Why is Australia DOD so much faster than NDHQ to act????

[Cdn Blackshirt]

See copied news release in which they announce funding for a project that starts construction [gasp] in the same month!



Matthew.    

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A$10.8M Construction Contract For New Army Helicopter Base In Northern Territory
(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued March 10, 2005)
 
 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, Teresa Gambaro and Member for Solomon David Tollner, today formally announced the decision to award a major construction contract for the 1st Aviation Regiment's new base at Robertson Barracks near Darwin.  

"The 1st Aviation Regiment project represents a major infrastructure project for the Darwin region," said Ms Gambaro. "Work is progressing well."  

The $10.8m contract is for the Logistics Precinct and was awarded to Barclay Mowlem Construction Limited. It provides for the construction of vehicle shelters, workshops and storage buildings.  

"The contract is expected to provide significant opportunities for small to medium enterprises and local firms," Ms Gambaro said. "Work is scheduled to commence in March 2005 and be completed in November 2005."  

Mr Tollner said this project was great news for the Darwin region.  

"The 1st Aviation Regiment plays a major role in the Australian Defence capabilities and this new development will add to the essential contribution the Defence in Darwin plays within the Australian Defence Force", Mr Tollner said.  

Ms Gambaro said when completed, the new facilities will enable the Army's 1st Aviation Regiment to relocate to Darwin from various establishments on the east coast, re-equipped with the new "Tiger" Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[COBRA-6]

New tanks, attack helos, support helos, AWACS birds, home-grown subs, landing ships... I have to tip my hat to Australia, they seem to be pretty switched on in defence priorities...

 

[Canuck_25]

New tanks, attack helos, support helos, AWACS birds, home-grown subs, landing ships... I have to tip my hat to Australia, they seem to be pretty switched on in defence priorities...

Well, their neighbour to the north of them presents a major threat. Us, well, north and south, we seem to have good relations at the moment.

 

[RCD]

They don't have "Mr Dithers" in charge

 

[LawnDart]

Well, this is my first post back now that I'm on C&P. As someone whose served in both the Cdn and Aussie Forces, I believe I'm particularly qualified to comment on this topic. I'm not going to hold hands with the administrators and sing "Koom By Ya", so this may get me booted, but I'll take my chances.

Anyone who seeks further enlightenment, I suggest you look up "commando.org." They rock. Paratroopers say what they want and let others do so too. Unfortunately, there are no more real paras in Canada.

Either way, here's why the Aussies have it together.

1. Their government is fiscally responsible.

Even in the early 90's when national debts in all western countries were spriralling out of control, the Aussie national debt was about 60 per cent in real per capita terms that Canada's was. As a result, they've always learned to make do on less.
As a result, they tend to buy their equipment " off the shelf". They drive US vehicles, fly Blackhawks and buy good equpment that's already proven. In Canada, every purchase is considered a social welfare project for some underdeveloped region, and the results show in shoddy, overpriced equipment. (I once got charged 38 dollars for a 1970's CF rain jacket because it went missing. CRAP! That thing wasn't worth 98 cents!)

2. The Aussie Federal Government isn't emasculated by regional/language politics.

In Canada, the main criteria for base closures surrounds electoral ridings. We moved 900 guys and their families from Winnipeg last year to Shilo. Why? Simply to save 200 grass cutter/dish washer jobs in a questionable Liberal riding. That doesn't happen in Aus. Down under, they have just finished moving most of their forces to the Northern Territory/Far North Queensland. Why? Because that is the most tactically sound place for them to be in case of an attack from the north.

3. The Aussie's have a real enemy.

Australia is the only real western democracy in a part of the world without real democracies. Indonesia, Malaysia, and China all could pose a legitimate threat to their nation at some point in the near future. Aussies know this and plan for it.

Canada on the other hand, has none of this. We are not really threatened, and we know it. We all know if it comes down to it, the US will defend us. That causes us, as a nation to neglect defence issues, while shunning the US who really provide security for us. Our military is used as a massive social welfare project for Quebec and other underdeveloped regions.

4. The Aussies aren't afraid of the concept of "elite forces." In fact, they encourage them.

The Aussies have shrunk the size of their regular infantry/armour/arty units over the past few years and built up units like 4 RAR Commando, 3 RAR Para and SAS. They have come to the realization that today's battlefield has very little need for legions of infantry, but a desparate need for speical forces. In Canada, we haven't figured that out. We have the JTF2, and can't even staff them properly.

We send Pats over to Afghanistan to wander around the mountains and find nothing, while our media criticize our snipers for dropping a few Jihadi's and winning bronze stars for it.

Guys, maybe I'm way off the mark, but I don't think this is best place to be a soldier.

Matt.

 

[enfield]

Or the alternative view...

The Aus Army has a significantly lower deployment rate than we do - sure, they sent the SASR to Afghanistan. We sent JTF2, and then a Light Inf Battle Group, and then backed that up with several large rotations in Kabul, including commanding ISAF. While Australia committed a number of policing missions to the Pacific region in the past decade, we've contributed large task forces to several significant theatres. As a Canadian citizen and a Canadian soldier I think thats something to be proud of. 

Canada today is one the world's most fiscally responsible and financially sound countries, and in many ways has been ahead of Australia in economic management. Unfortunately, Ottawa places Quebec advertising firms above the military, so we didn't see much of it. 

Yes, Australia buys off the shelf US equipment, but that is part of an increasingly unpopular pro-American policy. I think Canada has made some defence industry successes - we sell Australia LAVs, the Diemaco weapons lines are extremely popular, Clothe the Soldier has (overall) produced a top-notch line of personal equipment, and despite the publicity of our subs, they represent an overall gain, and still have had fewer bugs and problems than the Aussie Collins-class boats.

There are pros and cons to both forces, and I see a lot of great things going on Down Under, but I'm not willing to sell short the CF.  Australia has a lot of things that I wish Canada had, and a lot of policies I wish we could adopt. But Australia has had a much more aggressive foreign policy since 1945, and that has everything to do with their northern neighbours. 600 million potentially hostile Muslims in an unstable country sitting just off the coast are an awful good incentive to buy cool gear. At the end of the day, Canada has a few things to learn from Australia about running a military on a shoestring.

Moving the Aussie forces to the NT and North Queensland is in many cases akin to moving our guys to Shilo, except that area of Manitoba is overpopulated compared to the NT  ;D

LawnDart- out of curiosity, how did you find your way into the Aussie forces? Dual citizenship?

 

[LawnDart]

Enfield, You've obviously looked into some of these things. In fact, I think the only thing I'd really disagree with is your Shilo comment. C'mon, that was nothing more than blatant patronage. Troopies in Townsville and Darwin make alot more sense than Shilo. When you consider families and administrative issues, there is really no reason why all Canadian troops shouldn't be stationed in decent urban centres. Aussies have an argument for sending the guys out bush. We don't.

That said, Aussies as a public still seem to understand that the army is there to fight. In Canada, the brass has done nothing to discourage this image that the ideal of a soldier is a fat chick wearing a blue beret driving the POL truck in the Golan Heights.

Regardless, you make some good points.

 

[Conway]

I read an interesting blurb in the paper today, saying that ND HQ had just published a paper finding that Canadian recruits were on average "lacking life goals" and "had a tendency to lean towards violence as a way of solving problems."   Now I totally do not agree with the life goals comment, but isn't the basic nature of a military to use as much violent force as it is deemed necessary to protect the sovereignty of the nation?   Seems to me that the liberalism in this country has gone off the deep end right into the shark tank.

 

[pbi]

They have come to the realization that today's battlefield has very little need for legions of infantry, but a desparate need for speical forces.

I'm sure the US Army would disagree with you on this statement. Based on what I saw and heard in the last six months in a US
CJTF HQ in Afghanistan (and what I have read and heard about from Iraq) the US Army (and the Marines) would both say that while the role of SF and SOC forces has grown hugely, there is also a crying need for good quality infantry and lots of it. In fact, the US Army has had to dismount/convert various other types of units in order to give itself the boots on the ground that it needs.

Cheers

 

[ArmyRick]

I think Lawndart has very valid points.

Canada fiscally responsible? Right. Disagree.

Legions of infantry are needed. Just look at the US troops in Iraq, its the grunts they lose most of in their operations.

 

[30 for 30]

Well, to be fair, eight consecutive balanced budgets can be considered "fiscally responsible". But I suppose a record of questionable procurement choices could certainly be deemed irresponsible. 

 

[CBH99]

I would agree with LawnDart, that "legions of infantry" are no longer needed.

True, light and mechanized battalions are still required for peacekeeping and peace support operations, and to maintain a conventional warfighting capability.  However, SOC forces are being utilized more and more on the modern battlefield, as the complex geopolitical nature of current conflict demands a more structured, specialized approach to some of the world's problems.

Battalions and brigades are still needed, to an extent.  As I mentioned above, peacekeeping, peace support, and conventional warfighting capabilities must be maintained, because they are still very relevent and extensively used.  However, the only country in the world that seems to use "legions" of infantry frequently is the US.  The US requires legions of infantry due to its position as the world's only official superpower, and to carry out its aggressive, stringent foreign policy goals. 

Countries such as Canada and Australia are different though.  Although both countries have foreign policies (Canada's won't be clear until the foreign policy and defense review is completed and published) - they are starkly different than those of the US.  Canada doesn't need to militarily confront several nations in the Middle-East to secure oil supplies, nor are we trying to impose capitalism and democracy on an entire continent.  Australia has its hands full of potential conflicts, being the regional power of the south Pacific.  Special forces, SOC forces, combined with highly mobile, yet extremely lethal forces, are the way to go for middle powers such as us and the Aussies.

When was the last time Canada deployed more than one battlegroup to a theater of operations?  I'd have to say Kosovo - when KFOR and SFOR were working in very close proximity to each other (In terms of geography).  When was the last time the US deployed more than a battlegroup sized force to a theater of operations?  You name it.

I agree with points on both sides, however, I agree that the Aussies have it right.  Special forces, SOC forces, with highly deployable, highly mobile, highly lethal forces, is the way to go.  We don't need legions of infantry for foreign policy goals such as ours or the Aussies; what we do need are forces than can adapt to a wide variety of missions, and carry them out competently.

 

[ArmyRick]

I am going to change an earlier staement of mine.

I agree with the above post as to where we should be aiming a bit more for (like the aussies).

We would need legions of infantry if we were fighting in places like Iraq with high casualty rate.

 

[COBRA-6]

I think there's a danger in trying to tailor a military force to the type of conflict occuring at that time. Due to the random and varied nature of wars that pop-up around the world, I think it is an absolute necessity to have a wide mix of forces so that the apropriate type of troops are availible when needed. Just look at some of the recent conflicts: IRAQ I & II - heavy armour, AFGHANISTAN - light infantry, BALKANS - a mix, WAR ON TERROR - SF...

If we ignore one of these areas then we leave ourselves open and vulnerable, wars spring up much faster then militaries can adapt to them... just my 2 cents!

Cheers!

 

[a_majoor]

This basically follows from Donald Rumsfeld's comment "You fight the war with the Army you have".

SOF forces and legions of Infantry and BMD and submarines are all complimentary components of defense, each by themselves are only marginally useful, but a proper mix of capabilities means you can adapt to unexpected threats. The United States understands this; they may be pushing "cooks and clerks" out the door and into combat roles, but they are also spending truckloads of money of a new class of nuclear submarine (lead vessel USS Virginia), maintaining the world's only global fleet of heavy bombers and working the bugs out of non nuclear BMD (if they were to throw up their hands and say "the hell with it", they could mount small nuclear warheads on the interceptor rockets and have a working BMD system by about tomorrow at lunchtime).

Australia has fewer resources than the United States, but is using them to effectively gain as wide a spectrum of capabilities as is possible.

I read recently that if the CDS was unconstrained in making purchasing decisions, it would effectively increase our spending resources by @ 20%, so the comments on using DND as regional pork troughs is a pretty fair comment. As for fiscally responsible, the "surplus" has been gained not through spending restraint but rather by unrestricted growth in taxation, with all the attendant side effects that brings. I would also suggest that revelations of things like "ADSCAM" or the true costs of the Gun Registry, or the fact the Auditor General cannot get a straight answer on many government programs might mean (and remember this is speculation) we are actually being treated to an ENRON type accounting scandal which is only rivalled in sheer size by the UN "Oil for Food" fiasco ($15-21 billion dollars diverted, the largest financial scandal in history).

 

[Acorn]

I think Mike makes a good point. W hile I agree in part with LawnDart, I think the "legions of infantry" comment is a bit misplaced, mainly because we do not have, and haven't had since WWII, "legions." We currently have 9 battlions, three of which are light (and hopefully heading towards true light forces, rather than "equipment deficient" infantry. Everything I've heard indicates they are.)

LawnDart, you may be concerned about being banned, but my guess is that you have been more diplomatic than you think. Your arguments make sense, and you don't go out of your way to piss people off (not yet, as far as I've seen). I wouldn't worry.

In any case, I see far too much of "fighting the last war" which I think is what Mike alluded to. The only reason the CF and Canadian Army are seeking "niche" roles is due to under-funding and lack of political support. It distresses me that many of our leaders are buying into this, probably with the idea that they have to make the best of a bad situation. Canada is capable of building (as it has deteriorated enough that it will need building) a multi-purpose combat capable force as laid down in the '93 White Paper.

The Australians are living in a different geo-political reality, and have much more immediate threats (not so much Indonesia invading militarily, but a threat of instability in neighbours that could cause major migrations). As a result they tailor their forces to their needs. Wher Canada falls on her collective ass is an inability to define international needs. Much of that seems obvious to those of us who post here, but it really isn't so obvious to the average Canadian, and our "natural governing party" doesn't seek to lead, it seeks to run to the head of the masses and say "follow me" once the direction is clear. As a result, they neglect those things that they truly are responsible for: defence and foreign policy; and they emphasise the things that "Canadians Want" like health care (despite the fact that Canadian Health Care is among the least efficient in the developed world).

Anyway, one hopes recent developments in Defence and Foreign policy are positive, but I hope you'll forgive me if I ask them to "show me the money" beyond Throne Speech promises.

We'll see.

Acorn

 

[ArmyRick]

Acorn, well said, and right on the money !