RNZAF UH-1H crash

[Bushranger 71]

Affordable defence spending

Hello Herkman; re your post #5.

I cannot abide the clamour for increased defence spending in Australia that is largely driven by a big lobby with associated vested interests. What is not being challenged by most analysts is the dysfunctional defence realm and multiple inappropriate hardware acquisitions, both generating huge waste of funding.

Relating any national expenditure to GDP is just accounting trickery because the cost of any government activity has to be funded from revenue. Consider the table (for Year 2010) at the following link: Comparison Defense Budgets & Military Spending Top Countries. Australia rated quite high compared with some other nations that have more active military commitments. US revenue for 2010 was $2.2trillion and about $700billion of defence related expenditure represented 31 percent of government income, which is a major reason for their parlous economic situation. They of course endeavour to coerce increased defence spending by other nations to help keep their powerful military-industrial complex ticking along and large European arms conglomerates act similarly.

Australia has just gone through a defence cost saving exercise where we no longer can do the job that is expected.

Have to disagree with you Mate. It is not the recent supposed cost-savings initiative that has debilitated ADF capabilities; that stems from mismanagement at political/Public Service/military levels. In my view, the defence realm cannot expect preferential treatment above many other competing national imperatives. Australian defence expenditure would be quite adequate if pegged at 7.5 percent of revenue and taxpayer funding just has to be better managed.

The tip of a very big iceberg is only just beginning to show for the ADF. The operating costs for much of the dubious merit hardware being acquired are going to soar compared with other platforms being unnecessarily shed. ADF and RNZAF Iroquois for example were readily deployable by C-130 for regional contingencies, were also very cost-effective with significant upgrade available for less than $2million per airframe. However, the hugely expensive (and relatively unproven) medium lift MRH-90 requires C-17 airlift and costs perhaps 5 times the Iroquois to operate per flying hour. Whether aircrew will be able to get adequate flying to maintain proficiency is another question.

This nonsense will only stop when we are involved in a major conflict.

Methinks worldwide economic stagnation is looming and Australia in particular will be appreciably affected, leaving the Federal Government no choice but to raise taxes. Under such circumstances, it seems unlikely that either of the major political parties would commit to increasing defence expenditure.