Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Savings of $20 billion over the life of the project which covers till 2030.

The details of the plan on Budget night will be interesting. There must be plenty of fat in Defence. Of course, it could all be a pea and thimble trick.

The bitching about who's getting the fat contract for building the submarines has begun, with the ASC likely to miss the boat:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...8-31477,00.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Memo to Andy Walker (and the other galah trying to pretend he's Confucius):

Worse things to be than a 'galah' which I assume is Aussie cab driver speak for person wiser and better informed than oneself :lol: .

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means <expletive deleted> Andy, like you.

It's little wonder so many here and elsewhere disrespect you, except for crawlers like that other galah.

This is a discussion about Australia's military spending. You'll have to save your desperate jibes at Syd Walker for another time. Good luck with that as I believe he has earned far greater respect than you. Unlike yourself, Syd's not phony.

Moderation in red by Evan Burton. Reason: offensive word.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013871,00.html

The authors of this article claim the proposed naval buildup is in response to China's recent naval buildup. They claim China's current defence budget is over $70 billion, more than triple our current spending. Even if the Rudd Government achieves its white paper goals, our naval power will still be dwarfed by that of China, Japan and India.

So what's the point of getting into an arms race we can't win? I think it's a reasonable question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It means <expletive deleted> Andy, like you.

It's little wonder so many here and elsewhere disrespect you, except for crawlers like that other galah.

This is a discussion about Australia's military spending. You'll have to save your desperate jibes at Syd Walker for another time. Good luck with that as I believe he has earned far greater respect than you. Unlike yourself, Syd's not phony.

Moderation in red by Evan Burton. Reason: offensive word.

It is an extraordinary world you live in Mr Stapleton. You are now under moderation for this highly offensive outburst.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013871,00.html

The authors of this article claim the proposed naval buildup is in response to China's recent naval buildup. They claim China's current defence budget is over $70 billion, more than triple our current spending. Even if the Rudd Government achieves its white paper goals, our naval power will still be dwarfed by that of China, Japan and India.

So what's the point of getting into an arms race we can't win? I think it's a reasonable question.

The economic crisis will force all government to reconsider their military programs. Apparently, Gordon Brown is now discussing the possibility of ending the mad Trident program.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-topic, but is there any reason for the UK - and for that matter, France - to maintain a nuclear force?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The economic crisis will force all government to reconsider their military programs. Apparently, Gordon Brown is now discussing the possibility of ending the mad Trident program.

That's what I think too, John.

From what I read most of the big spending would kick in around 2015, so the Government is hoping the recession/depression will be a distant memory by then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Savings of $20 billion over the life of the project which covers till 2030.

I should correct myself here. The $20 billion savings drive covers a ten year period.

According to a story in today's AFR, the Defence Secretary Nick Warner and the Defence Force chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston have issued an ultimatum to the senior management of Defence to co-operate with the savings drive or quit:

http://www.afr.com/home/login.aspx?EDP://2...y-capital_goods

Sorry, the full online article is only available to subscribers. According to the article, the hit list includes $4.4 billion in savings by more efficient management of fleets as well as squeezing industry profit margins on maintenance, parts and fuel. Other targeted areas include surplus inventory holdings ($700 million), administration, equipment purchasing and travel budgets ($4.4 billion) and reducing data centres and computer applications to save $1.9 billion.

I haven't seen anything indicating a reduction in staffing, which would be a relief for Defence Force personnel. I guess we'll know the full details on Tuesday night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
Off-topic, but is there any reason for the UK - and for that matter, France - to maintain a nuclear force?

For security I guess.

Basically, countries don't trust each other.

Governments are continually lobbied by defense contractors to buy into the latest "kit" The industry is worth billions, and contains some very heavy hitters, who no doubt grease the palms of certain Government officials to ensure business as usual. The prospect of a seat on the board is also offered to Ministers once their term of office is over. all toghter now. "MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO AROUND"

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/fed...90512-b1qd.html

We have "done well" but have to find a lot of savings over the next few years.

Well, my concern is aviation. The first thing we are looking at is the 24 Navy helicopters. It seems to be between the NFH-90 or the MH-60R. The NFH-90 has potential and commonality with the utility fleet (MRH-90) but there are risks with the NFH version, which has very limited sea service. The MH-60R has a lot of commonality with our existing fleet of S-70B-2s but has limited potential for growth.

I'll go for the Romeo. Proven capability, MOTS, much experience and commonality, supportable for many years. We can always look at a future version of the NFH for a Romeo replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, sorry for the delay but I don't have a lot of time to do a lot of research at the moment. I'll do my best as I get the time.

Anyway, I've gone through the Australian Bureau of Statistics website and I think I'm right about Defence expenditure. As a percentage of GDP, here is the historical trend of Defence expenditure:

1960-61 2.6%

1961-62 2.6%

1962-63 2.5%

1963-64 2.8%

1964-65 2.4%

1965-66 2.5%

1966-67 2.4%

1967-68 2.5%

1968-69 2.5%

1969-70 2.4%

1970-71 2.4%

1971-72 2.5%

1972-73 2.6%

1973-74 2.4%

1974-75 2.4%

1975-76 2.3%

1976-77 2.4%

1977-78 2.4%

1978-79 2.3%

1979-80 2.3%

1980-81 2.4%

1981-82 2.5%

1982-83 2.6%

1983-84 2.6%

1984-85 2.6%

1985-86 2.6%

1986-87 2.6%

1987-88 2.3%

1988-89 2.1%

1989-90 2.1%

1990-91 2.2%

1991-92 2.3%

1992-93 2.4%

1993-94 2.3%

1994-95 2.1%

1995-96 2.0%

1996-97 1.9%

1997-98 1.9%

1998-99 1.9%

1999-00 1.9%

2000-01 1.8%

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.NSF/Pr...;num=&view=

The last few years can be shown in a graph:

There hasn't been a huge increase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next: the defence contractors. Are they going crazy? You betcha. There are a number of major projects happening, and there are dollars to be made... especially in a recession (or is it a depression?). I don't think you'll find too many people complaining about it; if it means jobs for those that have none, well...

So the question might be: are the defence contractors doing anything particular to encourage defence spending above what can be expected? I don't think so. The projects have been around for a while. The LHD contract was let a year ago or so. With the Seasprite debacle, provision of ASW capability was on the cards. JSF has been there for a while. The AWDs were wanted a while ago, too.

The Super Hornet purchase? That's debatable, with good points for their purchase and equally good points why they should not have been procured.

The new OPVs? Gee - where did I hear that before? Hey! We could get a small helo for them, a proven design but uprate the avionics and tactical system and turn it into a real kick-ass weapon system.... (mutter mutter mutter).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom, sorry for the delay but I don't have a lot of time to do a lot of research at the moment. I'll do my best as I get the time.

Anyway, I've gone through the Australian Bureau of Statistics website and I think I'm right about Defence expenditure. As a percentage of GDP, here is the historical trend of Defence expenditure:

1960-61 2.6%

1961-62 2.6%

1962-63 2.5%

1963-64 2.8%

1964-65 2.4%

1965-66 2.5%

1966-67 2.4%

1967-68 2.5%

1968-69 2.5%

1969-70 2.4%

1970-71 2.4%

1971-72 2.5%

1972-73 2.6%

1973-74 2.4%

1974-75 2.4%

1975-76 2.3%

1976-77 2.4%

1977-78 2.4%

1978-79 2.3%

1979-80 2.3%

1980-81 2.4%

1981-82 2.5%

1982-83 2.6%

1983-84 2.6%

1984-85 2.6%

1985-86 2.6%

1986-87 2.6%

1987-88 2.3%

1988-89 2.1%

1989-90 2.1%

1990-91 2.2%

1991-92 2.3%

1992-93 2.4%

1993-94 2.3%

1994-95 2.1%

1995-96 2.0%

1996-97 1.9%

1997-98 1.9%

1998-99 1.9%

1999-00 1.9%

2000-01 1.8%

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.NSF/Pr...;num=&view=

The last few years can be shown in a graph:

There hasn't been a huge increase.

They're not facts supporting your opinion, Evan.

Those stats only prove that Australia has not yet had a military expansionist policy within Southeast Asia. Rudd said the military budget would grow by 3% in 'real terms' until 2016/17. Combined with the fact the GDP will contract in the next few years, those percentages will rocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...