SPEND MORE! If anyone is interested Britain spent less than 3% on defence before 1939. By 1940 it was 18%, come 1941 it was 46% of total Gdp. Spend more before it starts so that it may not.🤠👍❤️🇭🇲
For his very well outlined informative video perhaps he deliberately omitted both for time? But you raise a really good point. Both platforms are innovatively cutting edge, this is an entirely new area Defence industry has taken on and arguably should be hugely supported. Like Nulka, Ceafar and the 'Bushmaster' [only some examples] Australian defence innovation combined with exceptional leadership + R + D has set RAAF on a path to acquiring brilliant capabilities. Ukraine as all know has truly enlightened all to the offensive effectiveness of drones of varying sizes - but like the 'Triton', both platforms will revolutionise DoD capabilities. "Redback" imo was the inferior platform but was/has been selected - the issue I don't know how many who are into defence realise is 'politics' is DEEPLY embedded with both sides of the political isle when it comes to defence buys. The marginal Federal seat of Corio [there's 151 House Reps seats nationally] is a good example. Liberal seat but very marginal - and what do you know the South Korean self tracked artillery will be built there - a 'Greenfield site' the billions being invested is imo best practice - especially if the Commonwealth can wring/win export orders like the 'Boxer' has in yet 'another' marginal and critical QLD seat. Further billion dollar investment in RAAF bases in our north, in large part to allow USAF platforms to rotate with the right infrastructure required is to be objective, a huge outcome. The Army was reamed in the [rubbery] Budget - waiting to next year for the full delivery of the Apache is not good enough - they were selected by Dutton many years ago - FYI x2 'Apache E's' are now in Australia and IOC + these 2 latest brilliant 'E's' will give Army Aviation some serious experience and training will be ramped up for the 2025 full delivery. And also the 'Blackhawk' selection was 'finally' green lit - another over due selection when Russell originally 'wanted' this platform [as they did the Apache] nearly 2 decades ago but the then government/Min Def went with an immature design and tried to 'Australianise' the platform. What a lot of Australians that work in defence in the private/public sectors do NOT know is Min Def Dutton was overseeing the FMS/MOTS buy of 'Reaper' drones which would have for the first time given the ADF a massive offensive capability. We taxpayers paid for tens of ADF personnel to be housed, paid for and trained in Arizona from US operators. Now one of imo 'the' most effective 'checks' on the government of the day which invariably always gets over looked - is Senate Estimates - well just prior to the last election Min Def Dutton demanded Russell come up with "Budget Savings". And guess which mature, years funded program got the flick? Yes - the 'Reaper' program. Hence - the ADF wasted years of training their personnel to operate a unprecedented lethal offensive platform 'just' to make Min Def Dutton's Budget numbers 'add up'. That Dutton 'accepted' the imbeciles at Russell's recommendation will remain a stain on Dutton's career and legacy [and I support Dutton fully but deal in facts/evidence/context - the 3 core ideals as LLB students we are hammered]. Oh and the woke [thought he was a shoo in as GG Angus 'd#####' Campbell refused to name the platform "attack drones' due to 'not' upsetting the murderous regime in Beijing. Yes - the insanity, the pc wokeness that has captured the entire mid and senior level Russell officer cadre is sickening and a bloody disgrace and national scandal. I mean we just 'cannot' upset a rampaging China now can we. 'Redback' numbers will have a significant effect on how Army organises it's Divisional/Brigade structure. Marles if he was 'smart' should have left the door open for 'additional' unit buys. Who knows with a Federal election around the corner Marles just might act like he 'knows' what he is doing and the critical importance of having an effective land force structure. For me THE single biggest win beside 'Blackhawk/Apache/Aussie Thunder' was ARMY WILL be getting their M1A2 SEP> MBTs. The pressure from the 'appeasers' in Canberra, the Hugh White, Geoffrey Barker cabal have been hardened consistent opponents of this MBT buy and have been relentless in lobbying privately + publicly for this critical platform to be dumped. It is now 100% locked in.
@@BTR-xw4of A massive list of pro LNP diatribe. You shit on labor but omit that Tiger and Taipan were both LNP govt decision. The apaches and Blackhawk delivery 'being late and labor fault' is rubbish. They were ordered under the LNP govt, which is the right decision. Its the US that says when they are delivered. Thanks the labor govt we are getting some (4) of the blackhawks early, due to getting a few of the american army build slots, we also getting apaches early again US build slots. We also bought two of the recently retired UK WAH-64D for ground handling training. They arrived in AUS last week. Unless you got some source theres no apache E in australia yet. The AH-64E-V6.5 we are getting only completed flight testing OCT 2023. First actual deliveries will be 2025 with bulk and completion in 2026. Theres rumor that expeditied delivery of some E's in late 2024 for training but thats just rumors selected by Dutton many years ago - No it was 2022 when we signed the contract. As above theres a waiting list for these, we get them when its our turn The redback was a no brainer, the only real negative it has is that turret is israeli and it handles artic conditions poorly, Not a huge issue for AUS or Israel but it was for poland when they tested one. Redback uses the same gear box and transmission as K9/K10. Also M1 also uses the same transmission, they will all be centralized in the same location so its a pretty good logistics move.
Lots of missing projects here. Upgrade & replacement patrol boats. Possible acquisition of light frigates or Corvettes. Upgrade South Australian shipbuilding facilities. Upgrade Eastern Naval facilities. Drone ships, foxbat or loyal wingman aircraft. Just to name a few. I would like us to develop capabilities to build Javelin or similar MANPADS. Patriot Air Defence Systems & Artillery systems with a stock pile of ammunition. Where are we with light arms manufacturing? I believe there is a great sniper rifle being made in Adelaide? Great video. I would like to learn more.
UAVs and drones are the future for weapons systems. These advanced weapons will use state-of-the-art AI. This removes the need for large conventional military forces. There are not enough personnel to fill the roles that will be needed in the future. So, it will be necessary to use autonomous technology.
Aukus Submarines are a no brainer considering the different stand off distance as well as they are delivery platforms for the much longer range Tomahawk missiles as what we have now have on current Collins subs are short range harpoon missiles.
I agree very much on your assessment but damn I hate these videos that are more PR than actual assessment of viability. WHAT IS NOT being asked is: Are we getting value for money? I think the answer is we are being taken to the cleaners on a lot of these contracts. I know we are being taken for mugs on the submarines but that's a more complex assessment. The Hunter-class frigates however are simple. Ours are costing AU$5 Billion each while the Royal Navy is paying about AU$1.5 Billion for each of its Type 26s. Canada is buying a version of the same boat and paying about the same as us. I am an engineer (aerospace degree) who works in industrial control systems & automation and there is no way to justify that. If I ever went to an employer and asked them to pay more than triple for something they know that others are buying for that lower then I have either got to have a VERY GOOD explanation of I get fired.
@@tonywilson4713the big question is what are their technologies. Some of these countries you mentioned getting cheaper prices are probably supplying their own modern technologies so basically buying the shell. The military only show the public their older advancements and never their real capabilities. People don’t realise that in 1958 Australian submarines had touch screens so imagine what they have developed over the last 60 years.
The defence spending needs to quadruple . A vast amount needs to be spent on production of small arms and artillery munitions . Look at the Ukraine for that analogie . We depend far to much on the US for arms . Fast forward to the BS nuclear subes , Just creating them will need one third of the current defence force numbers . We struggle to get submariners as it is , let alone the support personnel to facilitate them that exceeded the current defense force numbers . WHere are those numbers coming from , considering the defense force is losing members faster than they recrute .
We need to scrap the Arafura OPV as it’s under armed for the emerging threats. Transfer the Arafura class and Cape Class boats to the Border Force and give Border Force all maritime constabulary duties as a coast guard. Get the RAN corvettes and proper mine clearance vessels then make sure it is used only for war fighting. Plus get the RAN some type 218SG diesel electric subs from Germany to plug the gap until nuclear subs come online. Next replace all M114AS4 APC’s with Redbacks not just 140 or so which is barely enough to equip a battalion.
The entire navel review is a screw up . 6 32 cell hunter.class frigate 11 new smaller frigate 6 optional crewed surface combating ships? Tier 1 hunter.class and 3 current hobart class AWDs? They would had been better of upgunned the hunter.class with the 96 cell VLS for new AWDs And added 17 new smaller frigate for ASW vessels instead of 6 optional crewed ships. They could easily build 11 navantia Alpha 5000 frigate with 32 cell VLS and built 6 navantia Alpha 3000 corvettes with 16 cell VLS. And sold 3 hobart class fo New Zealand Instead they going for 6 large ASW vessels. 11 smaller ASW vessels and 6 light missile optional crewed ships. 23 ships all ASW capability and only 3 medium sized existing AWDs. Theirs no proper balance between AWDs and ASW vessel's leaving RAN a capability to be able to strike back The guy in the video states the hunter.class will be Australia largest ships. Whoop Doo! They will also be 16 cell VLS less than the current hobart class. Maybe they think the radar will scare them away. ? Yes the OPV will end up been transferred to China for future fishing boats.
You don’t understand the purpose of the Arafura…….its job is to deploy and recover XLUUV’s that would detect Chinese submarines so P8 can destroy them. The XLUUV’s would also protect our ports while the RAN operated outside Australian waters. Arafura is nothing more than a big taxi (during war time). The government is cancelling the Arafura because they think the Virginia class can do everything, same reason they are now reducing the number of Hunter class frigates……a huge mistake.
Australia has a huge area to take care of. They need the best military equipment available! The West needs to help and assist as much as possible to make sure they have it. Thank you for being there Australia!
To me, nuclear subs for Oz makes perfect sense. We are surrounded by water and have a huge coast line to cover and the range of the nuc subs is exactly what we needed. No need to refuel for a while!
It’s about bloody time. The only problem with this is, it’s spread over far to big a timeframe and although much better than what we have, it’s still not enough. This needs to be completed within five years. It might sound ridiculous but it’s doable if they made the right commitments.
Rock On Aussies. This all looks good. If "the big one" ever happens you will be glad you have this. All this stuff is the best and lasts for 40 years. If it doesn't happen, then it will be because you did this. Peace cost money.
@@davidhenderson1950copying somebody else's sound bites doesn't make you smart. We have similar values to the US and our partnership is our of choice. The US doesn't pull any strings here. Might be hard for you to understand, but people who have similar values choose to defend their shared values.
Yeah we have to prop up Americas position in the Pacific somehow. This is not about protecting us from China, its about keeping the US control in the Pacific. In fact the main reason why China is a threat to Australia is because of all the US bases on Aussie soil. If you haven't noticed the US makes sure it doesn't fight wars on its soil, just on its lackeys soil, then have the audacity tell you after you should thank them for the privelidge. I mean who else starts wars with countries that Australia has no beef with, then asks us to provide our children to bleed for the US's benefit all whilst selling us the weapons to fight their war? Its a win win for the US isn't it?
The problem I have with these costings is that they are mostly projected through-life cost over decades of operation. It’s difficult to put a per-unit cost on something as complex as a warship or submarine though so it’s understandable.
Australia has always been frugal with defence spending throughout the years, and because of this the initial price tag is heavy for this updated procurement. We dont want to be a walk in the park for any adversary now or in the future, I think this is absolutely necessary, and this is obvious because we are not alone in our increase in defence budget
I thought you would mention the M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams we have purchased 75 odd with extra hulls mine clearer and recovery Abrams as well. This has been announced for a couple of years now.
If a country teaches its children to hate their country they won’t want to defend it. If governments continue to treat those that do and have served with contempt fewer still will hear the call. If the country has only fuel and munitions to fight for a week then the government is negligent.
Bang on . The government is the enemy ! That’s the only way I see it . Am I wrong ???? What depth of defence do we have ? Wars are won buy manufacturing capacity & short logistical chains , along with the population & infrastructure to play the long attritional game . Again the government has massively failed us. Huge change in government needed ! Imo of course.
While we have built some pretty good gear, Hobart Class Destroyers one of the projects which is dumb is the Hunter Class Frigate. All that money into a ship that will be poorly armed. 32 VLS is no where near enough, and they are bigger than the Hobart class. We can get better bang for buck by cutting back the Hunter Class from 9-6, upgrade weapons to a least 48 VLS and in the mean time build another 3 Hobart Class destroyers. JMO
Mate,they'll spend a bazillion dollars in Canberra doing studies,reviews and feasibility. The top brass will give themselves more medals for all the hard work,then cancel almost everything.
The government must turn it's northern islands such as Cocos island, Christmas island, Melville and even Hammond, Horn and Thursday islands into long range missile/radar, air bases if it is going to take Australia's defence seriously!
What about PNG, it's an open door that is virtually defenceless. With our close relationship we should be negotiating a forward base in the north of that country for both our country's defence.
How about the ADF is self sufficient in ammo and fuel as a base requirement? It was confirmed in the Senate that the ADF has 1 day's ammo supply and maybe 7 days fuel supply. Globally look at Burma where a US support regime is being beaten by rebels only armed with .22 3D printed weapons. Or let's look at the last 20 years where all of the "high tech weapons" were beaten by blokes in Utes with a mobile phone and access to a hardware store. We also now have 2 politicians that have committed treason without punishment and still committing treason, does anyone really think any O/S country is going to sell us their best weapons when they know their enemies will have the blueprints before we do? I saved in the 70's in Artillery and we "liberated" a Mortar Locating Radar from the US when they left Vietnam, our blokes did no get the instruction manuals so the equipment was held at the School of Artillery to tr and work out how to use it. We asked the Yanks and they refused to supply the manuals but one day the Russian embassy delivered the manuals to us.
It is good to see Australia significantly modernize it's forces. Now, if the government will follow through and perhaps even pull in the acquisitions, Australia will become a mighty anchor in the Pacific.
Australia could easily afford two small 30,000 ton light carriers from South Korea, the DSME design that could carry 16 F-35b aircraft along with helicopters. The KSS3 submarines have a crew of 35-40 people instead of trying to find crews of nuke boats like the Virginia which needs 135 plus and the Astute’s which need 100.
We do have two like light carriers in the Canberra class but the thing which annoyed me was, that if we weren't going to operate STOVL aircraft why put a ramp on the front?
@@Generaldisorderlythe ski jump is required because a fully armed and fuelled f35 b is too heavy for VT without a rolling start same with harriers that's why even British aircraft carrier's have them.
@@Generaldisorderlythe ski jumps are only there because they were included in the design we got from the Spanish. It does however hint at the tantalising(if remote) possibility for them to one day be upgraded to support F35b operations. But yeah I wouldn't go holding my breath on that one.
In actual fact it could afford 2 x Eliz Class carriers plus 3 c extra Juan carlos class ( with certain upgrades) plus several more surface ships BUT this is NOT the problem..the prolem is in MANNING these platforms, to wish to purchase less tech or lethal via the Sth Korean model is madness.
All this Defence spending is well and good but the thing is, we are dependent on crude oil supplied from overseas. In a war our oil supply will be cut off and we'll run out of fuel to run our Defence Force within a few weeks.
I'm new to your channel Mel and thank you for your interesting content. I don't think our government is spending too much on the defence of Australia, I think it's about time and hope successive governments don't back out of deals already made! The way certain regimes are posturing ATM we cannot afford to fall behind. There is a quote by Chris Gibson that says "When you talk about peace through strength, what you are talking about is the concept of deterrence"
Arafura seems more like a corvette - which are being increasingly being built and operated by the Scandinavian countries for which they are ideal for the North Sea and Baltic
8 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
I've seen them. They are pretty small. Big for a patrol ship but small for a warship.
We spend too much on buying a handful of expensive high tech systems that would last a few weeks in a full on war. We don't seem to be able to accept our small power status and keep buying into these vanity projects. We get just enough to equip our units, sometimes not even that, with no reserves whatsoever. Did we really need to get three squadrons of F35's when we could have had 5 squadrons of a cheaper aircraft and had two squadrons of planes in reserve, for example.
We should have five fighter squadrons instead of only three, in a sense we already have that because the two squadrons that operated F-111 aircraft now fly Super Hornets. We should have bought two squadrons of F-35A and three of Super Hornets with the F-18e/f to be replaced by the South Korean KF-21 fighter jet.
We do not spend anywhere near enough - nothing could be more obvious - if there is a high probability of a major conflict with a formidable adversary within 3 years, then spending our current 2% of GDP on Defence is absolute peanuts, we need to go significantly higher and I am not saying 2.5% of GDP, more like 10% or higher. You need to think what equipment and supplies you need to successfully defeat a formidable adversary if conflict were to occur within 3 years, that is how to look at the challenge. Apparently they are 80% self sufficient in petroleum fuel, therefore, blocking the Malacca Straits is probably pointless (but we would still need to have that capability).
You missed quite a bit, including but not limited to the Abrams upgrade program, Nasams air defence, Himars, all the new ship types they're going to create and so on.
Not enough money being spent we need to build our own fighters. Boats arrive undetected from the northern Aus. This in really big country we do not have other countries wanting destroy us it's difficult for us to how really protect this country.
@@joncarolyndon’t need better . Lots of simple air frames with very good missiles & huge amounts of air defence. Land , sea & air launched anti air weapons. Multi layered air defence . Mobile missile systems are far cheaper then airfields, expensive fast jets , pilots & ground crews & their families ect ect ect
@@concernedaussie1330 if you want people to fight, you have to supply the best. Only an idiot would sign up to fight using inferior equipment. Or even suggest using it for that matter.
@@joncarolyn what’s the alternative ???? Bury one’s head in the sand & pretend nothing can ever happen down here . Well tell that to the pow’s of WW2 & slaves & massacred people’s thought out history. Gaza & Ukraine right now . Or learn skills & knowledge & how to duck & weave with the weather & climate to best suit the defender on their home soil . I my self would prefer to have a few years of training under my belt & have some limited but totally effective weapons . History is full of warriors , that fought with spirt & pride & a never say die attitude against all odds & came out on top. You may not be cut from that same cloth , only a idiot do nothing & hope things will just work themselves out.
@@joncarolyn the best doesn't have to be the most expensive . The so called best that we have just spent over a decade & a half of defense budget on. Is already obsolete before the plans are drawn . Underwater surveillance systems in the next 4 years are speculated to make nowhere safe for submersible s. Drones of all kinds have basically made most super expensive legacy systems obsolete . 70 thousand defense personal certainly can't defend the Australian continent. Let alone rounding up all of the duel nationals or ethnic groups that have ties with our enemies. & the personal needed to man & guard the internment camps.
Sir I have a concern we are building all these vessels and airships etc etc can you do a video on our personal like how many soldiers does it take to run 1 battleship compared to our entire arsenal and our ability to man all of them if need be
So let me get this right, Mel.. The Arafura Class of off shore Patrol vessels, are off shore patrol Vessels? Right. Ok. I'm with you. Lol. (P.S) - Nice house by the way. Lend us a 50? 😅 Thanks for the video.
Don't forget the all of the money flowing into Australia to help pay for many of these upgrades and improvements including at Darwin and also at Adelaide for the AUKUS program. I think the U.K. is also kicking some money to help with the AUKUS program.
Australia is ideal for utilizing the huge jet hovercraft that take 300 cars & 500 ppl. We could do with a ferry service on the coast that can double as tactical transport.
More needs to be spent especially in the area of long range precision fires to be able to project strike capability and also the capability of building the missile systems in Australia. We also need to move our strategic fuel reserves to Australia as well as a national fuel production onshore.. Having all our fuels being refined offshore is a strategic failure point
The cost overruns are criminal! What I find disappointing is every defence project purchase is all state of the art equipment. There’s no back up secondary equipment purchases that are cheaper and cost a lot less to use over their life span!
100% We will use equipment faster then we can replace it & will will definitely take losses . Most likely large losses with our piss poor anti air capabilities.
@@WaveformV1.0 Yes those mongrels from the Lib/Nats who had their heads up there arses for a period of 9 years giving contracts and outsourcing everything to their corporate mates (so when they complete their political lives and return to the "Real World" they get high paying jobs from their US and UK corporate overlords) and completely gutting public service of specialised expertise. It took current treasurer Jim Chalmers only 1 budget to rebalance the books and is on a steady path to getting Australia back to fiscal responsibility . Go Jimbo !!!
I have seen Australia is thinking about raising the F-35 order to 100 total. That would cost around 3 billion. I always thought the main advantage of stealth was to get as close to the target, such as enemy radar/air defense systems etc, as possible. After that you send in aircraft like F-15s or F-18s that are 50% faster, and significantly cheaper, to bomb the crap out of everything else. For 28 more F-35s, Australia could buy 40 more FA-18 super hornets. They have a comparable range and, without an aircraft carrier, Australia needs as much as that as they can get.
Should be buying F35B lighting strike II , vertical take off . When the first wave of missiles hit our airstrips we are cooked . These things can be deployed from football fields if need be .
Australia can and should produce ALL of its weapons necessary for its own defence. The F-35 is not a fighter jet. It cannot dogfight. It cannot outrun older fighters. It can be approximately located with long wave radar and accurately located with Infrared equipped older fighters. Regards, Geoff. Reeks
We are spending appropriately and must ensure our defence capability is of extremely high standards. We are an extraordinary fighting force and have so many island nations depending on Australia to defend them and too assist them in ongoing development we are a small nation with superpower defence capabilities our future budgets will be so enhanced due to our rare earth deposits this will substantiate our future requirements far beyond the ordinary mindset. Spend up Australia the world needs is and we will not disappoint them nor Australia regardless of petty complaints by too many power hungry Politicians.
Wasn't the Arafura Class patrol boats the cheapest option they could get, without helicopter landing pads to quote "Play more of a policing role than military role" just shows how little this government considers defence.
What's the draught on your new submarines ? What is their future roles. Here in what you call the South China Sea it's very shallow...very very shallow. Chinese boats reflect that in their draughts are 6mtres. Are you making boats more suitable for the Nth Atlantic. Can someone help me.
Australia could double its defence budgeting, and we would still be saying, "we should have been faster with the getting these weapons. Wish we had more.
Advancing without infantry and air makes armour and vehicle vulnerable. Things both Ukraine and Russia seem to not have learnt yet after 3 years and horrendous losses.
I can't believe how much the boxer project costs especially when you see how vulnerable these machines have become. If countries like Croatia can buy the Patria (an excellent combat proven platform from Finland) for a few hundred million for about 150 vehicles, I don't get how the boxer can cost so much more?
Headed in the right direction; however, we lost a major regional capability and asset when they took away 3RAR’s Para role and stuck them in antiquated M113’s 🤯🤦🏻♂️
Spending 'Big' on Defence Projects like... 1. Reducing 3 Hunter Class Frigates 2. Reducing 6 OPVs 3. Decommissioning 2 Anzac Class Frigates 4. Promising something in 12 years when Labor may not be in Government. 5. Reduction in Army and RAAF 6. Reducing staff numbers with no plan
Well with the hunter class, they are replacing them with 11 new frigates. So instead of getting 9 frigates, we are going to get 17. 6 heavy frigates (basically destroyers) and 11 frigates, with the 3 destroyers we recently built. But yeah they are cutting military projects and it is so annoying.
Mm. Good point, Birch. I was thinking about this as he was mentioning it. I hope they go to a yard and not directly to scrap. It is after all the back end of global conflicts that nations often wish they had their current though SLIGHTLY outdated platforms sitting in a dry dock somewhere. Look at the carnage we were capable of delivering with our "Scrap Iron Flotilla" in the Med in WW2. Even in the Pacific, not like we were (as a standalone) operating at the absolute apex of current/contemporary technology the world. Yeah.... They should put that shit on ice.
More than half of it will remain on paper mate by the time they get halfway through any of thoghs projects a lot of it will get cancelled. You can't plan for defence within 20 years of projects. As a lot of technology changes and puts you back into drawing board. If they can't deliver equipment within a decade. It's all thing air@Matt_JJz
Our local military industrial systems must be funded to a point where our defence is locally sourced. Even if it costs twice as much, make it here, spend it here, design it here.
It's hard to cover every aspect of such a multi-faceted subject like defense, you could do these later, howitzers, Redback, Ghost Bat, Ghost Shark, other drones, Tomahawk, and other missiles.
The Arafura looks good but what all the cancellation fluff really says is that it's a money thing which I can understand. If you spend all the money on these then there won't be any left for military personnel to have underpants and socks. Mel, you provide entertaining and informative programs that I can't find anywhere else. Thank you for that.
The LOTE Collins extension is arguably the biggest upgrade of any air, sea, land ADF platform in history. The time and sheer scale of the LOTE is staggering. But now to the most dysfunctional Dept in the APS - DoD/Russell. Reports this week exposed the simple RAN Corvette down selection process has fubered the Dept once again with respect to the South Korean option [s]. I could pen a PhD thesis on how pathetic Russell is. Singapore makes us look a joke.
Having the gear is one thing, bodies in the gear is another. A question is going to be personnel going forward. Maybe a reserve force of trained navel and air force part time members would help. The USA has a backup of trained pilots and ground staff in reserve. Same goes for the navy. Maybe a large full time force is not necessary when a core of full time professionals and a "back up" of reserve members who can be called into action could be setup. Like the CFA and the professional full timers in fire fighting, or the SES. Reservists get paid, training and could flip in and out of full time participation. Add some old style war service loans at low interest and they would be kicking the door down to join. Interested to see what people think about this.
Let's get serious and recreate cadet schemes in schools, promote two year gape years for suitable kids and offer incentives such as free HECS. & TAFE or cheap housing loans. Continuing prospects of service in the reserves or permanent services with a really good superannuation scheme and free medical. A few little incentive like that would help. You could also include service in SES, hospitals, police etc.
until the defence department get realistic delivery times for equipment it will be useless as most of the equipment will be obsolete by delivery or as is happening delivery will be delayed for up dates
Defence spending needs both expansion and cost control. The ADO are notorious for overpaying, especially on infrastructure associated with new equipment and materiel. It’s also losing money on support services contracts. Better VFM and a bigger budget would start to put us where we need to be.
What i have noticed with military Contracts is “the more you purchase, the cheaper the products become” We have short sighted politicians and military planners….the small number of units and cost of the Arafura for example, we know that isn’t enough hulls for the purpose they are to play….and axing the French diesels for the over priced nukes to patrol Aussie waters...effin’ madness, and my 2 cents
Rather sadly, I am in full agreement with Paul Keating, in the fact that we were duped on the SSN deal. We are offering them base facilities, enormous lead times for construction and delivery, and should have entered into the negotiations more shrewdly, I believe. We seemed to be so overawed at joining the exclusive nuclear club, that we treated it like our first Platinum American Express card, which it was. We are paying something in the order of twice what we should have agreed to. In the area of Helo's and F-35s, we did reasonably well I believe, but only if we have ready and timely access to software and hardware upgrades. What is our current fleet of aerial tankers looking like, as they would be critical to our RAAF.
The biggest issue with the Australian Military is we spend big but we do not get enough out of it, and it takes way too long to deliever. For example the AUKUS Class will be fully delivered in 2060! That is a insanely long time waiting, and even though we are getting Virginia's in the 2030s to cover the wait; we are only getting 3 when we should be getting 8 to reach fleet full operational capabilities. We need more of everything, yes having the best technology in the world is a huge bonus but lack of numbers screws us over a lot. I personally think over the next 10 years Australia should focus on building a well sized military, not just a super advanced one. Focus more on the now, and not the far future. Focus more on aerospace capabilities & defence (which luckily is happening and we just got news of a new air defence network). Australia should also look into getting aircraft carriers and long range missiles, as that is the best way to project our military capabilities. It is expensive, but it is a necessary price to pay in order to defend Australia and her people.
Huge agreement here. The problem is multifold - nept Min Def's who are 'captured' by the dysfunctional and most detested Commonwealth APS Dept DoD, who imo having audited Russell multiple times/been a DLO at Russell and other 'co-ordinating' Depts - the 'culture' at Russell cannot ever be changed. Second - MOTS/FMS for the 'big' defence projects is a cost effective no brainer - the F105's and RAN replenishment/tanker ships are a perfect example. Although the 'Juan Carlos' LHDs 'were' built by Navantia in Spain and then fitted out here, so the skill base is as consistent/effective as possible. Smart kit acquisition - Spain have the build infrastructure at Ferrol - we get our defence industrial SME's deeply involved, up skilling and boosting our SME supply side. The other massive problem [Seasprite etc] is Russell ALWAYS has to bastardise defence buys and 'Australianise'' the platform. That this rabble of an open border government + DoD 'Alphabet' Department under a part time Min Def Marles cannot get a down selection within 12 months for MOTS/FMS 'Tier 2' Corvette naval buys is just appalling. All know Navantia made multiple government to government offers for an additional AWD's with a locked in price $3b per ship, but were fobbed off - so now RAN has to wait how many years for the 'Tier 2' platforms? It is a national scandal the holistic approach to defence by government's and the useless very much so Russell clowns, and their refusal to change. Why TF would a Min Def 'green light' the burying of perfectly operational NH90's? This is one of 'the' single biggest scandals in our defence history. The ALP could have sold them and put that revenue back into Consolidated Revenue for the Defence Budget - it does my head in and the total uselessness of the wannabe 4 star bloated Officer cadre at Russell are the reason I transferred out of my previous role. The ANAO does report after report - DoD 'agree' to "fully implement the recommendations of the ANAO Audit" but hardly ever does. It is just criminal.
@timlewis4623 The operational power ≠ Operational Capability As 3 submarines cannot cover all of Australia, that is why we need 8 until the Aukus class arrives
Raw dollar amounts do not reveal a nation's expenditures on defense. The true measure os the percentage of a nation's GDP spent on defense. Look historically at the percentage of GDP Australia spent on defense.
You know that the AUKUS attack nuclear powered subs cost will blow out above 368 billiion. This defence warship program dwarfs all other defence programs by a whopping amount. It also needs more than 3 to 5 times the crew members of a Collins class sub. Seems a huge expensive program for relatively lttle deterrence value to the PLAAN and the CCP.
Not convinced by the expressed need for nuclear submarines. Do we even have an air defence system? And I’m suspicious about our further integration into US preparations in the Asia/Pacific.
Then you have to add the running costs of one's military 'toys' Keeping one's troops in places like Darwin, when it's a long way from the bigger populations, and most folks families, will always be an issue. Then there is the ongoing prob in general of recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers in general. Don't recon I could be stuck on a boat, or even worse, a sub, for long periods of time. Take my hat off to those who do.
It is great to see our Asian- Pacific and European friends and allies rearming and taking defense seriously. Although US military is still the most powerful fighting force in the world, the gap between us and some of our greatest adversaries has shrinken, especially locally. This is why this new found realization that security in the 21st century isn't guaranteed and that some players on the world stage still sport a 19th century mentality in this day and age... With Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines and NATO countries, we remain the undisputed military heavyweight champions without a challenger in sight for the next 50 years... As long as, of course, we stay united while sharing the same values and goals... This could be seriously damaged by one person who doesn't share these values but is in the position to run the world. Thankfully his chances of doing that are fading away by the day His chances are diminishing with every speech he makes, with every topic he starts... Stay strong Australia,.
The spending, purchasing rather, should have been done years ago. But instead, they decided to have review after review after review. Now looks what is happening in the middle east, eastern Europe and the south china sea.
This is the price of US partnership. We will be contributing to the total construction program of the most advanced submarines in the world. So if there is a war they can flood australia with skilled labour at short notice thus ramping up construction numbers in shorter time periods. Just look at what the US did in WW2 and how they supplied the rest of the world with basically everything . We just need the infrastructure in place and they can supply excess requirements for labour and design and the ability to increase production at short notice. We have lots of metal and electrical workers in the mining industry we can repurpose but it will come down to total production of China, Russia, North Korea vs US Japan Europe Canada and Australia as the main protagonists.
true the Japanese one is even better for around b each the money we could be saving and i think with recent change should be buy the light Japanese frigates too they can pick them up for about 400 m each buy 2 of production line and build 6 here
Why are we replacing old equipment with less equipment, even with there increased individual weapons platform effectiveness we are decreasing our over defence effectiveness not increasing it.
We are joining the american LUSV program, 1000-1500 ton displacement, optionally manned (cant be unmanned in peace time due to UNCLOS which says warships have to be commanded by an officer) with 16 cell VLS.
Old Japanese proverb "It is better to be a warrior in a garden, then a gardener in a war"
Japanese still lost the wars & you taking advice of looser
Not bad coming from a country that ended up with two suns dropped on it.
Chinese
than*
By Bushido a Gardner at youth vs a tired Samura,I ?
A good summary, Mel. You did well to give the updates without sabre-rattling! As a charity that supports Aussies in uniform, we say thanks!
Thanks for the kind words! Glad you liked it
SPEND MORE! If anyone is interested Britain spent less than 3% on defence before 1939. By 1940 it was 18%, come 1941 it was 46% of total Gdp. Spend more before it starts so that it may not.🤠👍❤️🇭🇲
You forgot the 'Ghost bat' and the 'Redback'
We focused on the 9 projects with the largest budget. Ghost bat is only $400m at this stage.
And the K9 howitzers
For his very well outlined informative video perhaps he deliberately omitted both for time?
But you raise a really good point. Both platforms are innovatively cutting edge, this is an entirely new area Defence industry has taken on and arguably should be hugely supported. Like Nulka, Ceafar and the 'Bushmaster' [only some examples] Australian defence innovation combined with exceptional leadership + R + D has set RAAF on a path to acquiring brilliant capabilities.
Ukraine as all know has truly enlightened all to the offensive effectiveness of drones of varying sizes - but like the 'Triton', both platforms will revolutionise DoD capabilities.
"Redback" imo was the inferior platform but was/has been selected - the issue I don't know how many who are into defence realise is 'politics' is DEEPLY embedded with both sides of the political isle when it comes to defence buys.
The marginal Federal seat of Corio [there's 151 House Reps seats nationally] is a good example. Liberal seat but very marginal - and what do you know the South Korean self tracked artillery will be built there - a 'Greenfield site' the billions being invested is imo best practice - especially if the Commonwealth can wring/win export orders like the 'Boxer' has in yet 'another' marginal and critical QLD seat.
Further billion dollar investment in RAAF bases in our north, in large part to allow USAF platforms to rotate with the right infrastructure required is to be objective, a huge outcome.
The Army was reamed in the [rubbery] Budget - waiting to next year for the full delivery of the Apache is not good enough - they were selected by Dutton many years ago - FYI x2 'Apache E's' are now in Australia and IOC + these 2 latest brilliant 'E's' will give Army Aviation some serious experience and training will be ramped up for the 2025 full delivery.
And also the 'Blackhawk' selection was 'finally' green lit - another over due selection when Russell originally 'wanted' this platform [as they did the Apache] nearly 2 decades ago but the then government/Min Def went with an immature design and tried to 'Australianise' the platform.
What a lot of Australians that work in defence in the private/public sectors do NOT know is Min Def Dutton was overseeing the FMS/MOTS buy of 'Reaper' drones which would have for the first time given the ADF a massive offensive capability. We taxpayers paid for tens of ADF personnel to be housed, paid for and trained in Arizona from US operators.
Now one of imo 'the' most effective 'checks' on the government of the day which invariably always gets over looked - is Senate Estimates - well just prior to the last election Min Def Dutton demanded Russell come up with "Budget Savings".
And guess which mature, years funded program got the flick? Yes - the 'Reaper' program.
Hence - the ADF wasted years of training their personnel to operate a unprecedented lethal offensive platform 'just' to make Min Def Dutton's Budget numbers 'add up'.
That Dutton 'accepted' the imbeciles at Russell's recommendation will remain a stain on Dutton's career and legacy [and I support Dutton fully but deal in facts/evidence/context - the 3 core ideals as LLB students we are hammered].
Oh and the woke [thought he was a shoo in as GG Angus 'd#####' Campbell refused to name the platform "attack drones' due to 'not' upsetting the murderous regime in Beijing. Yes - the insanity, the pc wokeness that has captured the entire mid and senior level Russell officer cadre is sickening and a bloody disgrace and national scandal. I mean we just 'cannot' upset a rampaging China now can we.
'Redback' numbers will have a significant effect on how Army organises it's Divisional/Brigade structure. Marles if he was 'smart' should have left the door open for 'additional' unit buys. Who knows with a Federal election around the corner Marles just might act like he 'knows' what he is doing and the critical importance of having an effective land force structure.
For me THE single biggest win beside 'Blackhawk/Apache/Aussie Thunder' was ARMY WILL be getting their M1A2 SEP> MBTs.
The pressure from the 'appeasers' in Canberra, the Hugh White, Geoffrey Barker cabal have been hardened consistent opponents of this MBT buy and have been relentless in lobbying privately + publicly for this critical platform to be dumped. It is now 100% locked in.
@@BTR-xw4of A massive list of pro LNP diatribe. You shit on labor but omit that Tiger and Taipan were both LNP govt decision. The apaches and Blackhawk delivery 'being late and labor fault' is rubbish. They were ordered under the LNP govt, which is the right decision. Its the US that says when they are delivered. Thanks the labor govt we are getting some (4) of the blackhawks early, due to getting a few of the american army build slots, we also getting apaches early again US build slots. We also bought two of the recently retired UK WAH-64D for ground handling training. They arrived in AUS last week. Unless you got some source theres no apache E in australia yet. The AH-64E-V6.5 we are getting only completed flight testing OCT 2023. First actual deliveries will be 2025 with bulk and completion in 2026. Theres rumor that expeditied delivery of some E's in late 2024 for training but thats just rumors
selected by Dutton many years ago - No it was 2022 when we signed the contract. As above theres a waiting list for these, we get them when its our turn
The redback was a no brainer, the only real negative it has is that turret is israeli and it handles artic conditions poorly, Not a huge issue for AUS or Israel but it was for poland when they tested one. Redback uses the same gear box and transmission as K9/K10. Also M1 also uses the same transmission, they will all be centralized in the same location so its a pretty good logistics move.
@@BTR-xw4ofdo you type these out on a keyboard? If not, that's impressive
Lots of missing projects here.
Upgrade & replacement patrol boats. Possible acquisition of light frigates or Corvettes. Upgrade South Australian shipbuilding facilities. Upgrade Eastern Naval facilities. Drone ships, foxbat or loyal wingman aircraft. Just to name a few.
I would like us to develop capabilities to build Javelin or similar MANPADS. Patriot Air Defence Systems & Artillery systems with a stock pile of ammunition.
Where are we with light arms manufacturing? I believe there is a great sniper rifle being made in Adelaide?
Great video. I would like to learn more.
Thales still build quality firearms for the military in Lithgow, which has been doing it since before WWII.
UAVs and drones are the future for weapons systems. These advanced weapons will use state-of-the-art AI. This removes the need for large conventional military forces. There are not enough personnel to fill the roles that will be needed in the future. So, it will be necessary to use autonomous technology.
No,it nuclear weapon still stand the test of times
AMS lasar defence system. once they are utilized missles and drones are nearly obsolete
Aukus Submarines are a no brainer considering the different stand off distance as well as they are delivery platforms for the much longer range Tomahawk missiles as what we have now have on current Collins subs are short range harpoon missiles.
It’s a step in the right direction, we need to spend more and things need to happen a lot quicker.
I agree very much on your assessment but damn I hate these videos that are more PR than actual assessment of viability.
WHAT IS NOT being asked is: Are we getting value for money?
I think the answer is we are being taken to the cleaners on a lot of these contracts.
I know we are being taken for mugs on the submarines but that's a more complex assessment.
The Hunter-class frigates however are simple. Ours are costing AU$5 Billion each while the Royal Navy is paying about AU$1.5 Billion for each of its Type 26s. Canada is buying a version of the same boat and paying about the same as us.
I am an engineer (aerospace degree) who works in industrial control systems & automation and there is no way to justify that. If I ever went to an employer and asked them to pay more than triple for something they know that others are buying for that lower then I have either got to have a VERY GOOD explanation of I get fired.
@@tonywilson4713the big question is what are their technologies. Some of these countries you mentioned getting cheaper prices are probably supplying their own modern technologies so basically buying the shell. The military only show the public their older advancements and never their real capabilities. People don’t realise that in 1958 Australian submarines had touch screens so imagine what they have developed over the last 60 years.
Not enough units in the current plans
Aussie land has lots of Iron. I would think getting into the weapons manufacturing would be a good idea.
You're right. If a nation as tiny as Israel can do it, why not us.
Problem is that all the brains have gone overseas…leaving the morons behind.
@@codebasher1Israeli got supported from around the world
From zionist Christians
@@codebasher1 Well they may have benefited slightly from the $260 billion dollars' worth of military aid from the US since the end of WW2...
Trillions spent on weaponry, yet poverty continues to increase... ❤️🔥
The defence spending needs to quadruple . A vast amount needs to be spent on production of small arms and artillery munitions . Look at the Ukraine for that analogie . We depend far to much on the US for arms . Fast forward to the BS nuclear subes , Just creating them will need one third of the current defence force numbers . We struggle to get submariners as it is , let alone the support personnel to facilitate them that exceeded the current defense force numbers .
WHere are those numbers coming from , considering the defense force is losing members faster than they recrute .
We need to scrap the Arafura OPV as it’s under armed for the emerging threats. Transfer the Arafura class and Cape Class boats to the Border Force and give Border Force all maritime constabulary duties as a coast guard. Get the RAN corvettes and proper mine clearance vessels then make sure it is used only for war fighting. Plus get the RAN some type 218SG diesel electric subs from Germany to plug the gap until nuclear subs come online. Next replace all M114AS4 APC’s with Redbacks not just 140 or so which is barely enough to equip a battalion.
The entire navel review is a screw up .
6 32 cell hunter.class frigate
11 new smaller frigate
6 optional crewed surface combating ships?
Tier 1 hunter.class and 3 current hobart class AWDs?
They would had been better of upgunned the hunter.class with the 96 cell VLS for new AWDs
And added 17 new smaller frigate for ASW vessels instead of 6 optional crewed ships. They could easily build 11 navantia Alpha 5000 frigate with 32 cell VLS and built 6 navantia Alpha 3000 corvettes with 16 cell VLS.
And sold 3 hobart class fo New Zealand
Instead they going for 6 large ASW vessels. 11 smaller ASW vessels and 6 light missile optional crewed ships. 23 ships all ASW capability and only 3 medium sized existing AWDs. Theirs no proper balance between AWDs and ASW vessel's leaving RAN a capability to be able to strike back
The guy in the video states the hunter.class will be Australia largest ships. Whoop Doo! They will also be 16 cell VLS less than the current hobart class. Maybe they think the radar will scare them away. ?
Yes the OPV will end up been transferred to China for future fishing boats.
👍
can easily be up armed to the standard of those other countries use of that class
You don’t understand the purpose of the Arafura…….its job is to deploy and recover XLUUV’s that would detect Chinese submarines so P8 can destroy them. The XLUUV’s would also protect our ports while the RAN operated outside Australian waters. Arafura is nothing more than a big taxi (during war time).
The government is cancelling the Arafura because they think the Virginia class can do everything, same reason they are now reducing the number of Hunter class frigates……a huge mistake.
Give boder force auukus ...stop them at the border
Australia has a huge area to take care of. They need the best military equipment available!
The West needs to help and assist as much as possible to make sure they have it.
Thank you for being there Australia!
To me, nuclear subs for Oz makes perfect sense. We are surrounded by water and have a huge coast line to cover and the range of the nuc subs is exactly what we needed. No need to refuel for a while!
We'd have them already if we didn't waste $300 Million on "battery subs" from France, only to cancel the order 3 years later.
we absolutely need these, we need more than this
It’s about bloody time. The only problem with this is, it’s spread over far to big a timeframe and although much better than what we have, it’s still not enough. This needs to be completed within five years. It might sound ridiculous but it’s doable if they made the right commitments.
Rock On Aussies. This all looks good. If "the big one" ever happens you will be glad you have this. All this stuff is the best and lasts for 40 years. If it doesn't happen, then it will be because you did this. Peace cost money.
peace especially cost money when you are a vassel of the usa
@@davidhenderson1950voice of the uneducated!🤠👍❤️🇭🇲
@@davidhenderson1950copying somebody else's sound bites doesn't make you smart. We have similar values to the US and our partnership is our of choice. The US doesn't pull any strings here. Might be hard for you to understand, but people who have similar values choose to defend their shared values.
@@davidhenderson1950- found the CCP bot
Yeah we have to prop up Americas position in the Pacific somehow. This is not about protecting us from China, its about keeping the US control in the Pacific. In fact the main reason why China is a threat to Australia is because of all the US bases on Aussie soil. If you haven't noticed the US makes sure it doesn't fight wars on its soil, just on its lackeys soil, then have the audacity tell you after you should thank them for the privelidge. I mean who else starts wars with countries that Australia has no beef with, then asks us to provide our children to bleed for the US's benefit all whilst selling us the weapons to fight their war? Its a win win for the US isn't it?
About time we stood fucken up,regards mate
The problem I have with these costings is that they are mostly projected through-life cost over decades of operation. It’s difficult to put a per-unit cost on something as complex as a warship or submarine though so it’s understandable.
Australia has always been frugal with defence spending throughout the years, and because of this the initial price tag is heavy for this updated procurement. We dont want to be a walk in the park for any adversary now or in the future, I think this is absolutely necessary, and this is obvious because we are not alone in our increase in defence budget
Get strong stay strong. No one messes with you! Simples.
I thought you would mention the M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams we have purchased 75 odd with extra hulls mine clearer and recovery Abrams as well. This has been announced for a couple of years now.
If a country teaches its children to hate their country they won’t want to defend it.
If governments continue to treat those that do and have served with contempt fewer still will hear the call.
If the country has only fuel and munitions to fight for a week then the government is negligent.
Bang on .
The government is the enemy !
That’s the only way I see it .
Am I wrong ????
What depth of defence do we have ?
Wars are won buy manufacturing capacity & short logistical chains , along with the population & infrastructure to play the long attritional game .
Again the government has massively failed us.
Huge change in government needed ! Imo of course.
Nationalism is for low IQ juveniles
Edit: it’s funny how you right wing bots usually have no content, subscriptions etc on your channels 🤔
Littoral operations. Good idea. We’ve done a lot of them lately
While we have built some pretty good gear, Hobart Class Destroyers one of the projects which is dumb is the Hunter Class Frigate. All that money into a ship that will be poorly armed. 32 VLS is no where near enough, and they are bigger than the Hobart class. We can get better bang for buck by cutting back the Hunter Class from 9-6, upgrade weapons to a least 48 VLS and in the mean time build another 3 Hobart Class destroyers. JMO
Mate,they'll spend a bazillion dollars in Canberra doing studies,reviews and feasibility. The top brass will give themselves more medals for all the hard work,then cancel almost everything.
Plus all their hand shandies
The government must turn it's northern islands such as Cocos island, Christmas island, Melville and even Hammond, Horn and Thursday islands into long range missile/radar, air bases if it is going to take Australia's defence seriously!
They are expanding military facilities on Cocos and Christmas That's why the infrastructure bill is high
What about PNG, it's an open door that is virtually defenceless. With our close relationship we should be negotiating a forward base in the north of that country for both our country's defence.
great news. about time
How about the ADF is self sufficient in ammo and fuel as a base requirement? It was confirmed in the Senate that the ADF has 1 day's ammo supply and maybe 7 days fuel supply. Globally look at Burma where a US support regime is being beaten by rebels only armed with .22 3D printed weapons. Or let's look at the last 20 years where all of the "high tech weapons" were beaten by blokes in Utes with a mobile phone and access to a hardware store. We also now have 2 politicians that have committed treason without punishment and still committing treason, does anyone really think any O/S country is going to sell us their best weapons when they know their enemies will have the blueprints before we do? I saved in the 70's in Artillery and we "liberated" a Mortar Locating Radar from the US when they left Vietnam, our blokes did no get the instruction manuals so the equipment was held at the School of Artillery to tr and work out how to use it. We asked the Yanks and they refused to supply the manuals but one day the Russian embassy delivered the manuals to us.
It is good to see Australia significantly modernize it's forces. Now, if the government will follow through and perhaps even pull in the acquisitions, Australia will become a mighty anchor in the Pacific.
Are you serious! 😆😆
Australia could easily afford two small 30,000 ton light carriers from South Korea, the DSME design that could carry 16 F-35b aircraft along with helicopters. The KSS3 submarines have a crew of 35-40 people instead of trying to find crews of nuke boats like the Virginia which needs 135 plus and the Astute’s which need 100.
We do have two like light carriers in the Canberra class but the thing which annoyed me was, that if we weren't going to operate STOVL aircraft why put a ramp on the front?
Japanese gone the same way - but call them helicopter carriers nudge nudge. The decks obviously can accommodate naval aircraft
@@Generaldisorderlythe ski jump is required because a fully armed and fuelled f35 b is too heavy for VT without a rolling start same with harriers that's why even British aircraft carrier's have them.
@@Generaldisorderlythe ski jumps are only there because they were included in the design we got from the Spanish. It does however hint at the tantalising(if remote) possibility for them to one day be upgraded to support F35b operations. But yeah I wouldn't go holding my breath on that one.
In actual fact it could afford 2 x Eliz Class carriers plus 3 c extra Juan carlos class ( with certain upgrades) plus several more surface ships BUT this is NOT the problem..the prolem is in MANNING these platforms, to wish to purchase less tech or lethal via the Sth Korean model is madness.
All this Defence spending is well and good but the thing is, we are dependent on crude oil supplied from overseas. In a war our oil supply will be cut off and we'll run out of fuel to run our Defence Force within a few weeks.
More extended range missiles and precision strike systems, distributed defence, layered in depth.
Pre prepared defence bunkers etc.
I'm new to your channel Mel and thank you for your interesting content. I don't think our government is spending too much on the defence of Australia, I think it's about time and hope successive governments don't back out of deals already made! The way certain regimes are posturing ATM we cannot afford to fall behind.
There is a quote by Chris Gibson that says "When you talk about peace through strength, what you are talking about is the concept of deterrence"
Arafura seems more like a corvette - which are being increasingly being built and operated by the Scandinavian countries for which they are ideal for the North Sea and Baltic
I've seen them. They are pretty small. Big for a patrol ship but small for a warship.
A good time to upgrade our deterrent options
We spend too much on buying a handful of expensive high tech systems that would last a few weeks in a full on war. We don't seem to be able to accept our small power status and keep buying into these vanity projects. We get just enough to equip our units, sometimes not even that, with no reserves whatsoever. Did we really need to get three squadrons of F35's when we could have had 5 squadrons of a cheaper aircraft and had two squadrons of planes in reserve, for example.
We should have five fighter squadrons instead of only three, in a sense we already have that because the two squadrons that operated F-111 aircraft now fly Super Hornets. We should have bought two squadrons of F-35A and three of Super Hornets with the F-18e/f to be replaced by the South Korean KF-21 fighter jet.
Great video. Subscribed to the channel
What about the B21? Or did I miss that?
They decide not to even look into a long range bomber. They dismissed the entire idea
We should have completed the full LAN purchase of Boxers and IFV’s.
Huge supplies of artillery shells and drones seems to be a deciding factor in some modern wars . Those himars seem effective as well 🧐
We do not spend anywhere near enough - nothing could be more obvious - if there is a high probability of a major conflict with a formidable adversary within 3 years, then spending our current 2% of GDP on Defence is absolute peanuts, we need to go significantly higher and I am not saying 2.5% of GDP, more like 10% or higher. You need to think what equipment and supplies you need to successfully defeat a formidable adversary if conflict were to occur within 3 years, that is how to look at the challenge. Apparently they are 80% self sufficient in petroleum fuel, therefore, blocking the Malacca Straits is probably pointless (but we would still need to have that capability).
You missed quite a bit, including but not limited to the Abrams upgrade program, Nasams air defence, Himars, all the new ship types they're going to create and so on.
You've just earnt yourself a new subscriber! Any news on drones/loyal wingman and cyber defence strategies? Great work Mel.
Money well spent!!!
I'm all for it, we should spend more.
Not enough money being spent we need to build our own fighters. Boats arrive undetected from the northern Aus.
This in really big country we do not have other countries wanting destroy us it's difficult for us to how really protect this country.
Australia doesn’t have the technology or the industry to build better fighter planes than the USA
@@joncarolyndon’t need better .
Lots of simple air frames with very good missiles & huge amounts of air defence.
Land , sea & air launched anti air weapons.
Multi layered air defence .
Mobile missile systems are far cheaper then airfields, expensive fast jets , pilots & ground crews & their families ect ect ect
@@concernedaussie1330 if you want people to fight, you have to supply the best. Only an idiot would sign up to fight using inferior equipment. Or even suggest using it for that matter.
@@joncarolyn what’s the alternative ????
Bury one’s head in the sand & pretend nothing can ever happen down here .
Well tell that to the pow’s of WW2 & slaves & massacred people’s thought out history.
Gaza & Ukraine right now .
Or learn skills & knowledge & how to duck & weave with the weather & climate to best suit the defender on their home soil .
I my self would prefer to have a few years of training under my belt & have some limited but totally effective weapons .
History is full of warriors , that fought with spirt & pride & a never say die attitude against all odds & came out on top.
You may not be cut from that same cloth , only a idiot do nothing & hope things will just work themselves out.
@@joncarolyn the best doesn't have to be the most expensive .
The so called best that we have just spent over a decade & a half of defense budget on. Is already obsolete before the plans are drawn .
Underwater surveillance systems in the next 4 years are speculated to make nowhere safe for submersible s.
Drones of all kinds have basically made most super expensive legacy systems obsolete .
70 thousand defense personal certainly can't defend the Australian continent.
Let alone rounding up all of the duel nationals or ethnic groups that have ties with our enemies. & the personal needed to man & guard the internment camps.
It's a good start
we need to look at the wars at the moment to see what works and what does not
Sir I have a concern we are building all these vessels and airships etc etc can you do a video on our personal like how many soldiers does it take to run 1 battleship compared to our entire arsenal and our ability to man all of them if need be
Forgot the Virginia class nuclear subs
So let me get this right, Mel..
The Arafura Class of off shore Patrol vessels, are off shore patrol Vessels?
Right. Ok. I'm with you. Lol.
(P.S) - Nice house by the way.
Lend us a 50? 😅
Thanks for the video.
Don't forget the all of the money flowing into Australia to help pay for many of these upgrades and improvements including at Darwin and also at Adelaide for the AUKUS program. I think the U.K. is also kicking some money to help with the AUKUS program.
We are surrounded by water we need frigates, aircraft carriers, submarines more than we need tanks.
Australia is ideal for utilizing the huge jet hovercraft that take 300 cars & 500 ppl. We could do with a ferry service on the coast that can double as tactical transport.
More needs to be spent especially in the area of long range precision fires to be able to project strike capability and also the capability of building the missile systems in Australia.
We also need to move our strategic fuel reserves to Australia as well as a national fuel production onshore.. Having all our fuels being refined offshore is a strategic failure point
The cost overruns are criminal!
What I find disappointing is every defence project purchase is all state of the art equipment. There’s no back up secondary equipment purchases that are cheaper and cost a lot less to use over their life span!
100%
We will use equipment faster then we can replace it & will will definitely take losses . Most likely large losses with our piss poor anti air capabilities.
I imagine much of the cost overrun is simply due to the debasement of AUD via inflation and poor economic management.
Yeah and as both Burma and the Ukraine have proven that very expensive gear has a 24 hour life span once in the battle area.
@@WaveformV1.0 Yes those mongrels from the Lib/Nats who had their heads up there arses for a period of 9 years giving contracts and outsourcing everything to their corporate mates (so when they complete their political lives and return to the "Real World" they get high paying jobs from their US and UK corporate overlords) and completely gutting public service of specialised expertise. It took current treasurer Jim Chalmers only 1 budget to rebalance the books and is on a steady path to getting Australia back to fiscal responsibility . Go Jimbo !!!
I have seen Australia is thinking about raising the F-35 order to 100 total. That would cost around 3 billion. I always thought the main advantage of stealth was to get as close to the target, such as enemy radar/air defense systems etc, as possible. After that you send in aircraft like F-15s or F-18s that are 50% faster, and significantly cheaper, to bomb the crap out of everything else. For 28 more F-35s, Australia could buy 40 more FA-18 super hornets. They have a comparable range and, without an aircraft carrier, Australia needs as much as that as they can get.
Why would you want that utter junk !!!
Why buy we already have that number in storage. If planned right Ghost bat goes in with F18 Growlers first.
B-21s, when available? Or, might the US continue to house other strategic bombers in Australia?
Should be buying F35B lighting strike II , vertical take off . When the first wave of missiles hit our airstrips we are cooked .
These things can be deployed from football fields if need be .
@@garrymoss2079 That utter junk wouldn't stand a chance against the best missiles and radars on earth , come off the drugs and get back to reality !!!
All of this great except for how badly the navy and government really stuffed up the Arafurra ships. Great report.
Australia can and should produce ALL of its weapons necessary for its own defence. The F-35 is not a fighter jet. It cannot dogfight. It cannot outrun older fighters. It can be approximately located with long wave radar and accurately located with Infrared equipped older fighters.
Regards,
Geoff. Reeks
Missed some of the real big ones, such as AIR6500 and JP9102, which dwarfs some on this list
We are spending appropriately and must ensure our defence capability is of extremely high standards. We are an extraordinary fighting force and have so many island nations depending on Australia to defend them and too assist them in ongoing development we are a small nation with superpower defence capabilities our future budgets will be so enhanced due to our rare earth deposits this will substantiate our future requirements far beyond the ordinary mindset. Spend up Australia the world needs is and we will not disappoint them nor Australia regardless of petty complaints by too many power hungry
Politicians.
I would like to know whether Australia is spending 3-4% of GNP per year?
Wasn't the Arafura Class patrol boats the cheapest option they could get, without helicopter landing pads to quote "Play more of a policing role than military role" just shows how little this government considers defence.
What's the draught on your new submarines ? What is their future roles. Here in what you call the South China Sea it's very shallow...very very shallow. Chinese boats reflect that in their draughts are 6mtres. Are you making boats more suitable for the Nth Atlantic. Can someone help me.
Australia could double its defence budgeting, and we would still be saying, "we should have been faster with the getting these weapons. Wish we had more.
Let’s hope the Boxer has active protection. Ukraine has shown just how vulnerable armour is with only passive protection
Advancing without infantry and air makes armour and vehicle vulnerable. Things both Ukraine and Russia seem to not have learnt yet after 3 years and horrendous losses.
I can't believe how much the boxer project costs especially when you see how vulnerable these machines have become. If countries like Croatia can buy the Patria (an excellent combat proven platform from Finland) for a few hundred million for about 150 vehicles, I don't get how the boxer can cost so much more?
Headed in the right direction; however, we lost a major regional capability and asset when they took away 3RAR’s Para role and stuck them in antiquated M113’s 🤯🤦🏻♂️
You are doing the right thing. Look at us in Europe now. Better safe than sorry.
Fore warned is fore armed!
Spending 'Big' on Defence Projects like...
1. Reducing 3 Hunter Class Frigates
2. Reducing 6 OPVs
3. Decommissioning 2 Anzac Class Frigates
4. Promising something in 12 years when Labor may not be in Government.
5. Reduction in Army and RAAF
6. Reducing staff numbers with no plan
Well with the hunter class, they are replacing them with 11 new frigates. So instead of getting 9 frigates, we are going to get 17. 6 heavy frigates (basically destroyers) and 11 frigates, with the 3 destroyers we recently built. But yeah they are cutting military projects and it is so annoying.
Mm. Good point, Birch. I was thinking about this as he was mentioning it. I hope they go to a yard and not directly to scrap. It is after all the back end of global conflicts that nations often wish they had their current though SLIGHTLY outdated platforms sitting in a dry dock somewhere.
Look at the carnage we were capable of delivering with our "Scrap Iron Flotilla" in the Med in WW2.
Even in the Pacific, not like we were (as a standalone) operating at the absolute apex of current/contemporary technology the world.
Yeah....
They should put that shit on ice.
More than half of it will remain on paper mate by the time they get halfway through any of thoghs projects a lot of it will get cancelled. You can't plan for defence within 20 years of projects. As a lot of technology changes and puts you back into drawing board. If they can't deliver equipment within a decade. It's all thing air@Matt_JJz
RAAF is increasing CE.
with you
Don’t forget the Blackhawk aquistion
Our local military industrial systems must be funded to a point where our defence is locally sourced. Even if it costs twice as much, make it here, spend it here, design it here.
It's hard to cover every aspect of such a multi-faceted subject like defense, you could do these later, howitzers, Redback, Ghost Bat, Ghost Shark, other drones, Tomahawk, and other missiles.
Working on one of these right now...
The Arafura looks good but what all the cancellation fluff really says is that it's a money thing which I can understand. If you spend all the money on these then there won't be any left for military personnel to have underpants and socks. Mel, you provide entertaining and informative programs that I can't find anywhere else. Thank you for that.
The LOTE Collins extension is arguably the biggest upgrade of any air, sea, land ADF platform in history. The time and sheer scale of the LOTE is staggering. But now to the most dysfunctional Dept in the APS - DoD/Russell. Reports this week exposed the simple RAN Corvette down selection process has fubered the Dept once again with respect to the South Korean option [s]. I could pen a PhD thesis on how pathetic Russell is. Singapore makes us look a joke.
Having the gear is one thing, bodies in the gear is another. A question is going to be personnel going forward. Maybe a reserve force of trained navel and air force part time members would help. The USA has a backup of trained pilots and ground staff in reserve. Same goes for the navy. Maybe a large full time force is not necessary when a core of full time professionals and a "back up" of reserve members who can be called into action could be setup. Like the CFA and the professional full timers in fire fighting, or the SES. Reservists get paid, training and could flip in and out of full time participation. Add some old style war service loans at low interest and they would be kicking the door down to join. Interested to see what people think about this.
Let's get serious and recreate cadet schemes in schools, promote two year gape years for suitable kids and offer incentives such as free HECS. & TAFE or cheap housing loans. Continuing prospects of service in the reserves or permanent services with a really good superannuation scheme and free medical. A few little incentive like that would help.
You could also include service in SES, hospitals, police etc.
@@GrahamHunt-pz3re Bang on.
@@GrahamHunt-pz3reour government can’t even do the bare minimum, doubt something like that will be encouraged by libs
@@GrahamHunt-pz3rethe gap program was a looser in the infantry corps
until the defence department get realistic delivery times for equipment it will be useless as most of the equipment will be obsolete by delivery or as is happening delivery will be delayed for up dates
Defence spending needs both expansion and cost control. The ADO are notorious for overpaying, especially on infrastructure associated with new equipment and materiel. It’s also losing money on support services contracts. Better VFM and a bigger budget would start to put us where we need to be.
What i have noticed with military Contracts is “the more you purchase, the cheaper the products become”
We have short sighted politicians and military planners….the small number of units and cost of the Arafura for example, we know that isn’t enough hulls for the purpose they are to play….and axing the French diesels for the over priced nukes to patrol Aussie waters...effin’ madness, and my 2 cents
Rather sadly, I am in full agreement with Paul Keating, in the fact that we were duped on the SSN deal. We are offering them base facilities, enormous lead times for construction and delivery, and should have entered into the negotiations more shrewdly, I believe. We seemed to be so overawed at joining the exclusive nuclear club, that we treated it like our first Platinum American Express card, which it was. We are paying something in the order of twice what we should have agreed to. In the area of Helo's and F-35s, we did reasonably well I believe, but only if we have ready and timely access to software and hardware upgrades. What is our current fleet of aerial tankers looking like, as they would be critical to our RAAF.
The biggest issue with the Australian Military is we spend big but we do not get enough out of it, and it takes way too long to deliever.
For example the AUKUS Class will be fully delivered in 2060! That is a insanely long time waiting, and even though we are getting Virginia's in the 2030s to cover the wait; we are only getting 3 when we should be getting 8 to reach fleet full operational capabilities.
We need more of everything, yes having the best technology in the world is a huge bonus but lack of numbers screws us over a lot.
I personally think over the next 10 years Australia should focus on building a well sized military, not just a super advanced one. Focus more on the now, and not the far future. Focus more on aerospace capabilities & defence (which luckily is happening and we just got news of a new air defence network). Australia should also look into getting aircraft carriers and long range missiles, as that is the best way to project our military capabilities.
It is expensive, but it is a necessary price to pay in order to defend Australia and her people.
keep in mind, we are getting upto 3 "operational" V class subs which is equivalent to a fleet of 10 as you have 2/3 in service mode at any one time.
Huge agreement here. The problem is multifold - nept Min Def's who are 'captured' by the dysfunctional and most detested Commonwealth APS Dept DoD, who imo having audited Russell multiple times/been a DLO at Russell and other 'co-ordinating' Depts - the 'culture' at Russell cannot ever be changed. Second - MOTS/FMS for the 'big' defence projects is a cost effective no brainer - the F105's and RAN replenishment/tanker ships are a perfect example. Although the 'Juan Carlos' LHDs 'were' built by Navantia in Spain and then fitted out here, so the skill base is as consistent/effective as possible. Smart kit acquisition - Spain have the build infrastructure at Ferrol - we get our defence industrial SME's deeply involved, up skilling and boosting our SME supply side.
The other massive problem [Seasprite etc] is Russell ALWAYS has to bastardise defence buys and 'Australianise'' the platform. That this rabble of an open border government + DoD 'Alphabet' Department under a part time Min Def Marles cannot get a down selection within 12 months for MOTS/FMS 'Tier 2' Corvette naval buys is just appalling.
All know Navantia made multiple government to government offers for an additional AWD's with a locked in price $3b per ship, but were fobbed off - so now RAN has to wait how many years for the 'Tier 2' platforms? It is a national scandal the holistic approach to defence by government's and the useless very much so Russell clowns, and their refusal to change.
Why TF would a Min Def 'green light' the burying of perfectly operational NH90's? This is one of 'the' single biggest scandals in our defence history. The ALP could have sold them and put that revenue back into Consolidated Revenue for the Defence Budget - it does my head in and the total uselessness of the wannabe 4 star bloated Officer cadre at Russell are the reason I transferred out of my previous role. The ANAO does report after report - DoD 'agree' to "fully implement the recommendations of the ANAO Audit" but hardly ever does. It is just criminal.
@timlewis4623 The operational power ≠ Operational Capability
As 3 submarines cannot cover all of Australia, that is why we need 8 until the Aukus class arrives
Are you willing to pay higher taxes as I dont want the limited social care we currently have being further compromised !!
@@boogle785🫵🤡👍
F35A is not really a supersonic fighter, it melts it engines in about 15 minutes at full speed.
Apparently the F35 can "super cruise" at Mach 1.2 for about 150 miles and maxes out at Mach 1.6.
Supersonic speed is useful, but not a lot of fighting goes on at those speeds. Speed is not everything.
See fine with the upgrade and updated but y now y couldn't we be doing this 10,20 years ago
Raw dollar amounts do not reveal a nation's expenditures on defense. The true measure os the percentage of a nation's GDP spent on defense. Look historically at the percentage of GDP Australia spent on defense.
You know that the AUKUS attack nuclear powered subs cost will blow out above 368 billiion. This defence warship program dwarfs all other defence programs by a whopping amount. It also needs more than 3 to 5 times the crew members of a Collins class sub. Seems a huge expensive program for relatively lttle deterrence value to the PLAAN and the CCP.
Not convinced by the expressed need for nuclear submarines. Do we even have an air defence system? And I’m suspicious about our further integration into US preparations in the Asia/Pacific.
We need secondary industry why buy when we can make own
It's strategic stupidity
Then you have to add the running costs of one's military 'toys'
Keeping one's troops in places like Darwin, when it's a long way from the bigger populations, and most folks families, will always be an issue. Then there is the ongoing prob in general of recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers in general.
Don't recon I could be stuck on a boat, or even worse, a sub, for long periods of time. Take my hat off to those who do.
In any large war or threat home land defence will be the most important . Securing infrastructure and civil order ,
The Government is spending far too little on defence.
Government is so incompetent that Im sure a dictator could turn our country around twice as better then them
It is great to see our Asian- Pacific and European friends and allies rearming and taking defense seriously. Although US military is still the most powerful fighting force in the world, the gap between us and some of our greatest adversaries has shrinken, especially locally. This is why this new found realization that security in the 21st century isn't guaranteed and that some players on the world stage still sport a 19th century mentality in this day and age...
With Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines and NATO countries, we remain the undisputed military heavyweight champions without a challenger in sight for the next 50 years... As long as, of course, we stay united while sharing the same values and goals... This could be seriously damaged by one person who doesn't share these values but is in the position to run the world. Thankfully his chances of doing that are fading away by the day His chances are diminishing with every speech he makes, with every topic he starts... Stay strong Australia,.
All aussies have forgotten the need of additional AOR ships to support such fleet.😮😮😮
I wonder what percentage of GDP does Australia use to upgrade the military. ?
The spending, purchasing rather, should have been done years ago. But instead, they decided to have review after review after review.
Now looks what is happening in the middle east, eastern Europe and the south china sea.
For the cost of eight nuclear submarines we could have probably thirty advanced conventional submarines like the South Korean KSS 3 batch two design.
This is the price of US partnership. We will be contributing to the total construction program of the most advanced submarines in the world. So if there is a war they can flood australia with skilled labour at short notice thus ramping up construction numbers in shorter time periods. Just look at what the US did in WW2 and how they supplied the rest of the world with basically everything . We just need the infrastructure in place and they can supply excess requirements for labour and design and the ability to increase production at short notice. We have lots of metal and electrical workers in the mining industry we can repurpose but it will come down to total production of China, Russia, North Korea vs US Japan Europe Canada and Australia as the main protagonists.
true the Japanese one is even better for around b each the money we could be saving and i think with recent change should be buy the light Japanese frigates too they can pick them up for about 400 m each buy 2 of production line and build 6 here
We should be spending far more, I suggest 4% GNP every year far into the future
now is the time for military spending
Why are we replacing old equipment with less equipment, even with there increased individual weapons platform effectiveness we are decreasing our over defence effectiveness not increasing it.
arnt we getting marine drones and ghost bats etc ,
Smaller budgets. We focused on the 9 largest budgets.
Have tou seen the ghost bat drone. Maximum take off payload 500kg. They ain't going to anything
We are joining the american LUSV program, 1000-1500 ton displacement, optionally manned (cant be unmanned in peace time due to UNCLOS which says warships have to be commanded by an officer) with 16 cell VLS.