Such a force could feature a number of key
capabilities such as a naval force of up to 30 submarines (currently
Australia has six) and strong air defence and strike capabilities with
up to 400 aircraft equivalent to the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF).

Ross, put the bong down and back away slowly...

 

If only. I think this boy has been taking some VERY heavy doses of speed.

 

Now, I don't know much about these things, but even if we could buy the toys, who is going to play with them? I was under the impression we barely have enough bodies to run the show now.

 This guy is a little excited... 

 

However, by 2050 ??? I'd like to see

 

10-15 SSK/SSG/SSN

20 USV 

 

25 -30 Major Surface combatants ( 8-10 AWD/DDX , 15+ ANZAC II, LCS )

3-5 LHD/LHA

 

B-3 ????

120 + JSF Block II

24-36 F/A-22X

40-80 UCAV (lo-mid-high)

12+ AEW+C /AWACS

 

Tri -Service Long range cruise missiles

 

ABM Defence land/sea 

 

100+ MBT

FCS

 

3000 + SAS/SBS

 

Of course required transport/refuelling aircraft and ships.

 

 

 

 

 

England did not see the need to spend pre-WWII. Did cost them not being ready. Most well armed counties do not get attacked. Bad guys tend to attack people they think they can beat.

Look at all the wars well armed Switzerland has been in over the last hundred years. Not very many right. Check how many wars poorly armed counties in Europe have been in.

While Switzerland is well armed it's not because of the large amounts of money they spend, it's the fact they always spend about the same amount (based on the GNP).

In Australia you have spending then cut backs then spending then cut backs. Makes it harder to plan when the ship that was ok'ed this year is cut next year.

 Should point out that while Switzerland is too small to beat the larger counties around it Switzerland has not been attacked because not that it could not be beaten, it hasn't been attacked because the cost to beat them would have been too high.

We spend 1.9% per annum and that has stayed roughly the same for nearly 20 years. Indeed, the former government committed to a 3% pa real increase in defence spending PA. The only reason that it didn't increase as a % of GDP is that our economy has grown faster than most. The last major defence cuts were in the late 80's, when our defence spending was dropped from around 2.5% of GDP to the current level over a couple of years. Save for an increase in spending as a % of GDP during the Vietnam war, it has been about the same since WW2. I don't agree with the 80's cuts, but it is simply inaccurate to say that there has been a trend of consistent cuts over a long period of time.

 

BTW, the Swiss spend about 1% of GDP Per Annum on Defence (see link). If as you say this has been consistent over the last hundred years (I'll take your claim with a grain of salt, given your other innaccuracies), then I doubt that you can attribute their 100 years of peace to their commitment to consistant defence spending . My guess would be that the things that have ensured peace are;

 

1. They hold the secret bank accounts of all the dictators that might have invaded them. Don't piss off your banker or he might "lose" your fortune.

2. There are bugger all natural resources in Switzerland and its easier to just buy their watches and toblerone, so it isn't worth invading for economic reasons.

3. The terrain makes it easier to go around than through.

4. Not having to run a Navy has meant that their Army and Air Force can be better equipped than would otherwise have been the case, which means that even with low defence spending they can afford a big punch.

1. When Germany invaded other counties one of the first things they did was take over the banks. Borrowed a lot of money that way. They also borrowed a lot of art too.
2. No natural resources but a lot of industry. In the other counties they took over one of the first thing they did was restart the arms industries. The Germans used a lot of France, Polish etc tanks, guns and ammo in WWII.3. The terrain and the fact that everyone is in the army. Even today the bridges, roads etc are designed to make blowing them easy.

4. How you spend makes a difference too. I worked at an aircraft company that sold fighters to the US air force and  to Switzerland. Same plane, equiped the same way but Switzerland got there's for a lot less money.

Why?

The US air force would go to congress each year ask for money and then buy the planes. Switzerland had a better plan, build the same number of planes a year but comment to buying a large number of planes. So each year the aircraft company would get it's order for 10 planes from the air force and then go out and buy what it need to build those planes. But it also had the order from Switzerland. You know if you buy a 100 seats it's costs less then buying 10 seats. You know if you buy a 100 radar sets it's costs less then buying 10 radar sets. Etc.

Problem is goverments seldom go for long term buying even if it saves them a lot of money. The people in power need to show they have the power. The fact that it ends up costing the taxpayer more money is just too bad.

Australia is doing ok.

 

 If Australia gets 2 x lhd (+ 1 LHD or some more sealift ships), 3 x AWD (+1 please), 100 f-35a (100 aircraft SH/F-35 mix)  and all the other upgrades (tanks, refuelers, wedgetail etc) then Australia will be world leading in its defence assets. A lot of new and impressive toys.