• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"Australian Defence Spending Puts Canada to Shame"

Inverted

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Dimsum,

The reason they don't get an HHT is due to the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) being a gazillion times better than what we have with CHFA!! DHA is a system the CF should seriously consider, for locations that have a strong civilian housing market; it's essentially privately owned houses that are leased to DHA for use by military families (it's also a great investment for home owners).

Housing through DHA is also subsidized, one of the guys I work with has a 2 bedroom apartment through DHA that is right on the beach, but only pays $800/month (I know that sounds expensive from a Canadian perspective, but that's cheap here, the same style apartment in the same complex, rented privately is going for $1650/month!). Because of this, most of the guys I work with rent through DHA, then have one or two investment properties, some of which are leased out to DHA!

I've witnessed the problems the posting lengths cause within the Chinook community; the guys are posted in for 3 years but the posting starts before they even do there Chinook conversion, so for the first year they're useless to us. They end up getting two good years on sqn, then off to another unit and aircraft! This is starting to change, but it's the Army mentality, you can't spend 4 years in one unit, you need to go do your non-corps posting!

RDBZ,

I didn't want my comments to come off as if I was bad-mouthing the ADF, far from, they are an excellent organization and there are a lot of things we could learn from them. I don't know enough about our Navy to make a fair comparison, but from a numbers/types comparison the RAN seems superior to the RCN. My impression of the ADF/Australia is that the RAN is considered more important then we in the CF/Canada consider the RCN. I think this comes from Australia being a more ocean based culture (if that makes any sense), they identify more with the RAN than I believe we do with the RCN.

I'm very interested to see how the Canberra class does; there have been some very questionable decisions made in that project, such as having only 30 bunks for AVN/AVS techs! When the Tigers go on exercise with the Army (which has only happened twice since the Tigers came on line in 07) they usually take 4 aircraft and about 65 techs! Now add the MRH-90 (if it ever goes operational with the Army (that's a thread in and of itself!)) and the CH-47's and they're going to need a lot more than 30 bunks!!

I would love to see the CF funded to the same level as the ADF; however with the funding the ADF has, they should be able to field a more capable military than they currently are.

Cheers
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,122
Points
940
*hijack*

That's interesting about the DHA concept; when I talked to my co-workers they never brought it up (not that it would have mattered anyway) and none of them rent through DHA as far as I can tell.  Maybe it's just certain locations? 

*/hijack*
 

RDBZ

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Inverted said:
I'm very interested to see how the Canberra class does; there have been some very questionable decisions made in that project, such as having only 30 bunks for AVN/AVS techs! When the Tigers go on exercise with the Army (which has only happened twice since the Tigers came on line in 07) they usually take 4 aircraft and about 65 techs! Now add the MRH-90 (if it ever goes operational with the Army (that's a thread in and of itself!)) and the CH-47's and they're going to need a lot more than 30 bunks!!

I would love to see the CF funded to the same level as the ADF; however with the funding the ADF has, they should be able to field a more capable military than they currently are.

Cheers

I suspect that with bunking for around 1,000 non-ship's crew, they should be able to sort out suitable accommodation arrangements  when the Canberras are deployed.  ;)

As for Tiger and NH-90, I don't think anyone would argue that they are examples of well run programs.  But as all users of those platforms seem to reporting the same issues, I'm a little less ready to lable them an Army Aviation problem.  The subsequent selection of the MH-60R over the NH-90 NFH seemed a pretty clear statement of the ADF's views.  To be fair to Eurocopter and NH Industries though, the now loved Blackhawks had some severe availability issues early in their career, and there is a remediation plan to bring all the NH-90s to a common, final configuration once that has been developed.

Could the ADF do better?  Of course.  But  for a lot of capabilities they have, what are the  comparative benchmarks?  Apart from the RAN only the JMSDF has an operational fleet of large diesel electric submarines operating across the Pacific (and Indian Ocean).  Its very early days for Wedgetail with the RAAF, SKAF and Turkey.  Who else has a capability like JORN?

 

q_1966

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Isn't Guam close enough for the US, they already have (or had) a base in Okinawa one that they have held since WWII. If I was the average Australian, I wouldn't be to crazy about them moving in.
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
8
Points
380
They are being pressured to move out of Okinawa. They just signed a 2 part agreement with Japan. Part 1 involves removing troops, while Part 2 is about moving the air base to a less congested area further north. The people in the less congested area further north......disagreed.
 

RDBZ

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Get Nautical said:
If I was the average Australian, I wouldn't be to crazy about them moving in.

Darwin and the Top End have their unique charms, but places that attract genteel and refined folk they definitely are not.  If there was a city into which 2,000 marines could move in largely unnoticed, Darwin would be it.  For those down South, still uneasy about the growing economic influence of China,  and whose perspective on our closest neighbour is still shaped by memories of RAAF aircraft bringing home the dead and injured from the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, the events in East Timor in 1999, and the 2004 bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta, the arrival of 2,000 marines definitely has an up side.
 

q_1966

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
RDBZ said:
Darwin and the Top End have their unique charms, but places that attract genteel and refined folk they definitely are not.  If there was a city into which 2,000 marines could move in largely unnoticed, Darwin would be it.  For those down South, still uneasy about the growing economic influence of China,  and whose perspective on our closest neighbour is still shaped by memories of RAAF aircraft bringing home the dead and injured from the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, the events in East Timor in 1999, and the 2004 bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta, the arrival of 2,000 marines definitely has an up side.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_timor.html
http://1999horrorsofeasttimor.blogspot.com/2009/01/conflict-in-east-timor-genocide-or.html
It wasnt just 1999, it just took that long for something to be done about it...disgusting.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
249
Points
680
There are definitely lessons here that we should take aboard.
Australia commits to military spending spree while Canadian government dithers
Matthew Fisher, National Post
09 Dec 2014

CANBERRA — Tony Abbott’s government has embarked on an unprecedented peacetime military spending spree that is stunning when compared to how little Canada is spending on its army, air force and navy.
Australia will allocate more than $30-billion to its armed forces next year. Canada will likely spend less than $20-billion in 2015.

Australia already expends 1.7% of gross domestic product on its armed forces, with a NATO-like goal of 2% by 2023. Canada’s military spending will likely dip just below 1% of GDP next year.

The extra $10-billion Australia is forking out buys a fighting and logistics capability Canadian generals and admirals can only dream of.

As if to rub salt in that wound, Capt. Jonathan Sadleir, who served on HMCS Calgary before switching to the Royal Australian Navy, is the first skipper of HMAS Canberra, a $1.5-billion amphibious assault ship commissioned two weeks ago.

While Ottawa has dithered and squabbled for years over whether to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets, successive Australian governments have been steadfast in their commitment to buy about 100 of the fifth-generation stealth aircraft. Several Royal Australian Air Force joint strike fighters are already flying and the first Aussie pilots are about to begin training at a U.S. air force base in Arizona.

While Canada makes do with a shrinking fleet of 79 30-year-old CF-18 Hornets, Australia continues to fly 71 similar vintage F-18s. But the RAAF acquired 24 more advanced Super Hornets four years ago as a stop-gap until its JSFs are ready. Moreover, the Australian government decided last year to purchase a dozen EA-18G Growlers, an armed electronic warfare variant of the F-18 Hornet.

Canada opted to spend $1.4-billion upgrading sensors on 14 of its 18 venerable CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft and to keep the turbo props flying for another 20 years. Australia is retiring its 19 similar P-3 Orions and for $4-billion is buying up to a dozen ultramodern P-8 Poseidons to perform maritime surveillance tasks, but they are to have a formidable strike capability, too.

The RCAF’s four relatively new C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft have been pushed well past their planned flight hours by operations in Afghanistan, the Middle East and eastern Europe, the High Arctic and humanitarian and disaster relief missions elsewhere.

Australia flies six C-17s, has a seventh and an eighth of these $250-million aircraft on order. It is almost certain to buy two more when Mr. Abbott’s next budget is announced early in 2015.

And that is only a partial list of Australia’s daunting military spending advantage over Canada on the air force side. The growing chasm between Australia and Canada on the high seas is even more staggering.

While Canada makes do with a shrinking fleet of 79 30-year-old CF-18 Hornets, Australia continues to fly 71 similar vintage F-18s. But the RAAF acquired 24 more advanced Super Hornets four years ago as a stop-gap until its JSFs are ready. Moreover, the Australian government decided last year to purchase a dozen EA-18G Growlers, an armed electronic warfare variant of the F-18 Hornet.

Canada opted to spend $1.4-billion upgrading sensors on 14 of its 18 venerable CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft and to keep the turbo props flying for another 20 years. Australia is retiring its 19 similar P-3 Orions and for $4-billion is buying up to a dozen ultramodern P-8 Poseidons to perform maritime surveillance tasks, but they are to have a formidable strike capability, too.

The RCAF’s four relatively new C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft have been pushed well past their planned flight hours by operations in Afghanistan, the Middle East and eastern Europe, the High Arctic and humanitarian and disaster relief missions elsewhere.

Australia flies six C-17s, has a seventh and an eighth of these $250-million aircraft on order. It is almost certain to buy two more when Mr. Abbott’s next budget is announced early in 2015.

And that is only a partial list of Australia’s daunting military spending advantage over Canada on the air force side. The growing chasm between Australia and Canada on the high seas is even more staggering.

What most dramatically sets apart Canadian and Australian defence procurement is the Abbott government’s plan to purchase as many as a dozen submarines that can fire cruise missiles and launch mini-subs. As the largest and most expensive military project ever undertaken by Australia, it is likely to cost between $20-billion and $25-billion. Or about as much as Canada plans to spend on its entire navy.

After years of serious technical problems with the current homebuilt Collins-class submarines, the Abbott government has expressed a willingness to consider building all or part of these new boats offshore. The reasoning, as Defence Minister David Johnston put it so undiplomatically last month, was the Adelaide-based Australian Submarine Corp. could not be trusted to “build a canoe.”

Japan, Germany, Sweden and France have already begun jockeying for this massive submarine contract. It is so large no Canadian government would dare contemplate such a military project, let alone consider handing over so much money and work to a foreign shipyard.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,122
Points
940
Technically it's not Tony Abbott's Liberal (Conservative) goverment that did all of this.  Many of the purchases (HMAS Choules, the six C-17s, KC-30s, Super Hornets) were purchased under the Labor (Liberal) government. 

It's true that the RAAF and the RAN have had a good decade or so of spending - the RAN also just bought brand-new SH-60R Seahawks.  I've said this before, but Australia knows that in their neck of the woods, the US and/or others wouldn't be able to help defend them in time, so they must spend more on defence. 

An ADF colleague of mine put it best when he said that their defence spending "is like buying groceries while you are starving".
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
546
Points
1,060
The two key elements here are:

The support continues regardless of which party is in power......

And serving ministers willing to utter lines like "can't be trusted to build a canoe".

God, I do love rabbit poachers.  :cheers:
 

OTR1

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
By Kirkhill....."The support continues regardless of which party is in power......"

Hmm...up to a point, perhaps. The last government - admittedly chaotic on all fronts - was no friend of defence, and by using unusual accounting and pushing back critical decisions managed to cut the budget by 25 per cent without using the word 'cut.'

The US was, to put it mildly, unimpressed.

Anyway, the spending spree began in the wake of East Timor in 1999, when, at last and because they had no choice, the politicians paid attention to the mil brass and discovered that the capability cupboard was mostly bare and that total reliance on hefty US combat forces to do Canberra's work was very, very misplaced.

Am reliably advised that sometime next year, either in the white paper or capability review, the continental defence doctrine of the past 30 years is to be trashed, and that some new form of forward defence is on the way.

Hence all the long range capability and sudden deep connectivity with Japan and, now, India.

Would be grand if Ottawa came to the party.....
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
610
Points
940
For ottawa to join the party I think Canada, and Canadians need to realize that with the Rise of the Bear and the Dragon, and the shrinking US defense budget we need to be more proactive in Canadian defense policy, we are capable of doing a lot more, and should be doing more but society is preventing us from doing so.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,426
Points
940
that would require us to grow up and move out from under the protective umbrella of the US. People are keen for that until they see the bill.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
286
Points
1,130
Colin P said:
that would require us to grow up and move out from under the protective umbrella of the US. People are keen for that until they see the bill.
:nod: especially on that bit in the yellow.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
546
Points
1,060
OTR1 said:
By Kirkhill....."The support continues regardless of which party is in power......"

Hmm...up to a point, perhaps. The last government - admittedly chaotic on all fronts - was no friend of defence, and by using unusual accounting and pushing back critical decisions managed to cut the budget by 25 per cent without using the word 'cut.'

The US was, to put it mildly, unimpressed.

Anyway, the spending spree began in the wake of East Timor in 1999, when, at last and because they had no choice, the politicians paid attention to the mil brass and discovered that the capability cupboard was mostly bare and that total reliance on hefty US combat forces to do Canberra's work was very, very misplaced.

Am reliably advised that sometime next year, either in the white paper or capability review, the continental defence doctrine of the past 30 years is to be trashed, and that some new form of forward defence is on the way.

Hence all the long range capability and sudden deep connectivity with Japan and, now, India.

Would be grand if Ottawa came to the party.....

Your baseline is set considerably higher than ours, even when the "anti-war" parties are in power.

I'm still jealous.

And Colin and MilEME09 are both right in their observations. (Except for that snideness about pensions  ;) )
 

Tibbson

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kirkhill said:
The two key elements here are:

The support continues regardless of which party is in power......

And serving ministers willing to utter lines like "can't be trusted to build a canoe".

God, I do love rabbit poachers.  :cheers:

Can you just imagine the political and media outcry if any MP or rep from the CAF would dare to be critical of a Canadian company's competence to fulfill a procurement contract?
 

OTR1

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That's precisely what happened in Oz, and the defence minister's days are likely to end over the Christmas/New Year break.

A pity.  :-\
 

Tibbson

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OTR1 said:
That's precisely what happened in Oz, and the defence minister's days are likely to end over the Christmas/New Year break.

A pity.  :-\

True, a pity but sometimes you just gotta take a stand.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
546
Points
1,060
OTR1 said:
That's precisely what happened in Oz, and the defence minister's days are likely to end over the Christmas/New Year break.

A pity.  :-\

Regardless, he had the right instincts.
 
Top