Australia's Defence Budget 2006

B

Brutus Caesar

New Member
Just saw an article in the Finn review stating that defence spending would be increased by 700million in next weeks budget but spending as % of GDP would remain static at around 1.9%. Just wondering what people thought of this. It seems alot of countries run defence expenditure at a much higher level than 1.9% so do people think that should be increased maybe to around 2.5%?
 
S

Snayke

New Member
Australia's priority isn't defence unfortunately. Sure, I would like to see it increase, but I doubt a majority of Australians actually want it to be increased. I think they'd prefer more spending on health and education.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Snayke said:
Australia's priority isn't defence unfortunately. Sure, I would like to see it increase, but I doubt a majority of Australians actually want it to be increased. I think they'd prefer more spending on health and education.
Click to expand...
Don't forget "milkshake and sandwich" tax cuts. I think it's just great that the Fed Government gave us a $5 dollar a week tax cut last year and spent $8 Billion on this program last year.

I've already paid $15,000 income tax this year. Ferg it. That $250 dollars, means A REAL LOT to me... :rel

I think a yearly 3.5% increase, if it means an extra $700m a year to ADF is a pretty decent increase, provided it's sustained for the duration of the DCP...
 
S

Snayke

New Member
Remember our politicians are more worried about brownie points rather than improving anything in the long term.
 
B

Brutus Caesar

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Just if anyone is interested here are some numbers in comparison:

Defence Spending as % of GDP

Australia 1.9/2%

World Powers (Figures of 2003/04):

Russia: 4.8%
China: 4.1% (I'd say that would be a fairly rough estimate)
United States: 3.3%
France: 2.5%
Great Britain: 2.4%

Countries with a roughly similar GDP to Australia (Countries ranked 10th -
14th in wikipedias list of countries by GDP, Australia being 15th):

Russia: 4.8%
South Korea: 2.8%
India: 2.7%
Brazil: 2.3%
Mexico: 0.9%

Countries with a roughly similar GDP per capita to Australia (Countries ranked 12th - 16th in wikipedias list of countries by GDP per capita, Australia being 17th):

United Kingdom: 2.4%
Finland: 1.4%
Belguim:1.3%
Canada:1.1%
Japan: 1%

And finally, countries in the Asia Pacific region:

Singapore: 5.2%
Indonesia: 3.7%
Malaysia: 3.6%
Thailand: 1.5%
New Zealand: 1.2%

All of these defence spending figures have come from 'The Military Balace - 2003/04'.
 
P

pepsi

New Member
Are you referring to this:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...et-budget-boost/2006/05/04/1146335851327.html

The bit that interested me was :

The budget could also include plans to acquire extra troop lift helicopters, most likely another dozen of the European NH90, each able to carry up to 20 troops.
Click to expand...
Another dozen would sound good, but i just wonder if the higher budget should also go towards more than 59 M1A1's, and/or more than 22 Tiger ARH's

Also, the part of the article that mentions the Ready Reserve scheme, i was wondering if this is a good thing, it sounds quite good but i just wonder why it wasn't done before
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
pepsi said:
Are you referring to this:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Defence-operations-will-get-budget-boost/2006/05/04/1146335851327.html

The bit that interested me was :



Another dozen would sound good, but i just wonder if the higher budget should also go towards more than 59 M1A1's, and/or more than 22 Tiger ARH's

Also, the part of the article that mentions the Ready Reserve scheme, i was wondering if this is a good thing, it sounds quite good but i just wonder why it wasn't done before
Click to expand...
It was done before, by Labour, but was the first thing canned by the Liberals when they got into power. Now it seems they've realised it was a good idea and have brought it back. Once again Labour has decided NOT to make an issue out of this, despite Liberals resurecting one of THEIR old policies.

It's pointless acquiring more Tigers IMHO, until we get the ones we've already ordered into operational service and fully manned. Aircraft are coming off the production line, quicker than ADF has been able to fill pilot vacancies and as I said on the Tiger project "slammed" thread, no pilot=no capability no matter how good the aircraft, or how numerous.

More tanks would be nice, but I won't hold my breath. I think it an absolute certainty that more Bushmasters will be ordered, (Army holds options on up to 450 MORE Bushmasters) as well as possibly more ASLAV's.

Army will probably also get a medium range SAM system, as this is a glaring hole in it's capabilities at present, as well as more MRH-90, more Chinooks, advancement of projects such as Land 40 phase 2 (direct fire weapons systems) which are in limbo at present and some confirmation on Land 17 (artillery replacement) Land 400 (replacement armoured vehicle project) and Project Overlander (non-armoured vehicle fleet replacement).

Airforce is likely to get more C-130J's, possibly equipped as KC-130J's (air to air refuelling capable) confirmation on Global Hawk/Mariner purchase, confirmation on Caribou replacement project and C-17 acquisition, possibly additional A330 air to air refuelling aircraft and confirmation on next-generation maritime patrol aircraft project (either refurbished AP-3C or MMA).

Navy will get confirmation on design and fitouts for AWD Destroyers and LHD Amphibious ships project, confirmation on ANZAC ship and Collins subs upgrades, confirmation of further Armidale class patrol boats (total fleet of 14) confirmation of SM-2 integration for FFG's, confirmation or Seahawk upgrade or replacement and confirmation of SeaKing replacement.

Out of this budget increase, Army and Airforce are likely to benefit the most, as RAN's "big ticket" items are already confirmed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top