Australia's Large Budget Surplus, Spawns Spending Speculation

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
‘TOP GUN’ COSTELLO PONDERS BUDGET SURPLUS OUTCOME:
A recent DIAR article which I can't reproduce (copyright) has discussed the Budget Surplus's burgeoning cash surplus ($18.1b) for the current financial year (compared to $14.8b forecast) Peter Costello recently visited RAAF Williamstown and took a ride in a FA-18, the government is about to undertake joint considerations of signing up to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Production Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) MOU with the United States.

My thinking is why not has a light thread where some spending of this additional money 3.3 Billion could be used for, it is pegged for major offshore purchases according to the articles. I'm thinking we could be coming up to some major acquisitions that are possibly not quite due for purchase. An example of this was the rapid procurement of the C17 (First aircraft due by year end) LP 17 has recently been moved forward after being moved back etc.

My thinking of possible additional spending:

Additional Abrams
1. Additional Patrol Vessels
2. Faster procurement of a med or long range UAV system etc.
3. Depending outcome of the JSF meetings perhaps an Interim Aircraft as to be honest pressure is mounting
4. Tomahawk missiles (or similar) for the AWD
5. A fourth AWD
6. A major overhaul of Military pay and recruiting, perhaps cash incentives for enlisting etc...
7. More Bushmasters! My First Preference

While there are other items eg additonal Wedgetails, Tigers, I don't forsee extra purchases untill they at least reach IOC.

The budget surplus and article has allowed scope for pretty major speculations and wish lists to be filled. It is nearly election year after all.

Enjoy...
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
robsta83 said:

My thinking of possible additional spending:

Additional Abrams
1. Additional Patrol Vessels
2. Faster procurement of a med or long range UAV system etc.
3. Depending outcome of the JSF meetings perhaps an Interim Aircraft as to be honest pressure is mounting
4. Tomahawk missiles (or similar) for the AWD
5. A fourth AWD
6. A major overhaul of Military pay and recruiting, perhaps cash incentives for enlisting etc...
7. More Bushmasters! My First Preference

While there are other items eg additonal Wedgetails, Tigers, I don't forsee extra purchases untill they at least reach IOC.

The budget surplus and article has allowed scope for pretty major speculations and wish lists to be filled. It is nearly election year after all.

Enjoy...
If we go by comments across the board, then a new IFV would be on that wishlist, anything from a bradley, to a boxer, puma or CV90(still pushin it:D ).

*Theres also the Project overlander, which will become a big financial gap, with DMO most likely underbudgeting with add on costs. This will be interesting in what they go for. With that there is also new Special forces vehicles to add to any purchase.
*There will also be the replacement for the Caribou, which may be the C-27J or C-295, or An increase in Chinooks along with Hercules with Air refuel capabilites.
*A replacement for the Seasprite-Its gotta happen!:rolleyes:
*More Abrahms

And with The wish list, we'll put on some new clothing material.
Can't wait to see how the opposition promises more gear for the Army, seeing as the Govt. is already promising the world and delievering half now, half later.
 

Cootamundra

New Member
robsta83 said:
My thinking of possible additional spending:

Additional Abrams
1. Additional Patrol Vessels
2. Faster procurement of a med or long range UAV system etc.
3. Depending outcome of the JSF meetings perhaps an Interim Aircraft as to be honest pressure is mounting
4. Tomahawk missiles (or similar) for the AWD
5. A fourth AWD
6. A major overhaul of Military pay and recruiting, perhaps cash incentives for enlisting etc...
7. More Bushmasters! My First Preference
Rob, my vote would go to funding...

1. the additional Chinook purchase (this has been mooted and is part of the proposed Boo replacement program) - so fast track this one
2. An overhaul of recruitment processes and perhaps some kind of sign-on bonus (this would be in line with recent announcments by DefMin Hill and the PM)
3. Another squadron of Abrams to round out the RAAC
:D
 

The_Jet

New Member
robsta83 said:
‘TOP GUN’ COSTELLO PONDERS BUDGET SURPLUS OUTCOME:
A recent DIAR article which I can't reproduce (copyright) has discussed the Budget Surplus's burgeoning cash surplus ($18.1b) for the current financial year (compared to $14.8b forecast) Peter Costello recently visited RAAF Williamstown and took a ride in a FA-18, the government is about to undertake joint considerations of signing up to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Production Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) MOU with the United States.

My thinking is why not has a light thread where some spending of this additional money 3.3 Billion could be used for, it is pegged for major offshore purchases according to the articles. I'm thinking we could be coming up to some major acquisitions that are possibly not quite due for purchase. An example of this was the rapid procurement of the C17 (First aircraft due by year end) LP 17 has recently been moved forward after being moved back etc.

My thinking of possible additional spending:

Additional Abrams
1. Additional Patrol Vessels
2. Faster procurement of a med or long range UAV system etc.
3. Depending outcome of the JSF meetings perhaps an Interim Aircraft as to be honest pressure is mounting
4. Tomahawk missiles (or similar) for the AWD
5. A fourth AWD
6. A major overhaul of Military pay and recruiting, perhaps cash incentives for enlisting etc...
7. More Bushmasters! My First Preference

While there are other items eg additonal Wedgetails, Tigers, I don't forsee extra purchases untill they at least reach IOC.

The budget surplus and article has allowed scope for pretty major speculations and wish lists to be filled. It is nearly election year after all.

Enjoy...
What about Tomahawks for the Collins class subs aswell as the AWD's? Or would it be to expensive to upgrade the collins to equip tomahawks?
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The trouble with getting more of anything is you then need more people to drive/fly/sail them.

Def recruiting is already struggling to maintain current numbers let alone recruit more personnel, so I think it's probably more constructive to focus on replacing the ADF's existing marginal equipment rather than just going for more KC-30s/Wedgetails/C-17s/AWDs/Collins/Abrams/Bushmasters etc.

Magoo
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Magoo said:
The trouble with getting more of anything is you then need more people to drive/fly/sail them.

Def recruiting is already struggling to maintain current numbers let alone recruit more personnel, so I think it's probably more constructive to focus on replacing the ADF's existing marginal equipment rather than just going for more KC-30s/Wedgetails/C-17s/AWDs/Collins/Abrams/Bushmasters etc.

Magoo
I agree mostly, though there's more than a few capabilities that could be introduced more quickly into existing units to boost capability that wouldn't affect manpower levels greatly.

The other problem is that there's more to defence capability than simply having a platform. A defence force when introducing a new capability spends a lot of time in effort in gaining "Corporate knowledge" on how to "fight" a particular platform.

Simply buying kit and recruiting more people is fine, but it takes time to get those people and the units functioning as an operational military capability.

However in saying that:

Army just had an extra $10b devoted to it for 2 new battalions. Considering 1 is a light infantry battalion (we have sufficient stocks of equipment to equip a light infantry battalion) and a mech battalion (with the vehicles already on order and largely paid for) it seems like an AWFUL lot of "moolah" to pay for personell costs, essentially the only "additional" cost for the 2 battalions they are creating...

To my mind, I agree that an additional Bushmaster purchase is THE most important acquisition for Army at present, followed by a new tracked armoured fighting vehicle to rid army of the buggered M113AS3/4 program, additional Abrams Sqn and LAND 17 urgently needs to be sped up.

For Navy an additional 3x AWD's for Navy (in the longer term to replace the FFG's), 2x "rapid sea lift ships" instead of the single vessel currently proposed for follow-on after the LHD's are delivered, a new naval combat helo to replace Seasprite, Sea King and Seahawk simultaneously (based on NH-90) to avoid "risky" upgrades and the buggered Seasprite program and an additional fleet refueller to allow Navy to operate refuellers simultaneously off EACH Coast.

For Air Force, AIR-8000 to be sped up, KC-130J's to be ordered to support RAAF airlift AND probe equipped helo's an additional 3 A330 AAR's and an interim fighter to "kill off" the current nonsensical situation with F-111 retirement / Hornet upgrade and provide RAAF with the headspace it needs prior to the JSF introduction...
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
How to spend a budget surplus? Let me count the ways...

1. Increase pay/signing/retention bonuses to assist in getting new recruits and keeping the ones you already have.

This could be potentially what a large part of the A$10 billion is earmarked for, particularly if Australia already has the kit needed for desired two additional battalions. As recently as today, the US is having difficulties in recruiting and keeping troop levels. It was announced that the desired timeframe between troop rotations to Iraq was 2 years, but at current levels the rotation is happening every 14 months.

2. Acquistion of replacement systems, especially for legacy systems.

This doesn't require additional personnel aside from trainers, and would maintain or boost ADF capabilities. The major issue I see with replacing legacy systems like the DHC Caribou the decision on what to replace it with.

3. Expansion of existing equipment or equipment just entering service.

This is where I would place things like an additional sqd of Abrams, or the 7th Wedgetail aircraft. These are things which would be of use, but would require additional personnel aside from those already allocated to the different units/programs. I would also show preference to exercising existing contract options for purchases since these would allow more equipment to be bought at lower prices.

4. Purchasing or developing new capabilities.

In this category is where I would locate things like additional AWD, or an IFV. As AD mentioned, developing new abilities requires not only the equipment but time and effort to learn how to use the new equipment & capabilities. Some of the ideas, while potentially good, are in my view premature. I would much prefer that the RAN purchase a total of 6 AWD, instead of the currently planned 3. However, the 1st AWD has a planned in-service date around 2013, with the third vessel commissioning around 2015-2018. Adding a 4th (or more) vessel to the order is the sort of thing which wouldn't appear for a decade or more. Unless a portion of the surplus was specifically set aside for future use (unlikely) I don't see that happening.

It will be interesting to see where this leads.
 

contedicavour

New Member
My oh my I wish I were Australian ! Being able to afford the luxury of deciding whether I'd take extra MBTs or AIFVs or extra DDGs or JSFs... wow.
Back here in good old Europe priority n°1 is avoiding further cuts :(

Btw, I'd vote for more AIFVs, a 4th DDG, and F35Bs for those 2 big LHDs you'll be shortly procuring.

cheers
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Cootamundra said:
Rob, my vote would go to funding...

1. the additional Chinook purchase (this has been mooted and is part of the proposed Boo replacement program) - so fast track this one
2. An overhaul of recruitment processes and perhaps some kind of sign-on bonus (this would be in line with recent announcments by DefMin Hill and the PM)
3. Another squadron of Abrams to round out the RAAC
:D
Point 1. Absolutely I believe with the deployment to Afghanstan, and the short term deployment of a couple of thousand to timor the Chook's would have to of been in demand, 6 is rather limited perhaps another 12 with A2A refuelling capabilties.

2. For sure the only way to get the numbers is to attract the punters, perhaps open up a few more combat roles for women, even a extra 200 a year would have a impact. Even if not infantry roles, Armoured Reg gunners drivers, Artillery etc specially given that the ADF's closet ally has opened towomen all roles, even the Navy DCT and i am sure eventually the SAS as they get the pre req experience

3. Ditto, gotta do it, its just common sense :D


The_Jet said:
What about Tomahawks for the Collins class subs as well as the AWD's? Or would it be to expensive to upgrade the collins to equip tomahawks?
Good point, I did not think about the Collins it certainly would improve the strike options of the ADF, and nearly for Australian defense negate a more urgent need for Cruise missiles for the AWDs. What would be involved with the purchase of cruise missiles for the Colins? What if any refit would need to be performed?

The new combat system management as it is the same for US subs so it should have support for cruise missiles?

Even if only say 30 odd missiles were purchased in the first phase and 18-20 were placed on operational subs, I cannot imagine more than 3 Collins deployed operationally. this would still provide a substantial accurate strike capability and would ease the cap from F111s, perhaps LR cruise missiles have not been requested as a replacement due to the CDF being from the RAAF?
 
Last edited:

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
CV90's

Alot of people seem quite keen on the CV90's could someone please outline the benefits of the system, from my limited reading it is deployed by primarily Scandanavian countries and Switzerland, is it suited for Desert operations?
Variants and numbers would yall recommend.
100-300+ Air defense models command and control...
I'm sure people have opinions so please share :)

Why not the ASCOD system in service with Spain and Austria, multiple variants, a AIFV as a replacement or supplement to the M113, light tank variant, similar specs etc...
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/ascod8.html
 
Last edited:

dioditto

New Member
ABOUT TIME THEY GIVE THE DAMN MONEY TO THE VETERANS AND GIVE EVERY SOLDIER A PAY RISE!!

What good is it to buy all those weapon systems, when, YOU HAVE NOBODY THAT WANTS TO DRIVE IT? :)

honestly, over here, they have a REALLY HARD TIME to even find people to do cherry picking jobs, (and various argricultural/farming industry) what makes people wants to risk their neck to take a job that pays no better than those..? (and not to mention once you are wounded/maimed, the government left you for dead and not even willing to pay compensations, and fight you in court every inches of the way when you ask for one)
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
robsta83 said:
Alot of people seem quite keen on the CV90's could someone please outline the benefits of the system, from my limited reading it is deployed by primarily Scandanavian countries and Switzerland, is it suited for Desert operations?
Variants and numbers would yall recommend.
100-300 Air defense models command and control...
I'm sure people have opinions so please share :)

Why not the ASCOD system in service with Spain and Austria, multiple variants, a AIFV as a replacement or supplement to the M113, light tank variant, similar specs etc...
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/ascod8.html
Swedish CV90s have operated in W. Africa (Liberia or Sierra Leone - I forget which) with no trouble, so handles hot & wet OK. Hot & dry I don't know. Currently in service or on order with Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands & Switzerland. Even more variants than ASCOD, including 120mm armed tank version, mortar carrier (with twin 120mm AMOS breech-loading automatic mortar system), 30/35/40/50mm gun IFVs, etc. ASCOD has no export sales so far.

Should be a CV90 link on Army Technology.
 

pepsi

New Member
IFV's would be nice, and maybe more Abrams but surely tanks really aren't as much of a priority as other hardware..

For the Navy, what about LCAC's to work from the new LHD's?

But i agree with the comment above, maybe a large chunk of that money could go into things that will help the ADF recruit more personnel, a pay rise or incentives for joining, etc etc
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think the surplus should be spent on hospitals,education,the enviroment and anything else that will keep the presant government in power!(tax cuts come to mind!) They are doing a fantastic job,and blowing the surplus on military hardware(although it would be great!) might sway a few voters to the dark side...especially the younger voters who never expearenced the recession we had to have and the unemployment that went with it. Maybe sneak in another squadren of Abrams and half a dozen tigers....
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
old faithful said:
I think the surplus should be spent on hospitals,education,the enviroment and anything else that will keep the presant government in power!(tax cuts come to mind!) They are doing a fantastic job,and blowing the surplus on military hardware(although it would be great!) might sway a few voters to the dark side...especially the younger voters who never expearenced the recession we had to have and the unemployment that went with it. Maybe sneak in another squadren of Abrams and half a dozen tigers....
Agree entirely given the forthcoing election. On the negative if the ALP get in you can kiss the LHD's goodbye and if the purchaes F-22 you can kiss almost everything else goodbye.

A bit of extra money would allow the interim fighter option to be picked up and this would cut the cost of the JSF as would would not need to commit to the LRIP aircraft but could buy latter in the run.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
alexsa said:
Agree entirely given the forthcoing election. On the negative if the ALP get in you can kiss the LHD's goodbye and if the purchaes F-22 you can kiss almost everything else goodbye.

A bit of extra money would allow the interim fighter option to be picked up and this would cut the cost of the JSF as would would not need to commit to the LRIP aircraft but could buy latter in the run.
:shudder
Most people learn from their mistakes, and these guys still have yet to do that and i'v said this a few times, Manoora, Kanimbla, Collins, Expensive mistakes(now they are fine and all, but that money could have gone to something better)
Odds on, they'd ditch the LHD, get the LPA San Antonio, and then leave it at Kuttabul for a few years, but not if i fix it:nono
 

rjmaz1

New Member
Looks like they government is spending it in the right area's. More troops and air lift.

I hope they dont buy F-22's, wow we'd have air dominance.. we could dominate the air with spitfires against indo's.

My wish list is:

1-2 extra C-17's
100 extra bushmasters
A third extra batallion of troops
Dozen C-27J airlifters
50 Superhornets
50 A-10's with anti shipping capability (very unsual)

We need to set our defence force for peace keeping, which means troops, transport and close air support.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
rjmaz1 said:
I hope they dont buy F-22's, wow we'd have air dominance.. we could dominate the air with spitfires against indo's.
  • apart from the fact that the US said 8 days ago that they would not be selling the F-22 outside of CONUS.... (in other words, its rather academic). we'll just ignore what the US Govt says (and which State Dept as the clearing arm for US tech will obligingly support as part of their role) and still pretend that buying them is an option.
  • apart from the fact that air supremacy for australian requirements is a small component fraction of the battlespace management requirement
  • apart from the fact that the F-22 has less flexibility and won't have as broad a range of loadout that even the SuperHornet is capable and certified to carry...
  • apart from the small fact that if its used in a supporting maritime strike role - it will then be dirty in profile and will thus have lost any of the benefits it sports in the AD/Interception role
yeah, bring on the F-22.... we can also ask them for B2's as well so as to make sure that we can still duplicate the role of the Lincolns and bomb Jakarta if we get cranky with each other....
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
rjmaz1 said:
Looks like they government is spending it in the right area's. More troops and air lift.

I hope they dont buy F-22's, wow we'd have air dominance.. we could dominate the air with spitfires against indo's.

My wish list is:

1-2 extra C-17's
100 extra bushmasters
A third extra batallion of troops
Dozen C-27J airlifters
50 Superhornets
50 A-10's with anti shipping capability (very unsual)

We need to set our defence force for peace keeping, which means troops, transport and close air support.
Hmmm

A-10 in the anti shipping role. Granted it is a very fine ground attack aircraft but would need a sensor and information system upgrade for the antishiping role in order to target any ships. It would have limited range unless supported by tankers (and able to tank) and wouel not be able to react quickly. I suspect it wouel be easy meat to a capable AWD. If the other guy has any sort of AEW aircraft things would get very dodgey fast.

Airframe life and maintenace will be an issue (even wiht the strength of these aircraft) and will add a lot to the cost of upkeep and mean the aircraft will need to be replaced wihtin 15 years in nay case (Lets face it the US are rewinging A-10s using wings from storage to keep them going). so if you add the cost of the aircraft, the necesary upgrades in sensor and inforamtion systems and base this on a 15 year life at a maximum I think the JSF looks a lot better ........ and is signficantly more capable.

Another issue is that it takes quite a bit of time to intergrate a new capability effectively and have it available if needed. This means making decisions about potential needs even if they are not staring us in the face at present. The fact is a number of the island states around us are unstable. Indonesia also has problems. it wouel be a failure of due diligentce on the aprt of our government if we did not plan for a worst case senerio.
 

stryker NZ

New Member
gf0012-aust said:
  • apart from the fact that the US said 8 days ago that they would not be selling the F-22 outside of CONUS.... (in other words, its rather academic). we'll just ignore what the US Govt says (and which State Dept as the clearing arm for US tech will obligingly support as part of their role) and still pretend that buying them is an option.
  • apart from the fact that air supremacy for australian requirements is a small component fraction of the battlespace management requirement
  • apart from the fact that the F-22 has less flexibility and won't have as broad a range of loadout that even the SuperHornet is capable and certified to carry...
  • apart from the small fact that if its used in a supporting maritime strike role - it will then be dirty in profile and will thus have lost any of the benefits it sports in the AD/Interception role
yeah, bring on the F-22.... we can also ask them for B2's as well so as to make sure that we can still duplicate the role of the Lincolns and bomb Jakarta if we get cranky with each other....
this may sound stupid but whats CONUS?

i wish New Zealand would spend some of its 9 billion surplus on defence
 
Top