Australian Military - Page 2




 
--
 
June 9th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
Quote:
It isn't the best in the world however it will do. It has alot of nice weapons in it however Australia should worry more about thier navy and airforce than groundforces.
Ah, yeah um. Maybe you should think more about it. ---- first look at Australia's record at war and in combined operation war games (if you want to find out more, feel free to PM me so I can enlighten you).

As for our weapons.... It isn't the weapons that make us good. Australia has NEVER been interested in having the most/highest technology equipment to win the war. It is ALL about the soldier behind the weapon. We have initial and continuation training that is near on unsurpassed throughout the world. That is why we have a big program of exchange with UK/Canada/USA/Singapore/NZ in order to train their soldiers to train their troopers. For example the US has great IMAP skills, and we've learnt a lot from that, but you guys are learning a lot of things from us about things like field skills, fire and movement, individual field actions, OFOF's, DEF and officer training.

As for improving the navy and the Airforce. We pretty much have what we need at the moment, but is being upgraded beyond belief in the next few years. We have a HUGE land mass (I think people who haven't been to Australia have trouble just grasping how big Australia is and how far it is between places), and as such we have the perfect environment to focus on winning the land war.... and that is what we focus on. The other 2 arms of the defence force are a support to reaching that goal only.

If you want to know more about the ADF, feel free to PM me so I can dispell and misconceptions for you.

Quote:
the budget is probably stretched to the breaking point with Australia supporting the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally, I think the US would have been better to have said "Look we appreciate the offer, but a big help would be if you concentrated on Afghanistan."
How?



Quote:
Speaking for myself, the Australian Military's rep is impressive to say the least
Thanks, cheers

Quote:
These Land Rovers are used by the SAS for long distance patrol work.They are powered by the 3.9 litre turbo Isuzu motor.They carry a crew of three and are equiped with a rear mounted machine gun
Plus 40mm AGL, 66 LAW, Javelin and it also carries a front mount 7.62mm gpmg.

Quote:
i didn't think they were going to retire the Leopard's
That is still up in the air. Due to the retirement of M113's in reg's like 3rd/9th light horse it is a possible option that they will take the Leopards, but then again they may be getting the rovers as well and change to a long range recon role.
June 9th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
he budget is probably stretched to the breaking point with Australia supporting the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally, I think the US would have been better to have said "Look we appreciate the offer, but a big help would be if you concentrated on Afghanistan."
Dear Member,

By simply sending the forces that it would have sent to Iraq to Afghanistan, where they would have only one command and logistic requirement.

I know that Australia puts quality for quanity. But that can work only to a point. Other nations with small populations (and and not just non-democratic ones or poor ones with a draft) have fielded larger military forces.

Finally, the biggest defense shame in that region is New Zealand. They have basically stated they will have others defend NZ -- ie they can't even stop an airliner from overflying NZ now as they have not jet fighters of any kind!

Jack E. Hammond
June 9th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
I'm not too sure about New Zealand, i don't really know enough about them to comment about them militarily in modern times. I do know that Australia and New Zealand are close allies and we would help each other out as needed, b ut i just don't think that NZ has the economy to support any kind of large military.

NZ has some of the most large and fierce men in the world, perfect for soldiering (although some of them are probably a bit too large), and the ANZAC spirit is still strong between the two countries, but yeah i don't think their air force is really in existence at all.

Rich.
--
June 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackehammond

Finally, the biggest defense shame in that region is New Zealand. They have basically stated they will have others defend NZ -- ie they can't even stop an airliner from overflying NZ now as they have not jet fighters of any kind!

Jack E. Hammond

those "jet fighters" were A4k skyhawks, we did the best with what we had, but whatever we had bought to replace them with would not have been in sufficiant quantity to be useful. and when it comes down to it, an Air defence force (more to the point, and air combat squadron) is a white elephant in the NZ budget.

are combined forces are currently building to a MASSIVE spending spree, ANZAC frigates, NZLAVS (strykers), new hercules aircraft, pay rises etc.

our army is well able to punch far above their wieght and you can bet the farm that we'll be where we are needed. do you think that if Australia was threatened that we would just sit on our hands?

the point is that if NZ were to be threatened (by god know who!) they would have to work their way throough alot of other real estate first, you think that a wing of F-16's is going to make any difference at that point?
no...but two or three frigates might
June 10th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Dear Member,

I am stating what your own military leadership is stating privately. The idea behind not having combat aircraft is that if NZ is called on to help its allies or the UN or whatever on bombing missions it can always say "We don't have any combat aircraft." No matter how you cut it NZ has taken the Ireland (or some say the Canadian) option. It knows that Australia, the US, UK, Singapore, etc have no option but to come to NZ defense if something happens. It takes a day and forever to put together an infrastructure once pilots stop training.

Finally the UK took the same attitude about aircraft carriers in 1981. It backfired. And I hope it won't backfire on NZ but history has shown otherwise when any major nation takes this attitude.

Jack E. Hammond


Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackehammond

Finally, the biggest defense shame in that region is New Zealand. They have basically stated they will have others defend NZ -- ie they can't even stop an airliner from overflying NZ now as they have not jet fighters of any kind!

Jack E. Hammond

those "jet fighters" were A4k skyhawks, we did the best with what we had, but whatever we had bought to replace them with would not have been in sufficiant quantity to be useful. and when it comes down to it, an Air defence force (more to the point, and air combat squadron) is a white elephant in the NZ budget.

are combined forces are currently building to a MASSIVE spending spree, ANZAC frigates, NZLAVS (strykers), new hercules aircraft, pay rises etc.

our army is well able to punch far above their wieght and you can bet the farm that we'll be where we are needed. do you think that if Australia was threatened that we would just sit on our hands?

the point is that if NZ were to be threatened (by god know who!) they would have to work their way throough alot of other real estate first, you think that a wing of F-16's is going to make any difference at that point?
no...but two or three frigates might
June 10th, 2005  
jackehammond
 

Topic: Number #2 contender to the F-111


Folks,

Here is an interesting RAAF trivia: What was the other aircraft that was considered other than the F-111 after Australia withdrew from the TSR-2? Hint it is an American aircraft and no it was not the F-4 Phantom or the F-105 Thunderchief. It will surprise you. It sure did me.

Jack E. Hammond
June 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
ah damn....know that one too......I want to say the tomcat...but i know i'm wrong


Australia
The Australian government ordered 24 F-111 aircraft in 1963 to replace the RAAF's English Electric Canberra in the bombing and tactical strike role. While the first aircraft was officially handed over in 1968, structural integrity problems found in the USAF fleet delayed the service entry of the F-111C until 1973, USAF F-4 Phantom IIs being leased as an interim measure. Four aircraft were modified to RF-111C reconnaissance configuration, retaining their strike capability.

A number of ex-USAF aircraft have been delivered to Australia, as attrition replacements and to enlarge the fleet. Four aircraft modified to F-111C status were delivered in 1982, while eighteen F-111G aircraft were purchased in 1992 and delivered in 1994. Additional stored USAF airframes are reserved as a spares source.

Australian F-111s equip No. 1 Squadron and No. 6 Squadron of the RAAF, and are likely to remain in service through 2010.

In Australian military and aviation circles, the F-111 Aardvark is affectionately known as the 'pig,' so named because the name 'aardvark' is originally derived from the Dutch for 'earth pig.'
June 10th, 2005  
Lord Londonderry
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackehammond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwick
Being in the ADF, and probably very biased I think we do pretty good with what we have.
Yes the F111s are being retired down the track but the capeability of the F18s and the new weapon systems being fitted will help cover the shortfall.
The joint stike fighter once it is sorted out in the future will be a great asset o the RAAF.
Our RAAF maritime is excellent and our air lift capeability may apear small when compared to the USA or the Brits but they often out perform these same allies in theatre.
The Navy is aquiring new AA ships and they have modernised the patrol boat fleet.
Army is converting to mobilised reg's and are gaining Abrams tanks to replace the old leopards.
Yep, were small, but we have a very experienced and profesional bunch of people wearing the uniforms doing the job.
Cheers.
Dear Member,

The most potent weapon system that Australia has is the COLLINS submarines. A country that has a navy that has modern submarines (ie and knows how to operate and use them -- ie as the Arabs say "To have a sword and knowing how to use it are not the same.") has a great deterance force and option. Remembe during WW2 if the Allied submarines had been better trained and ready the Japanese might not even have taken Java.

Finally, do you know if they have straighten the problems out with intergating its fire control and weapons systems?

Jack E. Hammond
I think they have but it has been a costly exercise.
June 11th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
Quote:
Finally, do you know if they have straighten the problems out with intergating its fire control and weapons systems?
The fire control issue was resolved years ago, it wasn't costly but it was time consuming.

As for the superiority of the Collins class, some of you may remember a few years back in the Bi-annual US/AUSSIE Shoal Water Bay exercise a Collins class "Sunk" the "flagship" of the visiting US fleet... which was a carrier under full escort. That put an end to the media's questions about the collins class effectiveness.

Quote:
I know that Australia puts quality for quanity. But that can work only to a point. Other nations with small populations (and and not just non-democratic ones or poor ones with a draft) have fielded larger military forces.
You tell me 1 single nation like the type you have mentioned that has fielded a bigger army that could be considerd "superior" to Australia's. Best of luck there.
June 11th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieNick
Quote:
Finally, do you know if they have straighten the problems out with intergating its fire control and weapons systems?
The fire control issue was resolved years ago, it wasn't costly but it was time consuming.

As for the superiority of the Collins class, some of you may remember a few years back in the Bi-annual US/AUSSIE Shoal Water Bay exercise a Collins class "Sunk" the "flagship" of the visiting US fleet... which was a carrier under full escort. That put an end to the media's questions about the collins class effectiveness.

Quote:
I know that Australia puts quality for quanity. But that can work only to a point. Other nations with small populations (and and not just non-democratic ones or poor ones with a draft) have fielded larger military forces.
You tell me 1 single nation like the type you have mentioned that has fielded a bigger army that could be considerd "superior" to Australia's. Best of luck there.
Dear Member,

Please read what I wrote. I never said that they are superior (ie in the wars they would most likely fought as I would not want to put the Aussie Army up against the Israeli Army in armored warfare). I stated that you can take quality only to a point. There is a point where quanity will take on its own quality -- ie the Germans found that out after the invasion at Normandy and the Japanese Navy found that out with pilots. Also, the US has discovered that in Iraq where most US military admits it would have been far better to have more for the occupation.

Jack E. Hammond