# Defence News



## sam76 (16 February 2008)

I for one applaud this new initiative. It's been way too long since the last paper and times have changed considerably.  I'm hoping we don't buy the super hornets.   I wouldn't mind a few "Raptors" in the hanger as well.



KEVIN Rudd and Joel Fitzgibbon are expected to chart a new direction for Australia's defence and security next week as work begins on a new defence white paper and another broad domestic security review.

The defence white paper will be the key document in a barrage of broad-ranging strategic policy reviews ordered by the Rudd Government. 

They are expected to include new white papers on foreign policy and terrorism, a study on development assistance and a national security framework document. 

The new defence white paper, expected to be finished later this year, will be the first since 2000 and the first to take account of the global threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its affiliates. 

It will contain a comprehensive statement on the future structure of the 50,000-strong defence force as well as outlining global and regional threats. 

The defence white paper will provide a strategic roadmap for the navy, army and air force, detailing likely security challenges Australia will face over the next generation. 

Since he took over as Defence Minister, Mr Fitzgibbon has criticised the Howard government for ignoring strategic policy guidance in making new equipment decisions worth tens of billions of dollars, including last year's controversial $6.5 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets for the RAAF. 

Mr Fitzgibbon wants to bring more discipline to defence capability planning as Defence plans the introduction of costly new acquisitions, including the $16billion F-35 joint strike fighter from 2014, and lays the groundwork for a new generation of submarines from 2025. 

The defence white paper team will be led by Mike Pezzullo, deputy secretary in the Defence Department assisted by an internal Defence Department team expected to include the army's deputy chief, Major-General John Cantwell, together with leading defence analyst Paul Dibb, as an external consultant. 

Mr Fitzgibbon will also appoint a ministerial panel to oversee the white paper process, which is expected to include Peter Abigail and Mark Thomson from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Professor Ross Babbage from the Kokoda Foundation. 

A separate review of Australia's domestic security arrangements including Labor's pledge to create a department of homeland security will be undertaken by former top defence bureaucrat, Ric Smith. 

While the Prime Minister may choose not to honour Labor's pledge to create a department of homeland security, Mr Smith will make recommendations on ways of improving both border security and co-ordination between key domestic agencies including ASIO, the AFP, and Customs. 

Mr Smith's review is due to be submitted to the Prime Minister by June 30. 

An overall national security framework document, due to be completed by April, is being prepared by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet led by deputy secretary, Duncan Lewis. 

Mr Rudd is yet to decide whether to commission an overarching national security strategy paper, which would complement the defence white paper process.


----------



## 2BAD4U (16 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*

The decision to buy the F-18's as a stop gap is a mistake, they just wouldn't cut it today against our "enemies" aircraft and weaponary. They were a good fighter in their day but times have changed. With the F35 & YF22 said to be the last of piloted fighters then it's only a matter of time before F18's, etc are going to be used for target practice by some bloke playing real life video games.


----------



## wildkactus (16 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*

I think the big problem that needs to be looked at is the retention rate of qualified personel.
You can have all the toys in the world but without the people to use them, there is no need to have them.


----------



## xoa (16 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*

Why are we only looking to the United States for hardware? Looks like we're their dumping ground for surplus stock.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (16 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*



2BAD4U said:


> The decision to buy the F-18's as a stop gap is a mistake, they just wouldn't cut it today against our "enemies" aircraft and weaponary. They were a good fighter in their day but times have changed. With the F35 & YF22 said to be the last of piloted fighters then it's only a matter of time before F18's, etc are going to be used for target practice by some bloke playing real life video games.




Your right the f-18 is no match for the terrorist road side bomb..... lol

We need more special op's and helicopters not fighter jets,....

Let the usa control the skies,and let us focus on kicking doors...


----------



## Buster (16 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*



wildkactus said:


> I think the big problem that needs to be looked at is the retention rate of qualified personel.
> You can have all the toys in the world but without the people to use them, there is no need to have them.




Got it in one WildKactus.. Our Defence force (I note Rudd quoted 50K??) has been bleeding troops for the past ten years, well before the resource boom began, 100K for an experienced/trained senior serviceman just isn't enough for the garbage they are expected to endure, and then spend the best part of 9 months out of 12 away.. (Navy anyway..)  The boys are pulling 120 - 150k for simply watchkeeping up North, which is just one facet of what we expect them to do in the service for tens of thousands less.. I've discharged, so it won't benefit me in any way, but we need to seriously reconsider how we renumerate our troops..



			
				XOA said:
			
		

> Why are we only looking to the United States for hardware? Looks like we're their dumping ground for surplus stock.




Generally, the gear we buy from the US has an extremely large user base, and thru life support goes hand in hand with that..

You only have to look at the Collins Class Submarine, Anzac Class Frigate, Sea Sprite Helicopter and the FFG Upgrade projects and the horrendous expenditure to date on each one of these (and they are all still costing big bucks to 'fix') to understand why anyone in thier right mind would simply by a product 'off the shelf'..  Configuration control all sorted, logicstics all sorted, training all sorted, the list goes on..

The amount that we have spent on just those projects alone could have kitted out all three services with the "bee's Knee's" gear from our allies.. and the added benefit of is that in theater you're all using the same kit which interfaces quite nicely, and if it breaks and you don't have a spare handy, your allies just might..

It worked extremely well for the Navy when they bought the FFG's in late '70's.. 'til the early '90's when we thought we'd do it better ourselves.. The results speak volumes..   Just makes too much sense, so we'll never do it again. 

Regards,

Buster


----------



## Tysonboss1 (16 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*



Buster said:


> Generally, the gear we buy from the US has an extremely large user base, and thru life support goes hand in hand with that..
> 
> You only have to look at the Collins Class Submarine, Anzac Class Frigate, Sea Sprite Helicopter and the FFG Upgrade projects and the horrendous expenditure to date on each one of these (and they are all still costing big bucks to 'fix') to understand why anyone in thier right mind would simply by a product 'off the shelf'..  Configuration control all sorted, logicstics all sorted, training all sorted, the list goes on..
> 
> ...




Not to mention the styer rifle,... piece of crap rifle the only reason we use it is because the company gave us a licence to produce them in oz.... I would much rather the USA M4 rifle,... how ever the company who owns the M4 would only sell them on an import basis not to be produced here.


----------



## Sean K (23 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*

Some interesting points, thanks guys. 

Obviously there are some people about who have gone through the strainer.

Personally, I'm very happy that you're using some of those skills, and hard won financial rewards, to make investment decisions. 

For those still serving, I hope you're on the path to achieving your goals, whatever they may be. 

Aaaaah, rambling now....


Anyone needing Defence career guidance please contact me via PM .....


----------



## sam76 (23 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...nt-for-20-years/2008/02/22/1203467387167.html

Minister unveils defence blueprint for 20 years
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Brendan Nicholson
February 23, 2008

Advertisement
THE Rudd Government's promised defence white paper will mesh with an overarching national security strategy dealing with threats ranging from global warming and pandemics to the need to defend Australia, help struggling neighbours and fight wars overseas.

The security strategy, to be announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd later this year, will embrace a strong range of measures including carefully targetted aid to improve education and governance, diplomacy, intelligence gathering and sophisticated weaponry to deal with dangers as they evolve.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced yesterday that senior Defence Department official Mike Pezzullo would head a team writing the promised white paper, the blueprint for Australia's defence over the next two decades.

Mr Fitzgibbon said Labor was delivering on its promise to re-examine Australia's strategic environment and the Government wanted the defence white paper ready by the end of 2008.

"The Prime Minister is determined that we can currently run a defence white paper process, along with a foreign white paper and of course a broader national security white paper agenda," Mr Fitzgibbon said. "The importance of doing them concurrently is to ensure they are feeding into one another.

"The teams are working cooperatively to ensure there is one big picture for Australia's future national security."

Mr Fitzgibbon said it was an outrage, when the world had changed so much, that there had been no new white paper since 2000 ”” before September 11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombings in Bali and Jakarta.

An air capability review is already under way and will feed into the defence white paper. Production of the white paper would be led by the Defence Department, Mr Fitzgibbon said.

Australia Defence Association executive director Neil James said he was concerned that the white paper was being prepared "in house" and he urged the Government to ensure that the project was not hijacked by civilian officials in defence.

Mr James said the service chiefs were deliberately frozen out of the drafting of the 2000 white paper. "The problem last time was that a small coterie of bureaucrats went away in isolation and did not consult widely enough across the department. They got lots of things wrong.

"The last thing we would want is for the defence civilian bureaucracy to try again to freeze out military professional expertise from the defence force."

Mr James said he was pleased that the defence team and the minister would be advised by an expert panel.

Mr Fitzgibbon said a series of what he called "companion reviews" would help develop defence business and budget priorities to 2030.

He said a ministerial panel to advise him on key issues and to work with Mr Pezzullo would consist of three leading strategists: Professor Ross Babbage, retired Major-General Peter Abigail and defence economics specialist Dr Mark Thomson.


----------



## sam76 (26 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*



sam76 said:


> I for one applaud this new initiative. It's been way too long since the last paper and times have changed considerably.  I'm hoping we don't buy the super hornets.   I wouldn't mind a few "Raptors" in the hanger as well.
> 
> 
> 
> .




Looks like we may get them after all.

Australia can be trusted with F-22 Raptor, says Robert Gates
February 26, 2008 12:00am






AUSTRALIA could be trusted with the United States' Lockheed F-22 Raptor fighter, US defence secretary Robert Gates says.

Currently an Act of the US Congress bars any foreign sales of the Raptor. 

The aircraft is the US Air Force's most advanced fighter and its sale is prohibited to any foreign country, under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey. 

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said last week he would write to Congressman Obey to gauge his views on a change in the law. 

Last night, Mr Gates, who was in Canberra for the annual Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks at the weekend, said it was inappropriate for Australia to make its case directly to Congress. 

"I think it probably is at the end of the day not appropriate for Australia to make its case directly to the Congress, to change the law. I think that's my job and the job of the administration," he told ABC Television. 

"The reality is we have a law that prohibits the United States from selling F-22 to any country. 

"Others, such as Japan, want the F-22 and we are in a position - we can't sell them the F-22 either.

"So I think it's up to us to try and see if we can get this statute changed."

When asked if there was any reason why Australia could not be trusted with the F-22, Mr Gates replied: "Absolutely not."


----------



## arminius (26 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*

we wont get the raptor. 
its all just polite talk between 'close friends'. 
its twice as good as the jsf. if we did get them they would be sooooo expensive. real doubts about the stealth quality of the jsf. bit of a lemon if you ask me.
i reckon the steyr is fine. hardy, light. accurate. 100mm group at 300m is fine by me. mind you, the m4 is handy as well.


----------



## moXJO (26 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*



arminius said:


> i reckon the steyr is fine. hardy, light. accurate. 100mm group at 300m is fine by me. mind you, the m4 is handy as well.




I don't know if they have changed much over the years but mine use to jam a fair bit. Got a bit hot as well. I remember they handed us a bunch of combat knives (from Indonesia or somewhere) and told us not to stick them into anything to hard as the metal was cheap and the tip would break off. Also that the wire cutters on them couldn’t be used as they would also break.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (26 February 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*



arminius said:


> we wont get the raptor.
> its all just polite talk between 'close friends'.
> its twice as good as the jsf. if we did get them they would be sooooo expensive. real doubts about the stealth quality of the jsf. bit of a lemon if you ask me.
> i reckon the steyr is fine. hardy, light. accurate. 100mm group at 300m is fine by me. mind you, the m4 is handy as well.





Spend some time with an M4 and you will never want to touch steyr again,...

If steyr were comparible to M4 weapons then surly the SAS would use the steyr to,... But they don't M4 is the standard rifle for the SAS and the 4RAR commando's.

Steyr has a crap optic sight, even M4's iron sight is better than the steyr optic sight. Plus the M4's modular designs allows for far greater use of attachments such as torch, nads, shot gun, grenade launcher, removeable fore grips. also the M4 has a collapseable butt which is handy when your trying to cram 14 guys into the back of a black hawk.

Not to mention steyrs endless stoppages that are 10x worse as soon as to hit a dry sandy area where we tend to fight our wars these days,


----------



## sam76 (30 March 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*

What do you guys make of this.

Remind you of the Terminator???

I think they may be some scary times on the road ahead....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

I'm amazed how this thing stays on it's feet.


----------



## moXJO (30 March 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*



sam76 said:


> What do you guys make of this.
> 
> Remind you of the Terminator???
> 
> ...




Wow it’s like an animal, only a million times more expensive, makes more noise and will probably have a million times more problems with it in the field due to breakdowns etc when they finally get it up and running.

Hate to see what they do with it after a few million more are spent on it though.


----------



## cashcow (30 March 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*

All I can say in regard to the airpower debate is vale the mighty Pig


----------



## sam76 (31 March 2008)

*Re: New defence white paper*



moXJO said:


> Wow it’s like an animal, only a million times more expensive, makes more noise and will probably have a million times more problems with it in the field due to breakdowns etc when they finally get it up and running.
> 
> Hate to see what they do with it after a few million more are spent on it though.




I agree that it was noisy outside (prob running on a fuel based engine) but once it was inside hooked up to electricity it became stealth....

How is it when the guy tries to kick it over or when they put water on the road and form ice - it still stood up!!


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2008)

*Defending Australia*

I spent 15 years in the Australian Army and like to keep track of what's happening in Defence both here and overseas. I've also noticed a couple of other ex military types on ASF who may be interested in contributing to a thread on what's happening around the place. And, for any other members who want to add in some recent news for discussion, feel free! 


So, to start with, it looks like our Afghanistan contribution will be expanding slightly in the coming months. I've heard rumours that we'll be deploying a level 3 medical unit (surgical capability) to support whatever additional assets are sent. Or, it may be just to replace a dutch surgical team which may be redeploying.

Looks like this is going to be a very long committment. Along with East Timor, we're going to have troops deployed for another 10 years you'd think. 



> *Rudd commits more to Afghanistan *
> Dennis Shanahan in Bucharest | April 03, 2008
> 
> AUSTRALIA has committed more resources to Afghanistan - but no "open cheque" on troops - after Kevin Rudd welcomed an expansion of Europe's military contribution to share the burden of the long-term fight against al-Qa'ida terrorists and the Taliban.
> ...


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2008)

*Re: Defending Australia*

For anyone looking for updated defence information I find The Australian keeps a pretty good record of things, and also provides some great foreign affairs analysis. 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/defence/

There's also the official government site, which is the standard spin...

http://www.defence.gov.au/

The Eureka Council that used to be the Australian Defence Report.

http://www.eurekacouncil.com.au/2-Australian-Defence-Report.htm

Military People: Which at first glance is more independent.

http://www.militarypeople.com.au/mainsite/

And for those in the Army, it's interesting to catch up with the Army Newspaper, and maybe see some familiar faces.

http://digital.realviewtechnologies.com/default.asp?xml=defencenews_army.xml

(Not sure if I like the format)


If I end up talking to myself here, apologies, and I'll review the thread's merits.


----------



## sam76 (5 April 2008)

*Re: Defending Australia*

Morning kennas,

There's a discussion here that has become more general than the topic heading.

You may want to link them.

Cheers

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9924&highlight=defence+white


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2008)

*Re: Defending Australia*



sam76 said:


> Morning kennas,
> 
> There's a discussion here that has become more general than the topic heading.
> 
> ...



Thanks Sam, made it more general now. I don't think there's enough topics to keep them separate. Cheers!


----------



## Sean K (28 April 2008)

Sad news, but surprised we haven't lost more soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially Afghanistan where our diggers are constantly in the fight.



> *Aussie soldier killed in Afghanistan*
> Staff Reporter
> April 28, 2008 - 7:57AM
> 
> ...


----------



## sam76 (28 April 2008)

Very sad indeed.

Condolences to his family.


----------



## sam76 (28 April 2008)

Looks like the JSF has been confirmed;  extracts from article below.

Patrick Walters, National security editor | April 28, 2008 

THE F-35 joint strike fighter will be confirmed as the best choice to become the RAAF's frontline combat aircraft in a classified review to be presented to Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon later this week.

The final report of the high-level review commissioned by Mr Fitzgibbon in February is also expected to rule out the much more expensive US-made F-22 Raptor fighter as an alternative buy to the F-35 JSF. 

Mr Fitzgibbon ordered the review into Australia's future air combat capability as concerns have risen about the development cost and production schedules of the JSF, as well as the capability choices facing Australia as the RAAF moves to replace its long-serving F-111 bombers and the frontline F/A-18 fighters after 2010. 


The RAAF plans to acquire up to 100 F-35s from 2013 at a projected cost of $16billion, making the aircraft easily Australia's largest-ever defence buy. 

The air combat capability review, led by senior defence bureaucrat Neil Orme, considered the case for and against acquiring the Raptor as well as trends in Asia-Pacific air power up to 2045. 

Sources familiar with the review say it emphasises that Australia faces a far more challenging strategic environment over the next 30 years as regional air forces move to buy more sophisticated combat aircraft as well as ships and submarines. 

While Australia can expect to retain a technology edge over its immediate neighbours in Southeast Asia, China will acquire 500 to 600 advanced fighter bombers over the next 30 years and is likely to surpass the US as the leading air power in East Asia.

Defence has judged that the F-35's all-round capability is still the best and most affordable platform for the RAAF's longer-term needs compared with the single-role F-22. But Mr Fitzgibbon has been keen to explore with the US Government the chances of acquiring the F-22, which at present is not for sale to overseas customers. Defence experts argue that even if Australia were allowed to buy the F-22, the RAAF could not buy enough to guarantee Australia's frontline air defence. While the procurement cost of the F-35 has risen by about 36per cent in real terms since 2002 to $US77 million a plane, the rising Australian dollar means that the RAAF is still confident it can afford the 100-strong fleet it regards as essential. 
Mr Orme's findings will fundamentally shape the Government's defence white paper, due to be released at the end of the year, which will provide a clear road map for the future air force. 

The first part of the Orme review, completed last month, confirmed the Howard government's plans to retire the F-111 strike force from 2010. 

It also confirmed the previous government's controversial $6billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a bridging fighter between the retirement of the F-111 and the arrival of the F-35.


Full article can be found here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23607964-31477,00.html


----------



## sam76 (3 June 2008)

Check out this Radar Gun on US 60 Minutes 

Apparently feels like boiling water hitting you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3891865.shtml


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2008)

Cripes, this is dodgy news.

Australia prides itself as having some of the best health support in the world, and normally abides by very strict rules in regard to medical evactuation times. Obviously there will be operational considerations, but reaching resuscitation within one hour is critical to saving life. To wait two, is obviously, in this case, life threatening.

Going to be some ramifications on this one, even if just on the ground. Someone should have their @rse in a sling at least. 

*Soldier died after 'bungled' medivac *
July 26, 2008 

A WOUNDED Australian soldier died in Afghanistan after his evacuation to hospital was delayed by a communications bungle, a senior Dutch military doctor has claimed.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (26 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Cripes, this is dodgy news.
> 
> Australia prides itself as having some of the best health support in the world, and normally abides by very strict rules in regard to medical evactuation times. Obviously there will be operational considerations, but reaching resuscitation within one hour is critical to saving life. To wait two, is obviously, in this case, life threatening.
> 
> ...





One of my mates recently returned from Afganistan where he was involved in 2 instances where vehicles were hit with road side Bombs, 1 x LPV and 1 x Bushmaster.

He said in both cases the was an extremely rapid response, within minutes a med evac chopper was on the ground with 2 x Apache escots circling providing cover, you'll also be happy to know that in both cases ADF killed the guy that detonated the bombs.

I don't know what happened in the case of the recent incident, But there can be a number of things that could have happened to delay the evac, Somthing may have happened that put this case at a lower priority to another, There has also been cases in the past where choppers have been re-routed to avoid areas where there are high threats to the chopper, risking an expensive mission essential chopper and 4 crew is not worth the life of 1 soldier unfortunatly.


----------



## Sean K (27 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I don't know what happened in the case of the recent incident, But there can be a number of things that could have happened to delay the evac, Somthing may have happened that put this case at a lower priority to another, There has also been cases in the past where choppers have been re-routed to avoid areas where there are high threats to the chopper, risking an expensive mission essential chopper and 4 crew is not worth the life of 1 soldier unfortunatly.



From my reading of it, it was because the Apache supposed to be escorting the Medivac was undergoing maintenance and couldn't get off the ground. Seems there was some C2 issues there. 

Basically, if you get to a Priority 1 or 2 casualty (basically major life threatening trauma - Pri 3 is a twisted ankle) within 1 hour the chances of survival are significantly increased. A Resuscitation Team (Medical Officer, Nursing Officer, 3 x Medics) then stops bleeding, replaces fluid, maintains an airway and provides drugs, which basically stabilises the casualty and keeps them alive until surgery. It would be rare for a live casualty to reach Resus and not survive. The Australian soldier seems to have been alive for an hour after the incident, so he should have received that care, and maybe survived. Having said that, I've got no idea of his injuries and he may have been unrecoverable.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (27 July 2008)

kennas said:


> From my reading of it, it was because the Apache supposed to be escorting the Medivac was undergoing maintenance and couldn't get off the ground. Seems there was some C2 issues there.




It's unfortunate that they couldn't get him to help sooner, it's not as easy as just calling in ambulance when your on long range patrols, I would dare say that they did every thing they could. the first SAS guy that died in afganistan had an american Doctor and a small med team paracuted in to assist but even they couldn't save him, Unfortunatly that Doctor was even killed a parachute jump a few months later trying to get to another victim.


----------



## gav (27 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Cripes, this is dodgy news.
> 
> Australia prides itself as having some of the best health support in the world, and normally abides by very strict rules in regard to medical evactuation times. Obviously there will be operational considerations, but reaching resuscitation within one hour is critical to saving life. To wait two, is obviously, in this case, life threatening.
> 
> ...




I used to be a Sig (communications) in the Army, and know a few ppl over there at the moment.  Would be interesting to find out the cause of this 'communications bungle'.


----------



## Sean K (2 August 2008)

I suppose those who have problems with ANZAC Day and it being a 'celebration' eek will have problems with this too.

I think it's a great idea and would really like to visit the Western Front (on the must do list) and have some infrastructure and information in place to make it a more rewarding experience.

Anyone done a Western Front tour?


*Plans for Anzac track through France *
August 02, 2008 

AN "Anzac trail" through Flanders and the Somme region of northern France is being considered along with an upgrading of memorials to the 46,000 men who died there during World War I.

Howard government plans to build an interpretive centre at Australia's main war memorial at Villers-Bretonneux, site of a pivotal battle on Anzac Day, 1918, may be abandoned as part of the rethink on honouring Australia's dead. 

Instead, Veterans Affairs Minister Allan Griffin wants to investigate options involving museums at several battlefields as part of an "Anzac trail".


----------



## roland (10 September 2008)

Well, what do you guys make of Rudd's comments regarding strengthening our military capabilities?

I spent 9 years in the Airforce and left in 1985 - seems like it has changed a lot since then. My impression was that we were always lacking "hardware" and man power - not to mention funding and apalling pay conditions.

Having said that, we did amazing things with the above limited resources - always had done and seems like we continue to do so.

I know we build warships and APC's and the odd sub, it's a pity we don't build our own military aircraft. Well, we did build the Nomad


----------



## Mofra (10 September 2008)

roland said:


> I know we build warships and APC's and the odd sub, it's a pity we don't build our own military aircraft. Well, we did build the Nomad



Unfortunately the capital required to build a sophisticated frontline fighter is well beyond our capacity, let alone our technical capability. 

... and the Nomad is still quite a handy bit of kit for civvy skydivers


----------



## sam76 (11 September 2008)

Geez I hope we're not purchasing a lemon.

We really need the upper hand in the Air (and Sea)

New Aussie fighter 'clubbed like seal'

The federal opposition has dismissed new doubts about the capacity of the multi-billion dollar Joint Strike Fighter to perform against jets used by Russia and China.

- Jets 'beaten' in simulated dogfights
- Australia likely to pay $16 billion
- War games 'not real life'

The JSF jets, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, were comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft, it has been reported.

The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, The West Australian said.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report. "This is based on a computer game, computer modelling of the aircraft," he told Sky News.

"This is not real life."

Senator Minchin said he had a classified briefing on the JSF from its US manufacturer Lockheed-Martin which had promoted the aircraft as the most advanced jet fighter ever.

"I can't really say much about it, but this is a phenomenal aircraft.

"As our chief of defence Angus Houston has said this is a most extraordinary aircraft, it is the right aircraft for Australia."

The multi-purpose fighter would be the backbone of the United States military, Senator Minchin said.

"We are fortunate to be in it and the government should move to make the decision to acquire it."

WA Liberal backbencher Dennis Jensen said he had spoken to a third party with knowledge of the final classified test results who had claimed the JSF had been clubbed like baby seals by the simulated Sukhois, The West Australian reported.

He said the government should demand that the US Government sell it the F-22 which was already in operation instead of the JSF.

A response was been sought from the government.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-aussie-fighter-clubbed-like-seal-20080911-4e6b.html


----------



## refined silver (11 September 2008)

I think the problem is that the US decided it was not economically viable to develop a next generation fighter, and a separate bomber or strike aircraft.

Hence as the name and everything about it says, its a multi-purpose plane. By definition it will not be as good a fighter as a specifically developed pure fighter plane.

Could be problems if others buy the Sukhois.


----------



## nioka (11 September 2008)

roland said:


> Well, we did build the Nomad




And we did build the Victa, it was as reliable as the mower. Flew like a brick. I learnt to fly in one. I think the best we can make now are homemade ultralights. 

Maybe Rudd can talk the chinese into selling us one of their latest. Trade them uranium.


----------



## sam76 (28 September 2008)

Watch an F22 refuel 28,000 feet up.

http://www.knoxnews.com/videos/detail/flight-lifetime/

pretty cool stuff.


----------



## Sean K (16 January 2009)

Thought this guy might have got a gong, but a VC, cripes.

Nice work mate!


*Australian digger awarded Victoria Cross for heroic gallantry*
Mex Cooper 
January 16, 2009 - 11:49AM 

An Australian digger serving in Afghanistan has been awarded the Commonwealth's highest military order - the Victoria Cross.

Trooper Mark Donaldson has been awarded Australia's 96th Victoria Cross. The last was awarded 40 years ago.

Trooper Donaldson received the award for "exceptional bravery" after saving the life of a Coalition forces interpreter during an attack in Oruzgan in Afghanistan.

On September 2, last year while under attack from the enemy Trooper Donaldson drew fire from attacking soldiers to allow wounded Australian diggers to be moved to safety.

He then returned alone to save an interpreter who was lying motionless on the ground, crossing 80 metres of exposed ground.

Trooper Donaldson was said to have shown "exceptional courage in circumstances of great peril".

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Trooper Donaldson had joined the ranks of Australia's heroes.

"His feat of arms, his feat under fire now becomes the stuff of Australian legend,'' he said.

Governor-General Quentin Bryce presented Trooper Donaldson with the Victoria Cross, which is inscribed with 'For Valour' at Government House in Canberra.

"You have learnt a profound truth about yourself and your capacity. You have cradled life in your arms and opened your heart to its meaning,'' she said.

"You are the finest example and inspiration. Trooper Donaldson, VC, I salute you.''


----------



## 2BAD4U (16 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Thought this guy might have got a gong, but a VC, cripes.




Got a shiver down my spine when I heard the news. A VC puts him in very elite company.  Well done. A true Hero!!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Thought this guy might have got a gong, but a VC, cripes.
> 
> Nice work mate!
> 
> ...




Congratulations to SAS Trooper Mark Donaldson.

What a brave man.

Why isn't the ministry of defence called the Ministry of Attack?

What a silly name "Defence".

gg


----------



## glenn_r (17 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Congratulations to SAS Trooper Mark Donaldson.
> 
> What a brave man.
> 
> ...




Yes its great to see true bravery recognised and he is the first to receive the new Australian Victoria Cross.

GG only someone who has never served the country in the "Defence Forces" would make that dumb comment.

On a side note one of my old Army buddies phoned me this morning telling me he has terminal cancer in both kidneys and his right lung with 4 to 12 months to live, he is 45 and it's amazing how helpless you feel on the other end of the phone.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 January 2009)

New Trouble for an Obama Nominee: Admiral Dennis Blair Aided Perpetrators of 1999 Church Killings in East Timor

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/6/dennis_blair_obamas_nominee_for_director


----------



## Sean K (19 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> New Trouble for an Obama Nominee: Admiral Dennis Blair Aided Perpetrators of 1999 Church Killings in East Timor
> 
> http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/6/dennis_blair_obamas_nominee_for_director



I was intimately involved in the preparations for the intervention in East Timor and I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## GumbyLearner (24 January 2009)

Abbott's VC remarks outrages military

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...-remarks-outrages-military-20090124-7p2i.html

Opposition frontbencher Tony Abbott has sparked outrage by comparing John Howard's US Presidential Medal of Freedom with Trooper Mark Donaldson's Victoria Cross.

Mr Abbott suggests moral courage is possibly a higher virtue than physical courage in comments published in the Weekend Australian on Saturday.


----------



## Trevor_S (25 January 2009)

glenn_r said:


> GG only someone who has never served the country in the "Defence Forces" would make that dumb comment.




?? It used to be the Ministry of War.  "Defence" is marketing spin & hyperbole. 

That aside, I am going to make myself unpopular and say I think our defence forces as they exist should be abolished. I think we need something akin to a Marine Service, a Coast Guard Unit for interdiction of illegal fishermen etc (some of the Navy Assets could be used for that) and a much strengthened AFP for service in areas like Solomon's etc.  I would like to see Defence budget cut in half. 

Seems to me what we have is an system that is an anachronistic hangover from centuries past.


----------



## sting (25 January 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> ?? It used to be the Ministry of War.  "Defence" is marketing spin & hyperbole.
> 
> That aside, I am going to make myself unpopular and say I think our defence forces as they exist should be abolished. I think we need something akin to a Marine Service, a Coast Guard Unit for interdiction of illegal fishermen etc (some of the Navy Assets could be used for that) and a much strengthened AFP for service in areas like Solomon's etc.  I would like to see Defence budget cut in half.
> 
> Seems to me what we have is an system that is an anachronistic hangover from centuries past.




And Trevor I reckon you would be the first bloke to go looking for an Infantry section to guard yur house in the unlikely event we were ever invaded. By unlikely event I mean other than land mass we don't have a lot to offer to warrant an invasion except for maybe by Musurian's and if you think the seppo's will come charging in to defend us if we cut down on our armed forces you will be sadly mistaken.

The best defence always has been and always will be a strong offence in saying that I don't mean you have to go look for a fight but let your opponent know that you won't back down. try reading Sun Tzu.

"No better friend  ........  No worse enemy"

Time for me to get off my high horse but people like you get to me

UBIQUE

And before you ask yes I have served and still currently do part time

GRES Chocco


----------



## kitehigh (25 January 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> ?? It used to be the Ministry of War.  "Defence" is marketing spin & hyperbole.
> 
> That aside, I am going to make myself unpopular and say I think our defence forces as they exist should be abolished. I think we need something akin to a Marine Service, a Coast Guard Unit for interdiction of illegal fishermen etc (some of the Navy Assets could be used for that) and a much strengthened AFP for service in areas like Solomon's etc.  I would like to see Defence budget cut in half.
> 
> Seems to me what we have is an system that is an anachronistic hangover from centuries past.




A naive comment from some one who has the luxury to do so from the comforts of his own home. 
 Even the oldest neutral countries such as Switzerland and Sweden maintain a large standing defence force as they are not so naive to realize you still need to carry a big stick just in case. 

Just because Australia is currently under no threat from attack doesn't mean the situation can change in the future.  It takes a long time to build up a defence force after it has been run down. You just have to look at WW2 again to see how quickly things can turn to custard.  A lot of European countries were caught woefully under prepared even after seeing the warning signs coming out of Germany, their leader/Politicians were asleep at the wheel.  Even the UK was one such nation and was staring down the barrel of imminent invasion at one stage.

Being an Island some of our best defence assets are our Submarines, they are an awesome weapon and deterrent because any potential large scale invading force will eventually have to come via sea.  

In the words of Plato:

"Only the dead have seen the end of war"


----------



## slim pickins (26 January 2009)

we definitley need a stong military. air force and navy especially. they can prevent a war ever reaching us, which is what we really need.

I just distrust governmetns with large land forces. they often get used against their own people.

if we were involved in major war i am sure that without the US we would be in very deep mud indeed. we migth not lose, but 100,000 casulaties to fend off an indonesian attack is a phyrric victory.

i would no doubt escape to the USA and carry on the fight (share certificates and all in my luggage). lobby the yanks into helping us. protest in the streets. throw rocks at the indonesian embassy in washington. after all somone needs to rebuild and re-populate  when its all over.

on a more seious note.... F-35s are quite a weapon.... from what i can deduce the yanks have spent 7 years and billions of dollars making an aircraft that is inferior but quite complemantary to the F-22.

it looks like its even inferior enought to export to allies.

i am not bitter about this. after all i will never get to fly this magnificent beast, but it would be nice to have them.

then again the yank taxpayer should not have to give up the sum of their intellectual knowledge to a country whose PM makes fun of Bush wont criticise china.

F-35s are still quite good from what i have read and seen on youtube. 
the assertions that they get beaten by sukhois is pretty silly considering that a classic dogfing will simply not take place. its one air combat system against another. working together with our AWACs, the F-35 will probbaly blow the sukhois out of the sky before they reaslise there is a threat in the theatre.

i dont know much about military matters but i bet any of you $1 dollar that with our AWACs, 100 F-35s and a few destroyers, RAN and RAAF will be able to defend OZ against ANY invasion excpet one mounted by the USA. that includes russia china india UK france etc.

for all you who want to buy russian or chinese equipment ....lol.... just know that is a proven fact that russian stuff is crap. their missiles couldnt hit ayers rock on a clear day, their ships sink in storms and their fighters have night vision capabilities slightly inferior to the new 7 series BMW.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (26 January 2009)

sting said:


> except for maybe by Musurian's




Yeah, they are a cruel enemy those musurians,... they always seem to show up right when you trying to sleep or make a brew, Atleast on holsworthy range they never attack after 10pm or before 8am due to noise restrictions so you can catch some sneaky zzz's on piquet.


----------



## sting (26 January 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Yeah, they are a cruel enemy those musurians,... they always seem to show up right when you trying to sleep or make a brew, Atleast on holsworthy range they never attack after 10pm or before 8am due to noise restrictions so you can catch some sneaky zzz's on piquet.




They must be the RAAF tribe dont work after 1700 or on weekends. The tribes up here in QLD work all hrs. Esp at Wide Bay when ya checking ya crab pots that you have snuck in to go with the prawns that you swopped with the trawlers for a CR1M. I do my best work at Tin Can esp area13.


----------



## sting (30 January 2009)

Finally handover of the 500 room accom blocks at Enoggera in brisbane today. Anything had has to be better than the old ones. It was not so long ago I had some of my troopies marched into the transit lines and one was in bed one night when the ceiling fell down on him.

"Mr Fitzgibbon said that Defence’s contract with Plenary includes ongoing concierge services, facilities operation and maintenance responsibilities as part of a 30-year arrangement."

Concierge services **** soumds like to Hilton maybe next time that I am required to live in I should try and slum it and not stay in the Officers Mess.


----------



## sting (19 February 2009)

END of an ERA

Announcement today states they are bringing frward the retirement of the old faithful Caribou. No more Sideways Airlines. To those of us who have flown in her in some respects will be sadly missed. I still remember my first flight back in 79 straight up after breakfast and as a young 19yr after a night on the piss and a gutful of flavoured milk an invitation from the loadie to take a look over the lowered rear while inflight proved to much. Sitting here writting this brings back the pungent and sickly sweet smell of hot AVTUR.

Now for the amazing part they will not be replaced until 2013. Altho they are not the most comfortable rides around they are exremely good at STOL work something that we still need.


----------



## sam76 (2 May 2009)

300 billion as part of a 20 year plan...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25417217-5012587,00.html

I'm not sure we need all of the things mentioned. Perhaps Kennas or some of the others who have served could give a more realsitic view.


----------



## mayk (2 May 2009)

sam76 said:


> 300 billion as part of a 30 year plan...
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25417217-5012587,00.html
> 
> I'm not sure we need all of the things mentioned. Perhaps Kennas or some of the others who have served could give a more realsitic view.




It is a big bad world out there. All big nations are securing military and navy bases in Asia. Check out the expansion plans of China, India and even Japan (hardly pacific nation if you look at its navy size!!), all in the name of self defense. Actually they want to secure the routes of the resources, especially OIL. Because once the oil supply will not be able to meet the demand, the oil exporting nations would like to use routes which provide safety, and a guarantee of some sort against pirate attacks (which in my opinion will increase, and will be used by different powers for their strategic interest). 

I think the next _great game_ has started, and think-tanks of all nations are aware of this. China, India and central Asia, as always, will be the players, but unlike last century, they will be their our colonial masters.  

On these grounds I would support a more robust defense spending bill. When the pacific nations (aka Japan) are going crazy in their defense spending it is time to rethink the whole situation. 


A pre-cursor of things to come can be seen in this bloody conflict in Sri-Lanka. China is the main supplier of all the arms and also trying to build a base there...On this support the Sri-Lankans are showing a big middle finger to the west, and trying to ignore their lectures. But on a separate point I think it is hypocritical of West to do in Afghanistan what they are lecturing Sri-Lanks to not do! Tamil Tigers are the inventor of Sui-cide attacks. 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6207487.ece



And the only nation which has balked on this defense spending spree is, you guessed it, China. BEWARE!


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2009)

The acquisitions and money is spaced over a very long period, so it might be decieving.

I'm not sure on the % GDP between nations go but we have been spending well down on what was generally considered average. That was 3%. I think the past few years it's been under 2%. 

The US spend many many multiples on defence compared to us, as do China. Off the top of my head China spend more than $50b per year and we spend about $15b.

I'm flabbergasted that China could complain about additional spending in the future, they are building more rapidly than any other country in the world. They are nuclear and developing a blue water fleet. Go figure. 

Having said that, we do need to defend the moat, however, our next operations (5-15 years) will be abroad. NO ONE has the capability to attack Australia, except the US. 

Our best interests in the short to medium term would be to maintain our alliances with the US, NZ, key EU countries, and some important SE Asian nations like Singapore. Throw in alliances with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and what do we need these 12 subs for (that we can't man) and 100 JSF (that we can't pilot). Cripes, we can't even deploy our current ARH that we are fitting and training with. And WTF are our 60 or so Abrams tanks doing? What a joke! They will NEVER be used.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 May 2009)

kennas said:


> The acquisitions and money is spaced over a very long period, so it might be decieving.
> 
> I'm not sure on the % GDP between nations go but we have been spending well down on what was generally considered average. That was 3%. I think the past few years it's been under 2%.
> 
> ...



Long range missiles is what we need which we can put fear into beligerants with. 

For the non-disclosing countries you ask why? and is that acceptable?


----------



## Calanen (2 May 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Long range missiles is what we need which we can put fear into beligerants with.
> 
> For the non-disclosing countries you ask why? and is that acceptable?




Bombers, not missiles. Bombers are re-usuable. The F-15E is a good buy, we should have bought a heap of them instead of this Joint Strike Fighter.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> Bombers, not missiles. Bombers are re-usuable. The F-15E is a good buy, we should have bought a heap of them instead of this Joint Strike Fighter.



Yes a mixture of bombers and missiles. Australia should rebuild the F111.

A missile is harder to shoot down though.


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2009)

JSF will be a good multi roll plane IF we buy all the extra bits so it can opperate in a coalition environment. We must buy the add ons! That's why our F18s and F111s have been USELESS for the past 20 + years. No add ons!!! Having said that, the F111's flown to Tindal just before the Timor intervention (invasion) probably had the Indons packing. But from my perspective, it was the US MEU floating about that may have been a good deterrent. Hm,off topic. We need to keep all in perspective, and perspective is that the US and UK will save our @rse into the future no matter what attack. Teams have been set, and we are with the Anglo-Saxons.


----------



## sam76 (2 May 2009)

ABC News just said it was going to cost 104 billion over the next four years???!!!

Can this be true???


----------



## Calanen (2 May 2009)

sam76 said:


> 300 billion as part of a 20 year plan...
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25417217-5012587,00.html
> 
> I'm not sure we need all of the things mentioned. Perhaps Kennas or some of the others who have served could give a more realsitic view.




We easy spend that much to keep the welfare underclass living in free accommodation to watch the cricket and drink beer while the rest of us go to work. About 60 % of the annual Australian budget goes on welfare, amongst the highest in the world. If we got all of those people off the couch and working, taxes would be very very low in Australia.

The point being, that we already spend far more than this on useless things - and defence is useful and a very good investment in our future.


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2009)

It is a 20 year wish list. We can't even afford an efficient border protection service. Rudd is full of grandiose plans, none of which will come to fruition in his time.

Who does Rudd want to protect us from?  Certainly not the Chinese. If they had  militant designs on us there is nothing we could do about it. But why should they bother? They can buy us out.

If we have billions to spare it should be spent on our greatest enemy...water shortage.


----------



## metric (3 May 2009)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25418503-421,00.html


Rudd Government considering sending youth unemployed to boot camps


By Glenn Milne
The Sunday Telegraph
May 03, 2009 12:01am

Boot camps for youth unemployed considered 
Cabinet sources say plan has backing 
Defence reportedly opposed to idea



> THE Federal Government wants military-style "boot camp" training overseen by the Department of Defence for Australia's unemployed youth, Cabinet sources confirmed last night.
> 
> The Sunday Telegraph has learned Canberra is keen on the move to stop the loss of a generation to welfare as a result of the recession.
> 
> ...


----------



## Calanen (3 May 2009)

> Rudd Government considering sending youth unemployed to boot camps
> 
> 
> By Glenn Milne
> ...




I can tell you that almost overwhelmingly, people in the defence forces do not support the idea. Why you may ask? Because the Australian military, especially the army, is a very elite group that want to be there and take their jobs very seriously. They do not want to be the prison guards for a group of slackers. From the discussions I have had with them, if they are going to be made to take it on, they want the ability to impose brutal discipline to keep order. No holiday camp where people get to go on A Current Affair and say the Big Bad Army Sergeant was mean to me.

I wouldn't just make the young unemployed work, I'd make everyone work who could. Even if you cant walk you can answer a government hotline.


----------



## Sean K (3 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> I can tell you that almost overwhelmingly, people in the defence forces do not support the idea.
> 
> ....
> 
> From the discussions I have had with them,




LOL  You've had discussions with the entire Defence Forces? 

However, I do agree that regular defence force will have a negative opinion of conscrips. Volunteers have much more credibility. I base that on attitudes to WW history, and Regular Army attitudes to General Reserve. 

Maybe your sample is representative however.


----------



## Calanen (3 May 2009)

*Re: New defence white paper*



Tysonboss1 said:


> Spend some time with an M4 and you will never want to touch steyr again,...
> 
> If steyr were comparible to M4 weapons then surly the SAS would use the steyr to,... But they don't M4 is the standard rifle for the SAS and the 4RAR commando's.




It's a rolls royce gun, but an M4 has to be cleaned all the time, constantly stripped and cleaned to make sure that none of its many intricate parts gum up. If you have time to do that, cool, perhaps you don't in a combat situation. That adjustable stock on the M4 eventually breaks and unhelpfully slides in and out without locking too.

The AK47 and variants are a much more reliable gun, even if not as accurate as the M4 and M16 - but political reality means we can never use former soviet weapons. They would be the most sensible thing to equip our troops with. Cheap, plenty of spare parts, don't mind desert or jungle weather.


----------



## Calanen (3 May 2009)

kennas said:


> LOL  You've had discussions with the entire Defence Forces?




Well when does anyone ever poll every single member of any organisation.  I do have good access to get a feel for what the view is. I could say I have spoken to xx or yy - but then people would just flame away about that too.



> However, I do agree that regular defence force will have a negative opinion of conscrips. Volunteers have much more credibility. I base that on attitudes to WW history, and Regular Army attitudes to General Reserve.
> 
> Maybe your sample is representative however.




From high up as the view further down. If there are any serving soldiers who want to post otherwise, let's hear it. I'm expecting they will be in the minority.

I cant say who I know or how I know on this forum. And it wouldnt be believed anyway. Any who feel they know better however, please speak up.


----------



## Sean K (3 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> I do have good access



Who?


----------



## sam76 (3 May 2009)

Your avatar scares me Kennas..


----------



## Sean K (3 May 2009)

sam76 said:


> Your avatar scares me Kennas..



Yours is scaring me more sam.  Just poking fun..


----------



## sam76 (3 May 2009)

Get some Soul Glo inta ya!


----------



## Largesse (3 May 2009)

nice pipes Kennas

/flexxxxxxxxxx


----------



## ColB (3 May 2009)

> Originally posted by Callanen
> 
> "I can tell you that almost overwhelmingly, people in the defence forces do not support the idea. Why you may ask? Because the Australian military, especially the army, is a very elite group that want to be there and take their jobs very seriously..."






> Originally Posted by kennas
> LOL  You've had discussions with the entire Defence Forces?




Callanen, perhaps you could have said "people in the defence forces *would* not support the idea.  It doesn't alter the fact that sheer logic would dictate that *most* defence personnel would not want to work with people who don't wan't to be there regardless of whether they were polled or not.


----------



## Sean K (3 May 2009)

Cripes, 

Sheridan likes the plan...



*A battle of words *
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor | May 02, 2009 
Article from:  The Australian 

THE defence white paper is an almost incoherent blancmange of oddly unharmonised flavours.

It reads like a biblical commentary in which 50 Talmudic scholars, each representing an alternative school of thought, have been allowed to write alternative sentences.

The internal contradictions in the document are so staggering it looks like sentences have been bolted on almost at random, like pieces in a Meccano set manipulated by a two-year-old.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2009)

ColB said:


> Callanen, perhaps you could have said "people in the defence forces *would* not support the idea.  It doesn't alter the fact that sheer logic would dictate that *most* defence personnel would not want to work with people who don't wan't to be there regardless of whether they were polled or not.




Hi Col,

Strangely enough in the WW1 referendum on conscription the majority of the AIF voted in favour.

But those at the work face, the troops actually doing the fighting, voted against it. When you are in a dangerous situation you want people beside you who have had a choice.


----------



## sting (3 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Hi Col,
> 
> Strangely enough in the WW1 referendum on conscription the majority of the AIF voted in favour.
> 
> But those at the work face, the troops actually doing the fighting, voted against it. When you are in a dangerous situation you want people beside you who have had a choice.




Calliope, From what I have come to understand these boot camp trainee's will not be put in the front line but yes before you say it the same was said about the Kokoda Soldiers..... Reserve force soldiers untrained ill equiped and sent over as garrison troops, these same troops went a long way to dispel the image of second class soldiering performed by  Chocco's...Chocolate soldiers named because they were said to melt in the heat of battle.

The second class syndrome is still to a minor extent prevelant I to am guilty when I was a full time member. But this view is in a minority and gradually disappearing due the the excellent capabilities of those GRES who have served and are serving besides ARA members.

As far as the Boot camp proposal i am 100%in favour of it if used to instill discipline, self worth, adaptability,respect and basic life skills. Something that todays youth sady lack. What I would like to see is that basic trade skills be taught as well on this boot camp to try and instill an interest to take on an apprenticeship either in the Defence Force or in civvie street.

I have spoken to a few fellow officers who like me have teenage children who are all in favour of a form of boot camp to get the yobbo's off the street. I even asked a mate who i have served with who is a nam vet who is totally against conscription is in favour of getting kids off the street in some form of "Bad Lads Army". 

For those who are unaware Bad Lads Army is a British youth offender program that takes convicted youth out of the public arena and puts them into a replica WW2 training camp to try to instill a sense of pride and discipline. This is run and staffed by ex forces personnel.

As far as taking hard pressed ARA soldiers away from their tasks to train and supervise these kids I agree that there time is better spent elsewhere but
a similar national program could be run here using a combination of retired senior officers and nco's as well as even possibly Cadet officers.. before you go there yes i agree cadet officers are a different breed entirely but are capable of controlling large numbers of teenagers. Disused Defence Facilities could be used to house and train these boot camp trainee's. And as far as trade skill training in sure if to speak to those soldiers who daily are tasked with checking vehicles for servicability they will gladly accept all help possible.

I await the comments regarding my suggestions


UBIQUE


----------



## moXJO (3 May 2009)

Lets face it defense force recruiting and retention isn't the best. At least the possibility of a few converts (from boot camps) who find out they like the lifestyle may eventuate. And I think this may be the thinking from the government. A forced try at a lifestyle you may actually like. 

Seems to coincide with our massive spending plan on defense so we need someone to man all this stuff.


----------



## Julia (3 May 2009)

sting said:


> Calliope, From what I have come to understand these boot camp trainee's will not be put in the front line but yes before you say it the same was said about the Kokoda Soldiers..... Reserve force soldiers untrained ill equiped and sent over as garrison troops, these same troops went a long way to dispel the image of second class soldiering performed by  Chocco's...Chocolate soldiers named because they were said to melt in the heat of battle.
> 
> The second class syndrome is still to a minor extent prevelant I to am guilty when I was a full time member. But this view is in a minority and gradually disappearing due the the excellent capabilities of those GRES who have served and are serving besides ARA members.
> 
> ...



If it were to work as you  have suggested, then I'm all for it.
For several years I've worked with a Youth Mentoring programme in high schools on a one-to-one basis with students deemed at risk of failing to complete their education and/or go forward to any meaningful occupation.

Almost without exception these teenagers are lazy, uncommunicative, and uninterested in anything other than avoiding school, alcohol, and working off their excess testosterone via aggressive behaviour.

Their parents are usually the role models that have perpetuated this behaviour and have no ambition for their offspring other than to see then also sign on for the dole.

So a bit of enforced discipline and respect surely couldn't fail to improve the outlook for these kids, if there are defence people prepared to take them on.


----------



## Calanen (4 May 2009)

If it is to happen, those conscripted need to be paid just as anyone else would be for the work they do. The drill sergeants need to have the ability to deal with them using military justice in the same way any other recruit is dealt with, no molly coddling or powder puff boot camp. Also backed up with the severest punishment for those who seek to dodge it, that is, two years in the military or two years in jail if you don't go. 

The legislation should state also that conscripts can only be used in the defence of Australia proper, not for overseas expeditions except on a volunteer basis.

In addition to getting these people working, I would get every person sitting in a housing commission home that can walk working too. Even if you cant walk, you can answer government telephones.  I would also, get every prisoner working - adopting the California system - for every day you work competently - one day is removed from your sentence. Have the inmates doing roadwork under guard in remote locations, or picking fruit, or chipping cotton. It shouldnt be that the inmates get to watch TV and lift weights to better assault the public when they leave prison.

Australia needs to focus on self-reliance. And to do that, we need everyone working.


----------



## sting (4 May 2009)

Julia said:


> If it were to work as you  have suggested, then I'm all for it.
> For several years I've worked with a Youth Mentoring programme in high schools on a one-to-one basis with students deemed at risk of failing to complete their education and/or go forward to any meaningful occupation.
> 
> Almost without exception these teenagers are lazy, uncommunicative, and uninterested in anything other than avoiding school, alcohol, and working off their excess testosterone via aggressive behaviour.
> ...




Julia I agree we are breeding a race of dole bludgers. Before you all start yes I agree not everyone on unemployment is a dole bludger especially with the rising unemployment but there are some who can not be called anything but Dole Bludgers. My son befriended a kid on his football team whose parents we met. This is a family of 3 generations of being on the Dole. The grandparents were on the dole for 20+ yrs, the boys parents also have never worked a day in their lives with the exception of community service. The boys uncle moved to a country town that had no employment prospects because in his words he was "sick of having to get up before lunch to go to interviews that he was sent to". Now the 3rd generation children are either single mothers or on the dole. This boy who still see's my son is now 21 and has never had a job. this scenario is sure to be passed on for generations to come unless we as a community say enough is enough and send these kids off to some sort of compulsory training ...who knows the kids might enjoy the feeling of getting up and doing something productive.


And calanen, as far as payment the dole should go a long way to cover this, given that they would be fed clothed and housed a reduced dole payment should be sufficient. Especially given that each course would only be at a max of 6 to 12 months to allow all those who are not going on to higher learning or even exclude those who obtain an apprenticeship.

The more i think about this scheme the more i like it. Not only does it instill worthwhile values but it will get homeless kids off the street, reduce drugs and alchohol, and reduce crime.  The only downsides that I can see will be civil libitarians screaming slavery, Possible wannabe do gooders crying out for equal pay claims and the biggest whinge of all from those bludgers that dont get out of bed until after lunch. Another downside is the banning of bastardisation that would quickly wake some of these kids up. I went through basic in the late 70's and the ritual of rough justice administered by nco's and by your own recruits helped wake you up. I admit some punishments may have gotten out of hand although I personally had never seen it. but for someone to have their equipment thrown in the mud because they constantly failed to properly clean it didnt hurt anyone with the exception of possible sleep depravitation to reclean everything before tomorrows inspection. I still remember one white glove nazi who on a daily basis would show us a different place to check for dust each day the top of door architraves one day and the bottom of locker door another he never went back for weeks the places he had shown us as he knew that it would be spotless. And those of you on here who went through basic in the same era who can forget the welcoming toothpaste ritual.

Why this scheme WONT be introduced.. te Pollies fear of political suicide. The youth of todays boot camps are tomorrows voters.

UBIQUE


----------



## Calanen (4 May 2009)

> And calanen, as far as payment the dole should go a long way to cover this, given that they would be fed clothed and housed a reduced dole payment should be sufficient. Especially given that each course would only be at a max of 6 to 12 months to allow all those who are not going on to higher learning or even exclude those who obtain an apprenticeship.




Not completely - whatever regular recruits in boot get paid - these guys should get paid. No two tiered system. And if they are paid the same, they are expected to perform the same and be punished the same if they don't measure up. Paying the extra money wont break us, but ripping people off who don't want to be there anyway could do so. You might have seen in Bangladesh recently the border guards killing their officers over pay. Never mess with a man's pay.


----------



## sting (4 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> Not completely - whatever regular recruits in boot get paid - these guys should get paid. No two tiered system. And if they are paid the same, they are expected to perform the same and be punished the same if they don't measure up. Paying the extra money wont break us, but ripping people off who don't want to be there anyway could do so. You might have seen in Bangladesh recently the border guards killing their officers over pay. Never mess with a man's pay.




But calanen these boot camp pers will not be doing the same training from what i can gather it is not full on military training like they do in say switzerland but a confidence/discipline/skilling course. While drill will be used to teach discipline i doubt the full extent of weapons training nor Cam & Concealment and now that navigation is no longer a kapooka recruit subject it wont be taught either.

In reality some large companies pay big money to ex SAS to run team building camps so why should youth be paid top dollar to attend. And for examples sake if you take into consideration the costs that a civvie pays to house feed and clothe thmselves say about $400 a week then add maybe an allowance of $100 a week cash for incidentals and they will be getting the equivalent of $500 a week not bad for a 17 or 18 yr old
.

UBIQUE


----------



## Sean K (27 June 2009)

Gillard is doing a surprise visit to Iraq TOMORROW.


*Gillard to visit troops in Iraq*
Jason Koutsoukis
June 27, 2009 - 9:17AM 

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard is about to embark on a *surprise visit *to the last Australian troops still stationed in Iraq.

*Ms Gillard is currently spending the night in Kuwait City ahead of the visit*.


WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I bet the troops don't sleep tonight awaiting her arrival. I'm sure she'll inspire.



Surprise visit!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Gillard is doing a surprise visit to Iraq TOMORROW.
> 
> 
> *Gillard to visit troops in Iraq*
> ...




It will be like waiting for Santa after a mate on the 24th December has told you he doesn't exist.

gg


----------



## Sean K (29 June 2009)

Seems Julia might have escaped Iraq after her surprise visit announced the day before the visit. 

Seems like it was extraordinarily tight security for her, with even some 'tank like light-armoured vehicles' there to keep her company. FFS! Coundn't The Australian send someone who actually knew what our LAVs were called.  Nice work John Lyons, you write like a girl! Go back to your fashion pages you goose. 'the only media outlet invited on the Iraq trip', what a loser!!!

And wow, she went though the red zone.

OMFG!!! 

*Gillard runs gauntlet on ground in Iraq*
John Lyons, travelling with Julia Gillard | June 29, 2009 

Article from:  The Australian 

FOR about 20 minutes on the weekend, Julia Gillard was one of the most protected people in the world.

The Deputy Prime Minister was leaving Iraq after a surprise visit to meet the 90 or so Australian soldiers who remain in the country to protect the embassy in Baghdad, and to sign a series of agreements with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. 

Ms Gillard added the visit to Iraq on to the end of her trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders. 

The extraordinary security on the weekend -- witnessed by The Australian, the only media outlet invited on the Iraq trip -- came as Ms Gillard was driven in an armoured four-wheel-drive to Landing Zone Washington, the helicopter base in Baghdad's Green Zone near the Australian embassy. To get into the base we had to pass through a team of armed Peruvian security contractors, prepared to do one of the most dangerous jobs of all -- the job most others do not want. 

Waiting in the helicopter base were four tank-like Australian light-armoured vehicles, on standby in case there was a problem with the two Black Hawk helicopters and she had to be driven through the "red zone" to the military air base.


----------



## jono1887 (29 June 2009)

kennas said:


> FOR about 20 minutes on the weekend, Julia Gillard was one of the most protected people in the world.
> 
> 
> Waiting in the helicopter base were four tank-like Australian light-armoured vehicles




Lol, 'most protected'!! whos going to attempt any attacks on her or try to kidnap her?? she's not worth much to us 

'tank-like' - why doesn't the reporter know what they are?


----------



## shag (29 June 2009)

i agree, if the iraqi nutters blew her up it would likely do us a grt service.
they could throw her head around a bit while we celebrated too.
imagine all the hi paid hangers on it would sort out too.
too many of these women in power seem all rhetoric, and no real knowledge.
last month i had a senior council manager tell me/us with grt sincerity that a building had concrete cancer in a formal meeting so they were throwing 8 mill at it to replace it(despite being too broke to fix basics like footpaths and roads).
concrete cancer is very poor slang, for spalling of yr concrete as the reinforcing bars rust and more of yr covering concrete gets compromised. its a bad analogy that no engineer would use and demeaning to cancer sufferers also. she probably got the word from cosmo.


----------



## Mr J (29 June 2009)

jono1887 said:


> 'tank-like' - why doesn't the reporter know what they are?




Dumbing down for the masses? I imagine they're IFVs or APCs, but I wouldn't have any clue if I was just stated a model name.


----------



## Sean K (29 June 2009)

Mr J said:


> Dumbing down for the masses? I imagine they're IFVs or APCs, but I wouldn't have any clue if I was just stated a model name.



The point is that this person claimed to be the 'select' member of the Australian press following Julia around cleaning up her mess. And, he doesn't know the name of a very common military vehicle. My point is, he's a ********.


----------



## Sean K (14 July 2009)

Here's a good career builder.

Nice work Lieutenant Commander Peter de Maskens. All the best to your family also. 

 


*ADF man robbed of laptop by ladyboy*
Andrew Drummond and Mark Dodd | July 11, 2009 
Article from:  The Australian 

THE Australian Defence Force is investigating a potential breach of national security after a naval officer in Bangkok was robbed of his Defence Department computer by a ladyboy he had brought back to his hotel room late at night.

Defence last night played down the security implications of the theft, saying the data in the laptop was of a low classification and it was password-protected. 

The officer -- named in a Thai police report as Lieutenant Commander Peter de Maskens, a qualified helicopter pilot who received the Order of Australia Medal in January -- was in Bangkok on official business and had gone out for the night to the city's Nana Plaza, an entertainment zone in the city full of go-go bars and where ladyboys also solicit in the streets.


----------



## jono1887 (14 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Here's a good career builder.
> 
> Nice work Lieutenant Commander Peter de Maskens. All the best to your family also.
> 
> ...




 thats not very good to know that our national secrets are soo easy to take hold of...


----------



## Sean K (27 July 2009)

This type of news reporting is really frustrating.



> *Protesters 'went undetected by military'*
> 13:11 AEST Mon Jul 27
> By Steve Gray
> 
> ...




I mean, what is the point exactly? It's either clearly biased anti-defence reporting, or the reporter is showing a complete lack of knowledge of training exercises. The intent is not to patrol the training area looking for protestors...!!

Really embarrassing for Steve Gray actually. 

Back to obituaries, you goose.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (27 July 2009)

I remember reading about one of these klowns in the local paper here recently saying he was going up to do it.

What's the point of protesting the military while they train to _defend_ the country? They don't want them to protect Australia?????

They should be in Canberra protesting the decision makers where they are - IN CANBERRA. 

The ADF did not decide to go to Afghanistan and Iraq - the Federal Gummint did.

Is it just me...........???


----------



## Sean K (27 July 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> I remember reading about one of these klowns in the local paper here recently saying he was going up to do it.
> 
> What's the point of protesting the military while they train to _defend_ the country? They don't want them to protect Australia?????
> 
> ...



Maybe going and sitting on the lawn in front of the big dirt mound with a flag doesn't have the same effect and getting in the way of a tank. 

The way they are talking, getting into SWBTA is like breaking into a prison and hiding there unseen. BS!!! SWBTA is MASSIVE. You could jump a fence anywhere and sit under some trees for months without being spotted. Years even. 

Stupid reporting giving them airplay they do not deserve.


----------



## glenn_r (27 July 2009)

kennas said:


> "They represent Australia joining the United States in the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan where thousands of civilians have been killed."
> 
> This type of news reporting is really frustrating.
> 
> ...





I was talking to a Brigadier at a formal dinner on the weekend and I was amazed at what is now available to the foot soldier these days to minimise collateral damage to civilians.

Not only to appease the hearts and minds of the locals but also shut the dumb media up, he was posted to the joint command centre in Baghdad during 2006-2007 and was privy to lot of unreported incidents.

The use of over the horizon UAV's video feed to the command centre gave the commanders a true state of operations and if there were civilians located danger close to the target area of the weapon, the Secretary of State had to authorise the engagement of the target, was just one example.

He also explained that they use scalable munitions to minimise injury to the civilians, for example a 45kg 155mm HE artillery shell could "adjusted" to only have 5kg of explosive power which when coupled with a guided weapons system did the job with minimal damage.

There were a lot of other eye opening future improvements to the delivery of artillery discussed.

In closing he also said it was getting harder for the military to get the job done and also meet the political restraints put upon them.


Ubique


----------



## Krusty the Klown (27 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Maybe going and sitting on the lawn in front of the big dirt mound with a flag doesn't have the same effect and getting in the way of a tank.
> 
> The way they are talking, getting into SWBTA is like breaking into a prison and hiding there unseen. BS!!! SWBTA is MASSIVE. You could jump a fence anywhere and sit under some trees for months without being spotted. Years even.
> 
> Stupid reporting giving them airplay they do not deserve.




Agreed, must have been a slow news day and they needed to fill some copy.


----------



## Sean K (27 July 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Agreed, must have been a slow news day and they needed to fill some copy.



Very slow. It was the lead item on ninemsn this morning. 

This may be part of an overall plan by the powers at play to start to create enough negative opinion of the military and the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan to cause a shift in public opinion.

Who controls ninemsn and what is their policical agenda?


----------



## gav (27 July 2009)

kennas said:


> The way they are talking, getting into SWBTA is like breaking into a prison and hiding there unseen. BS!!! SWBTA is MASSIVE. You could jump a fence anywhere and sit under some trees for months without being spotted. Years even.




I was about to say the same thing after reading the article.  SWBTA is friggen HUUUGE!  They make it sound like camping just outside a CO's tent.

On the other hand, I wonder if they actually considered their own safety when conducting a stupid stunt like this.  Imagine these idiots were asleep in the 
scrub at 2am when a company or regiment was doing a night move - they could have easily been ran over...


----------



## Krusty the Klown (27 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Very slow. It was the lead item on ninemsn this morning.




You've got to be kidding.....



> This may be part of an overall plan by the powers at play to start to create enough negative opinion of the military and the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan to cause a shift in public opinion.
> 
> Who controls ninemsn and what is their policical agenda?




Could well be, you only have to see FOX and CNN US newsmedia to know it happens.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2019)

More evidence that the F-35 is a dog.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...e-parts-for-the-joint-strike-fighter/11337686


----------

