Who's calling the shots for Australia?

[phil82]

Defence procurement is a joke at the best of times; it takes years and billions of dollars to do what isn't really that difficult, and all countries can list examples, as did the US a few years ago, of an aircraft toilet set which cost something like US$650-00 when an equivalent could be bout for US$70-00 at the local hardware. It seems , however, that our Aussie mates' strings are being pulled from offshore with some of their spending.We in NZ on the other hand, manage our own cock-ups, alone!

I know it's the subject of debate in Oz, but you have to ask why they bought the Abrams MBT? What do they want them for? Where are they going to use them bearing in mind they are too heavy for most Australian roads, as well as most of the soft, mountainous countries to the North! The C17 can carry only one, and you'd have to wonder how far and where to? Likewise, carrying them by the specialist ships on order doesn't solve the problem. Arguably, you wouldn't need the C17 purchase if you didn't have the tanks. So just where are these tanks going and how are they going to get them there in a hurry?Does Australia feel that threatened? Are they singing to a tune written by George Dubya?

There is a suggestion in the Oz media that the tanks won't actually go anywhere, but that Aussie troops will "hot seat" over to a conflict and hop in to an American tank already in-situ in a battle, but with whom and where. Syria? Iran? In another war started by George? Is that really what Australia wants?

Similarly, the Joint Strike Fighter will cost Australia Aus$16 billion, [they don't yet know what the final cost will be!] if it goes ahead, and that's not a certainty. If it doesn't and Aussie opts out, with what will they then replace the Hornets and F111s?

It's just as well that Australia has all that mineral wealth, but if I were Mr or Mrs Smith from Wanthaggi and my son was killed driving an American tank in Iran or Syria, I guess I'd be pretty pissed off. I can just hear the Aussies deputy US Marshall saying "Whut are we gonna do now Mr Dillon"?

[yak2]

Fair comment. As a taxpayer I have serious concerns with the financial ability of the 'shiny bums' within DoD. Tanks? The Army has had an armoured corps since WW2. Even sent Centurions to SVN. Big furor when they bought Leopards, but they were the best going at the time, and are used by quite a few allied forces. Hardware compatability with our allies is also useful, and may have been a major influencing factor with the Abrams. During the Vietnam war the Swedes (Carl Gustaf anti tank weapon) and Swiss (Pilatus Porter) objected to the use of their equipment by our Army in a shooting war! Given this it was rather surprising that the Collins class sub decision was for a Swedish design, and the RAAF opted for the PC9. As a minor power, we have always had to hang off someones coat tails. First it was the British, but WW2 finished that. A by product of the US efforts in the Pacific was that it certainly protected Australia and formed the basis of an enduring relationship. Like a marriage it's not always good, but you have to take a long term view. Presidents and Prime Ministers come and go. Allegiences don't. The risk of the JSF is being spread across quite a few major allies, and there does not appear to be a realistic alternative. The F111 decision was a huge risk at the time, but I think it has proven to be a highly successful program. The Collins program was a huge risk, but it has developed (rather painfully at times) a new defence industry capability.
The 'Mr & Mrs Smith's from Wonthaggi' weren't too pleased when their sons were killed flying British aircraft over Europe etc., but it is an unfortunate cost of making a commitment to our allies. So endeth the sermon.

[corsair67]

Well, the Abrams tanks are being bought to replace the Leopard 1's which have been in service since 1978. Main Battle Tanks have been a part of army structure since WWII, although Vietnam was the last time any were deployed into combat. I don't think that the Australian M1A1s will ever be deployed offshore, and I think the reasons that they were purchased was because they are a good tank (albeit thirsty!), have been proven in combat, and we apparently managed to pick them up for quite a good price. Whether the Army needed 59 is another thing altogether!

As for the F-35: who knows what will happen there! The F-35 was chosen because of the technological edge it will offer the future 'networked' ADF.

Anyway, Bush isn't going to be around for ever, and who knows what the future holds.

[phil82]

Yak, that wasn't meant as a diatribe against Australian Foreign Policy, [or any other policy for that matter] which at least exists; we have a Foreign Minister who isn't a member of the ruling party [Labour] and isn't in Cabinet! Talk about Mickey Mouse...We do, however, have a Defence Minister who speaks on foreign affairs but knows SFA about Defence....

Australia will do what is right for Australia, always has and always will....I'm just so glad you're between us and those mad bastards to your North! Go get 'em!

[corsair67]

Colin, those 105 NZLAVS will work in quite well with the 59 Abrams in repelling the hordes from the North. ;D