I think the government has got this one right. It is a white paper that shows we will secure our trade lanes by sea and air. I think the givernment also hit the nail on the head when it says we must not rely on our allies as much.

Sure we help our allies as much as we can but if you look in general at how insecure the world is becoming , we must start to understand that our allies may not always be able to help as much as we think they can or help out in the required timeframe. So we must be able to defend ourselves and our interests in the region until help can arrive.

My favourite reported idea about the white paper is the cyber security. I think most average australians would not relise the importance of this aspect in defence. I admit I never really thought much about it, this white paper shows the government is doing their job in looking at future issues.

With the defence build up will come jobs and technology advancements in Australia, So we should all get behind it.

The alternative of not growing our defence is not an option. Because sooner or later stealing our resources or attacking us or our neighbours through various means ie.cyber attacks and maybe future regional conflicts, would look pretty good if we kept defence at its current level.

This is just building a big deterrant to keep Australia safe and the region stable. The big technology jump will also help keep our soldiers safe if properly managed.

Have a nice day!!!

 

It may be useful to add a link to a map showing the sea lanes (maritime trade routes) that are used by commercial traffic to and from Australia.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol316/issue5833/images/large/316_1866_F2.jpeg

There were 29,693 commercial vessel calls in Australia in 2007/08.Ports Australia - the peak representative body for Australian ports and marine authorities.

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf

146 pages, very interesting.

Very broad and vague too. Overall intentions stated, but not model specific, eg, replacing caribou and "Army vehicles".

Persisting with the old M113, older than me, still "around" 100 JSFs.

Mention of development of arms but no facts, eg new rifles, missiles etc.

Says we have to suck up to China big time in future.

One scary fact re logistical bases

"Therefore, the Government has decided to rationalise the Defence storage and distribution network. Outdated facilities will be replaced and Defence's 24 wholesale sites will be consolidated into seven, supported by seven specialist logistics units. The rationalisation will optimise the storage and distribution functions of Defence to provide effective operational support sustainably and efficiently. Furthermore, Defence will pursue the most cost-effective procurement option, which could potentially involve a public-private partnership arrangement. To drive better value into its contracts, Defence will also re-tender its base storage, distribution and maintenance function."

Bye Bye jobs, hello black market sales, welcome to Ebay!

Take a coupla days to work out exactly what can me named as new, whats proposed, whats likely, and whats left out. In other words, its a see how we go for cash strategy!

 

Much of this white paper, in terms of procurement, is old news budgeted by the Howard Government, and known as expected needs to fill gaps that would have severely stressed certain ADF operations without capability replacements.

I think the logistics proposal is sensible, but ambitious. Still, I never understood the rationale for Navy's depots at Point William and Erina.

Quite correct though, will take a bit of time to digest.

I think the Minister is right in that the rest of the detail will follow on Budget night. It seems to me that the Government is counting on the Recession being less rather than more prolonged, possibly showing signs of recovery by mid to late 2010, in other words a mini-Recession. In this case the impact of Recession on the Defence budget will be minimal over a 20 year projection, and therefore 3% will still be sustainable.

 

Same old political spin! Take what been done from the old government and add a few things for the new. Happens every time there is a change of government and will happen again when it changes in the next 10 years or so. This old way of thinking will be the death of the so called “self reliance” and the cycle will continue over and over again. The opposition has now started it retort by saying “How can we afford this?” Well most of what is the the paper is from them! What is needed is a complete overhaul of the way we think. Growth at 20% in the industry I work in is achievable each year with the right kind process and strategy and we have continue this through this little recession but with defence it seems buying a new set of boots to a helicopter costs us just as much in time and or money. Buy off the self and stop trying to modify or change things on a piece of equipment that has been designed by much smarter people then us. The Tiger ARH is a perfect example of this and so far is has proven useless unless you think wowing crowds at air shows as a good use of military resources.
Wow, 12 new submarines and SLCM, I hope we buy them together and someone smart goes with them before they hand over the cash. We might find we buy new subs that can’t carry them and then spend millions of dollar and ten years trying to put them together just in time for the next white paper!
We must change the culture of defence otherwise history just repeats itself!

 

Yes, I just found out that the Tigers after three years still can't fire unguided rockets.

Unfortunately the economics of it is that to buy things Australia needs to sell things, and the things to sell to get larger profit are often manufactured products, and not ore or wheat or sheep.

The alternative is that we build as much as we can in Australia.

It seems to me the submarines will be built in Australia, as will be the corvettes and probably the AWDs. We can't build the F-35s, but probably can build/assemble the P-8s though this is probably unlikely.

We should be able to build the new Army AFVs if we really try a national effort by distributing the work rather than trying to shove it all into one facility. There is no reason that AFV can be the basis of a new SP artillery platform which is also on the books, by creating a modular family of AFVs.

 

The Tiger wasn't really off-the-shelf, since it hadn't entered active service with anyone at the time it was bought.

I believe the idea is to focus on buying things that are already in service and operating with the capabilities desired.
IE: The exact item you are buying is being used by someone now, so you can just buy one and use it. (The C-17 would be a good example of that.)

In that situation, the only delay would be training Australian crews, and possibly setting up some support services.

Obviously, this has the fastest turn-around and the lowest risk. Cost would usually be lower, as well.

On the downside, the hardware may not be cutting edge- you'll usually be getting equipment that has been in service for a while. There's also virtually no chance for local involvement. And, of course, you have to buy what is on offer- no customisation.

 

Yes, my fault. I differ with the Amy on the meaning of "enter service". To me service of a combat aircraft means "combat service", not five years of taking media pictures and trying to figure out how to fire unguided rockets from it. If the Army meant that, it should not have stated intended year of acceptance for service as 2004, but said this was the intend year to start training pilots. We teach children about telling the truth and keeping promises, don't we?

I have not read the Senate report on the Tiger, but, I have no idea how a design is built as a combat helicopter that can't fire all commonly used unguided munitions on combat helicopters, and offer it for sale, and, how the buyer selects the design having never asked the question "can it fire the unguided rockets we use?". This is particularly relevant when one reads this

Jane's Missiles and Rockets from 1998! Last time I looked at the ARH, I created a file, and looking at that 2004 file there is a specified load for all stations carrying unguided 68mm SNEB rockets. Yesterday though I was just about told I have no clue when I suggested that use of unguided 2.75" rockets is a good idea in Afghanistan, and informed that the 2.75" rockets are not used. Now I look at the Air 87 project site and it says

, with these rocket pods being on the inner stations of the shown helicopter profiles. 70mm is 2.75" in metric measurement.

However, DMO stopped payment due to non-delivery of training services, and not an issue with the rockets, namely lack of

! In plain language we have no training helicopters for the pilots. I don't know what that's all about. I would have thought that precedence to flying ARHs would have been given to pilots that already know how to fly, and those would simply undergo Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT) at facilities provided by the manufacturer on initial basis.
In any case Full Operational Capability will be achieved in December 2011, eleven years after the 18 December 2000 RTF and 17 years after the Concepts and Capabilities Committee approval was given.
Again, there seems to be a severe lack of accountability in Defence project management...er, ‘unanticipated contractor delays’

However,

Budget Review 2008-09 - Defence issues

This caused the previous Liberal Government's Minister for Defence to conclude that

Now we have a Labour Government which is traditionally, nay dogmatically committed to improving the lot of the Australian workforce, improving its productivity, and dealing with the current issues of ensuing unemployment. So, maybe we will see some industry support in the Commonwealth budget that will address these Defence budget findings of the previous government because surely this Government is not going to allow the state of affairs to continue, will they?

 

Yes I agree, the ARH wasn't a good example. The C-17 was a good buy. It was put into service and rolled out in a very good time frame. We seem to want to have a new capability that we have never had like say the Boeing 737 AEW&C and go overboard with what we want it to do. Delay after delay and costing way more than it should of and what have got to show for it? Nice static displays at an air show. Now we want more ships and subs! Maybe we could sell joy ride tickets between the time we get the ship/subs and when we can actually use them on operations.

 

From memory, we actually got our C17s right off the production line, pushed in ahead of the USMIL, to the detriment of their units and the benefit of ours. We should be thankful of that great rational decision.

I dont want a political debate, but I just want one PM to say to the chief of the ADF, "give me your list and I will make it happen". Of course there will be arguments between branches of the ADF, cant help them, but if we never have a "wish list" we can never plan long term, whatever long term is nowdays.

If I was PM, Id get grunts to talk to me, tell me the truth. No point discussing hardware with braid that is 5 rungs removed from the field.

We should be aiming for the entire army to be trained to the highest standard possible without infringing on the elite status of the SAS. Navy to have enough ships to able to offer at sea positions to ALL the sailors and have the paperwork done by Civvies. Airforce should have exactly what it wants and when it wants it.

If Kev told the Australian population "10% of your taxes are going to go directly to the ADF", no one would mind. The Indos etc would look at the sums and laugh, but with us, you get a lot of bang for your buck.

Reading the WP today, it seems as though we have forgotten our historical links to the Chinese. They are no threat to us, they actually like us. They dont need our land or resources, they have their own.

Unfortunately the yanks dont think the same way, thus we are always going to be a pawn, not a king.

IMO our priorities should be RAAF attack capability, RAN surveillance, Army defense of homeland.

Lets face it, we dont have the numbers, even when considering the SAS 1500/1 kill ratio. Lets go hi tech and low numbers.

Does any plan exist to defend Aust that is not 50 years old? I doubt it. About 10-15 years ago from memory, we moved almost everything north and kept electronics south, but thats about it.

If anyone wanted to invade us they could, it would be short lived but effective in ruining morale. Any attack on our soil would be a calamity atm. We have to stop thinking of how our northern neighbours might react to any serious military build up and just do it.

Im sick of living in a country that always worries about what others think. We are a Sovereign Nation but havent acted like one since 1901.

Christ, cant even have a slug gun anymore. or a slingshot.

Whilst I like subs, I dont see any mention of how to raise 6 additional crews, nor how to reward them with $$$ to ensure we keep them without upsetting the RAAF and ARMY applecarts.

 

You were talking about fast jets, not helos and by your own admission, you did not know that RAAF does not maintain an operational unguided rocket capability.

Before whingeing about inaccuracies, perhaps you could correctly quote your OWN previous statements?

Wrong. Tiger operates rocket pods on the inner and outer hard points.

What was that about accuracy again?

More rubbish. Have you heard of the Kiowa perhaps?

On top of which, perhaps you can describe in detail what the EC-135’s based at Roberston barracks, are doing exactly?

 

Seriously? We are moving toward 3% from 2.2% and already there are murmerings of discontent - and questions about where this this money will come from (ie what gets sacrificed). I don't think I would want to live in an Australia that spent 10% on defence

Hmm, great gobs of our mineral resources currently go to China - if they don't need our resources why would they be buying from us? Why does the Chinese Govt want to buy into australian mining companies. it might be because they can see a profitable enterprise, or could it be that they are wanting to try and ensure supply?

 

10% of taxes isn't 10% of GDP. In Australia, it's just over 3%. Total taxes are just over 30% of GDP.
SourceOECD: factbook 2009.

 

Hmm...1.9% of GDP seems to equal about 8% of Cth spending anyway (so 8% of Cth Taxes). 3% of GDP would be much much more in terms of Cth spending.

Brett.

P.S Not that I am necessarily against that mind you....

P.P.S DAMN you Swerve, damn you Sir! (beating me to it) . I am annoyed first that you did it first and second that you did it better.

 

Apologies mickk - I didn't check closely enough - I assumed that the figures you were quoting were the more usual % of GDP.

Thanks for picking that up Swerve and Battlensign.

 

Between us, we've shown the range, I think. You've indicated what 10% of central government revenue would be, & I found a source for total (including state) revenue. 10% of one or the other gives a range of about 2.6% to 3.2%, I think.

 

Ministerial address to aspi

THE HON. JOEL FITZGIBBON MP
Minister for Defence

Thursday 14, May 2009
091/2009

AUSTRALIA’S NEW DEFENCE WHITE PAPER
MINISTERIAL ADDRESS TO ASPI

The Minister for Defence, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP, has re-iterated his expectations of Defence and affirmed the importance of the Government’s Defence White Paper during an address to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra yesterday.

“The Government has delivered on its promise to grow the Defence Budget by 3% on average over the decade,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

In delivering the address, Minister Fitzgibbon provided additional detail on what the White Paper means for the defence and security of our nation, for Australia’s international relationships, and for the Australian people.

“While the White paper has made it clear that it is the Government’s assessment that the United States will continue to enjoy strategic primacy for the next twenty years, it is also true that the rise and rise of China, the emergence of India, and the re-emergence of Russia have heralded the beginning of the end of the so-called uni-polar moment. This has clear implications for the Asia Pacific Region and indeed, Australia,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

“We need forces able to complete a range of tasks and the Government is committed to ensure those forces are developed, supported and maintained at a high state of readiness. The readiness of a standing force,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

Highlighting the significance of the new White Paper in the security context, Mr Fitzgibbon emphasised the Government’s approach to security and Defence planning and the comprehensive funding the Government is providing to Defence over the period to 2030.

“By committing to wholesale structural reforms, the Government will be able to produce and fund Force 2030; a larger, more powerful, more sophisticated, more integrated and more flexible Australian Defence Force,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

Throughout the address Minister Fitzgibbon paid particular attention to describing Australia’s strategic outlook and strategic interests, and what this means for the Australian Defence Force (ADF), Defence industry and the wider Defence Community.

“Force 2030 is about ensuring that the Australian Defence Force has all the capability and people it needs to meet contingencies which might arise in the future as a result of the changing nature of the Region. It gives Australia a range of flexible force packages to meet contingencies in our region and beyond. To deal with high end war fighting and to keep a fragile peace,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

“What this White Paper has done is to create a truly standing force. Not a force that can ramp up to meet a crisis but rather a force that is dealing with the missions of today and is ready to conduct the missions of tomorrow.”

“We’ve achieved that while at the same time committing the funds necessary to remediate the capability plan, remediate Defence’s systems and infrastructure, and to fill the Budget black holes we’ve inherited from the previous Government.”