Aussie MRH-90

[Bushranger 71]

Australia's defence budget related to federal revenue

Hello Emergov;

So I actually agree with you Andu, there should be more money available to allow better sustainment - more hours - on all the ADF's fleets; RW, FW, Ships, tanks, subs, you name it. I don't agree with BR71's assertion that the ADF should redefine its capability requirements down to meet the current pitiful budget.

This news text attributable to the Prime Minister:

In her speech last month, Ms Gillard said spending on national security needed to be examined. "National security absorbs some 8 per cent of what the federal government spends on behalf of the Australian people, and the priorities for that expenditure should be defined," she said.

The shortcomings of DWP2009 and the capabilities planning it cemented are now being acknowledged more widely among the defence commentariat; although there are some like Major General Jim Molan (Ret'd) who thinks planning for a somewhat mythical futuristic Force 2030 structure is appropriate. He is of course ignoring how the very flawed Helicopter Strategic Master Plan has substantially weakened his own parent Corps capabilities (Army Aviation).

Defence cannot expect more funding considering the share of about 8 percent of national revenue it is presently receiving (approximately $24b of $300b) - see also this interesting table re how Australia really compares with the world for defence outlay: Comparison Defense Budgets & Military Spending Top Countries. It behoves the whole organisation, both Public Service and military, to become much more efficient in managing defence planning and the conduct of operations.

The reality is unit acquisition and support costs of replacement hardware are soaring so streamlining of force structures will be essential to remain within publicly acceptable budgeting. As I see it, it would be best to freeze all ongoing defence planning and then review whether it is more economical to retain and optimize some assets intended for disposal to enable some aspects of operations to be conducted more cost-effectively.

If present planning proceeds and higher operating costs become overriding, there will simply not be enough flying in some air functions for aircrew to maintain adequate skills. This will probably become starkly obvious when the real costs of operating Tiger and MRH90 crystallize.