Australia becomes the world's sixth-largest arms importer. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Australian arms imports and spending on military equipment have surged in line with ambitious targets to update the armed forces’ fleet of fighter jets, submarines, frigates and armoured vehicles. But defence analysts remain sceptical the weapons updates outlined in the 2009 defence white paper can be paid for, suggesting at least one of the projects will need to be scaled back or scrapped. [QUOTE][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FEuI5PJ.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Australia’s transfers in the period included two of the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, of which a further 58 were ordered last year at a cost of $12.4bn. The first jets will arrive in Australia in 2018, with the fleet expected to total 72 by 2022. About 68% of Australia’s arms imports were from the US, with 19% from Spain, from which Australia is sourcing two new amphibious assault ships. Source: [url]http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/03/australias-arms-imports-surge-after-costly[/url] There's a lot more data/information in the source article.[/QUOTE] It feels like this happened overnight..

Gotta stop them boats

The Liberal Party's "Abbott" Battalions are hunting those boats as we speak.

you fools, you let them take yer guns, now they're building up the army to take over! or austrailians don't build any of their own military equipment

[QUOTE=Sableye;47453494]or austrailians don't build any of their own military equipment[/QUOTE] Mmm, those Japanese subs. The navy better scrub up on their reading skills!

Who knew buying fancy new planes which don't work could cost so much?

[QUOTE=Sableye;47453494]you fools, you let them take yer guns, now they're building up the army to take over! or austrailians don't build any of their own military equipment[/QUOTE] Australia does manufacture some of its own military equipment such as: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLAV]ASLAV[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Protected_Mobility_Vehicle]Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG#Australian]Steyr AUG[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_grenade_(Australia)] F1 Grenades[/url]. But Australia does import a majority of its weaponry and equipment is uses from the US, UK, Germany, France and Sweden. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponry_of_the_Australian_Army]List[/url] of weaponry used by the Australian army.

Not surprising. Most nations with well financed militaries like us have their own arms industries. We don't so we have to import nearly everything.

For some reason, I didn't expect China to be so high on that list. Figured they would build all their own stuff.

Australia has always been high on that list. Why make arms locally when you can always just import it for cheap

[QUOTE=Big Johnson;47453859]Australia has always been high on that list. Why make arms locally when you can always just import it for cheap[/QUOTE] Because you can't import them for cheap. The Australian Defence Force is very expensive for its size. Most other G20 nations develop their own military gear and then offset the development costs by selling many internationally. [editline]4th April 2015[/editline] For example: The ADF has 57k full time personnel and 23k part time personnel for a cost of AUS$29.3b The Canadian Armed Forces 68k full time personnel and 35k reserve (including Rangers whatever they are) for a cost of CAN$20b or AUS$21b The British Armed Forces had 157k full time personnel and 75k reserve, plus 250 strategic nuclear weapons and their launchers, for £38b or AUS$74b The ADF is really damn expensive for a military.

[QUOTE=download;47454237]Because you can't import them for cheap. The Australian Defence Force is very expensive for its size. Most other G20 nations develop their own military gear and then offset the development costs by selling many internationally. [editline]4th April 2015[/editline] For example: The ADF has 57k full time personnel and 23k part time personnel for a cost of AUS$29.3b The Canadian Armed Forces 68k full time personnel and 35k reserve (including Rangers whatever they are) for a cost of CAN$20b or AUS$21b The British Armed Forces had 157k full time personnel and 75k reserve, plus 250 strategic nuclear weapons and their launchers, for £38b or AUS$74b The ADF is really damn expensive for a military.[/QUOTE] Going off of exchange rates alone is naive. Our dollar has a lower purchasing power compared to currencies in many other developed countries. For example, a loaf of bread may sell for $2.50AUD in Australia and $2.00AUD in Canada (after conversion from Canadian dollars), which would appear to indicate Australia as being more-expensive, but that loaf of bread may represent 1% of the median wage in Australia and 2% of the median wage in Canada. Hence Australia actually being better off.

Purchasing power doesn't matter much for things that can easily be exported.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47454329]Going off of exchange rates alone is naive. Our dollar has a lower purchasing power compared to currencies in many other developed countries. For example, a loaf of bread may sell for $2.50AUD in Australia and $2.00AUD in Canada (after conversion from Canadian dollars), which would appear to indicate Australia as being more-expensive, but that loaf of bread may represent 1% of the median wage in Australia and 2% of the median wage in Canada. Hence Australia actually being better off.[/QUOTE] Well the minimum hourly wage in Aus is something like $20-ish or so, whereas in Canada the highest minimum is $11 ($11.54 AUD) in Ontario. Incidentally, the cost of a loaf of bread is on average $2.73 AUD in Toronto, whereas it's $2.77AUD in Sydney. However, I'm fairly sure we pay much less for luxury items in Canada due to the low cost of importation.

Only reason were so high is because of that stupid plan with the F-35's. We do not need a multi role jet that can take off from converted military ships, they serve literally no purpose due to the size of the waters our ships patrol plus the amount of logistics that would be needed to run something like that is absurd. You could just use something that actually works from an airfield and it would do just as well, these aren't prop planes, jets actually go fast.

Tony Abbott's official stance on the matter: [video=youtube;9dkENBLOgUM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dkENBLOgUM[/video]

India spends so much, yet its still pretty terrible, compared to the other nations.

[QUOTE=archival;47454408]Only reason were so high is because of that stupid plan with the F-35's. We do not need a multi role jet that can take off from converted military ships, they serve literally no purpose due to the size of the waters our ships patrol plus the amount of logistics that would be needed to run something like that is absurd. You could just use something that actually works from an airfield and it would do just as well, these aren't prop planes, jets actually go fast.[/QUOTE] Not all F-35s are designed to be launched from ships. Even then, I'm pretty sure our current F-18s can be catapult launched from carriers except we don't have any carriers. Being able to be launched from ships is not why we are buying them, if that was the main criteria we would have bought Harriers a long time ago. Plus if anything, F-35s as a multirole jet would simplify logistics which would be a plus. Except I think the only thing they would effectively replace would be our current multirole F-18s, but we can't hold onto those forever. And these will last till what, like 2070? It is stupid though that we are ordering so many so soon when the government is trying to close their budget deficit, because it means they have to consider stupid things like taxes on bank deposits.

[QUOTE=archival;47454408]Only reason were so high is because of that stupid plan with the F-35's. We do not need a multi role jet that can take off from converted military ships, they serve literally no purpose due to the size of the waters our ships patrol plus the amount of logistics that would be needed to run something like that is absurd. You could just use something that actually works from an airfield and it would do just as well, these aren't prop planes, jets actually go fast.[/QUOTE] Technically, we could even use the retired F-111's to fill that role but as aforementioned they've already been retired. To be honest, it'd be nice if we used aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 not to mention even the very old F-5 (or F-20 prototype) to cover for our ASF needs. But ole' imperalistic sabre rattling (and diplomatic pressure from the USA) decides what we use, plus we have to worry about Russian-made Su-30MKK's being used by Indonesia and other SEA nations (and PRC with their copied J-11). I honestly think that our RAAF is becoming obsolete fast and might have to switch tactics from expensive high-maneuverability aircraft to average-maneuverability cheaper aircraft but in more vast numbers. last but not least, I swear we're climbing the ladder in terms of importing anything for profit rather than build it here at home.

Maybe if we stopped wasting money on "upgrading" the F88/F90 (steyr), buying helicopters that are useless in hot/dusty climates (ARH Tigers) and stupid issues (plastic floors breaking in MRH 90s) and bought weapons and aircraft that actually work we would save a bit of the moochala.