Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia fears Asian arms race

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Australia fears Asian arms race

    Australia fears Asian arms race


    Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says that his country must be prepared to respond to an emerging arms race across the Asia-Pacific region.

    The Australian military would be built up to meet the challenge, he said.

    In a speech to retired soldiers, the prime minister did not spell out which countries could pose a threat in the future.

    But analysts say planners in Canberra are wary of expanding armed forces in China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia.

    Almost every nation in Asia has a territorial dispute of some kind with its neighbours, ranging from minor verbal jousts to potential triggers of conflict.

    China's increasing confidence on the world stage is also reflected in continuing disputes over ownership of the resources of the South China Sea, including the current muscle-flexing between China and Vietnam over a disputed oil contract, correspondents say.

    Flashpoints

    Without going into such specifics, Mr Rudd did say that existing tensions in the Asia-Pacific region were causing concern.

    These included questions of sovereignty between China and Taiwan and other "unresolved flashpoints" arising from border disputes between other countries.

    Mr Rudd said his government had to be aware of the changes that were taking place in the region and that Australia had to make sure it had a force that could "answer the call" if needed.

    "There is an arms build-up across the Asia-Pacific region and Australia therefore must look at the long-term future at the same time as advancing our diplomacy," he told reporters.

    Mr Rudd described the arms build-up as an "explosion".

    "Militarily... as it has already become economically and politically, the Asia-Pacific will become a much more contested region," Mr Rudd said in the speech.

    "The demographic changes in our region will mean that by 2020 when we look to our north, we will see a very different region to the one we see now, one where population, food, water and energy resource pressures will be great," Mr Rudd said.

    Australia should, therefore, be preparing for "the new challenges of energy security and anticipating the impact of climate change on long-term food and water security," Mr Rudd said.

    Over-stretched

    Australia has a relatively small military, which has been stretched in recent times by deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands, reports the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney.

    A 10-year plan to modernise its combat capabilities is already under way, including the purchase of fighter aircraft, cruise missiles and helicopters, as well efforts to build a larger army.

    Some analysts have described this as a "catching up" exercise, suggesting more investment would be necessary.

    Mr Rudd appears to agree.

    "For the government, a major priority is to ensure we have enough naval capabilities in the future, enough naval assets, enough naval performance, and therefore enough funding put aside to invest in that, long term," he said.

    Mr Rudd also insisted in his speech that Australia, which is a close ally of the United States, wanted to maintain its status as a global "middle power".
    sigpic

  • #2
    I seems conflict are everywhere now and everybody are arming themselves..I hope this will not result to the worst --WAR!
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by xrough View Post
      I seems conflict are everywhere now and everybody are arming themselves..I hope this will not result to the worst --WAR!
      Amen

      Comment


      • #4
        Australia need not worry about war.

        It should be wary of the creeping Islamism which is already manifesting itself in Australia!


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #5
          State of the ADF

          Although Australia has nothing to fear at the present point in time (No reason to fight India, fighting China alone would never happen and it could crush Indonesia, Malaysia and any other non western leaning country in the region even if they ganged up on it) the size and equipment levels of the ADF are a disgrace.

          Its not the lack of anything in particular thats the concern (apart from maybe 2 small/medium aircraft carriers), its the numbers of equipment that is the concern, also of concern are the current manning levels.

          At the moment Australia is able to deploy 1 reinforced mechanized brigade, everything else is either motorised or light infantry. That one brigade sized unit will be made up of two oversized companies of M1A1 AIM tanks (15/16 a pop i cant remember) 2 battalions of upgraded M113s, recon and scout elements (ASLAV and ASLAV-PC) a mobile artillery unit of a type that is yet to be announced as well as support from the Eurocopter Tigers.

          On paper a force that packs a formidable punch apart from the fact that we can only build 1 (not enough armor, maybe enough helicopters, not enough mobile artillery planned). So what happens in a real war situation.. its all well and good to say we are a US ally but in my eyes a countries security should never be based completelly on wether another country is willing to help, no matter how willing they may be today.

          Australia needs to have at the very least a Mech Divisions worth (3 Brigades worth) of the heavy stuff.. 150-200 M1A1's would be ideal (and the rest of the support forces built up to match) The Eurocopter Tiger deal was great but 22 means basically 2 small squadrons of 9 a peice with the rest delegated to training and research. A doubling would be required so we could actually afford to lose the odd helicopter and not have our war fighting capacity crippled.


          Our Air force.. well the less said the better. i wont get into the aircraft type argument but fair to say an air force of approximatelly 150 combat aircraft to defend a country of this size as well as to have a decent amount of punch would be considered a MINIMUM. I would split it 100 multi role and 50 strike with enough support aircraft (transports, AWACS and tankers especially to go around.

          The Navy, apart from the lack of aircraft carriers is fine.. apart from the fact it should be exactly doubled. 4 upgraded OHP frigates, 8 Anzacs and 3 Air Warefare destroyers will not cut it, especially whenthe OHP will in the medium term be retired. I would think 16 Anzacs and 6-8 AWD would be about right, unless we go for the Arleigh Bourke derived AWD in wich 4-6 would be sufficient.

          The Collins i am very happy with, i think another 2-4 more would be sufficient but i can handle what we have.

          You cant wait till the world goes to S**t before you decide to build up your military, you need to be able to make it obvious to any potential enemy that attacking you is not best choice for them, especially if your a massive country with a tiny population and a ridiculous amount of wealth that you would rather have the rest of Asia buy as opposed to take.

          The best part of repentance is the sin

          Comment


          • #6
            Nice sum up chakos.
            However, while being one of the ABCA and specially having the US Nuclear umbrella atop, it is seemingly a wastage of enery and resources rebuling one's military. I won't buy something that I already have and of which I have limited utility.
            sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, I don’t think Australia has much to worry about in terms of possible military conflicts. There is no conceivable scenario where Australia would clash with major East Asian military powers South Korea, Japan & China. I don’t foresee an India – Australia incident either.

              That leaves ASEAN, and as Chakos has pointed out, Australia is powerful enough to easily take on the major armed forces of that region.

              I do think they should also beef up their counter-terrorist and intelligence gathering operations as well, considering terrorism is wrecking havoc the world over!

              Nebula82.

              Comment


              • #8
                Australia in my opinion is one of the safest countries in the world apart from Canada (No particularly hostile countries in the region)..wonder why this sudden worry?..are the politicians trying to deflect attention away frm some domestic issue?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mercenary View Post
                  Australia in my opinion is one of the safest countries in the world apart from Canada (No particularly hostile countries in the region)..wonder why this sudden worry?..are the politicians trying to deflect attention away frm some domestic issue?
                  I guess its more a case of being prepared than caught Napping and they for sure expect to get more calling from NATO.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Australia, like Canada, MUST (and I cannot emphasized this strongly enough) rely on alliances for their defence. If Australia had to go it alone without the benefit of the USN, then she at least must double her navy. No one else is going to protect her sea lanes. While her army is more than adequate to defend the homeland, correcting bad behaviour such as East Timor would weaken home defences unless allies take up the load.

                    Given that Australia must rely on allies (read the US), then she is expected to carry her load proportional to her size and that means fighting the alliance's wars wherever they may be.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Australia, like Canada, MUST (and I cannot emphasized this strongly enough) rely on alliances for their defence. If Australia had to go it alone without the benefit of the USN, then she at least must double her navy. No one else is going to protect her sea lanes. While her army is more than adequate to defend the homeland, correcting bad behaviour such as East Timor would weaken home defences unless allies take up the load.

                      Given that Australia must rely on allies (read the US), then she is expected to carry her load proportional to her size and that means fighting the alliance's wars wherever they may be.
                      I agree with you 100% but im of the opinion that our navy needs doubling anyways.. simply because we have such vast coastlines as well as some of the worlds largest air space to defend.

                      16 or so General Purpose Frigates and a handfull of more specialised Air Warfare Destroyers would be required as a minimum standard.

                      This is not so we can take over the Pacific or the Indian oceans, or even to fight the Chinese or Indian navies alone. This is merelly so in a war time situation we could handle the escorting of the majority of products coming in and out of Australia via its sea lanes as well as being able to give any invading force a bloody nose.

                      Im not saying its likelly to happen any time soon but you simply cannot wait till your expecting war to build up a Navy or Air Force for that matter.

                      The army is different, you can have reserve cadres that are filled out in time of war with conscripts and the like, and light infantry forces are generally the easiest to generate but you cant build up an escort flotilla or a squadron of combat aircraft in a matter of months or even a year.

                      Having them on hand is an insurance policy (oh and dont forget we are also the New Zealands insurance policy too due to the fact that they retired most of their military :)) )
                      The best part of repentance is the sin

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We will never have a military force able to defend our land, sea and air space, we are a population of 20 million with a landmass the size of the USA to defend. Unless we are taxed 90% we cannot afford a military force capable to defend the whole of Australia.

                        We just do what we have always done which is make one important area adequate to security needs, the navy. The other areas are disregarded, air land.

                        Also I am not convinced that Indonesia is the pushover that other posters have insinuated. They are purchasing Russian subs etc. I believe they would be a difficult naval foe.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Helium View Post
                          We will never have a military force able to defend our land, sea and air space, we are a population of 20 million with a landmass the size of the USA to defend. Unless we are taxed 90% we cannot afford a military force capable to defend the whole of Australia.

                          We just do what we have always done which is make one important area adequate to security needs, the navy. The other areas are disregarded, air land.

                          Also I am not convinced that Indonesia is the pushover that other posters have insinuated. They are purchasing Russian subs etc. I believe they would be a difficult naval foe.
                          The population isnt the difficult bit, we have enough population for what i have mentioned earlier in this thread without a problem. Population issues come from large amounts of infantry divisions, not destroyers and fighters.

                          Money isnt the issue even, we have a military expenditure that approaches what India spends per year yet the powers that be manage to waste it so spectacularly that currently because of crewing shortages and other issues only 2 of our Collins submarines are able to sail at once.

                          At the end of the day.. what Australia needs to do is buy directly off the shelf. There will be occasionally something that we have to build from scratch or modify to out uses but at the end of the day we can buy most of what we need from the worlds arms markets pretty much unchanged, proven and safe.

                          A prime example is the JSF, yes its fantastic but not one serves in any capacity in any Air Force yet.

                          There are squadrons of Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, all the Teen series fighters etc yet we choose the one in developement.

                          That is not to say we should never choose the JSF but what i am saying is that RIGHT NOW there is a better and more realistic option for us that doesnt require risk.

                          Im using that as an example, i dont want the JSF thing to take over the thread, all i am saying is we can do it so much better.

                          A bit of homework for you all, find out how much Australia paid for 59 Abrahms and then find out how much India paid for 300 T90S.
                          The best part of repentance is the sin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by chakos View Post

                            A bit of homework for you all, find out how much Australia paid for 59 Abrahms and then find out how much India paid for 300 T90S.

                            India bought 310 in 2001 for 800 million. These tanks have had serious problems and the agreed upon technology transfer has yet to materialize. Plus the T-90S at the toime did not have the improved auto loader of the later T-90 Vladimir and so faces a serious firepower issue vs modern armor. It is under powered and required French technology for the FCS

                            Australia bought 59 Abrams plus 8 recovery vehicles for 530 million. Although often called used they were depot level rebuilds and fully up to date in every regard. While the Abrams does have its issues, its a good tank and is modular so it can be kept modern. If for example the Aussies want M1A2SEPv.2Tusk they don't have to dithc the A1, just buy the bolt ons. Not sure if the Aus Abrams have the DU amror, but thier ceramics will be the latest generation and equal to an M1A2.

                            The only other tank that makes sense would ahve been the Leclerc. Its lighter so its more deployable and comes with less crew cost to offset the higher cost of spares. The other 2 Western contenders are heavier than the Abrams

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The Abrams is a fine tank, but next to useless for Australia. Such is the logistics tail that we are basically incapable of deploying them independently.

                              The government that bought them pretty much admitted that we got them so we could participate an an operation like the invasion of Iraq. Given the size of our army now & in any forseeable future this is absurd. We simply can't afford to waste money on kit that we can't even use by ourselves.

                              The JSF may yet turn out to be an even worse decision. Personally I prefer not to commit to a $billion buy of something that doesn't actually exist. I just hope it is as good as promised, otherwise we have already blown over $A100 million on a turkey.
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X