The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 22, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: theaustralian: 'Defence spending surges to world's 13th largest'
fall out    9/3/2008 7:54:25 PM
AUSTRALIA'S defence budget is now the 13th biggest in the world, an international league table shows.

Canberra's defence spending has leapt by about 56 per cent in the past seven years to $25.66 billion, meaning it now spends more than some European Union countries.

BIG DEFENCE SPENDERS
1. US $US696.30 billion
2. Britain $US79.27 billion
3. France $US65.74 billion.
4. China $US58.07 billion
5. Japan $US48.10 billion
6. Germany $US43.55 billion
7. Saudi Arabia $US38.32 billion
8. Russian Federation $US36.73 billion
9. Italy $US31.40 billion
10. South Korea $US28.30 billion
11. India $US27.21 billion
12. Brazil $US24.62 billion
13. Australia $US19.74 billion
14. Spain $US19.37 billion
15. Canada $US16.19 billion

Source: Jane's Industry Quarterly
However, Australia is still dwarfed by the US, which has set aside $US696.30 billion ($832.7 billion) for its armed forces this year.

The figures were compiled by defence analysts for Jane's Industry Quarterly which also found that China's defence budget of $US58.07 billion ($69.45 billion) had grown to be the world's fourth largest.

Britain and France were the second and third biggest spenders with $US79.27 billion ($94.8 billion) and $US65.74 billion ($78.62 billion) respectively.

While Jane's has forecast Australia's spending to hit $29.47 billion in 2010, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has hired a consultant to see if the amount can be trimmed by $1 billion a year over the next decade.

Part of the reason behind the rise in Australia's spending over the years has been its decision to buy more equipment for its armed forces, which have been deployed to hotspots including Iraq and Afghanistan as well as East Timor.

The figure rose from $3.5 billion in 2001 to $4.78 billion this year, according to Jane's, with fighter aircraft, tanks and helicopters all on the shopping list.

The rest of the money in the overall defence budget is used to cover wages, medical bills, food and operational costs for army, navy and air force personnel.

Guy Anderson, editor of Jane's Industry Quarterly, said Australia's strong economic growth was the main reason it could afford to boost its defence budget.

As a result, Australia had become an attractive place for foreign defence companies, such as British giant BAE Systems, to set up manufacturing bases to make products to sell worldwide.

?The rest of the world is very interested in the Australian defence market,? Anderson told AAP.

?It's an advanced and politically stable country in quite a dangerous neighbourhood and there's an explicit government commitment to defence spending.

?Australia is also a great springboard for companies into the Asian region as it is one of the better places to do business because of its stability and its strong reputation.

?So, if you are an American or French or British defence company you can go into Asia from Australia which gives you an enormous advantage.?

AAP

---

I'm sure guys are happy about this, I bet you would want more though ;)

Any special comments?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
DropBear       9/3/2008 9:31:34 PM

I wonder how much of the billion in savings the consultant will skim off for services rendered?

 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       9/3/2008 9:55:57 PM

...... meaning it now spends more than some European Union countries.


Like all those small ones.
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       9/3/2008 10:22:25 PM

AUSTRALIA'S defence budget is now the 13th biggest in the world, an international league table shows.

Canberra's defence spending has leapt by about 56 per cent in the past seven years to $25.66 billion, meaning it now spends more than some European Union countries.

BIG DEFENCE SPENDERS
1. US $US696.30 billion
2. Britain $US79.27 billion
3. France $US65.74 billion.
4. China $US58.07 billion
5. Japan $US48.10 billion
6. Germany $US43.55 billion
7. Saudi Arabia $US38.32 billion
8. Russian Federation $US36.73 billion
9. Italy $US31.40 billion
10. South Korea $US28.30 billion
11. India $US27.21 billion
12. Brazil $US24.62 billion
13. Australia $US19.74 billion
14. Spain $US19.37 billion
15. Canada $US16.19 billion

Source: Jane's Industry Quarterly
However, Australia is still dwarfed by the US, which has set aside $US696.30 billion ($832.7 billion) for its armed forces this year.

The figures were compiled by defence analysts for Jane's Industry Quarterly which also found that China's defence budget of $US58.07 billion ($69.45 billion) had grown to be the world's fourth largest.

Britain and France were the second and third biggest spenders with $US79.27 billion ($94.8 billion) and $US65.74 billion ($78.62 billion) respectively.

While Jane's has forecast Australia's spending to hit $29.47 billion in 2010, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has hired a consultant to see if the amount can be trimmed by $1 billion a year over the next decade.

Part of the reason behind the rise in Australia's spending over the years has been its decision to buy more equipment for its armed forces, which have been deployed to hotspots including Iraq and Afghanistan as well as East Timor.

The figure rose from $3.5 billion in 2001 to $4.78 billion this year, according to Jane's, with fighter aircraft, tanks and helicopters all on the shopping list.

The rest of the money in the overall defence budget is used to cover wages, medical bills, food and operational costs for army, navy and air force personnel.

Guy Anderson, editor of Jane's Industry Quarterly, said Australia's strong economic growth was the main reason it could afford to boost its defence budget.

As a result, Australia had become an attractive place for foreign defence companies, such as British giant BAE Systems, to set up manufacturing bases to make products to sell worldwide.

?The rest of the world is very interested in the Australian defence market,? Anderson told AAP.

?It's an advanced and politically stable country in quite a dangerous neighbourhood and there's an explicit government commitment to defence spending.

?Australia is also a great springboard for companies into the Asian region as it is one of the better places to do business because of its stability and its strong reputation.

?So, if you are an American or French or British defence company you can go into Asia from Australia which gives you an enormous advantage.?

AAP

---

I'm sure guys are happy about this, I bet you would want more though ;)

Any special comments?

And, given we are around 14th on the list of countries by GDP (spending only around 1.9 % on Defence), this is 'news' why?
Brett 
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       9/3/2008 10:47:19 PM
In the 2008/09 financial year the portfolio budget statements make clear that Federal Government alone will spend twice this defence figure on Health alone (which, even when being generous, we now -thanks to the election campaign bitching- know is only about 44 % at best of overall funding for health). So more than four times the defence figure just on health alone.
 
Using 2003/4 Figures (the most up to date I can find without wasting an hour of my life) I am going to reproduce for everyone's benefit a table that might make the picture of ratios clearer for Aus. Fed. Dollars only. Dollars are inj Billions:
 
  Defence         Public Order & Safety       Education         Health         Social Security & Welfare         Other           Total
      
13.970                     2.353                         13.160           31.365                  75.455                            73.458         209.761
 
So Defence Dollars Represented 6.659 percent of Commonwealth Outlays in this year (03/04).
 
I should disclose these figures came from ASPI and their Defence Almanac (Read, Mark Thompson). Admittedly when flicking over two pages to their historical list of dollar outlays for each year, what that represented as a % of GDP and as a % of Cth outlays, I noted that they had 15.187 for 03/04 (dispite the claim above which is two pages over in the Almanac) that would mean 1.9 %  of GDP and 8.4% of GDP.
 
Brett.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       9/4/2008 6:59:27 AM



AUSTRALIA'S defence budget is now the 13th biggest in the world, an international league table shows.



Canberra's defence spending has leapt by about 56 per cent in the past seven years to $25.66 billion, meaning it now spends more than some European Union countries.



BIG DEFENCE SPENDERS

1. US $US696.30 billion

2. Britain $US79.27 billion

3. France $US65.74 billion.

4. China $US58.07 billion

5. Japan $US48.10 billion

6. Germany $US43.55 billion

7. Saudi Arabia $US38.32 billion

8. Russian Federation $US36.73 billion

9. Italy $US31.40 billion

10. South Korea $US28.30 billion

11. India $US27.21 billion

12. Brazil $US24.62 billion

13. Australia $US19.74 billion

14. Spain $US19.37 billion

15. Canada $US16.19 billion



Source: Jane's Industry Quarterly

However, Australia is still dwarfed by the US, which has set aside $US696.30 billion ($832.7 billion) for its armed forces this year.



The figures were compiled by defence analysts for Jane's Industry Quarterly which also found that China's defence budget of $US58.07 billion ($69.45 billion) had grown to be the world's fourth largest.



Britain and France were the second and third biggest spenders with $US79.27 billion ($94.8 billion) and $US65.74 billion ($78.62 billion) respectively.



While Jane's has forecast Australia's spending to hit $29.47 billion in 2010, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has hired a consultant to see if the amount can be trimmed by $1 billion a year over the next decade.



Part of the reason behind the rise in Australia's spending over the years has been its decision to buy more equipment for its armed forces, which have been deployed to hotspots including Iraq and Afghanistan as well as East Timor.



The figure rose from $3.5 billion in 2001 to $4.78 billion this year, according to Jane's, with fighter aircraft, tanks and helicopters all on the shopping list.



The rest of the money in the overall defence budget is used to cover wages, medical bills, food and operational costs for army, navy and air force personnel.



Guy Anderson, editor of Jane's Industry Quarterly, said Australia's strong economic growth was the main reason it could afford to boost its defence budget.



As a result, Australia had become an attractive place for foreign defence companies, such as British giant BAE Systems, to set up manufacturing bases to make products to sell worldwide.



?The rest of the world is very interested in the Australian defence market,? Anderson told AAP.



?It's an advanced and politically stable country in quite a dangerous neighbourhood and there's an explicit government commitment to defence spending.



?Australia is also a great springboard for companies into the Asian region as it is one of the better places to do business because of its stability and its strong reputation.



?So, if you are an American or French or British defence company you can go into Asia from Australia which gives you an enormous advantage.?



AAP



---



I'm sure guys are happy about this, I bet you would want more though ;)



Any special comments?


And, given we are around 14th on the list of countries by GDP (spending only around 1.9 % on Defence), this is 'news' why?

Brett 

A lot of our spending goes on the much higher wages that we have to pay our soldiers, compared to those in poorer countries. On average we undoubtedly get a healthier, better educated quality of troop than then, but not that much better...
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       9/4/2008 9:48:20 PM


A lot of our spending goes on the much higher wages that we have to pay our soldiers, compared to those in poorer countries. On average we undoubtedly get a healthier, better educated quality of troop than then, but not that much better...


Sea-air gap also plays a part. Armies are cheaper than navies and air forces.
 
Quote    Reply

eighty-eight       9/5/2008 1:24:15 AM

Higher wages for ADF personel are necessary to keep the recruits coming. With much more cash available in industries such as the mining sector even our comparably high wages are struggling to attract recruits. I reckon these wages are going to have to be increased soon enough just to keep up.

 
Quote    Reply

eighty-eight       9/5/2008 1:30:31 AM
It seems strange that we spend more than Spain, on paper the Spanish military is very impressive (Carrier, Harriers, Eurofighter, Tiger, Leopard etc), roughly what the ADF might aim for. How is it Spain can get all that and yet spend less?
 
Maybe they don't stuff around with Seasprite etc..
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    ADF retention issues   9/5/2008 5:23:34 AM
A point that many miss is that even when highly trained defence personnel leave to take up opportunities in private enterprise they are still contributing to our nation through filling important, productive roles in a variety of industries.  They go from being ready to defend us to helping to expand our economy.
 
We should be proud that ADF trained people are so sought after.
 
I wonder if the ADF's training budget should be increased and their training capacity expanded. not only to fill their future needs, but to also produce the extra people our economy needs but private enterprise has failed to provide. This would introduce economies of scale in training as well as a larger pool of trained people to take the pressure off undermanned units.  this would also give the ADF a greater choice of who they want / need to retain.
 
The increased funding would come from the education, infrastructure and industry budgets in the form of a sliding value scale determined by the cost of training each individual, less the value of returned service, who leaves to take up a role in private enterprise.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       9/5/2008 9:01:01 AM

It seems strange that we spend more than Spain, on paper the Spanish military is very impressive (Carrier, Harriers, Eurofighter, Tiger, Leopard etc), roughly what the ADF might aim for. How is it Spain can get all that and yet spend less?

 

Maybe they don't stuff around with Seasprite etc..


How many P-3C Orions (or similar) do they have?
 
How many C-17 Globemasters do they have?
 
How many C-130 Hercules do they have?
 
How many air to air refuellers and AWACS do they have on order?
 
How many submarines do they have?
 
How much fuel and POL's do their forces use compared to our, given the distances OUR forces have to cover, compared to theirs?
 
Our transport and sustainment assets are much greater than most European Countries, simply because we have to deploy a LONG way even within our own Country for exercises, let alone overseas anywhere...
 
Out of Western European Countries, only the UK has a greater air transport and maritime patrol capability than us and soon they won't even have the increased maritime patrol capability...

Only the UK has more AEW&C and A2A refuelling assets than we have planned etc... The list goes on, but I think my point is made. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici    Australia's forces, it's economy and China   9/5/2008 9:01:15 AM
20 Billion dollars is a lot, but I'd suggest trimming the lines then upping it by several billion to 25-30 to create a military industry and develop the technology that will be needed against China sometime late this century or the next (after Taiwan and Spratly-Paracel, we might go for the Phillipines and then Australia... of course, this is mostly wild speculation, built on loose projections taking into account grandiose plans that may not exist and some sort of WWIII-like scenario taking up the attention of the world). An efficient and effective military industry might pay part of its own way.
 
To increase funds I'd suggest cutting down on welfare, health and wasteful sectors of the economy catering to luxury (Ok, so that's quite anticapitalistic of me, but Norway and China, my countries, have both at times refused to indulge in luxury products not directly necessary to building up the economy (like chocolate, cigars/cigarettes, entertainment and massage parlors f.exp) at vital junctions of history despite the loss in contentment and tourist dollars. And it works, to some degree. Perhaps a few public awareness campaigns would help mould the public mood towards it.
Spend this money on education and (unlike Obama who wants to cut the following for education) NASA-esque Apollo projects, whatever will drive Australian or Western-partnered technologies forward (as such the Apollo expeditions/program and the space race and the dissemination of its scientists into the general public and gaming industry after the cancellation of the program did for technology and computing due to the necessity of HT electronic products in spaceships) in general brought forward the glory of the golden age of information revolution several years, perhaps decades ahead of its time). Secure this technology and use it to drive society and economy forward, sell it when possible.
Pensions are nice, but as we have not yet solved the elementary problem of welfare sucking the marrow out of the economy without proper precautions or moderations taken, one has to apply a mercantilistic view towards it if one wishes to strengthen other parts of society, such as defense/offense.
 
... and it would be nice for Australia to have the force to claim a large part of Antarctica if it becomes accessible to some degree, sans or with fusion technology (to, I dunno, melt the ice around Antarctic cities).
 
But yes, Australia is spending a lot of money, I agree. But it needs to spend more to protect itself from China, which brings me to my third topic.
 
China totally does not spend 58 billion a year. Multiply that number by 1,5 if you believe most of what the Chinese government says, if not I'd suggest a ratio I find more realistic (around 2x). If you're anti-Chinese or simply very  skeptic you could go around and say the REAL Chinese spending is 140 billion dollars (I think that's what the January Report to the US Congress on Chinese Grand Strategy reported, roughly (it might be a bit lower), which is not too unrealistic. Comparative spending might hit 200... but a large amount is wasted on corruptuon and inefficient practices currently being weeded out to a large extent. 
 
-cw
 
Quote    Reply

eighty-eight       9/5/2008 10:46:22 PM

The list goes on, but I think my point is made. 
Yes, your point is made.
 
Any idea how much of a defence budget goes into fuel. I assume the ADF doesn't pay $1.60 a litre.
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       9/5/2008 11:07:07 PM



The list goes on, but I think my point is made. 

Yes, your point is made.

 

Any idea how much of a defence budget goes into fuel. I assume the ADF doesn't pay $1.60 a litre.


According to the response by the department to a Question on Notice from Sen. Minchin (raised during Sen Estimates by the Senate Defence Committee) about fuel excise, the ADO does pay around that price (location dependent).
Brett.
 
Page 10
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion       9/8/2008 5:19:55 PM
 Not to hijack the thread or anything, but as a Brit, this is bloody depressing. 2nd largest defense budget in the whole world, yet everything seems to be bloody underfunded. Where does all that money go?? 
 
I really hope we're secretly fighting aliens on some distant planet or something... otherwise our money managing skills are just pathetic.
 
B.L. 
 
Quote    Reply

fall out       9/8/2008 7:43:14 PM
Well the AUD is going to fall even more over the next several months due to rates heading down and speculation of more so we wont be getting as much bang off our American suppliers.
 
What are the chances and cost of re-fitting perhaps 2 of the Collins to have cruise missiles fitted?  Seeing as though any 30k ton carrier is too expensive (and crew intensive) so wouldn't the next best option to be having some of the silent killers lurking around our potential enemies with several missiles ready to take out some priority targets that are too far away or too heavily protected for any conventional air attack. 

 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy