is a low to moderate amount.

Defence systems are VERY expensive, our men and women in uniform deserve the best we can get for them !

Itsme · 26-02-2016, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB076

It appears Defence will get an increase in spend in future with the government pledging approx 2% of GDP.

I was surprised that we are going to retire the Tigers early (mid 2020's) i thought they would have lasted longer thsn that. In addition i have heard a few people suggest they were a poor performing. I thought they were a great bit of equipment so was wondering what others thought and why and if anyone here has knowledge on them?

In the military world it pays to have the best, obviously the brass think the tigers have outlived their usefulness, time to upgrade the hardware to be superior.

MITCHAY · 26-02-2016, 09:42 PM

We need the capability before we actually have justification to use it and quite honestly we need to be more independent of other countries because what worked in the past may not work for us in the future.

Simple minds like to think if we are not at war than it is a waste of money but like a lot of things better to be prepared and not need then need and not have. It's not like we have the capability to crank it up these days.

Funnily enough just being prepared is enough to save you the trouble.

Makovic · 26-02-2016, 09:56 PM

Without the alliances, you'd be kneeling before your Indonesian masters by Easter.

**GasoLane** · 26-02-2016, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makovic

Without the alliances, you'd be kneeling before your Indonesian masters by Easter.

That's a curious post.

Are you not part of 'us' ?

SB076 · 26-02-2016, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makovic

Without the alliances, you'd be kneeling before your Indonesian masters by Easter.

I actually have a lot of faith in our military personal give them great equipment and they are more than capable of defending us against larger forces

Makovic · 26-02-2016, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

That's a curious post.

Are you not part of 'us' ?

No mate, what I meant is that SOME OF US WOULD FIGHT AND DIE ON OUR FEET.

SB076 · 26-02-2016, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trublu

In the military world it pays to have the best, obviously the brass think the tigers have outlived their usefulness, time to upgrade the hardware to be superior.

I still see them (Tigers) being quite potent and a great part of our defence. As far as attack helicopters go the only other considerations would be the AH64d or the Cobra AHZ.

I always see our defense as preventing any opposing forces from landing with strong airforce and navy assets. But should they land Tigers and Abrams could prove useful in mopping up pushing back any force that lands

Makovic · 26-02-2016, 10:27 PM

If we'd bought the Apaches, they would have come with the Link System for total battlefield coordinated control.

AFAIK, the Tigers never had that immense capability.

SB076 · 26-02-2016, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makovic

If we'd bought the Apaches, they would have come with the Link System for total battlefield coordinated control.

AFAIK, the Tigers never had that immense capability.

I was happy with any of the three shortlisted contenders, Apache, Cobra or Tiger all had pros and cons. But i think the idea behind having an attack helicopter is good

CoupeKing · 26-02-2016, 11:07 PM

Good..we don't need those choppers, they're &^%^^% useless here. Awesome against tanks and platoons....but they need to get here first!. And besides, we're close allies with a nation that has superior examples that are battle-proven/trained.

Frigates, Subs and Planes.

Looked at a map lately?

Makovic · 26-02-2016, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Looked at a map lately?

Yeah.

Indonesia is North West

China is North North West

SB076 · 26-02-2016, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Good..we don't need those choppers, they're &^%^^% useless here. Awesome against tanks and platoons....but they need to get here first!. And besides, we're close allies with a nation that has superior examples that are battle-proven/trained.

Frigates, Subs and Planes.

Looked at a map lately?

Yep but even with Wedgetails, P8's JORN, frigrates and Subs we have a large area to keep under surveillance and defend.

Abrams Tigers offered an additional deterrent should someone land
The helicopters all have a range of around 500 k and travel over 200 ks per hour

I did get to speak to some of the pilots of the tigers at Avalon and they were full of praise of them

Ford_The_Win · 27-02-2016, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makovic

Without the alliances, you'd be kneeling before your Indonesian masters by Easter.

Non-Bali, Non-Jakarta Indo is so primitive they don't have running water, telecoms or garbage collection let alone "masters". Their military is made up of compulsory military service conscripts who at the first sign of trouble would bail out and head for the jungle, and there would be no way to find them. They would last all of five minutes in any conflict.

Makovic · 27-02-2016, 12:35 AM

Yeah, and the Poms used to say that the Nips couldn't fight.

Then came Singapore in 1942.

Brits surrendered in record time.

Japs captured 250,000 men.

Franco Cozzo · 27-02-2016, 12:35 AM

Who says China needs to invade us?

They've pretty much bought everything we used to own, they could just use all the farms they've bought and send the food back to China instead of us being able to buy anything.

This problem was caused by ourselves.

Or they could just say no **** you we will no longer trade with you and we're screwed.

Wouldn't even have to spill blood to do some serious damage to us, people were having a teary about them buying all the baby formula, imagine what they could do if they actually tried.

Makovic · 27-02-2016, 12:40 AM

What's the Chinese translation to German lebensraum?

Franco Cozzo · 27-02-2016, 01:17 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU

SYZ · 27-02-2016, 06:54 AM

And what about this lunacy by the government...

Australia's new fleet of 12 submarines will cost at least $50 billion just to build, the Turnbull government's Defence white paper has revealed, with another $6 billion for systems and weapons.

The cost of more than $4 billion per boat will be spread over the next 30 years, but doesn't include lifetime maintenance for the fleet, which is likely to be at least that much again and perhaps twice as much, bringing the total of the program to possibly $150 billion.

I've decided to cancel my subscription to the world and become a hermit.

Makovic · 27-02-2016, 07:07 AM

French, German or Japanese?

Any takers?

Should have shortlisted the US Nuclear Subs. Plug and play.