Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by Jeff Head, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,876
    Likes Received:
    31,507
    I thought I would start a thread specifically about the Australian military. With the new naval technology they are currently building (Hobart and Canberra class to start) and their air force plans, and since they are a critical nation in the Western PAcific, I thought it appropriate. So, here is the first news for discussion:

    So, the first blocks have already been delivered for the first in class. They will be building three of these destroyers which are modifications of the Spanish AEGIS vessels, the FFG Bazan F-100 Class. The Spanish have five of these vessels to escort their carriers and LPHS.
     
  2. bd popeye
    Online

    bd popeye The Last Jedi
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    26,838
    Likes Received:
    19,257
    Jeff.. I have to tell you..I personally don't think much of the Aussie military. It is so small..only 65,000 strong in the entire military. are they really fit to defend the land down under??? They do have much US equipment but also have much of their own.

    Here's a link to the Australian Defence website

    Lots of hi-res pics in the link below.
     
  3. delft
    Offline

    delft Brigadier

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    6,749
    Anyone invading Australia is coming from far away. Most of the people live near the ocean, but along a very long coast. And what would any invader hope to win? I think the the Australian forces are and will remain adequate for defense and the time for war alongside the US as against Vietnam or more recently Afghanistan is coming to a close.
     
  4. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,876
    Likes Received:
    31,507
    They are small. But they are also good at what they do.

    My guess is if things went very wrong, they would have to get a lot of people enlisted and trained very quickly because their reserves are also extremely small.

    I did an analysis of 33 major countries. In terms of their active duty, reserves, and para-military forces compared to their overall population.

    Interesting table...and Australia by those numbers is dead last...but there is no measure of quality, modernization, training, etc. in those numbers which make a huge difference as you know.

    Still, if the numbers are too large, as our Marines found out at Chosin Reservoir, you can still be pushed back even if you have the best weapons, training, and air coverage available.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. adeptitus
    Offline

    adeptitus Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,162
    Likes Received:
    66
    Australia is basically an "island country" (a very, very large island) and their investment in the navy is a logical one. At current rate of expansion, the Royal Australian Navy will probably match the Spanish Armada in terms of firepower. However, unlike Spain, Australia will probably remain as a customer to European surface warship designs. It remains to be seen how successful the Aussies will be at building their own submarine from scratch.
     
  6. delft
    Offline

    delft Brigadier

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    6,749
    Jeff,
    How reliable are these numbers. Some, no doubt, are within a few percent but the 20 million para for Russia, is that within 30 %?
     
  7. Scratch
    Offline

    Scratch Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    With Australia having so few people to defend so much land, the best defense will be in guarding the ocean approaches towards Australia, and the ability to intercept incoming forces a good way out.
    In the end, this will either require sea based fixed wing airpower (the new Canberra's are a starting point to move ahead from later) or long range, land based, interceptors / naval interdictors. And that's something that's hardly available anywere these days. The FB-111s are gone and neither the SuperHornet nor the Lightning II really have such long legs. RQ-4Ns would be a great tool, IMO, as well as mobile, long range, land based AShMs maybe.
    The current / upcoming force structure seems to be more expeditionary in nature right now, but at that laid out quiet well, I think.
    The actuall territorial defense issue doesn't seem to be too pressing on decision makers minds right now.
    Esp. the navy seems to be quiet well suited to take on a security providing role in the south-west pacific in the coming years, and that could be a point they could focus on, I guess.
     
  8. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,876
    Likes Received:
    31,507
    Many of those figures are from: The International Institute for Strategic Studies; Hackett, James (ed.) (2010-02-03). The Military Balance 2010, London: Routledge. ISBN 1857435575.
     
  9. delft
    Offline

    delft Brigadier

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    6,749
    Thank you, Jeff. I haven't followed The Military Balance for twenty or more years, but I imaging that many of the numbers will have received little attention, as those Russian para, while other numbers will have been to difficult to get right. Then there is the influence of propaganda. I remember that the Pentagon doubled its estimate of Soviet military expenditure in the time of President Carter and that was followed by The Military Balance.
     
    #9 delft, Sep 24, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2011
  10. delft
    Offline

    delft Brigadier

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    6,749
    Any invasion force will be much further away from the main Australian population centers than from Australian air bases unless it came from the direction of New Zealand. If in time an increase of Australian defense would be necessary it might more effectively and cheaply be based on airbases rather than aircraft carriers using aircraft like J-20 as well as AShMs.
    The current/upcoming force structure will not give Australia the ability to attack other countries on its own ( and why should Australia need that? ), so it presupposes assisting US attacks on other countries. And that too is madness.
     
Loading...

Share This Page