

The Australian Military
#1
Posted 28 April 2003 - 01:50 AM
The present (late 2001) Australian Army is 24,100 strong, including 2600 hundred women, with some 12,000 personnel available to the combat units. It is currently in the process of a considerable investment program to provide the mobility, logistics, and aviation support necessary to produce a readily deployable force capable of operating throughout much of Southeast Asia.
Combat units include
I armoured regiment(integrated into the Ist Integrated task Force, the trials unit of the new rapidly deployable forces)
2 armoured reconnaissance regiments(1 integrated)
1 special Air Service(SAS) regiment
6 infantry battalion(2 integrated)
1 Commando Regiment(integrated)
2 independent armoured personnel carrier squadrons(1 integrated)
1 medium artillery regiment
2 field artillery regiments(1 integrated)
1 air defence regiment(integrated)
3 combat engineer regiments(1 intergated)
2 aviation regiments
These forces are equipped with 71 Leopard 1A3 main battle tanks, 111 LAV-25s, 463 M113 armoured personnel carriers, 296 81mm mortors, 577 84mm Carl Gustav antitank launchers, 74 106mm M40A1 recoilless rifles, 246 M2A2 105mm towed guns, 104 105mm Hamel towed guns, 35 155mm M198 towed guns, 19 Rapier towed surface to air missile launchers and 17 RBS-70 laser-guided manportable surface to air missile launchers.
They are supported by a large avaiation component with 25 UH-1H armed transport helicopters, 35 S70(same family as American UH-60 Black Hawk) transport helicopters, 40 B206 B1(modified Bell Jetranger) scout helicopters, 17 AS350B Squirel liason helicopters and 6 CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters
The Australian Army has bought the Franco-German Tigre attack helicopter for delivery from 2006 onward.
The Australian Navy had(as of 2001) approximately 13,400 active personnel, 6500 reserves of whom 3000 are female. It also employs some 5000 civilians. The Royal Australian navy uses US equipement and systems on its US built warships and Brtish weapons and systems on its older warships, although some ships have been fitted with Dutch sensors.
In service are
6 Collins class diesel-electric submarines
1 Charles F Adams class destroyer
6 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates
6(plus 2 under construction) ANZAC(MEKO 200) class frigates
15 Freemantl class patrol craft
6 Huon class minehunters
2 Bay class inshore minehunters
6 auxilary minesweepers
2 Ex US Newport class landing ships
1 Bedievre class heavy landing ship
6 Balikpapan class heavy ulity landing craft
4 LCVP
2 underway replenishment ships(French Durance class and British Appleleaf class)
also in service are:
16 SH-60B Seahawk ASW helicopters
11 SH-2G Super Sea Sprite ASW helicopters
8 Sea King helicopters(now used for utility work)
6 AS350B Squrriel ultility helicopters
3 bELL 206b utility helicopters
The Australian Air Force has
75 F/A-18A/B Hornets(of which 71 are being extensively modernized beginning in march of 2002 with a new AN/APG-73 radar, new radios, mapping systems and a helmet mounted sight as well as upgrades to the electronic warfare systems including new radar warning recievers.)
16 F-111Cs, 4 RF-111Cs and 7F-111G fighter-bomber/strike aircraft with another 7 F-111Gs in storage(These are heavily upgraded F-111s capable of launching Harpoon antiship missle, Pavway series of laserguided bombs and the new AGM-142 Popeye standoff missile)
19 P-3C maritime patrol aircraft(they were extensively upgraded from 1996-2001 with new sensors, GPS and the Harpoon antiship missile)
4 Boeing 707-338C Tanker/transports
Australia has become a member of the JSF program with an order for 100 and a comittment of 300 million Australian dollars to the program.
Australian army personnel are currently in Papua New Guinea( in support of the national government against insurrection and as peacekeepers on Bougainville), Malaysia(joint manuvers), Fiji(in support of national government), Solomon Islands(peacekeeping role since 1999), Thailand(joint manuveurs), Vanuatu, Tonga, Western Samoa, and Kiribati.
Thier peacekeeping operations also include troops in Egypt monitoring the Sinai, and the UNTEAT(United Nations Administration-East Timor) since 1999 with the 1st Royal Australian Regiment
— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5
#2
Posted 28 April 2003 - 08:40 AM
Would it be possible for you to provide a bit more context and comparison? I'm not familiar with militaries and weapons of war, and many of the specific names of weapons and such mean nothing to me, so could you perhaps use the nations you're analysing to form a basis of comparison with one another? Perhaps indicate if Australia's tanks are superior to Canadian tanks, if Australia is getting a better value for its investment in its military than Canada is, who would win a hypothetical war, and the like. Any analysis would be very helpful!! Thanks, and I'm looking forward to the rest of your series.
Aric
#3
Posted 28 April 2003 - 07:06 PM
For those of us who don't know military tech as well as others (and I only know a little bit myself), could you put these threads into perspective? How does Austaria's force compare with the US's?
Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease. THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.
"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.
#4
Posted 28 April 2003 - 08:41 PM
The F/A-18A/Bs of both Australia and Canada are being upgraded to the same standard, which will place them about even with the early version of the American F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" in most respects except for thier shorter range. The Australian military is more deployable than the Canadian military, and has a vastly better strike capbility with its F-111s.
Thier navies are roughly compreable although the Ozzies have significantly better ability to move amphibous troops and better minesweeping ships. They also don't have the horrendous problems with thier Collins class submarines that the Canadians have had with thier Upholders.
I'd say the Australians could win against the Canadians because they actually have the ability to reach Canada with a significant force of troops while the Canadians would have to charter ships or rely entirely on airbourne fueled aircraft.
As for the US, Australia is about a generation behind the US in technology and capability but then so is most of the developed world except for Japan. Both the US and Australia use F/A-18s, P-3Cs, Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates and have a host of other weapon systems in common. Most current Australian equipment is of American origin, with some French, German and British systems mixed in. The Ozzies are good soldiers with well maintained equipment and a lot of experience. Thier Special Air Service has some of the best soldiers of its type in the world.
— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5
#5
Posted 28 April 2003 - 11:28 PM
Javert Rovinski, on Apr 28 2003, 04:56 PM, said:
Quote
USN:
Personnel:
Active Duty:
-381,523
- Officers: 54,533
- Enlisted: 322,801
Reserve: 154,366
- Selected Reserves: 86,683
- Individual Ready Reserve: 67,683
Personnel Deployed: 75,554
Ships:
Active: 301 Vessels*
Carriers:
- 7 Deployed
- 2 working up
- 3 Maintenance
- 1 to be Commissioned Summer 03 (Ronald Reagan)
Cruisers:
- 27 (Ticonderoga Class)
Destroyers:
- 39+- Arleigh Burke Destroyers
- 11 Spruance Destroyers
Frigates:
- 30 Perry Class
Boomers:
- 14 Ohios
SSGN
- 4 Ohios to undergo SSGN conversions with 2 underway now
Fast Attack:
- 3 Seawolf Class
- 51 Los Angeles Class
- 1 Sturgeon Class (SSN 683 Parche still around?)
Aircraft:
Operational: 4,000+
*Note this includes noncombatants.
USAF: (Not listing AWACs, support aircraft, ANG, or rotary wing)
Active:
Fighter:
F-15 Eagle: 396
F-15E Strike Eagle: 217
F-16 Fighting Falcon: 735
F/A-22 Raptors: 8(?)
Heavy Bomber:
B-1B Lancer: 72
B-2 Spirit: 21
B-52 Stratofortress: 85
Attack/Strike:
A-10: 143
OA-10: 70
AC-130H: 8
AC-130U: 13
F-117A Nighthawk: 55
Recon:
U-2s: 37
Army:
10 Active Combat Divisions:
1st Cavalry Division
3rd Infantry Division
82nd Airborne Division
101st Airborne Division
2nd Infantry Division
1st Infantry Division
1st Armored Division
4th Infantry Division
10th Mountain Division
25th Infantry Division
To give some idea of size 1st Cav Division is around 16,000 soldiers.
I didn’t cover the Marines and some of this information is a tad dated since I tossed it together quick.
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE
#6
Posted 28 April 2003 - 11:43 PM
Quote
I'd say the Australians could win against the Canadians because they actually have the ability to reach Canada with a significant force of troops while the Canadians would have to charter ships or rely entirely on airborne fueled aircraft.
Does Canada even have their own aerial tankers because I’m not aware of any? As far as I know I’m not aware of any. I can see the USAF getting the following call; “Hey guys can you loan us some aerial tanker for our attack on Australia?” I agree that Australia has the edge in terms of military power but I would have to say not even Australia has the ability to carry out a successful invasion of the other. The distance is too far Australian Forces to project a significant amount of their military power that distance. They might be able to hit Canada with a few long distance airstrikes but nothing on a large scale and the CF-18s would rip them apart.
They would really need basing rights in the area plus heavy bombers or significant amount of carrier borne aircraft.
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE
#7
Posted 28 April 2003 - 11:43 PM
Zack
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
#8
Posted 28 April 2003 - 11:51 PM
MuseZack, on Apr 28 2003, 09:33 PM, said:
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE
#9
Posted 29 April 2003 - 12:31 AM
As for the comparison, I just responded to the calls for more analysis and comparing them by population and rescource allocation was the first thing that came to mind.
I think the Australians might be able to land a battalion of reinforced infantry at the range of Canada if they made an allout effort with everything they have although they'd only be supported by helicopters and F-111s operating at pretty much as far as they want to push them in terms of air cover. Considering how low the Canadians readiness is though they might be able to take an island in the Queen Charlotes and hold it like the Japanese did those two Aleutian Islands in World War 2. It would be interesting though. What kind of standoff weapons do the Canadians have for thier F/A-18s anyway? I haven't been able to find a lot about that. My thought about the F/A-18s was that if the Perry's were used right with the other ships serving as picket ships it's Standards would pickoff the F/A-18s and function as a kind of aircover.
— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5
#10
Posted 29 April 2003 - 01:45 AM
tennyson, on Apr 28 2003, 10:21 PM, said:
Good point on taking an island and then using it as a basing point. They might just be able to hold it and neutralize the Canadian Navy/AirForce before jumping to the mainland.
Edited by CJ AEGIS, 29 April 2003 - 01:49 AM.
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE
#11
Posted 29 April 2003 - 08:43 AM
Even if Aussies are able to land troops on Western British Columbia? Where would they go? That area is sheer mountain country and logistic problems would be huge. They'd probably get lost and get ambushed or something.

-Motto of Imperial Space Marines
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides
#12
Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:35 AM

Not only that, but as EvilTree said, the terrain isn't ideal. I just don't think that be the most ideal place to invade from... Try PEI on the East coast, they have a bridge (The Confederation Bridge and I'm happy I actually remember the name of it


mystic
Jon Stewart
My Flickr
#13
Posted 29 April 2003 - 10:45 AM
I'm not surprised that Australia has a better equipped military, aside from the points Zack and CJ Aegis made, there's the fact that Australian defence spending is a third higher than Canadian spending, and twice Canadian spending in terms of percentage of GDP. Even with the new increases in military funding in this year's budget, our military spending is still extremely low, and it's barely even keeping pace with our GDP growth. We might soon be spending less than 1.0% of GDP on defence.
Aric
#14
Posted 29 April 2003 - 08:00 PM
And this is a country with 70 general officers. I still haven't figured out what they do exactly yet, except for few.
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides
#15
Posted 29 April 2003 - 11:02 PM
— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5
#16
Posted 29 April 2003 - 11:25 PM
Just from Vancouver area, the army can raise 3 infantry companys, a battery of artillery and a squadron of engineers and at least a troop of light armour units and can expect to meet substiantial resistance.
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides
#17
Posted 30 April 2003 - 12:37 AM
Quote
It does have potential both the Perth and the Perry’s have descent air defenses. Even if the CF-18s had the Mavericks they would still be slightly outranged by SM-1MRs of the naval vessels. As of a year ago I’m not aware of them having made any move to replenish their depleted Maverick stock. Now taking them on with iron bombs or even laser guided bombs would be another suicidal proposition and again as far as I know the stocks of those weapons were run dry too. Trying to strafe a Perry with the cannon isn’t exactly a good way to live long so let’s rule that out.
So it would be the Canadian Navy versus the Australian Navy. That would be an interesting battle.
Quote
In regards to artillery the last time I knew Canada’s stocks of artillery shells was down to less than 5,000 shells in the entire country. That isn’t a very large stock to have if you are in a shooting war when it is dispersed around the entire country.
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE
#18
Posted 30 April 2003 - 12:40 AM
If the Australians can beat the deployed navel forces the landing ships have with them, on the Newport 450 troops, 4 S-70 transport helicopters, 2000 tons of cargo, 2 landing craft, 2 LARC-5 amphibous wheeled vehicles and a 90 bed medical facility and the Bedivere can carry 2 Sea King or other similar size helicopters, 300-500 troops, Leopard tanks and other military vehicles to a total of 1300 tons of cargo, as well as two LCVP landing craft and two LCM-8 landing craft on deck. They could also swapout the SH-60Bs on the Perry's for S-70s since the ASW threat is not that pressing to provide more troop lift.
— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5
#19
Posted 30 April 2003 - 01:13 AM
— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5
#20
Posted 30 April 2003 - 04:11 AM
There is also a brigade ex going on in Wainwright that is soaking up a lot of training funds... Supposedly have good portion of live fire stuff.
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, Australian Military, Tennyson's Militaries, 2003
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
Manning refused hormone therapy by militaryStarted by Guest-Cait-Guest , 22 Aug 2013 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
||
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
Treason, whistleblowing, Manning,Started by Guest-offworlder-Guest , 01 Jun 2013 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
||
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
victim out, assaulters promoted,army,Started by Guest-offworlder-Guest , 30 Sep 2012 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
||
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
Sweeping policy change=Draft???Started by Guest-Cait-Guest , 05 Nov 2006 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
||
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
Military suicides up, PTSDers sent back into combatStarted by Guest-Nonny-Guest , 14 May 2006 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users