Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
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

Aussie Diggermark 2       9/9/2008 5:51:03 AM

 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. 



Dude, you've got 2 "full sized" carriers on order. 
 
You have a fleet of the advanced AEW&C that are probably more advanced even than the USAF fleet.
 
You have 140 odd Typhoon's on order, with an official requirement for 230 odd Typhoon's in total, a requirement and funding for 150 F-35 JSF's, plus 200 odd Tornado's and Harrier's in-service...
 
You have the 2nd largest fleet of C-17's in-service, plus a massive Hercules fleet. 
 
You have a large air to air refuelling fleet in-service, plus a large replacement fleet on order. 
  
You have a large missile carrying submarine fleet (both conventional and nuclear) in-service and you are one of only 2 Countries that can boast Tomahawk cruise missile attack capabilities right now...
 
You've got a large fleet of helicopters, particularly attack helicopters that are world class in quality. 
 
You are acquiring and have in-service "world's best" UAV capabilities. Your special forces and "regular forces" are renowned around the world for their capability.
 
Your forces might be hurting compared to what they used to enjoy, but by world standards, are absolutely first class in capability and quite large on a numerical basis...
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       9/9/2008 9:28:19 AM
I'm not sure it's included but US DoD reportedly has a black budget of around $30bn.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out       9/9/2008 9:14:37 PM

I'm not sure it's included but US DoD reportedly has a black budget of around $30bn.


hahaha, what if I was to say the US DoD reportedly has a black budget of around $300bn. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    Rudd flags major naval build-up in response to Asian arms race   9/9/2008 9:17:06 PM

KEVIN Rudd has foreshadowed a dramatic expansion of the Royal Australian Navy to counter a military build-up being bankrolled by Asia's growing economic prosperity.

The Prime Minister last night warned that nations across Asia were modernising their military forces, particularly with more powerful jet fighters and submarines, and that Australia must respond with its own upgrade.

In a blunt warning to the national congress of the Returned and Services League, Mr Rudd also said he wanted to use Australia's status as "a middle power" to promote comprehensive diplomatic engagement within the region and through the UN as a buffer against regional rivalries.

"We see a substantial arms build-up over time," Mr Rudd said in Townsville. "We need to be aware of the changes taking place. And we must make sure that we have the right mix of capabilities to deal with any contingencies that might arise in the future."

Mr Rudd did not name any particular nation as posing a specific military threat. But Australian and US intelligence agencies are known to be wary of the growing economic might of China and India.

And they have lately warned that China is building an underground naval base at Sanya, on Hainan Island, off its southern coast, with berths for up to 20 advanced nuclear submarines.

Earlier this year, the Chinese navy had at least 55 submarines, eight of which were nuclear-powered. Many were equipped with Yingji-8 anti-ship cruise missiles that can be launched from under water. It is believed there are a further 13 nuclear submarines in the planning stages. China announced in March it would lift its military budget this year by a record 19.4per cent to $63 billion, but Washington believes its actual spending is much higher.

Since taking power last November, Mr Rudd's Government guaranteed an annual 3 per cent real growth rate in defence spending until 2017-18 and has quarantined the department from budget cuts. He has been preparing a Defence white paper to be completed within months, as well as a national security statement expected to be delivered within weeks.

And the Prime Minister has pursued frenetic regional diplomacy, defying Opposition criticism to visit China, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

Last night, Mr Rudd told the RSL that the Asia-Pacific region was so dynamic and included so many "flashpoints" that Australia could not bank on never-ending regional co-operation.

"The Asia-Pacific region will become more prosperous and its population will continue to grow," he said. "Militarily, however, as it has already become economically and politically, the Asia-Pacific will become a much more contested region."

By 2050, Australia's population would reach 35 million, while China's would peak at 1.5 billion by 2020 and India's would hit 1.8billion by the middle of the century.

"The demographic changes in our region will mean that by 2020, when we look to our north, we will see a very different region to the one we see now - one where population, food, water and energy resources pressures will be great," he said.

These pressures would add to those around pre-existing political fault lines, such as territorial disputes.

With North and South Korea still technically at war and China and Taiwan unable to resolve basic questions of sovereignty, increasing military spending was an issue of concern.

"As a general observation, the modernisation of Asian military forces is being characterised by significant improvements in air combat capability, and naval forces, including greater numbers and more advanced submarines."

Mr Rudd said Australia must therefore look to its own military resources and maintain a flexible land force able to contribute to "high-end military engagements".

"We need an advanced naval capability that can protect our sea lanes of communication and support our land forces as they deploy," he said. "And we need an air force that can fill support and combat roles and can deter, defeat and provide assistance to land and maritime forces."

Mr Rudd said the power of the US would decline relative to that of other nations in coming decades but that it would remain the world's only superpower until the middle of the century and maintain its "global leadership role".

He also used his speech to bring context to his foreign policy moves since taking office, stressing that his proposal for the creation of an Asian Economic Community with a role on security, not just trade, was tied to his determination to use Australia's status as a middle power to encourage regional security.

Likewise, he said, his proposed creation of an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarm

 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       9/9/2008 11:18:45 PM



I'm not sure it's included but US DoD reportedly has a black budget of around $30bn.






hahaha, what if I was to say the US DoD reportedly has a black budget of around $300bn. ;)


I would say that you were a seriously misguided individual with few accounting skills........................ ;)
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics