Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


ADF General discussion thread

This is a discussion on ADF General discussion thread within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Just to show how much is the budget really for procurement. This year budget for defense close to USD 8 ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old May 11th, 2013   #61
Senior Member
Colonel
Ananda's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,555
Threads:
Just to show how much is the budget really for procurement. This year budget for defense close to USD 8 bio. However less than 22% of that can be allocated for procurement. The rest is for maintanance and salary. The President currently try to increased the mordernisation effort, but with (example) USD 33 bio spend on fuel or energy subsidise alone, not much can be done to significatly increase the defense budget from now. They (the military) can considered lucky if manage to get 15% increase next year on current budget.

In short even if Indonesia manage to keep economic growth on 6%-7% for next decade, it will be hard to raise the budget from current 0.9%-1% of GDP. Unless something significant on region security environment changes. Next year is ellection year, thus more budget will be allocated for social project as vote getting measure, which are more or less the same situations in many countries during ellection year.

The President opening political salvo to opposition, which then can put the blame on them if next year mordernisation packages being halted in parliement due to political wrangling.

What current administrations more interested on defense is more on building capacity and capabilities of local defense industries. That's why increase cooperations with ROK in defense happen. Not because ROK provide better prices or quality, but more due to the effort in increasing local industries involvement in which ROK willing more to give.
Ananda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2013   #62
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 34
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weegee View Post
I found this today saying that Indonesia is buying over hundred second hand tanks from Germany see this link for the article Germany To Sell Tanks to Indonesia | Defense News | defensenews.com.
It seems as though they are pushing ahead with getting more military kit, I just wonder why so many tanks? its not like they have huge expanses of area for tank warfare like we do here in Australia? And if Indo are involved in some type of conflict internaly lets say, how will they get these tanks from island to island they do seem to have a few of those!

Looking at the article, that amount of vehicles is enough for one armoured brigade. I would think this is an example of 'keeping up with the Jones'. Both Australia and Singapore have been playing with new tanks in recent years, so I guess the Indonesians felt they'd like to play with some tanks too. Forming an armoured brigade wouldn't be high on my list of priorities if I was running the TNI, though.
foxdemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2013   #63
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,927
Threads:
Quadrant Online - Why Our Defence Forces Face Terminal Decline

I have just read this piece by Jim Molan and it eruditely presents a point of view on the ADF's relationship with the people and their current government.

His description of Minister Smith as the "CEO" of defence is telling:

"He doesn't like the ADF, doesn't trust it, doesn't want to be the CEO, has no strategic long term vision, is not prepared to pay for defence, shows no public interest in its ultimate operational effectiveness, is risk averse in a portfolio that is all about risk, believes that accountability starts one step down from himself while irrationally attacking the ADF's reputation and consistently tells political half truths to the comany shareholders, the Australian people".

I found it an excellent read (forgive me if this is old news to some) and a thoughtful analysis of Australian Defence Policy and implementation in recent years.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2013   #64
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 165
Threads:
Since Australia now has a new goverment, when can we expect any announcements on changes/cuts/ new procurement?
Will they wait for a new White Paper or will there be any immediate announcements?
Navor86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2013   #65
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,318
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navor86 View Post
Since Australia now has a new goverment, when can we expect any announcements on changes/cuts/ new procurement?
Will they wait for a new White Paper or will there be any immediate announcements?
I'm sure there will be range of differing views, but in my opinion, I think that until the new Government produces and announces it's new Defence White Paper there probably won't be any major announcements either way.

The Libs have said the new DWP will be due within 18mths, so at a guess, I'd say it will be announced just prior to the 2015 Budget.

Below is their party Defence Policy announced prior to the election:

http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.co...%20Defence.pdf

There is not a lot of detail, which you would expect from a pre election policy document, but from what I can see a number of the clearer messages are:

* Spending to 2% within a decade
* A decision within 18mths to ensure there is no submarine gap (ties in with the new DWP), and the replacements will be built in Adelaide.
* A commitment to the choice of the F-35, but more specifically on the initial 72 F-35's, but says this does also depend on the previous Governments commitments to Super Hornets (maybe this is referring to the additional 12 Growlers??)
* Mention and consideration of a 'Triton' type capability, but won't make decision a from opposition (probably means no announcement till the DWP)

So I suppose it will come down to, what are the 'major' decisions that are due to be made between now and the Libs new 2015 DWP?

And that probably means the 12 F-35A's (to make up the 1st Sqn of 14), maybe the Growlers, maybe something on the replacement of Success and Sirius might be examples of decisions that need to be addressed before the DWP

It will be interesting if the new Government will release the long awaited 2013 DCP that Labor would have prepared or will the DCP be skipped over for a while till they do a bit of a 're-write' on it before release?
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2013   #66
Defense Enthusiast
Major
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 884
Threads:
A few guys here have been talking about a SPH buy .
They are usually right so it would be nice to see the SPH get the nod after it was dropped by Labour! Paladin or K-9's would look great with a kangaroo on the side.
PZH2000 would be a dream come true.

Time will tell
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2013   #67
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,754
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
A few guys here have been talking about a SPH buy .
They are usually right so it would be nice to see the SPH get the nod after it was dropped by Labour! Paladin or K-9's would look great with a kangaroo on the side.
PZH2000 would be a dream come true.

Time will tell
Given a choice, I think a M109 buy of some version would be best, if any SPH were to be purchased. While the ADF does want (and would be better served with) an SPH with a 52-cal. barrel, the design is also spec'd to use an integrated fires system. None of the 52-cal. systems use what Australia uses, but the M109's do.

Time (and politics) however will tell.

-Cheers
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2013   #68
Defense Enthusiast
Major
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 884
Threads:
This might be of interest ... Prof Paul Dibb at the SPC meeting.

SPC13-26 - Session 7 - Emeritus Professor Paul Dibb - YouTube
Some points i found interesting were

*Less revenue coming into government,but government still spending!
* An extra $2.9 Billion a year needed to pay for high end platforms
* Cut defence civilian bureaucracy (to help pay for the $2.9 billion)

If not we may get ......

*Less JSF than the 100 quoted
*Less subs than the 12 planed ( as a number of you def pros have already said)
*Land 400 to be reconsider ....

What do you guys think...
More for Navy ,less for Army ?

EDIT. there are a number of youtube videos up on the RANMedia website of the SPC conference you guys might find interesting

http://www.youtube.com/user/RANMedia?feature=watch

Cheers
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2013   #69
Defense Enthusiast
Major
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 884
Threads:
Prof Paul Dibb also talks about Submarine's at the 27 minute mark. He has a few interesting comments about subs.

He also talks about Multi role platforms being of greater flexibility for a defence force such as the ADF.

He states we should be thinking of plug in ,plug out capability as the LCS brings, being a capability we should look at to replace our frigates.


SPC13-28 - Session 7 - QandA - YouTube

Last edited by the road runner; October 14th, 2013 at 10:39 PM.
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2013   #70
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,927
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
EDIT. there are a number of youtube videos up on the RANMedia website of the SPC conference you guys might find interesting

RANMedia - YouTube

Cheers
I found Kim Beazley's presentation the most interesting and relevant to todays challenges.
He spoke about the ability to control and dominate the approaches to the north and north west and revealed that the strategic imperative of the time dictated a destroyer/frigate force of 17 ships in order to protect the five identified choke points and ensure dominance of ASW and electronic surveillance.

Nothing has changed for the RAN but the atrophy of our escort force makes any such dominance impossible.
The very thought of the Anzac replacement reducing from 8 to 6 is beyond belief and a fourth AWD a real no brainer. (I usually stay out of the debate on force structure but Beazley's presentation rang a cord).

Interestingly he also states that the multiplier effect of submarine numbers 7 & 8 is so pervasive that a force of 12 is not required and frees up money for the escort force.
His presentation is worth the 25 mins in viewing IMHO

Regards
Chris

SPC13-22 - Session 6 - The Hon Kim Beazley - YouTube
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2013   #71
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,655
Threads:
I was reading the current issue of defence today and they seem to be under the impression because of the cost growth margin for the future frigate program we may end up with as little as 4 vessels, if that was the case would we be better off just building additional AWD as these can work down from their intended role.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2013   #72
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
I was reading the current issue of defence today and they seem to be under the impression because of the cost growth margin for the future frigate program we may end up with as little as 4 vessels, if that was the case would we be better off just building additional AWD as these can work down from their intended role.
Cost growth margin is normally factored into contingency - I wouldn't be taking that insight as insightul
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2013   #73
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,398
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Cost growth margin is normally factored into contingency - I wouldn't be taking that insight as insightul
It really is a sad state of affairs, I really wish a certain ex-PM and her faceless backers had left things well enough alone and let the Bomber run as opposition leader again. IMO he would have been in with a shot in 2004 and would have romped it in in 2007 and Australia would be in a better state now, defence definitely would.

Does anyone remember Bombers statement ref an early replacement of the F-111, forming a couple of extra RAR Btns and beefing up border protection? he was closer to right than anyone else at the time. Could you imagine him mismanaging the stimulus?

Government needs to change every now and the, its a necessary part of Democracy, I just wish Labor had stuck with the grown ups instead of going with people who were not ready, people who needed time in senior ministerial roles to lean the ropes. People who needed to prove themselves before promotion.

The state of the RAN is what pi$$es me off the most, it is so much smaller and less capable than was planned and I don't know if it will ever recover because the people who made all the current decisions (bar Choules) are now back in charge.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2013   #74
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,026
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Does anyone remember Bombers statement ref an early replacement of the F-111, forming a couple of extra RAR Btns and beefing up border protection? he was closer to right than anyone else at the time. Could you imagine him mismanaging the stimulus?
What's that? A politician promised something?

Well, that absolutely would have happened then...
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2013   #75
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,927
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Government needs to change every now and the, its a necessary part of Democracy, I just wish Labor had stuck with the grown ups instead of going with people who were not ready, people who needed time in senior ministerial roles to lean the ropes. People who needed to prove themselves before promotion.

The state of the RAN is what pi$$es me off the most, it is so much smaller and less capable than was planned and I don't know if it will ever recover because the people who made all the current decisions (bar Choules) are now back in charge.
I agree entirely that Bomber could have changed the last several years for Labor but look at the university debating team they've just elected to lead them, not much rope learning there and that's a real shame but don't blame the current govt for the sins of Smith and co and the use of DoD budget to bankroll Labor's excesses.

If you've had time to look at ex minister Hills presentation and Q&A responses from the conference, you will be appalled at the seemingly lack of preparation, grasp of topic and general incompetence of this person, the contrast with Bomber is stark. I had no knowledge of his performance as defmin as I was embroiled in work for the last many years before joining this forum but if that performance was indicative of his years in charge it is little wonder the wheels fell off.
Chris
[/I]
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 PM.