How militarily independant is Australia ?

[IamSpartacus]

For our Typhoon (Eurofighter) programme, the UK is developing the Meteor Air-Air missile for quite a few reasons, including so that we are not dependent upon Amerika's political pressues in our military supply chain or export sales as a weapons platform.

I remember reading a few years ago of an Australian defense review, and that after some one (1) week of WAR-RATE use of munitions by the RAAF the stores would be empty and thus the Aussies would have to go cap in hand to the USA for re-supply after 2-3 days of commencement of hostilities !!!. That means that the USA really has Oz by the balls. So for any serious kickoff between Australia and its neighbours you really need 100% Amerikan approval and support.

Besides ANZUS stuff, does this situation still hold with the RAAF and other service arms ?.

[banga]

one would hope that after one week our airbase up north would have done far more damage to indonesia that they to ours

[dwarfthrower]

Aren't you supposed to use three k's to spell America these days if you want to fit in with all the cool kids?

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Answer to your question: Its not.

[Nodbugger]

Well the American government doesn't produce very many of its own bullets either. They are mostly made by private companies.

[IamSpartacus]

Even bullets need export licences.

[dwarfthrower]

Actually Australia produces it's own munitions, from 5.56 and .50 cal rifle and machine gun rounds through to artillery rounds and 500lb and 2000lb airforce munitions. I did some consulting work at the plant that produces most of them and saw them being made.

[AntZ]

Not to mention the sheer amount of weapon and ammo bunkers we have around the place, we could survive off of them for years. Seriously, just the munitions in one place in Adelaide could outfit our entire city for war for a year.

[beowulf437]

About 90% of US goverment small arms munitions come from the goverment owned Lake City Munitions plant in Missouri, that's 1.2 billion rounds of 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and .50cal per year. The capacity of the plant is 2 billion rounds per year. About 5% comes from Olin Brass in Illinois. The rest is made at smaller goverment amouries and Isreali Military Industries.

In order to train a division sized unit (16,000) through basic (10 weeks) it requires about 6.5 million rounds of 5.56mm ammunition. Additional schools such as Infantry, MP, Engineer, Armour, Airborne, and Ranger require additional hundreds if not thousands of rounds of 5.56, 7.62 and .50cal.

Now combat is a totally different situation. A Corps is the smallest tactical unit for pratical extended combat operation, about 35,000 men, of which about 20% will actually be in combat units, about 7000 men. In a light combat situation each of these men can be expected to expend between 120 and 180 rounds per day each, thats between 840,000 and 1,260,000 rounds per day of just 5.56mm ammuniton. In a 1 hour fire fight a platoon machine gun section armed with a FN Mag58 (a M240 in the US) could conceivably use 7,200 rounds of ammunition. So in 60 days of combat a corps sized unit will expend a minimum of 50 million rounds of 5.56mm and 75 million rounds of 7.62mm.

[IamSpartacus]

Fuck, that's a lot. That must mean that it takes 1,200 bullets fires to kill a single insurgent (assuming 6 kills per platoon per hour in a light combat situation).

Mid-2004, six (6) of our British Military Police were cornered and killed in Basra ... and they went out on patrol with only 20 rounds each.

There seems to be somewhat of a 'firepower' diffference between the USA and Brits. Do the Aussies try and conserve ammo, or do they try and flatten everything ?.

[AntZ]

How many of those rounds are just wasted due to stupid procedures the US army follows such as "clear the surrounding area by having every man unload a few clips every morning into the surrounding underbrush".

[Symon_magus]

Who would you guys be getting into a war with in the first place? If you guys got into a war, the US would surely come and help out. We owe you guys for help in WWII, Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1 &2 and probably Afganistan (I can't remember if you guys sent troops over there or not). Not to mention the fact that the UK would become involved as well. I'm all for being nationally self sufficent as far as defense goes, but I think that you guys are pretty much covered. What kind of fight would Indonesia put up against you guys?
Besides, everyone knows that you always side with the Aussies in the event of an international bar fight (served me well during the Seattle riots)

[IamSpartacus]

And here's the Google Map of Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Independence, Jackson County, MO

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=independence,mo&ll=39.09583,-94.259863&spn=0.027977,0.067291&t=k&om=0

Now careful zGeekers, it's a NO SMOKING site.

[IamSpartacus]

No way Symon_Magnus.

You'll also find that the USA pulled the rug out from under our feet in the 1956 War (a.k.a. Suez Crisis, Suez War). In this scrap the UK, France were acting together and the US were cunts.

You'll find that the UK wisely avoided Vietnam; partly as retribution, and quite wisely too in hindsight.

[nrejones]

I think our goverment and ADF-HQ would not 'crisis manage' our ammunition supply. If a conflict arose we would have pretty good warning and make certain we had a good supply. Ammunition is not that difficult to manufacture.

our current defence policy does not anticipate any mass engagements or contacts with a large enemy force, the shift is toward counter terrorism.

[ezer]

yet at the same time, the only people who may ever invade us are basically indonesians, and as such we would face OVERWHELMING numbers.....

[nrejones]

Indonesia has enough enemies within its own borders to worry about. However if the Islamic fundamentalists in Indon ever managed to overthrow the government( and they would love nothing more than this) then we might face a different and more complex set of problems. This is why we need to co-operate and mollify with the rather objectionable Indon regime, better the devil you know than the one you don't.

[IamSpartacus]

Ammunition is one thang, but what of the more expensive munitions such as Air-Air missiles. Surely Oz does not make them and buys them in from the states. Ditto for spares for aircraft avionics, engine parts and the like.

So along Beowulf437's line of consumptions ... at full war usage rate of munitions & spares how long could the Army, Navy & Air Force survive ?.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

About 90% of US goverment small arms munitions come from the goverment owned Lake City Munitions plant in Missouri, that's 1.2 billion rounds of 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and .50cal per year.

Does this mean that someone shot by accident can sue the government for damages, since they made the implement which has caused the injury?

[banga]

geez they gotta run outa lead and brass one day youd think

[beowulf437]

In a tactical combat situation, bullets are cheap soldiers are not, volume of fire beats accuracy. Why do you think throughout the 19th and 20th centuries the move has been to increase the rate of fire for soldiers. A single shot .50cal Sharps breach loader from 1858 was about as accurate as most modern hunting rifles (accurate enough that they were amoung the first rifles to use telescopic sights), but in the US Civil War they were only issued to specialized snipers.

The weapons of armies have developed from single shot muzzle loaders to breach loaders to repeaters to full auto. Weapons such as the Gatling gun, machine gun, submachine gun and assault rifle were not developed to increase accuracy but to increase the volume of fire of the unit and the individual soldier.

Tactics have developed as well. In World War 1 infantry tactics had not developed much past those used by Napolean, which is what lead to the protracted stale mate and the horrible lose of life, 60,000 in the first hour of the Battle of the Somme. Modern infantry doctrine revolves around fire and manuever. Essentially this means one unit 'fixes' the enemy with fire power while another unit manuevers against it. The unit doing the 'fixing' is not so much trying to kill the enemy as trying to deliver so many bullets in his direction that he will not look up from his foxhole to see what is going on.

[psi_ko]

Ammunition is one thang, but what of the more expensive munitions such as Air-Air missiles. Surely Oz does not make them and buys them in from the states. Ditto for spares for aircraft avionics, engine parts and the like.


I would think that for any concievable military action that was to happen without support of the USA, our supply of air-air munitions would be sufficent for the period of any air-air engagments.

That is to say, we wouldnt be faced with a large air force, I would expect that the air war would be decided quickly, one way or another. I expect that if it was to turn out poorly for us it would be due to overwhelming numbers of enemy aircraft, not air-air munitions.

I do wonder about air-ground weapons, and spares for aircraft (Especially helicopter spares), ground craft and our supply of anti-tank weapons etc etc.

[Directed]

Australia is not militarily independent. That is true. Then again neither is France, Germany or Britain. Neither is Japan or South Korea. They have decided to create alliances to assist in defraying the cost of their defense, with the opinion that not only do they save money, they also are better protected. What would it cost for Australia to develop its own Air to Air missile system, and what benefit would they derive from that?

[asskickergod]

No way Symon_Magnus.

You'll also find that the USA pulled the rug out from under our feet in the 1956 War (a.k.a. Suez Crisis, Suez War). In this scrap the UK, France were acting together and the US were cunts.

You'll find that the UK wisely avoided Vietnam; partly as retribution, and quite wisely too in hindsight.

This might come as a shock to you but national politics are not the same now as they were in 1956.

[Symon_magus]

No way Symon_Magnus.

You'll also find that the USA pulled the rug out from under our feet in the 1956 War (a.k.a. Suez Crisis, Suez War). In this scrap the UK, France were acting together and the US were cunts.

You'll find that the UK wisely avoided Vietnam; partly as retribution, and quite wisely too in hindsight.

That is true, I'd forgotten about the Suez crisis. You are also right in that the UK wisely avoided Vietnam, but Australia didn't. According to surviving VC Vietnam vets, they were more scared of the Aussies than the US troops. My point is, who is Australia going to fight? Anyone that I can think that they could possibly get into a conflict with would probably also be in some sort of conflict with the US as well. The fact is that Australia and the US are and have been allies for a long time. If you guys got into a major conflict, it's likely that the US would gladly help (if not militarily then with weapons).

[Nodbugger]

No way Symon_Magnus.

You'll also find that the USA pulled the rug out from under our feet in the 1956 War (a.k.a. Suez Crisis, Suez War). In this scrap the UK, France were acting together and the US were cunts.

You'll find that the UK wisely avoided Vietnam; partly as retribution, and quite wisely too in hindsight.


I wonder why, what just happened that killed 33,000 American lives?

[Nodbugger]

Ammunition is one thang, but what of the more expensive munitions such as Air-Air missiles. Surely Oz does not make them and buys them in from the states. Ditto for spares for aircraft avionics, engine parts and the like.

So along Beowulf437's line of consumptions ... at full war usage rate of munitions & spares how long could the Army, Navy & Air Force survive ?.

And we buy parts from other countries.

[IamSpartacus]

Nod*, everyone hears of the American casualties ... but what of the 500 Aussies who died ?.

Extract from www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/
The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged. 58,226 American soldiers also died in the war or are missing in action. Australia lost almost 500 of the 47,000 troops they had deployed to Vietnam and New Zealand lost 38 soldiers.



Now considering these data www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html, that means in Vietnam (serving in theatre), 1 in 94 Aussies died, 1 in 58 Americans died.


In the latest Gulf crusade (inlcuding occupation) the USA has had (say) 300,000 troops in theatre and with 2400 casualties that works out as 1 in 115 deaths. That's pretty a good hit rate for the Iraqi resistance.

[IamSpartacus]

Now 4 million Vietnamese civvies for 58,000 Americans soldiers. That's a civilian population slaughter rate of 69:1

In the Gulf there are perhaps 40,000 civilian deaths for 2,400 American soldiers. That's a wopping improvement to 16:1.

So perhaps we should all be greatful that the Americans aren't as triggerhappy in the Gulf as they were in SouthEast Asia 30+ years ago, but it shows that all of that excess ammunition fired off still goes somehwere ... usually into some poor innocent bugger or his children.

[dwarfthrower]

Who would you guys be getting into a war with in the first place? If you guys got into a war, the US would surely come and help out. We owe you guys for help in WWII, Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1 &2 and probably Afganistan (I can't remember if you guys sent troops over there or not).
Yes we did, and there are still Australian special forces in Afghanistan. Aside from the Japanese occupation of New Guinea (which was part of Australian territory at the time) and the bombing of Darwin we've never had to fight a war on our own turf. Australia also has to thank the US for bailing us out in WWII as well... we'd pretty much overstretched in the European campaign and were struggling against the Japanese until the US came to the party in the South Pacific.

Not to mention the fact that the UK would become involved as well. I'm all for being nationally self sufficent as far as defense goes, but I think that you guys are pretty much covered. What kind of fight would Indonesia put up against you guys?
Australia's best tactical defence is distance and isolation. We'd see any potential attack comiing from miles off. As such, our defence forces aren't suited to a protracted land campaign, we're heavy on small, elite combat units, but low on regular grunt troops. Indonesia is the one that people worry about (if they worry at all) attacking us. But they'd be facing an uphill battle all the way with 3000 miles of desert to cross before hitting anything of strategic importance. They might be able to land thousands of troops in North Western Australia, but from there they'd be fucked, they simply don't have the long-range support available to them to make the distance. Then Jakarta would be hit with an air and sea campaign using Australian forces from the South and US forces from the North coming out of Guam. Not an inviting prospect even if they do have the weight of numbers.


Besides, everyone knows that you always side with the Aussies in the event of an international bar fight (served me well during the Seattle riots)
And if you can't find an Aussie, stick with the Irishmen.

[IamSpartacus]

If (say) Indonesia was hell bent on conquering Australia, wouldn't it be more prudent to take to a more convenient advantageous battleground such as the rest of New Guinea first. The non-hilly bits would be a nice expansion zone for Indonesia in the short term.

I'd expect Australia to defend her former dependancy and would make for a quite interesting scrap ... would be most atrophying for Australia.

As Oz is not under attack then the US would not need to help out under ANZUS ... and would avoid the area like the plague; leaving it to the Aussies and the UN.

[dwarfthrower]

As Oz is not under attack then the US would not need to help out under ANZUS ... and would avoid the area like the plague; leaving it to the Aussies and the UN.
If the US can invoke ANZUS to get us into Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm sure we could do the same for PNG.

Even so, PNG is not significantly closer to anything of strategic importance than Java. And instead of Deserts they'd be coming South through crocodile infested rainforests.