Australia orders $3.7 Billion in U.S. Military Aid.

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Well now, I knew we were friendly. I didn't realize it was quite this busy for export relationships on advanced weapons systems. Interesting. I suppose these ought to be helpful to Australia's military and defense ability.


(ii) Total Estimated Value:
Major Defense Equipment* $2.6 billion
Other $1.1 billion
TOTAL $3.7 billion

(Current Sale)


Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for
Purchase: up to 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft, 54 F414-
GE-402 engines (48 installed and 6 spares), 2 engine inlet devices, 35 AN/APG-79 Radar
Systems, 70 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume
Terminals (MIDS-LVT) or RT-1957(C)/USQ-190(V) Joint Tactical Radio Systems, 40
AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems, 24 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare
Countermeasures Receiving Sets, 72 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers, 15 M61A2
Vulcan Cannons, 32 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles or Night Vision Cueing Device
Systems, 40 AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponders,

(. . . and a partiridge in a pear tree if one looks hard enough, I'll bet.)

Oh, but wait, that's not all of interest. This isn't a new or special thing.


Prior Related Cases, if any:
FMS Case SAF-$2.2B-02May07
FMS case GQY-$358M–6May11
FMS case LEN- $992M–13September12
Source (PDF File)

It would seem that where weapons are the business, business is good the world over. Everyone knows about the combined billions out to Egypt and Israel on a regular, annual basis. It's interesting to start seeing just how many nations get such considerations for defense purchasing from Uncle Sam's Walmart of Warfare.




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I want to add to the thread from the outset that attention to the cover letters is important and was considered before posting this to share. There is, by inference, a classified side of this sale and report. This is the unclassified and legally required side of the report for the public to see. It's fascinating in itself as a few pages go into individual systems, their use and classification level for detailed information beyond what this carries.

Who says ATS never sees anything special posted?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Are'nt Super Hornets getting kinda old these days?
I thought we were getting the joint fighter thingys



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by LeLeu
 
Interestingly enough, the Super Hornet seems back in fashion as the fighter of the near term future.


The MYP-II contract ran from 2005-2009, and was not renewed because the Pentagon intended to focus on the F-35 fighter program. When it became clear that the F-35 program was going to be late, and had serious program and budgetary issues, pressure built to abandon year-by-year contracting, and negotiate another multi-year deal for the current Super Hornet family. That deal is now final.
Source

That article is from January. It sounds like all is not well with the latest and greatest fighters to come along. At least the old tech is reliable tech and it doesn't sound that old with the upgrades and current systems. Hmm... Now if we can just have a couple Carriers operating outside port for the Navy to use them on.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   


Australia orders $3.7 Billion in U.S. Military Aid.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

The figure of $3.7b represents less than 15% of Australia's annual military budget, reconciliation would probably cross at least two fiscal periods anyway, so no big deal there with the sum.

It's important for Australia to have a viable military presence in our geo' location, so who better to purchase high end defence systems from... the US.

Now oddly enough, the US has recently expressed concerns about Australia's defence budget austerity measures... maybe this may appease them somewhat, they just got another $3.7b out of us.



Who says ATS never sees anything special posted?


It made for an interesting read though, it's info' that would have been classified until recently and not readily available post release



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LeLeu
 


No F-35's until 2017, apart from a couple that will be used as test craft in the near future.

That's when the phase out of the SuperHornet will begin, they're really only a stop gap between the retired F111's and the JSF.

I have a feeling though, that we'll be hanging onto the hornets for a long while!



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



and the disarmament begins.....

How are WE going to replace that hardware? We cant afford to.....

Also those aircraft are kind of necessary since we cant count on the new crap being over priced and under sold to us.

We need these things for OUR future defense.

In the end they will completely disarm us.


edit on 8-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Thats such a shame.

I hope that the Aussies raise hell over this.

Where exactly is the need for all the militarism? The only nation invading anyone is the US...



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
If you read "In Fear of Security" by Professor Anthony Burke (Adelaide University) , its been pointed out Australia has a historical fear of being invaded by China, and with the current provocations in NK, maybe they are even more fearful of world war 3 breaking out, being somewhat isolated and their main foe being China. I don't know if anyone remebers the rhetoric during the Bush era of Australia being the Sheriff of the Asia pacific, but i would argue they still maintain that ideology.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


I was going to mention the same thing. The Australians need to be able to protect themselves at all costs. Who knows what that psychopath Kim has up his sleeves with the help of China.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


China is not the problem. If anyone can invade it would be Indonesia. China can not project sufficient force over that distance not to mention the US intervention that would occur.

Biggest threat to Aussie Land is Indonesia. They could float over in fishing boats and yes, they have lots of fishing boats. Think Dunkirk in reverse.

P



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Raise hell?

The Super Hornets are replacing 50 year old airframes...

Sorry to say, but if that's what you consider militarism, then you haven't got a clue...

edit on 8/3/13 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


China is not the problem. If anyone can invade it would be Indonesia. China can not project sufficient force over that distance not to mention the US intervention that would occur.

Biggest threat to Aussie Land is Indonesia. They could float over in fishing boats and yes, they have lots of fishing boats. Think Dunkirk in reverse.

P

What you say makes sense and I think you're right. It's the same reason China is no real threat to the United States unless the US is foolish enough to commit military in China's own neighborhood and backyard. They just don't have the ability to project and keep logistics going around the world. Not for many years, at least.

The military buildup or at least focus in Australia is curious though. Is Indonesia really that serious a threat outside chaotic illegal immigration I've heard people talk about? It was just a few months ago that the balloon was being floated for home porting at least one U.S. Aircraft Carrier in Australia. That didn't float far, as I recall, but it sure got put out there.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Australia. Population 22millionish. Military 57000 full time, 22000 reserve.

Indonesia. 242 million give or take. Military 476000 approx.

You only need to look at Australian base locations to see what the Australian govt fears the most.

Militarised bases in the north. Logistics and training in the south.

The FA18F replaced the F111, an airframe that was 30+ years old, and well overdue for retirement. The RAAF lend-leased the FA18F 'Rhinos' from the US Navy as a stop-gap between the F111 and the F35 that was due to enter service in 2016. There has been talk about buying them, but at this stage the overdue project seems to be leading in favour of purchasing the Rhinos.

Personally I think we'd be better off keeping the two seater Super Hornets, and upgrading the FA18A Hornets to the FA18E's, rather than wasting time on the so called 'stealth fighters' that are already out of date, and we'll be lucky to see in operational status before 2020.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



... in U.S. Military Aid


...oh and by the way, I don't believe this to be military aid as such... this is a fully remunerated transaction for goods and services provided.

It so happens that the term military aid has certain connotations attached to it.

Cheers








edit on 8-3-2013 by Perhaps because: meh



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   

What you say makes sense and I think you're right. It's the same reason China is no real threat to the United States unless the US is foolish enough to commit military in China's own neighborhood and backyard. They just don't have the ability to project and keep logistics going around the world. Not for many years, at least.


China and the US are too deeply embedded in each other's financials to ever get into an outright war. I think if we saw something like that it would resemble Vietnam, with the major players pulling the strings at the behest of a smaller nation. Neither China or the US would be directly involved. What we're seeing is a shift away from Europe as the common theatre of war towards Asia, and of course Australia is the western hub of Asia, so it makes sense the US would have a presence nearby. The thing I don't understand is with all the presence already in Korea, Japan and eastern Asia by the US forces, having another presence in mainland Australia is just for show.


Is Indonesia really that serious a threat outside chaotic illegal immigration I've heard people talk about? It was just a few months ago that the balloon was being floated for home porting at least one U.S. Aircraft Carrier in Australia. That didn't float far, as I recall, but it sure got put out there.


Indonesia has nearly ten times the population of Australia, in a space about a quarter of the size. Being a part of monarchial Britain still, the UK would have to step in if one of it's colonies was invaded, and of course the US would surely follow suit. I would suspect that's why to date the whole Republic Australia idea has been quashed, because it would leave Australia too vulnerable from attack from Asian forces.

About our main saving grace is any invading force would have to cross miles of rough desert and harsh terrain to get anywhere near the major centres. Australia is not very friendly to any invading force.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by 74Templar
 


We can take them if we have to but we need high tech to do it. Out training is top shelf, in some ways better than the US because out troops have to be more self reliant than the US at the squad level.

The problem is that Indonesia has a lot of fishing boats, and while this may seem funny to say, I am not sure if we have enough missiles to stop them. We certainly do not have enough torpedoes.


The problem would really come if the US retracted its military due to say, being broke. Then Indonesia may consider it or even entice other smaller nations to form an alliance.

It is the tech that can stop them. In pure numbers, we have not got a hope. Of course they have to get some armor over here and that would be problematic for them. It will be good when we have a few more Subs that are able to interdict larger vessels bringing armor. Without armor, any aggressor will lose, and we have first rate armor well suited to a defense role.

P



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


thats not true.

France was just in Africa, malaysia has just been invaded by philipino terrorists supporting royalty, ect...

the list is actually kind of long.

It is naive to say "the US is the only one invading anyone"....not to mention Australia has been involved in MOST wars if not all that the UK and the US have had. Even Vietnam, Korea, EVERYWHERE.

The mercenaries in the middle east are from all over the globe and are being paid by companies from all over the globe as well....

there is more to the story than the "evil US"....

edit on 8-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


There's no doubt our militia are better trained, and we have the tech. But it's really just a matter of numbers. At 232 million, Indonesia has the world's fourth largest population, and generally has unlimited numbers to pull from. Without aid from overseas coalitions such as the US and UK, a long drawn out war is something we'd eventually lose, by sheer force of numbers.

Really, you have to look at why any invading force would come here in the first place. We're really too remote to use as a forward staging area, and given the fact long range bombers could strike the US directly from eastern China, and vise versa, it would make no sense to occupy here, even if you had a large invasion force.

Australia's main source of invading income would be agriculture and raw fuels and materials to run a war machine. I would suspect that is what the US is looking at, a source of raw materials for their war machine should they need it.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
On the Australian Aircraft Carrier comment... right now in the williamstown shipyards in victoria is a massive by aussie standards naval chopper carrier being fitted out.
You can see quite clearly as you drive to work over the west gate bridge that it has a take off ramp on the prow which I'd assumed was for the JSF's we had ordered because they are a jump jet yes?
I can't see choppers taking a run up and taking off via a ramp? and maybe other planes maybe could be catapulted up the ramp but there wouldn't be anywhere for a standard plane to land?
So I'd say we are still getting the jsf's soonish unless as per usual the governments spent money on something we don't need!!
We are getting two of them...The Canberra and the Adelaide
Both are bigger than our last Aircraft Carrier The Melbourne
edit on 8-3-2013 by Anonbeleiver77 because: added names





new topics
top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum