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

report: Australia could be next regional power

Raven22 said:
The reason the Abrams was chosen over the Leopard II was simply that the package  evalutated for the Abrams was much cheaper than the package evaluated for the Leopard II (which was actually the Swedish Strv 122 version). Nothing magic there.
IIRC, both Abrams and Leopard2 were considered & found to be pert much on par (base model).  I believe the deciding f actor was that the US offered Australia an initial supply of M1A1s in completely refurbished condition while the Leo2s available at that time were surplus to the Swiss army (Strv 122 version) -  and not in really good shape - thus requiring a lot of TLC.
 
I was always under the impression that Australia is already a regional power - they are the 'go to' country for aid and military forces in the area.

 
Greymatters said:
I was always under the impression that Australia is already a regional power - they are the 'go to' country for aid and military forces in the area.

Them - with India & Japan....
 
geo said:
Them - with India & Japan....

India is doing a lot of interesting things military that do not often get into the main stream media. In general it looks like a big upgrade slowly taking place.

This use to be an interesting place to get sideline info: www.indiandefenceforum.com
Seems it has either gone underground or taken down.
 
geo said:
Them - with India & Japan.... 

I would agree with that nowadays - probably western bias in support of they and NZ being the lone 'English' countries out there...

 
WRT India, I think that there was a bit of sour grapes when India started to get friendly with the USSR at the expense of the ABCA alliance.  They seem to have reverted back to friendly terms with all members of ABCA while stepping out boldly into international affairs..... patrolling for pirates in the Indian ocean & the gulf of Aden AND providing reconstruction effort in Afghanistan.
 
geo said:
Them - with India & Japan....

I thought the Japan didn't send its military around the region because of events taking place sixty odd years ago.
 
For the longest of time, the use of the japanese military was restricted to Japan's islands by it's own constitution.  This is something that was modified over the last 10-20 years.  It is for this reason that Japanese support vessels have acted as gas stations for Multi-nationals task force ships in the Indian / Pacific oceans... Also, the Japanse self defence forces provided reconstruction troops between 2004 & 2006.
 
Just an update that applies to this topic:

Since World War II, U.S. military dominance has underpinned the Asia-Pacific region’s prosperity and relative peace. So it is cause for concern when one of America’s closest allies sees that power ebbing amid unstable nuclear regimes such as Pakistan and North Korea and the expanding military power of China. Australia currently spends around $13.1 billion a year on defense, not counting money for new equipment. Now, a new policy paper says spending will increase by 3 percent annually until 2018, which is not much. But the importance of Canberra’s message is about priorities. Australia is worried about the end of the “unipolar moment.”
(Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2009, Pg. 12)
 
The WSJ article:



A Pacific Warning
Australia prepares for U.S. decline.
 
Since World War II, U.S. military dominance has underpinned the Asia-Pacific region's prosperity and relative peace. So it's cause for concern when one of America's closest allies sees that power ebbing amid unstable nuclear regimes such as Pakistan and North Korea and the expanding military power of China.

In the preface to a sweeping defense review released Saturday, Australian Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon writes: "The biggest changes to our outlook . . . have been the rise of China, the emergence of India and the beginning of the end of the so-called unipolar moment; the almost two-decade-long period in which the pre-eminence of our principal ally, the United States, was without question."

Australia isn't forecasting the end of U.S. dominance soon; the report predicts that will continue through 2030. There are also a few bright spots, such as a stronger India and the emergence of Indonesia as a stable democratic ally.

But without sustained U.S. defense spending and focus on the Asia-Pacific, it's unclear which nation will ultimately dominate the region -- and that could have profound effects on security and trade. The clearest challenge comes from China, which the Pentagon estimates spent $105 billion to $150 billion in 2008 bulking up its forces. Australia also worries about instability among its Pacific island neighbors, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and emerging threats like cyber war.

In response to this outlook, Canberra is retooling its defense. It is doubling the size of its submarine fleet to 12 from six and buying about 100 Joint Strike Fighters, three destroyers and eight frigates. The ships and subs will be equipped with cruise missiles. It will also upgrade its army and special forces units and look for new ways to cooperate with the U.S. and other regional democratic powers.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Saturday: "Some have argued that in the global economic recession we should reduce defense spending to ease the pressure on the budget. But the government believes the opposite to be true. In a period of global instability Australia must invest in a strong, capable and well resourced defense force."

Australia currently spends around $13.1 billion a year on defense, not counting money for new equipment. The new policy paper says spending will increase by 3% annually until 2018, which isn't much. But the importance of Canberra's message is about priorities. Australia is worried about the end of the "unipolar moment." Americans and Asians should be worried too.

As an aside, many of Australia's concerns are similar to our concerns WRT time/space/distance factors, operating as a "Pacific" vs an "Atlantic" nation and working from the wrong end of a supply line. We should really be doing a lot more coordinating and maybe (given we already operate relatively compatible equipment) look at combined buys to get economies of scale: if Australia is looking at 100 JSF and we have a potential need for 80 to replace our CF-18 (and 100+ if we do a full 1 to 1 replacement of all the CF-18s we ever bought) then a single run of 200+ JSF will be much cheaper for both parties. Similar considrations apply for LAV replacements and upgrades, submarines, surface warships, transport planes etc.
 
Back
Top