It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian Army Tech

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Basiclly i have compiled a list of what we have and in what numbers we have them in an attempt to find out what our strengths are and how we stack up on the world stage (preferably against a country of similar population like canada for example) I am NOT saying could we fight any of these countries just is our technology and numbers suitable for our defense in comparison with similar sized countries.

Statistics

*Military Budget: $14,120.1 million (2003) thats in Australian dollars by the way.

*Active Duty Troops : 25,600

*Reserve Troops: 15,500
www.army.com...


Land

*M1A2 Abrams tank - amount 60 by 2007
www.smh.com.au...

*Leapord AS1 – I am assuming the amount is 60 or above as the Abrams tank is being phased in as a replacement for this ageing tank.

*M198 155mm Towed Howitzer – In service with two Artillery Regiments.

*105mm Field Artillery Gun L119 – In service with most Australian Artillery Regiments.

* Australian Light Armoured Vehicle (ASLAV) - Current amount 100+ with a further 144 by 2005
Purchased in 1992 from Canada with a continuing contract.
www.defence.gov.au...

*M113A1 APC - amount 350
www.defence.gov.au...

*Landrover 110 – Amount Unknown
Just a jeep really, I personally prefer the Humvee

*Weapons
Rifle – F88 Steyr
Light Machine gun – F89 (designated the M249 SAW by the U.S)


In addition We have the SAS and two commando regiments. Both are highly regarded world wide.

Air

All information on Australias Air Force found at en.wikipedia.org...

*F/A – 18 Hornet – Amount 71, built in Australia under licence from McDonnell Douglas. Planned retirement date 2015.
*F -111 types C, R abd USAF F – 111G. Amount 35 Purchased through General Dynamics.
(Australia has purchased 100 F-35’s. Purchased in 2002 from Lockheed Martin and expected to be delivered in 2012 to replace both the F -111 and the F/A -18.)

*P-3 Orion – Amount 20. Manufactured by Lockheed Martin and used as a maritime patrol and strike aircraft.

*C -130 H and J types amounting 24. Manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

I couldn’t find much information on our Helicopters in regards to amounts but we do use the Eurocopter (tiger), Iroquois, Black Hawk, Chinook, Kiowa, Seasprite, Sea King and Seahawk.

Sea

*8 ANZAC class frigates – Based on the German Meko 200 frigate design.

*6 ADELAIDE class frigates

*2 KANIMBLA class – Former U.S Tank landing ships, Now used in duel roles of Helicopter support and Sea training.

*6 COLLINS class Submarines

*6 HUON class Mine Hunters

*35 Patrol Boats divided amongst the FREMANTLE and ATTACK classes.

*2 Replenishment ships.


So that’s about all I could find, Opinions on how we stack up would be great but I must insist this isn’t a “who could we pick a fight with” thread. It’d be also nice to know any other information that I may have overlooked as well as what tech would be better suited then what our ARMY is currently fielding.
Thanks
Red Rose




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   
If your talking about countries with similiar aspects to Aus i can sayAus fair pretty well.

The thing is we fair better than countries in indo-china. Although these countries have bigger troop disposal our technology is ahead and the indo-china navies are basically non-existent.

However compared to countries in terms of population not geography we are below average. Canada is further advanced than Australia. This is due to Canada's bigger income.
More income equals bigger military spending.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Canada has a 30% advantage according to this:

www.strategypage.com...

It shows Canada with 2400 AFV's (
) so might be a glitch



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Australia is doing what Canada should do.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
and... what should Canada do???



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
too lazy to write a post about it so i went on the net and found something that may interest you:




Kudos to my Australian friends: your defence policy is an absolutely brilliant demonstration of what a medium power's policy should be.

I was at a conference last week organized at my university. The title was
“Australia's Strategic Environment and its Implications for Defence Policy and the Australian Defence Force". The speaker, Lieutenant-colonel Tim A. Grutzner (Haut-commissariat de l'Australie au Canada), gave a 30-minute presentation of Australia's defence and strategic posture in the near future, and I must say, as a student of strategic studies, I was blown away.

Australia is a perfect example of what a medium international and major regional power can achieve with sound policies. In a nutshell, Australia's policy is made up of two aspects: defend the national territory's integrity (against a variety of threats, ranging from people smugglers and pirates to full-blown ballistic strikes coming from potential threats such as DPRK) and its approaches (Australia is after all an island), and maintain a deployment capability in the immediate area of strategic interest (mostly SE Asia) and worldwide as part of the commitment to the global war on terror. This policy is supported by high-end technology rather than numbers. Australia recently acquired AEW aircrafts, built a sophisticated radr detection network to protect the northern approaches and will acquire Aegis-equipped destroyers. A well-maintained air force supplements the Navy for national defence as well as provide a stand-off strike capability with the acquisition of SLAM-ER missiles.
To further deployment capabilities, the Navy has acquired two high-end amphibious assault ships similar to those who form the core of the US MEU(SOC). Those ships will guarantee a capability to deploy rapidly and for a long duration anywhere in the region, a force built around the battalion combat group. Accordingly, cooperative training between ADF and US forces has shifted from the Hawai-based 25th ID to USMC MEUs as main partners on the US side. Basically, all three of the ADF's land brigades will soon have all the mission capabilities of the US MEU(SOC), making the ADF infantry battalion a force to be truly reckoned with. The SF entity has also been expanded, a reflection of their central role in the war on terrorism.
The latest defence White paper also incorporates lessons learned from recent successful operations in east Timor and the Solomon islands, as well as the results of studies on the mutual impacts of strategic and economic policies, making the new defence policy incredibly well-rounded and comprehensive. The core principle is that, although Australia remains an active member of many military and political alliances, it seeks the ability to achieve its objectives independantly as well as part of a larger coalition. This makes for a nation that retains on the one hand a secure situation in terms of national security and sovereignty as well as a truly siginificant impact on world affairs. Quite simply, an amazing yet quiet achievement.

I was especially impressed, since Canada falls in the same category as Australia in terms of power. However, we don't have, as of now, a fraction of its power. We do have the potential, Australia was in much of the same situation as lately as 8 years ago. The change in policy undertaken by the Howard government truly turned that around. Canada could achieve a similar degree of national security and sovereignty (especially with future issues such as the NW passage and fishing banks, which we fail at protecting right now) and most importantly, the necessary strategic weight to make our voice heard on a global scale. It's especially frustrating to look at our forces rot away, further letting Canada slip in political irrelevance, when we have the potential to achieve the same prominence Australia does. We NEED a serious shift in political mentality though. I can only hope the Canadian people someday realize we NEED a serious military potential and a sound defence and strategic policy if we want to secure our quality of life and our impact on world affairs. And I hope it happens soon.

Until then, do you Aussies take fellow Commonwealth volunteers in the ADF? Laughing Wink


[edit on 30-6-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
... so they made a medium power defence policy??? and thats what Canada should do 2???



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by russiankid
... so they made a medium power defence policy??? and thats what Canada should do 2???


making. Converting the ADF basically into in a small, hight tech and mobile military force that is more able to support military operations overseas and work better with our allies and at the same time increase our capabilities as an independent force. A lot of it is still a long way off, but the white paper is there and the money is being spent.

My only beef is that our dear F-111s are going to be retired early, we love the aardvark



[edit on 30-6-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
hight tech and mobile military that can support operations over seas.... and y does canada need that?? arent they getting stuff like that from the U.S.A???



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Interesting stuff Dr Funk i learnt somthing so thanks mate


[edit on 30-6-2005 by Red Rose]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
By the way those 6 COLLINS class submarines have to be repaired and theres a high chance they might not even work. If we needed subs right now at this very second we wouldn't have any. So count those submarines out now.

P.S Aussies are real suckers for buying second and soemtimes third hand equipment from the usa which generally takes billions to repair.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uk_United
By the way those 6 COLLINS class submarines have to be repaired and theres a high chance they might not even work. If we needed subs right now at this very second we wouldn't have any. So count those submarines out now.


The Collins class subs are fully operational. In fact in exercises last year a Collins sub infiltrated a US CBG and theoretically sunk it.


P.S Aussies are real suckers for buying second and soemtimes third hand equipment from the usa which generally takes billions to repair.


Ummm ok. What are you talking about exactly ? The Seasprite helicopters ? because that is the only[/b[ example I can think of. You really should do even a tiny bit of reading before you shoot off at the mouth, it would help if you informed yourself


PS. Oh yeah in case you were wondering the Collins class subs aren't American, duh.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
arent those ex-american helicopters from vietnam.

why doesn't america just give austraila the airframes



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   
How do the Collins class fare out in blue water territory?



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How do the Collins class fare out in blue water territory?


Pretty well they had their problems to begin with but are now fully capable. As I said previously they were able to sneak inside a CBG to within a few km of the carrier during exercises in the Pacific.

Our sub cammanders go through the British Perisher course, so they are among the most highly trained in the world. Which of course also helps with the combat capabilities of a submarine.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Umm I haven't just wildly accused stuff, the Collins submarines have had over 7 billion spent on their repair so don't bs me about my facts. This figure was out of the Australian defence budget for 2004 so this is a fact!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uk_United
Umm I haven't just wildly accused stuff, the Collins submarines have had over 7 billion spent on their repair so don't bs me about my facts. This figure was out of the Australian defence budget for 2004 so this is a fact!!!


Ummm, These aren't second or third hand equipment, they're not even American. SO like I said before do some reading before you go shooting your mouth off.

Much of the money spent on their ' repair ' was to incorporate new computers and software. They are now among the most advanced and deadly deisel subs in the world capable of long range open water missions as well as littoral warfare.

PS. AS I hvae already said "
The Collins class subs are fully operational. DUH.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   
The money was used to repair already faulty software and technical difficulties within the subs, so therefore repair, and bring the subs up to modern day standards. Do not tell me that this was worth the money.
The money spent on the Collins subs , 6 of them, could of fuelled schooling for over 12 years!!



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   
From what I can gather, Australia bit off more than it could chew when we decided to build the Collins Class subs ourselves...we just don't possess the expertise required, and subsequently botched the job.

In addition to that, once we bought them off the Swedes, we decided to let the Americans fit them out, like putting a round peg in a square hole. The end result....subs that are louder than a rock band underwater, delays, and a massive budgetary blowout.

The best solution would've been to allow the Swedes to build them lock, stock and barrel, and deliver them in one piece...and working properly.

Unfortunately, there would've been a domestic political uproar if we did that, so of course we took the path we have...at great expense both financially and to our national security.

Just my two cents worth.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Small correction: yes, the Collins Class subs are supposed to be fully operational now, and are apparently not as loud, although the navy managed to crash one into the sea bed off Sydney in trials a few months ago...oops.

The 2nd hand former U.S. tank ships basically were rust buckets...like buying a nicely painted car from a 2nd hand car dealer, only to find out later that it's rust infested.

They were also repaired...at vast expense, however I often saw them down the road from where used to I live, and they were constantly being given a coat of paint...to cover up the rust showing through. Oh well, better luck next time I guess.

As for the F1-11's, I agree, they're excellent, and we should make them our own version of the U.S. 50 year old B-52's, after all, they were originally purchased to be able to reach China. They may end up fulfilling that requirement after all.

Apparently, old cabinet documents show that we intended to fit them out with our own Aussie nuclear weapons, made from plutonium enriched at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The cabinet papers apparently state that the government changed its mind in the late 60's, and decided to use the F1-11's for conventional purpouses only.

We've got more uranium than we know what to do with, so that project wouldn't have been a problem to achieve.

Going forward, I'm no expert, but as a former Indonesian Foreign Minister said "Australia isn't about to be invaded by the penguins".

I think the amphibious ships are a great idea, and maybe we should've taken up the USAF offer to buy a whole lot of 2nd hand F-15's dirt cheap- as long as we kicked the tires first this time.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join