AVT wrote:Also I do not contest that we are losing some influence in the region, but this is not due to us dropping the ball or the fault of a few Labor ministers, rather it is due to the rise of China and an alternative source of funds for SE Asian aide, which is particularly important to the Pacific Island nations.
The rise of China, and indeed India, actually has the opposite effect. SE Asian countries become more interested in developing links with countries they think are able to counter balence these two large countries. The US was very close to losing real influence in SE Asia until China became strong and started throwing some weight around. Australia should have increased her influence but hasn't due to both the Howard government and the Gillard government abdicating foreign policy to the USA. Rudd has been too China focused, forgetting about SE Asia and north Asia otherside of China. Indeed, our governments have been obsessed with both the USA and China to the exclusion of all else.
Keating's government did a remarkable job in building links with SE Asia. There is still a memory of this, people I know in Indonesia long for the day when such a philisophy returns to Canberra. But that memory won't last forever. Gillard's government has had a one eyed foreign policy, chasing the big money in China, and global status in America.
AVT wrote:For me the greatest problem with the military at the moment is the significant cost overuns with several of their procurement programmes.
This is a problem. However it is the people who are cutting back on defense spending that are responsible for waste. Forexample, Williamstown dockyard in Melbourne was given a role in building the new destroyers for political reasons, shoring up labour support in that electorate. The fellow running the dockyard is a nuckle head and managed to miss read the plans, almost ruining the ship's keel assembly. Defense contracts would ideally be awarded on the basis of compedence and cost rather than for political reasons.
Igor Antunov wrote:Christ what a shitty rip. It represents an absolutely token force. How they manage this little with so much money is a feat of creative accounting. This isn't enough to support anything. Keep in mind that this is to supposedly defend a country approximately the size of Europe? Oh boy, wow.
Wages and salaries take up a large part of the budget. ADF personel get very high pays compared to other nations. This is to retain highly trained people. In the past many people would leave the services for better payed jobs, taking their expensive skills with them. There is much more I could say about this subject. Suffice to say, you'd think that such highly trained, expensive professionals would be best deployed with decent equipment rather than second rate el cheapo equipment options.
GandalfTheGrey wrote:heavy tanks are an absolute waste. How much did those M1A1s cost? That was a travesty. Our land forces should all be light. We should be spending most on air and sea.
Heavy tanks are very appropriate. Let me present some theory and some historical experience.
First off, tanks have a lot of firepower for the number of crew. Consider what I wrote previously about the ADF being highly paid and expensive. Tanks make the most out of small numbers of well trained soldiers. Tanks can also mount contempory sensors (eg: thermal imaging). This makes a big difference.
Secondly, let's take a look at Australian armour in Vietnam. In that conflict, the only armour initially deployed was the light M113 APC. It weighed in around 11 tons. This vechical proved vunerable to close quarters battles characteristic of the dense battlefield in jungles. Infanry can get close to armour. For light armour, this is fatal. Light armour works best at a distanct where it can employ it's heavy vechical mounted weapons while using it's mobility to stay out of the infantry weapons range. Thin armour vechical blow up real fast when the infantry get close to it.
Eventually Centurian tanks were deployed in Vietnam. They proved very effective close in as the VC's RPG2's couldn't pententrate the armour, even on the sides. The Centurians could move around in the jungle much better than had been expected. They weighed 55 tons and so were able to knock down any trees in their path and crush bamboo. The VC often built bases in dense jungle where lighter armour couldn't go. The M113's, forexample, would run nose up against bamboo stands. The protection and mobility of the Centurians proved very effect and resulted in successful attacks on well fortifed psotions with few casulties to the attacking Australians.
The M1A1 is a very nice jungle tank. It weighs 70 tons, has better mobility than the old Centurians and better protection. It is also capable of destroying any enemy armour encountered. Such a vechical can dominate open areas and operate successfully in more closed terrain.
In general, armour is a good idea for a small but highly trained army. However, you are correct in stating airpower is important. As is naval power. But consider armour is very cheap compared to those two and thus it is difficult to see why the army's armour projects are being cut back.
- By FiveofSwords
- By Potemkin
- By wat0n