Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
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:

Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



19 Aug, 2011 - Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare announced the delivery to Adelaide of the first keel block that will be used to construct HMAS Hobart – Australia’s first Air Warfare Destroyer. “This is an important step forward in the $8 billion project to construct three new warships,” Mr Clare said. This first block weighs around 180 tonnes. It is 18 metres long, 16 metres wide and five metres high and will form part of the keel of HMAS Hobart.
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
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The Spanish have five of these vessels to escort their carriers and LPHS.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
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
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Lots of hi-res pics in the link below.
 

delft

Brigadier
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.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
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 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.

 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
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.
 

delft

Brigadier
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 %?
 

Scratch

Captain
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.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
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 %?
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.
 

delft

Brigadier
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
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.
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.
 

Top