Languish.org

What's Australia's population?
30 millions, right?

How can they afford 12 submarines and a 100 new planes?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8030292.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8030292.stm)

Australia outlines military plans

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F45728000%2Fjpg%2F_45728304_rudd_ap226b.jpg&hash=6bab08b6d7a492608f50ee222ead550b445db8e8)  Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said that the spending did not target China [/t] Australia is to announce about $73bn (£49bn) in defence spending aimed at equipping its military for the next two decades.  Key purchases include 100 fighter jets and 12 new submarines, replacing the current fleet of six. Eight frigates and 24 combat helicopters are also on the list, in the country's first defence white paper for 10 years. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd denied that the spending was a response to China.  "It follows very plainly that here in the Asia-Pacific region, there are in certain parts of the region the build-up of armed forces," he said on Friday. "We simply need to take a calm, measured, responsible approach for the future." The white paper will be published later on Saturday. 'Self-reliance' Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said that the paper acknowledged that the emergence of new powers could lead to some strategic competition across the globe. "It's very prudent for the government to ensure against the rift that might flow from that increased strategic competition and, of course, it's very prudent for us to recommit to that doctrine of self-reliance," he told Australian radio. "In other words, we need to be able to defend our country without necessarily relying on the assistance of other nation states." The 12 new hunter-killer submarines - which will be built in Australia - will replace the current fleet of six. One hundred F-35 fighters will also be purchased over the next decade. Funds will also be allocated to counter cyber and electronic warfare.

More like 20 million.

I'd think that hardware is pretty affordable for the Aussies? Not really all that much.

I think this is good news, and good for Australia.

And 73 billion over 20 years isn't really all that much for a first-world economy.  Remember that Australia is one of the Five Great Anglophone Nations, the greatest and most powerful people on the planet.

Quote from: Neil on May 01, 2009, 10:54:25 PM
And 73 billion over 20 years isn't really all that much for a first-world economy.  Remember that Australia is one of the Five Great Anglophone Nations, the greatest and most powerful people on the planet.

Which is ironic, given that the island was forcifully populated by the dregs and scumbags of the Metropole.  :lol:

Quote from: Drakken on May 01, 2009, 11:46:50 PM
Which is ironic, given that the island was forcifully populated by the dregs and scumbags of the Metropole.  :lol:

Well, to be fair - they only sent the dregs and scumbags that had refused to leave voluntarily to the Americas.

Quote from: Neil on May 01, 2009, 10:54:25 PM
And 73 billion over 20 years isn't really all that much for a first-world economy.  Remember that Australia is one of the Five Great Anglophone Nations, the greatest and most powerful people on the planet.

And it could end up being one of those "we're going to Mars in 20 years" things, that never actually ever happens.

In the same period Norway with 4.5M people is buying 50 of those same fighters and 6 frigates and 6 smaller submarines. Anybody near Russia or China can be expected to something similar.

Hopefully some of those F-35s will be the carrier version.  :outback:

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 02, 2009, 02:26:08 AM
Hopefully some of those F-35s will be the carrier version.  :outback:

Well, the Australians bought to us two small aircraft carriers designed to be JSF-capable (27,000 tons each). It seems only logical to buy F-35s to equip them when the time comes. I suppose Great Britain, Spain and Italy will do the same to replace their Harriers.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_(LHD1)

Quote from: Neil on May 01, 2009, 10:54:25 PM
And 73 billion over 20 years isn't really all that much for a first-world economy.  Remember that Australia is one of the Five Great Anglophone Nations, the greatest and most powerful people on the planet.

Rule Britannia, baby. The anglosphere is but a poor subsitute for the British Empire and its Commonwealth of Nations  :bowler:

[Damn, this smiley really needs a cigar and a 'V']

Besides, I wonder which one are you letting out: New Zealand or Ireland... Where do the Small Anglophone Nations start?

Quote from: Alatriste on May 02, 2009, 03:24:59 AM

Quote from: Neil on May 01, 2009, 10:54:25 PM
And 73 billion over 20 years isn't really all that much for a first-world economy.  Remember that Australia is one of the Five Great Anglophone Nations, the greatest and most powerful people on the planet.

Rule Britannia, baby. The anglosphere is but a poor subsitute for the British Empire and its Commonwealth of Nations  :bowler:

[Damn, this smiley really needs a cigar and a 'V']

Besides, I wonder which one are you letting out: New Zealand or Ireland... Where do the Small Anglophone Nations start?

The Five Great Anglophone Nations are:  The United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Ireland is a rebellious colony that never really worked out until it was rebuilt with charity from the Great Nations (and the Germans).

I dunno...New Zealand is hardly great and Ireland though itself quite insignificant had a huge effect on the development of the anglosphere.

Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2009, 07:35:56 AM
I dunno...New Zealand is hardly great and Ireland's though itself quite insignificant had a huge effect on the development of the anglosphere.

New Zealand is a fascinating place, and the people are loyal to the anglosphere, if a bit soft.

Quote from: Siege on May 01, 2009, 09:50:49 PM
What's Australia's population?
30 millions, right?

How can they afford 12 submarines and a 100 new planes?

Their land forces are much smaller than those of other countries. I guess that allows them to invest overproportionally into aircraft and ships.

Makes perfect sense. They don't have the manpower to properly defend against a land invasion by most of their massively overpopulated neighbours who have countless lives to throw away as cannonfodder.

Their first and last line of defense must thus be the ocean.

Quote from: Slargos on May 02, 2009, 08:30:02 AM
Their first and last line of defense must thus be the ocean.

Yeap.  That ocean is the only thing keeping a hundred million Bmollsons out.

I'm sure the fact that half the country is a desert & doesn't have much roads crossing it also has something to do.

Quote from: Alatriste on May 02, 2009, 03:10:52 AM

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 02, 2009, 02:26:08 AM
Hopefully some of those F-35s will be the carrier version.  :outback:

Well, the Australians bought to us two small aircraft carriers designed to be JSF-capable (27,000 tons each). It seems only logical to buy F-35s to equip them when the time comes. I suppose Great Britain, Spain and Italy will do the same to replace their Harriers.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_(LHD1)

I think those kind of ships are so neat. Part carrier, part amphibious assault ship. The more, the merrier, IMO. Even South Korea's got a amphib assault ship that could, theoretically, carry VSTOL aircraft.

Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2009, 07:35:56 AM
I dunno...New Zealand is hardly great

They have fantastic rugby, and the highest rate of alcoholism among English-speaking nations.

Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2009, 07:43:52 AM

Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2009, 07:35:56 AM
I dunno...New Zealand is hardly great and Ireland's though itself quite insignificant had a huge effect on the development of the anglosphere.

New Zealand is a fascinating place, and the people are loyal to the anglosphere, if a bit soft.

It should merge with Australia as provided by Australia's Constitution.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 02, 2009, 11:39:36 AM

Quote from: Alatriste on May 02, 2009, 03:10:52 AM

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 02, 2009, 02:26:08 AM
Hopefully some of those F-35s will be the carrier version.  :outback:

Well, the Australians bought to us two small aircraft carriers designed to be JSF-capable (27,000 tons each). It seems only logical to buy F-35s to equip them when the time comes. I suppose Great Britain, Spain and Italy will do the same to replace their Harriers.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_(LHD1)

I think those kind of ships are so neat. Part carrier, part amphibious assault ship. The more, the merrier, IMO. Even South Korea's got a amphib assault ship that could, theoretically, carry VSTOL aircraft.

Tons of nations have been building (and buying) these things lately. By the way, AFAIK these Australian units, unlike the Spanish Juanca they are based on, are not intended to handle fixed wing aircraft, just helicopters and amphibious craft.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2009, 12:21:17 PM

Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2009, 07:43:52 AM

Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2009, 07:35:56 AM
I dunno...New Zealand is hardly great and Ireland's though itself quite insignificant had a huge effect on the development of the anglosphere.

New Zealand is a fascinating place, and the people are loyal to the anglosphere, if a bit soft.

It should merge with Australia as provided by Australia's Constitution.

Why? they disbanded their own airforce and hide behind the australians and the ANZUS alliance. They get the effect of the 100 fighters without actually having to pay for them.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2009, 12:21:17 PM
It should merge with Australia as provided by Australia's Constitution.

Why should it do that?

Well, at least they have the good sense not to name those ugly little tin cans after shitty (i.e.: Republican) Presidents like we do.

Where is the U.S.S. William J. Clinton?  :mad:

Quote from: Slargos on May 02, 2009, 08:30:02 AM
Makes perfect sense. They don't have the manpower to properly defend against a land invasion by most of their massively overpopulated neighbours who have countless lives to throw away as cannonfodder.

Their first and last line of defense must thus be the ocean.

logistics. If Asia attacked with hordes, they would have a hard time crossing the central desert into the more valuable areas. it would break down much like the Italian offensive into Egypt from Libya.

the best strategy would be rope a dope. let them land in the North and capture Darwin. then use navy, airpower and highly mobile task forces to contain them in that area of operations and have them deal with the headaches of provisioning too many men that can't go on the offense anyway.

I don't think the chinese have the ability to land more than 20 000 men at a time.
I mean, Taiwan is a hell of a lot closer than Australia...

What's the latest report on the chinese troop-transport capabilities?

Quote from: saskganesh on May 03, 2009, 11:19:42 AM

Quote from: Slargos on May 02, 2009, 08:30:02 AM
Makes perfect sense. They don't have the manpower to properly defend against a land invasion by most of their massively overpopulated neighbours who have countless lives to throw away as cannonfodder.

Their first and last line of defense must thus be the ocean.

logistics. If Asia attacked with hordes, they would have a hard time crossing the central desert into the more valuable areas. it would break down much like the Italian offensive into Egypt from Libya.

the best strategy would be rope a dope. let them land in the North and capture Darwin. then use navy, airpower and highly mobile task forces to contain them in that area of operations and have them deal with the headaches of provisioning too many men that can't go on the offense anyway.

A better defense:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsrb.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F12%2Fmushroom-cloud-hb.jpg&hash=dc10e7647bb7d7151b40627e7eb34df83698b3db)

You are a retard!

err, I mean, you are a defense!

Quote from: Fireblade on May 03, 2009, 11:03:00 AM
Well, at least they have the good sense not to name those ugly little tin cans after shitty (i.e.: Republican) Presidents like we do.

Where is the U.S.S. William J. Clinton?  :mad:

Clinton's not dead, and it thus be inappropriate.  Of course, they've been naming them for living presidents for a little bit, but it's still stupid.

Quote from: Neil on May 03, 2009, 03:16:02 PM

Quote from: Fireblade on May 03, 2009, 11:03:00 AM
Well, at least they have the good sense not to name those ugly little tin cans after shitty (i.e.: Republican) Presidents like we do.

Where is the U.S.S. William J. Clinton?  :mad:

Clinton's not dead, and it thus be inappropriate.  Of course, they've been naming them for living presidents for a little bit, but it's still stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H._W._Bush_(CVN-77)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_vessels_named_after_living_Americans

Reagan is brain dead, Carter is politically dead and HW Bush is republicanny dead.

Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2009, 05:42:02 PM

Quote from: Neil on May 03, 2009, 03:16:02 PM

Quote from: Fireblade on May 03, 2009, 11:03:00 AM
Well, at least they have the good sense not to name those ugly little tin cans after shitty (i.e.: Republican) Presidents like we do.

Where is the U.S.S. William J. Clinton?  :mad:

Clinton's not dead, and it thus be inappropriate.  Of course, they've been naming them for living presidents for a little bit, but it's still stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H._W._Bush_(CVN-77)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_vessels_named_after_living_Americans

And it's wrong.

I've got to agree with Neil, the route that the Navy has taken on naming their vessels since World War II is a travesty that just seems to get worse and worse.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
I've got to agree with Neil, the route that the Navy has taken on naming their vessels since World War II is a travesty that just seems to get worse and worse.

Is that better or worse than appaling?

Quote from: Siege on May 03, 2009, 11:23:18 AM
I don't think the chinese have the ability to land more than 20 000 men at a time.
I mean, Taiwan is a hell of a lot closer than Australia...

What's the latest report on the chinese troop-transport capabilities?

In theory they can lift far more than that, and have been investing heavily in new amphib designs, though none have made it past the one or two ship stage yet.

In practice they couldn't make an effective landing anywhere outside the range of their LBA, which pretty much limits their reach to Taiwan, the Koreas, Vietnam, and possibly the southern Ryukyu islands.  On top of that, they have no real experience operating a gator navy, so even with LBA an opposed landing would probably be a clusterfuck.  They are, as many other east Asian nations are, building and deploying their newer ships with disaster relief in mind.  That will allow the Chinese to develop some practical operating procedures, which is also a driving reason for the Japanese and South Koreans to start getting their gator forces into disaster relief as well.

At the moment Australia doesn't have much to worry about from China, but this is a 10 year plan, and things could be very different in 10 years.