• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its military. (3 Viewers)

discuss

  • This is OTT. No one is out to get us.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Great idea. We live in a dangerous world.

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
E

Empyrean444

Guest
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

Precisely. Which is why I think that we should take a leaf out of Russia's history book and use a similar strategy of warfare as the Ruskie's used in the Napoleonic, and the First and Second World Wars.
Namely, allow any invading army to just take control of the Australian outback, retreat to a well fortified outpost far away from the inavsion (namely Tasmania and New Zealand) and use the vast expanse of land against them through partisan and geurrilla tactics, as well as hit-and-run attacks upon their tenuous naval supply lines.
In essence, this strategy would rely upon an army of well-trained and lightly-equipped infantry, with a large percentage of the populace qualified as reservists, as well as large aerial supply fleet to supply the partisans, and a large submarine fleet and an armada of small cutters, so as to make small, stealthy and fast attacks upon naval supply lines.
Total costs would be well down upon current expenditure. The armada of small cutters could also be used in peacetime as a more effective coastgaurd, rather than sending destroyers to catch refugee dinghies.
Counter guerilla and Fabian strategies are good as plan Bs, but I would rather maintain some form of preclusive (if possible) security or defence in depth grand strategy. Also, an invading army (unless they are in search of resources in the short term) are very unlikely to attempt to dominate the outback and would strike the cities (or their surrounding areas) first. Unless they can be fortified/defended so that they will not fall (by aerial and naval defensive dominance) then, unless we are willing to abandon them (the Napoleonic example aside, this would be a bad idea and ought to be avoided), a counter guerrilla strategy would be far more limited in its effectualness. Having a fortified base far away will work against us as much as for, though I think that the fast strike tactics of the Navy and the airforce would work well in this situation provided that the invader does not have the capacity or position to place adequate resistance against them.
 

Omium

Knuckles
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
1,738
Location
Physics
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

Really serious we haven't been invaded because there are better places to invade if you want to go down that path. And your theory seems to be that every hostile nation in the world has ramshackle old materials and they plan to invade us with Hoplites and Biremes.
I agree, we should really better prepare ourselves against toxotes, hippokin and myrmidons, those bastards are hard to kill.
 

u-borat

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
1,755
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

hey so guys a question

whats the point of like...traditional military forces like submarines and whatnot

when the main threat's like global missiles and shit?
 

runoutofsleep

AUTISM IS NOT HOLLAND
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
744
Gender
Male
HSC
1998
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

everyone has missiles, and everyone knows everyone has missiles, and if you launch a missile at me you know i'll probably launch a missile back at you. if you want to attack me you would probably want to use conventional weapons in order to avoid mutually assured destruction. so i'd better buy some submarines.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

You can't anyway. Women aren't allowed on the frontlines in the ADF.
Or at least not since the great cooties outbreak of '85. Entire battalions had to be quarantined, just cos one chick decided to chuck a Mulan and join up in disguise.
Boys smell.

Barracks over trenches.

Bros before ho's

etc
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

everyone has missiles, and everyone knows everyone has missiles, and if you launch a missile at me you know i'll probably launch a missile back at you. if you want to attack me you would probably want to use conventional weapons in order to avoid mutually assured destruction. so i'd better buy some submarines.
Or it's just that missiles aren't waterproof.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

Counter guerilla and Fabian strategies are good as plan Bs, but I would rather maintain some form of preclusive (if possible) security or defence in depth grand strategy. Also, an invading army (unless they are in search of resources in the short term) are very unlikely to attempt to dominate the outback and would strike the cities (or their surrounding areas) first. Unless they can be fortified/defended so that they will not fall (by aerial and naval defensive dominance) then, unless we are willing to abandon them (the Napoleonic example aside, this would be a bad idea and ought to be avoided), a counter guerrilla strategy would be far more limited in its effectualness. Having a fortified base far away will work against us as much as for, though I think that the fast strike tactics of the Navy and the airforce would work well in this situation provided that the invader does not have the capacity or position to place adequate resistance against them.
Sif abandonning cities would be a bad idea. Would probably prevent more damage that stupidly trying to defend them. If you invade a country with the goal of keeping it (which any invader would, thanks to our resources), you don't destroy the existing infrastructure just cos you can. You save as much of it as possible.
When I said a fortified base away from the mainland, I meant only for the Navy, Air Force and general HQ. The Army would still be on the mainland, slugging away, just the high-ranking CO's and their staff would be evacuated.
 

CIV1501

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
524
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

Holy fuck there are some awesome points and some epic stupid in this thread
 

CIV1501

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
524
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

we allready knew about the airforce upgrade, i was pretty happy with the proposed jsf acquisitions as they fit our profile and what we need perfectly, the naval upgrade whilst expensive is also very necessary, our navy is currently a joke, probably the worst among the developed worlds and considering the coast we need to cover, navy and airforce should be our focus.

The funny thing about military spending is that it is always seen in a bad light, until we get invaded or attacked and then people wonder why we didnt spend more on our defence forces.
QFT


A nation of 21 million with a standing army of 50 thousand would need lightsabers and iron man suits for this funding to make a difference. You could pump 200 billion into the upgrading of our equipment, unless you want to go nuclear we couldn't repel any serious invasion attempts.

John Howard whatever his faults was clever enough to realise we've got a much better chance of surviving an invasion by courting the good will of nations that could actually make a difference.
you are a super gaylord with no idea what he is talking about

Yeah...no, you think anyone except for perhaps Indonesia are going to get a significant army here without everyone else noticing? And Indonesia could only get to the North unnoticed and theres nothing up there. Darwin and Weipa good luck to them.
No one could get an invasion force to Australia without it being noticed and repelled.

Assuming you had the subs and 100 + combat fighters any invasion force would take a severe mauling before they landed and even with our small army you could prepare a nasty reception for them when they landed. Opposed maritime landings are not fun for the aggressor.[/quote]

QFT

even if they did reach the country relitively unopposed, their supply lines are going to be fucking ridiculous to maintain


Regional threats? What reds under the bed? The asian menace? Goodness gracious me. Any reasonably sized army wil treat us like a speed bump, any small one we could all but repel as it is, upgrades to the army are futile unless we got another million or so willing soldiers and about four hundred billio to spend on equipment upgrades.
Haha like any country is going to land >50000 troops in Australia. Sure china has a million men but how do you suppose they would get them here lol

There's a huge difference between the size of an army (say china's) and how many they could land on Australia's northern coast.
QFT

Land yes but how many air raids on our cities do you think our government would withstand before trying to negotiate a surrender?
6

you're a moron

Australia is probably better off than most countries in the event of an air raid, due to our huge size and low population density


I really can't think of any nation that's surrendered due to the bombing of its cities. You really think an Australian Government would say: "we'll let you occupy the northern half of Australia if you stop the bombing raids".
QFT

Australia would be excellent place for partisan and guerilla warfare.
QFT

so many rifles out here (in the bush lol)

In regards to this
there are over 4000 registered roo shooters in the country, they can shoot a roo in the head from 300m from a door of a ute at night with a .223, imagine what they could do to some indonesian soldiers in the bush with a .308 from >600m

best sniper brigade ever lol (100% srs)

most kids in the country know how to shoot and are fags like city kids and there are plenty of rifles out here for them to use.

Better bombs these days, plus we're a country not really equipped with shleters and the like. With a population of 21 million I don't think we'd have the stomach for too many civilians casualties.
cos we're the only country who has ever been bombed and not been prepared for it

Theres plenty of scenarios you are not taking into consideration. You want support from our allies? well you have to give some back too, and with this upgrade we can give more than just a token hand.

Also i dont know what you are using to judge a nations defence forces as effective, but i think we have one of the most effective systems in the world. Do you really think a nation could plan an attack on us without us knowing about it? and once that happens their president, their whole cabinet and key military leaders end up dead, major highways are bombed, their electric grid is ruined, all this because we have the most effective special forces in the world and this is all before they can even get any of their forces close to ours.

On the way our high tech subs hole their ships at leasure, sneaking in, sinking what they will and out again, our 100 high tech fighters take similar action, i am not sure what exactly we are getting but i am sure their will be some jsf's and maybe even some f-22's. Both of which are the most deadly and effective fighters ever built, they dont just win 1 vs 1, they are still in a dominant position 1 vs 3 and thats if the attacking force detects them and launches enough fighters in time which they wont because they also have the most high tech stealth capabilities.

With all of this going on what kind of force would actually reach australia? in what condition would the attacking nations country be in? dont forget with all this sabotage going on everyone else will be placing embargoes and political sanctions on them, it would be suicide to try and attack us. Also nukes. Assuming we can get some, we are one of two countries on earth that can actually use large warheads in a defence manner. Oh you took a small part of the northern coast of australia? meh nothing up there anyway BOOM.

Not to mention that the whole purpose of this is as a holding action until our allies get here and clean up whats left. No, our defence plans are very effective and that is a large reason why we have never been invaded.
QFT

Precisely. Which is why I think that we should take a leaf out of Russia's history book and use a similar strategy of warfare as the Ruskie's used in the Napoleonic, and the First and Second World Wars.
Namely, allow any invading army to just take control of the Australian outback, retreat to a well fortified outpost far away from the inavsion (namely Tasmania and New Zealand) and use the vast expanse of land against them through partisan and geurrilla tactics, as well as hit-and-run attacks upon their tenuous naval supply lines.
In essence, this strategy would rely upon an army of well-trained and lightly-equipped infantry, with a large percentage of the populace qualified as reservists, as well as large aerial supply fleet to supply the partisans, and a large submarine fleet and an armada of small cutters, so as to make small, stealthy and fast attacks upon naval supply lines.
Total costs would be well down upon current expenditure. The armada of small cutters could also be used in peacetime as a more effective coastgaurd, rather than sending destroyers to catch refugee dinghies.
Exactly

How hard would it be to have small groups of blokes running around the bush in utes or motorbikes with some shitty old .303s (or good guns if they could spare them) doing hit and run attacks on enemy supply lines and shit and scavenging supplies or getting the occasionaly air drop resupply




Iron, coal, natural gas and uranium are pretty important in a war, it's not out of the question.
and will become more important in the future


We could invest in Anti-Missle technology.

We are pretty secluded in the sense of missile launching and such. Perfect defence against nukes, shoot them out of the sky before they reach us.

And for the love of god, upgrade the infantry weapons. The Styer is in need of a good upgrade.
it is fairly gay and not suited to long range combat (which is what i assume most shit would be)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
i love you

Sif abandonning cities would be a bad idea. Would probably prevent more damage that stupidly trying to defend them. If you invade a country with the goal of keeping it (which any invader would, thanks to our resources), you don't destroy the existing infrastructure just cos you can. You save as much of it as possible.
When I said a fortified base away from the mainland, I meant only for the Navy, Air Force and general HQ. The Army would still be on the mainland, slugging away, just the high-ranking CO's and their staff would be evacuated.
nah man, remember stalingrad, stay there and fight it out on the streets and shit
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

QFT




you are a super gaylord with no idea what he is talking about



No one could get an invasion force to Australia without it being noticed and repelled.

Assuming you had the subs and 100 + combat fighters any invasion force would take a severe mauling before they landed and even with our small army you could prepare a nasty reception for them when they landed. Opposed maritime landings are not fun for the aggressor.[/quote]

QFT

even if they did reach the country relitively unopposed, their supply lines are going to be fucking ridiculous to maintain




Haha like any country is going to land >50000 troops in Australia. Sure china has a million men but how do you suppose they would get them here lol



QFT



6

you're a moron

Australia is probably better off than most countries in the event of an air raid, due to our huge size and low population density




QFT



QFT

so many rifles out here (in the bush lol)

In regards to this
there are over 4000 registered roo shooters in the country, they can shoot a roo in the head from 300m from a door of a ute at night with a .223, imagine what they could do to some indonesian soldiers in the bush with a .308 from >600m

best sniper brigade ever lol (100% srs)

most kids in the country know how to shoot and are fags like city kids and there are plenty of rifles out here for them to use.



cos we're the only country who has ever been bombed and not been prepared for it



QFT



Exactly

How hard would it be to have small groups of blokes running around the bush in utes or motorbikes with some shitty old .303s (or good guns if they could spare them) doing hit and run attacks on enemy supply lines and shit and scavenging supplies or getting the occasionaly air drop resupply






and will become more important in the future




it is fairly gay and not suited to long range combat (which is what i assume most shit would be)



i love you



nah man, remember stalingrad, stay there and fight it out on the streets and shit

Were all this poopycook true then there would be little to be gained from this fiscally irresponsible cash splash except perhaps compensating for a small penis.
 

CIV1501

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
524
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

okay so you read none of it then spouted more inane bullshit

gg wannabe
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

okay so you read none of it then spouted more inane bullshit

gg wannabe
I read it. I'm probably dumber for it but I read it. All of which implied that moving an army large enough to take out Australia and landing it would be extremely hard, costly and slow to do so and considering the number of buffed up and even not so buffed up allies we are infact very well equipped to withstand an invasion. Which is cool, hooray, I can finally sleep at night. So why flood it with seventy billion dollars in the middle of a massive economic crisis?
 

CIV1501

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
524
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

Because it is even more costly and hard to achieve with the threat of 100 JSFs and 12 submarines lurking around to decimate a potential invading force you douche

70 billion dollars isn't going to be spent right now, it is over the next 20 years.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

Because it is even more costly and hard to achieve with the threat of 100 JSFs and 12 submarines lurking around to decimate a potential invading force you douche

70 billion dollars isn't going to be spent right now, it is over the next 20 years.
And the 70 billion over 20 years will make or break the effect of the deterrent? Presuming we want it to deter, we don't actually want to get invaded i'm sure.
 

Riet

Tomcat Pilot
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
3,622
Location
Miramar, CA
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

How the fuck is someone going to bomb any significant part of australia without being intercepted?

The steyr is just fine for what is was designed for, and it's effective range is about the same as most other assault rifles. I agree in somewhere like the outback a designated marksman rifle chambered in .308 would be more effective.
 

CIV1501

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
524
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

i would defo sign up to be that marksman
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

How the fuck is someone going to bomb any significant part of australia without being intercepted?

The steyr is just fine for what is was designed for, and it's effective range is about the same as most other assault rifles. I agree in somewhere like the outback a designated marksman rifle chambered in .308 would be more effective.
If they can't get here without interception why throw seventy billion at the... was about to call it a problem for a moment, but clearly there is no problem to throw money at!
 

CIV1501

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
524
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

do you suck dicks for crack often lentern
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

Dude, Lentern.. Fuck...
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Australia is to announce $73bn in defence spending aimed at equipping its militar

nah man, remember stalingrad, stay there and fight it out on the streets and shit
Yeah, cos that worked great for the Stalingrad citizens, economy, infrastructure and both armies.
It's easier for the defending army to just hit and run behind the lines, rather than stand and fight a conventional battle, especially in a vast expanse of land like Western Russia and Australia and when technologically or numerically outmatched.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top