Australian Military

How do they size up /k/?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Austrian
    Surprisingly well equipped on an individual level, considering they don't fricking do anything. They're like the exact opposite of Germany, who were first to jump on the GWOT bandwagon and yet barely updated their equipment in the intervening 20 years.
    >Australian
    They're okay. Supposedly some of the best paid infantry in the world, and their gear is pretty fancy, which is a dramatic change from 15 years ago when all their gear sucked. Did a lot with very little in Uruzgan after the Dutch left, holding down an area the size of Connecticut with only only a battalion.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Australia is the highest paid Army in the world, which is insane considering they did frick all through the GWOT except send one Battalion at a time for less than 10 years while their SAS committed war crimes. If you google image search Australian soldiers their kit is indistinguishable from Tier 1 Operators. They get PVS31s, high cut helmets with comtacs, JPC style plate carriers and gun belts with personal sidearms and crye cut uniforms, all in their special Australian multicam.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they did frick all through the GWOT except send one Battalion at a time for less than 10 years while their SAS committed war crimes
        cope and get thermo'd

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Individually the Australian standard infantry is at Tier 2/3 on par with US Rangers especially in small unit tactics, with greater initiative and autonomy because theyre mainly higher educated. Visiting units routinely smoked Opfor at NTC as they would seize any hint of opportunity rather than wait for orders.
        Let down by a poor command structure above Bn-level ops (as they don't really do even integrated Bde-level exercises as their army isn't big enough to form 2 sides) and piss-poor Logistics beyond their individual kit which is 1st class (again, because they don't put any assets or budget into Force-level Logistics except having multiple Higher HQs with no actual support troops or kit).
        Their political HQ level is also highly risk-averse and PR-driven, that's why they muzzled their infantry units and over-relied on sending out SF - as SF casualties were seen as more politically palatable at home than dead regular soldiers.
        Operationally, they rely on attaching to a US TF when deployed and borrowing/acquiring any major logistics items they need.
        Except for booze supplies - even in Afghan their SF could always obtain essential operational fluids somehow.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Australia is the highest paid Army in the world
        >Netherlands
        >34,000 men
        >17 billion USD
        And when you consider what assets the Dutch have (not much)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeahnah, individual soldier's pay Straya beats Clogwogs, and its way above Seppo shit pay.
          That's why there's so little large equipment beyond a few token Abrams and Boxers.
          Plus Straya has a ridiculous ratio of Brass to Footsoldiers (1 Colonel and 1 RSM for every 10 privates, I think we even beat Cambodia on the ratio) who are all on ridiculous wages doing frickall in HQs, so a lot of the Defence Budget goes on wages overall and expenses for the Brass

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Our population's too small to dick around with throwing bodies at problems, so we compensate by making sure we have every goddamn force multiplier we can buy.
        Tanks? Abrams, with top-tier modules, albeit without DU armour or ammunition, but tungsten does fine I reckon.
        Aircraft? F-35s, nearly a hundred of the frickers, along with a brace of Super Hornets and Growlers. Plus, our own brand of AWACS with the Wedgetail, which is so good that even the Americans genuinely considered picking it up, and I believe the British have ordered some. We also have a decent airborne logistics section, with modernised C-130-Js and C-17s.
        Our navy's growing and decently advanced, but it's a definite weak point considering how literally any potential enemy will be coming by sea. We have a pair of helicopter carriers, which confusingly have ramps because we bought the design from the Spanish, who have Harriers, and the ramps are apparently integrated into the hull, but the deck's also not able to cope with F-35B exhaust, so fixed-wing aviation's a total bust with the bloody things.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          53 Abrams non-DU
          Due to be replaced by 53 Upgraded Abrams, but we wont keep the old ones as spares or a reserve.
          Never deployed, that replaced the AS1 Leopards that never deployed and were stripped out to become range targets, that replaced the Centurions that deployed to Vietnam 50+ years ago... all in an Armoured Corps that now has more Colonels than it has Tanks, and has never actually shot an enemy tank with an RAAC tank.
          Nope, never, not even the Jap shit-tanks in WW2.
          >that's the prime example of ADF inertia and internal politics wasting the Budget on useless shiny toys
          We got an Armoured Corps in the 1930s because the UK Army did, trialled tanks until WW2, tried making the Sentinel 'dick-tank' locally, gave up, got lots of US M3 Grants... then went nowhere, but still wasted the next 80 years cycling through less and less numbers of more expensive and under-used tanks... just to keep up 'Corps Traditions', wear emu-feathers, and promote more officers to desk jobs in Canberra.

          The same with RAAF wanting 100 F35s so the whole air-force was Gen5 Stealth... when really they needed just one squadron for the initial stealth strike and SEAD, then follow-on squadrons that could actually carry a capable bombload... but, no, they wanted all "fighters" when their last dogfight was over Korea 70+ years ago...again, in an Air Command that has more Wing Commanders in Canberra than it has F35s.

          Ditto the RAN, it has more Admirals than it has boats, and not just warships - if every Admiral had to leave his cumfy desk and board a 'Flagship', they'd need every Tug, workboat and even RHIB.

          [Cont.]

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [Pt.2]
            ADF is about the equivalent size in units and types of equipment as a small-tier Nato like the Danish Armed Forces, but has an officer ratio worse than the whole US MIC and even every other 3rd-world Generalissimo military.
            And now they all have to wait at their desks until they're 60+ to get their pensions, but junior officers will discharge early and go get real jobs if they aren't offered promotions, so it's just got to keep getting bigger at the top.
            While there's an overall manning figure, so for every extra officer promoted the soldier number cap is reduced... and with soldier recruitment shortfalls... so pretty soon there'll be only enough soldiers left to bring the Brass their tea and cucumber sandwiches.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >And now they all have to wait at their desks until they're 60+ to get their pensions, but junior officers will discharge early and go get real jobs if they aren't offered promotions
              So there's actually a reverse-competency selection process in ADF HQ.
              Bright young kids still sign up for ADFA each year because it's the only Uni where you don't get a HECS debt plus a salary, then a year at RMC and you're an eager LT... but about 15 years later in your mid-30s you hit the decision-point.
              You've done all your 'adventure' postings as a platoon/Troop Commander and the dull admin positions as a Captain, and ahead of you is your last real 'active' posting as a Company/Squadron Commander...
              You either get out now, while young enough to get a stable well-paid middle-management job to support your missus and the young kids... or if you're too incompetent to risk doing that you decide to stay in, take the Command&Staff Course, and start sucking dick at a series of desk-jobs until you finally get to retire at 60-65.
              It used to be you could count on a DFRDB part-pension after 20 years to soften the financial risk of getting out early, and this kept the numbers cycling over to match the new LTs coming in, but now its just a standard Superannuation that locks you in... until you've built a 'career' as a highly-decorated 60yo Equity Diversity and Multi-Gendership Advisor to the GayDF's annual Mardi Gras Contingent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            F-35s are able to carry significant external bomb loads and were procured with this capability in mind. Why dick around with buying more 4th gen aircraft when the 5th gen stuff costs the same and gets more shit done?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              And here we see RAF 'Fighter Command' "logic"
              >F35s can carry some bombs too, but then they won't be stealth Gen5
              So why not just buy one Squadron of F35s, and a lot more Squadrons of less-expensive Gen4/4+...?
              >because we need lots of F35s so we can pretend we are going to lead the USAF in on the first-wave
              When the USAF already has their own first-wave squadrons of F35s, and then lots of Squadrons of Gen4s and other follow-on aircraft optimised to carry ordnance.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >less-expensive Gen4/4+
                name it

                >the USAF
                is salivating to replace every combat airframe it can with F-35 or NGAD, if only Lockmart would hurry up and unfrick TR3
                >lots of Squadrons of Gen4s and other follow-on aircraft
                legacy fleet, idiot
                >optimised to carry ordnance
                name a 4th gen fighter cheaper than the F-35 that can carry more ordnance, go on

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Anon when you have frickall airframes at the best of times, you need every single one to count as much as possible. The RAAF doesn't have the luxury of the numbers that something like the USAF has.
                Additionally, a single squadron of 5th gens would telegraph the frick out of where and when that threat can be expected. As many airframes as possible having that capability means it's as widespread and as available as possible. Harder to anticipate, harder to counter, as many chances to bring it to bare as possible.
                Additionally, VLO isn't an on/off. Even when carrying pylons and external stores, an F-35 is going to be a smaller radar signature than that same load being carried on a superbug or a strike eagle. Obviously far from ideal, but still superior.
                The RAAF is never going to win a numbers game and has never tried to. Even if it had the airframes it doesn't have the pilots, and even if it had the pilots it doesn't have the logistics capacity. Flexibility of limited airframes/pilots and as much overmatch as the budget allows is the only way to make it work. Going for the most advanced and capable multirole that best integrates with allies is absolutely the right move. It's why we got the bugs, the superbugs and now the F-35As.
                If they just wanted 'all fighters' the RAAF would've been made of Eagles since the 80's.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >53 Abrams non-DU
            >Due to be replaced by 53 Upgraded Abrams
            Actually it's 75 Abrams, along with a number of JAB's, ARV's and ABV's

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        we only send token forces to your homosexualy zog wars for Israel. you need to stop doing that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > while their SAS committed war crimes
        What, do you want us to install more seats in our helicopters? Jesus Christ...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Supposedly some of the best paid infantry in the world

      Australia is the highest paid Army in the world, which is insane considering they did frick all through the GWOT except send one Battalion at a time for less than 10 years while their SAS committed war crimes. If you google image search Australian soldiers their kit is indistinguishable from Tier 1 Operators. They get PVS31s, high cut helmets with comtacs, JPC style plate carriers and gun belts with personal sidearms and crye cut uniforms, all in their special Australian multicam.

      >Australia is the highest paid Army in the world, which is insane
      Australian wages are just insane generally and ADF salaries are often tax-free (usually if you're outside Aus and not guarding an embassy).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Surprisingly well equipped on an individual level
      lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > barely updated their equipment in the intervening 20 years.
      The objective of the last 20 years was to reduce the armed forces as much as possible. In the year 2000 the Bundeswehr had ~300k men in service. On the eve of the Russo-Ukrainian War it had shrunk to ~180k with the official goal to reach a sized of around 126k at some point this decade. The Bundeswehr was essentially supposed to be reduced to a peace keeping and anti-piracy force. Conventional warfare was considered a thing of the past.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That can be said about every nation in Europe, UK and France included.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Frogs and Bongs take part in combat missions though. Germans mostly drive patrols through the safest area or guard schools for girls. Don’t really need anything more than a 1990s kit for that.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Austrians are an even bigger joke than the Bundeswehr. Australians are on the same level as the US (delusional Australian morons will claim they are better, but I don't expect the butthurt ameripigs on /k/ will let them get away with it)

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nice guys. one of them taught my sister the viola.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      we taught her more than that lol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that's uncalled for, anon. she was 10.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          and? sounds ripe

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Overall on par for the average NATO contributor. Airforce is better, navy is a joke but well trained, army is ok, Their special forces aren't great, but they make up for it by being mad dogs. Their glowies are supposedly pretty good and the source of most Chinese counter-espionage arrests and deportations throughout the Five Eyes, but that's all just third-hand, so who knows.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Their glowies are supposedly pretty good and the source of most Chinese counter-espionage arrests and deportations throughout the Five Eyes
      sauce? even if it's "my mate's mate told me, swear on me ma"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A friend's sister works in industrial espionage in ASIO and knows about inter-agency cooperation with ASIS and Five Eyes. They have so many Xth-gen Chinese who went over during the 1800's or fled the communists, who have no connection with the CCP or modern China, that they can safely use them to honeypot MSS/PLA "businessmen" and go pretty much anywhere in the West and Asia.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          now that's using the ol noggin
          shades of the 442nd RCT

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Their glowies are supposedly pretty good
      not sure about the full-fat glowies but I can confirm that for the last 15 years they've gone to every cybersecurity university graduate class and hired anybody with half a fricking brain. literally every university, I knew people graduating a third-tier university in a smaller state and they had multiple people fly across the country and make offers to 10%+ of the class

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        When I finished up in the military in 2010 I did a stint in Sigs and it was extremely understaffed, poorly understood and in dire need of modernisation. So there was a bit of a whirlwind of getting a lot more money, people and equipment into the department, but mostly a cultural change to innovate and adapt to a whole new generation of security threats. Ultimately it wasn't my kind of long term job and didn't stay long but there was quite a few of us called in to run assessments on the place and write up some fairly hefty recommendations for improvement.
        Compared to when I was first in the army its become night and day really, but they had to spend some money on the military and I want to say East Timor was the reality cheque being cashed because they wanted to play wars, but realised they were not going to be able to do 21st century warfare with 1970's equipment, 1960's brains and some very fricking outdated doctrines. It was pretty bad in the 90's and that's being understated.

        Biggest changes are that apart from the modernisation, the local manufacturing and arms industry is being dragged kicking and screaming into being first world. Its costing a lot of money but there's a whole heap of new stuff being turned on at least now which will hopefully mean we're a lot more secure in terms what gets made here, most importantly- what we use here, gets made here. Obviously you can't do all of it because that's just not going to happen overnight, but at least some shortening of critical supply lines to being local.
        R&D is also kicking off well too which makes a difference, not now but its going to be very important in the next 10-15yr

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > 21st century warfare with 1970's equipment, 1960's brains and some very fricking outdated doctrines. It was pretty bad in the 90's and that's being understated.
          But wouldn’t Indonesia be even worse off?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Realistically and unpopular opinion, Indonesia needs its military full time to keep a huge population of mostly splintered ethnic groups from tearing itself apart
            I'm not exactly convinced that they would ever have been able to maintain both a landing force on Australia AND then keep them supplied with all the fuel, food, ammo, band aids and other shit that you need in constant amounts to sustain any kind of landfall. A lot of old boomers and alarmists will have bandied about the idea that "we'd run out of bullets!"
            Which is the first indicator that they've never done a tour
            It won't be the bullets you have to worry about, its about being starved, bombed and hit with vast amounts of artillery you should be very afraid of

            The real ace in the hole so to speak is that we run the eastern hemisphere's sat surveillance for signals, direct visual specifics and on a broader scale our over the horizon arrays can (on a good day) see up to northern China in terms of activity. They threw a lot of cash into those radars and they are pretty fricking good at detecting planes and boat traffic. Even after decades and generational shit flinging at one another, Indonesia benefits greatly from having a good relationship with Australia, we help them out when they're hit with natural disasters, schooling, medical care and don't really have any allies in the region they can rely on turning up. Technically we wouldn't have to turn up either if they got into a barney with China- except we would do so
            If they never really want an alliance, that's fine.
            We've got very good and actual alliances with places like Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore which are fairly good and well maintained with mutual exercises

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Exactly, no one but a few old boomer fricks care about "muh Indonesia invading Australia" meme.
              Indonesia can do frick all about China but they are starting to hate China more and more given their antics including ramming Indonesian fishing boats away so Chinese ones can move in

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Realistically and unpopular opinion, Indonesia needs its military full time to keep a huge population of mostly splintered ethnic groups from tearing itself apart
                I'm not exactly convinced that they would ever have been able to maintain both a landing force on Australia AND then keep them supplied with all the fuel, food, ammo, band aids and other shit that you need in constant amounts to sustain any kind of landfall. A lot of old boomers and alarmists will have bandied about the idea that "we'd run out of bullets!"
                Which is the first indicator that they've never done a tour
                It won't be the bullets you have to worry about, its about being starved, bombed and hit with vast amounts of artillery you should be very afraid of

                The real ace in the hole so to speak is that we run the eastern hemisphere's sat surveillance for signals, direct visual specifics and on a broader scale our over the horizon arrays can (on a good day) see up to northern China in terms of activity. They threw a lot of cash into those radars and they are pretty fricking good at detecting planes and boat traffic. Even after decades and generational shit flinging at one another, Indonesia benefits greatly from having a good relationship with Australia, we help them out when they're hit with natural disasters, schooling, medical care and don't really have any allies in the region they can rely on turning up. Technically we wouldn't have to turn up either if they got into a barney with China- except we would do so
                If they never really want an alliance, that's fine.
                We've got very good and actual alliances with places like Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore which are fairly good and well maintained with mutual exercises

                Here I thought Indonesia hates Australia and is fully allied with BRICS.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They do. Americans have no idea wtf they are talking about. Indonesia is full of al Qaeda tier extremist muslims. They celebrated the bali bombers as heroes (despite them killing ~30 indonesians). They've hated Australia for ages, partly out of typical turdie envy and partly due to "disrespect" like us spying on their top government officials and trying to stop their wars of agression in PNG. Despite that though Australia cucks to them pretty hard, just look at the balibo five for example, but these little morons have a giant chip on their shoulder despite that. They are muslim as frick going on hajj constantly and loads of islamic schools, even provinces with full on shariah law

                As far as their alliance with BRICS i'm not so sure about that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Indonesian islands are basically Australia's outer defence line.
                Not because of the TNI - theyre a useless and corrupt internal security force, and hopeless at even fighting West Papuans in grass skirts armed with bamboo bows&aroows let alone their internal Jihad nutcases.
                They tried to buy Sork KF-21s by trading palm-oil but didnt even have enough, before that they bought a few token MiG-29s from Rusdia but couldnt afford any missiles so they were just for airshows.
                (And this is the TNI-AF that the RAAF thinks they need a 100 F35s to take out when you could probably have used the Mirages, let alone SuperHornets.)
                It's more like a minefield on our front lawn to keep the chinks out except it's more like leaving lumps of dogturds everywhere that the chinks wont want to step in.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >this is the TNI-AF that the RAAF thinks they need a 100 F35s to take out
                The F35s aren't for regional defence, that's just how they keep up pilot hours and justify the cost without explaining that they're all about fricking with the Chinese navy.
                Locally they'll be used against PLAAF escorts to PLAN ships and then sink the PLAN ships if they're lucky.
                In a serious conflict, many of them would be operating from Singapore or US bases around the SCS and absolutely against China.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >used against PLAAF escorts to PLAN ships
                So after the USN loses every one of its CBGs and shipbased fighters, and has to rely on shore-based short-range single-engine F35s operating over water to take out the PLA-N-AF... and then they still can't carry any AShMs for the untouched chink carriers.
                >RAAF actual mission planning is coping harder than chink quantum cope to justify the F35 waste.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And how would China destroy 11 CBGs?
                With SAAAR satellites?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >So after the USN loses every one of its CBGs and shipbased fighters, and has to rely on shore-based short-range single-engine F35s
                I feel like that assumption requires some supporting arguments before it's going to be widely accepted, making your response ignorable for most people.
                This is known as Begging the Question in rhetoric terms.

                https://i.imgur.com/YhxoPIQ.jpeg

                [...]
                In a war between Indonesia and Australia, there is no question who will be the victor:

                >In a war between Indonesia and Australia, there is no question who will be the victor
                Kopassus got their arses handed to them by ADF trying to pull covert actions and terror raids against civilians in Timor.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In fact, Indonesia is the one who has to worry even though it is non-aligned but is surrounded by American military bases. such as in Singapore, Papua New Guinea, Australia, etc. there is a possibility that other countries will attack it to take its resources, for example, Australia, which has a military backup from the US, could help Papua become completely independent, especially as Indonesia's military equipment is much more outdated than Australia's. especially because Indonesia is flanked by China and Australia, where the issue will definitely be related to the blurred South China Sea and Australia's potential to help Micronesia push for the liberation of Papua... so maintaining and increasing Indonesia military strength is important...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This western-assisted OPM can actually be eliminated with KOPASSUS troops... Don't be afraid of human rights matters and WEST FIGHTS anymore... Don't let Papua be targeted by the west and let it go like East Timor (a bastard western democracy).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This western-assisted OPM can actually be eliminated with KOPASSUS troops
                homie you can’t even beat the OPM for over sixty years, KOPASSUS got their shit pushed in by jungle savages with bows and arrows.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well, you're wrong!
                But Indonesia and its relationships with anyone are far more nuanced than people sometimes give them credit for, they had an extremely bad run during the cold war and have adopted a similar position to India when it comes to foreign policy.They spent quite a bit of time looking at the offering on the table for BRICS and basically couldn't see any positives of that economic bloc of countries, but they found plenty of ways of annoying the absolute shit out of its western and SEA trading partners- which would turn off a lot of opportunities locally to them.
                They just don't want to tilt too far to one or the other and it means they're also a 'junior member' of the BRICS boys club costing them a lot of diplomatic efforts and running contrary to both their national interests and foreign policy

                How well they manage to do that, dunno. It might work out for them

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not really.

                There is just 250 million Indonesians so Australians (who are cowardly to begin with) are constantly in a state of near panic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                280m
                >domestic affairs
                You mean invading countries and then holding rigged referendums? Australia let them get away with that as well

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                40% of Aus hate on this board comes from one Indonesian dude.
                90% of Indonesians only think about Australia as
                >based, drunken morons coming here to spend shit tons of money
                Meanwhile 99% of Australians think of Indonesia as
                >Based, a place for me to get shitfaced and get cheap pussy
                Only a small amount of losers on both sides actually hate each other.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah. We live rent-free in the heads of their leadership and most diehard national because of East Timor and historical tension but in terms of actual human-to-human relations the average Australian and Indonesian don't have any particular feelings about each other.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The only shared interest Australia and Indonesia have is against China. Other that that, Australia's interference in Indonesia's domestic affairs (Papua and in the past Timor Timur) alignment with the US and Zionist is an affront to Indonesia's regional leadership and "bebas aktif" (independent and active) nonaligned foreign policy. Australian is also not fully trusted by Indonesia and to a lesser extent Malaysia because they've made it clear they would side with Singapore against Malaysia and with Singapore/Malaysia against Indonesia if it came down to a conflict.

                If Australia wants good relations with Indonesia it needs to stop acting as American deputy sheriff and sucking up to Israel

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Papua and in the past Timor
                >Israel
                The thing all these three have in common is very loud, obvious genocides which Australia is not going to put up with, while Israel is literally half a world away, having it happen within the local countries isn't something that people can easily ignore. The Australian perspective is that all three were chimp-outs for some kind of quasi-religious, shitty reasons
                When it comes to the USA, that alliance is written in blood. A lot of shared blood and its never going to change unless either Australia or the USA ended up in some kind of actual protracted shooting war with each other. So you can either rail against the fact or dream of some kind of magical events of it dissolving, but that isn't happening so you best get used to it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Australia as a country exists because of the United states. They saved us from the tyrannical, genocidal Japanese when no one else would and Britain had taken all the planes and abandoned us. That's not easily forgotten.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Japan never could have invaded Australia and didn't want to. And since then mutts call france, uk and israel their greatest ally when it's factually us

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao what is this revisionism?
                >Britain took the planes
                They sent half as many planes the US did what are you talking about?
                >Abandoned us
                3 DIVISIONS were transfered from North Africa to Australia.
                1 Crusiser sent from UK to Australia to replace the Canberra.
                British Infantry convoys sailing round the cape of good hope had contingency plans to be diverted to Australia in case of a serious Invasion.
                Tl:dr Australia was never at serious risk of Invasion and the British command knew this and prioritised correctly.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >what is this revisionism
                just decades of politically-motivated digger seethe that began with seizing on Gallipoli as an excuse to shoot for independence

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Britain abandoned us brigade raises its head every now and again its usually just pozzed morons.
                Gallipoli is one thing but saying the UK abandoned us in WW2 is one of the dumbest things ive ever heard.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They didn't abandon us, they just got caught with their trousers down (much like us) when the Japanese turned out to actually be good fighters. They did kind of frick the dog at Singapore, but that was hardly intentional.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Indonesia's regional leadership

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I for one welcome our Orangutan overlord

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine being this mad that the entirely of the fricking UN decided you shouldn't be allowed to keep a stolen territory.
                Timor Leste was down to a fricking UNSC vote man. You gotta frick up to get the whole security council on your ass.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Try unfricking your shit country WITHOUT pissing off the international community first

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If Australia wants good relations with Indonesia it needs to stop acting as American deputy sheriff and sucking up to Israel
                I agree with the Israel part but good luck with that.
                Acting as USA's deputy in the Pacific is absolutely in Australia's best interests though.
                And siding with Indonesia against anyone except China would nearly always be a bad decision. It's not like they'd ever really be on our side, it would just be pragmatism letting them massacre somebody, which Australia pretty much does anyway.

                Not really.

                There is just 250 million Indonesians so Australians (who are cowardly to begin with) are constantly in a state of near panic.

                >250 million Indonesians so Australians (who are cowardly to begin with) are constantly in a state of near panic
                lol

                Indonesia doesn't want and couldn't take Australia. At best, they could occupy PNG with a level of impunity if they really wanted to. They probably couldn't afford to feed and supply an occupation force against serious resistance though so Australia would degrade and destroy them over time in a shooting war over PNG.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Indonesian islands are basically Australia's outer defence line.
                Not because of the TNI - theyre a useless and corrupt internal security force, and hopeless at even fighting West Papuans in grass skirts armed with bamboo bows&aroows let alone their internal Jihad nutcases.
                They tried to buy Sork KF-21s by trading palm-oil but didnt even have enough, before that they bought a few token MiG-29s from Rusdia but couldnt afford any missiles so they were just for airshows.
                (And this is the TNI-AF that the RAAF thinks they need a 100 F35s to take out when you could probably have used the Mirages, let alone SuperHornets.)
                It's more like a minefield on our front lawn to keep the chinks out except it's more like leaving lumps of dogturds everywhere that the chinks wont want to step in.

                In a war between Indonesia and Australia, there is no question who will be the victor:

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >look at muh tough looking stronk marching men!

                Where have you been the last 3 years? That cargo cult shit was thoroughly discredited at Hostomel.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Where have you been the last 3 years?
                Where have you?
                Idiots have been screeching about anything they can label as woke for some time now with the assumption that woke=weak.
                Do you not instantly tune out anyone that posts about things being woke?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Indonesian’s can’t even beat mountain cannibals armed with bows and (featherless) arrows.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Australian is also not fully trusted by Indonesia and to a lesser extent Malaysia because they've made it clear they would side with Singapore against Malaysia and with Singapore/Malaysia against Indonesia if it came down to a conflict.

                Really? i thought the majority of australians despise singapore, according to the malay F-35 poster

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >i thought the majority of australians despise singapore
                The majority of Australians never think about Singapore.

                They probably like using their airline to get to Bali sometimes maybe.

                [...]
                1CDO was always an easy place to put qualified Army officers that muster out into the civilian sector, but I mean in a pinch even if you do shed lots of the heavier-brass its not impossible to bring them back into circulation. But it takes ages to train officers in the navy before you'd even trust them with a bathtub and rubber duck, the airforce just sort of promotes people the same as anyone else.
                >stick around
                >do the tests
                >don't frick up
                >get promoted
                I've argued in the past that Australia tends to make a double edged sword of both being respectful and egalitarian officer who will make sure his fellas are fed and have a bed before himself, but on the other hand it also encourages mediocrity and has very little meritocracy amongst the ranks of officers. It doesn't encourage innovation, just compliance and conformity in a fairly bland, beige environment and it doesn't take kindly to someone being competitive.
                So it does in its own way, makes functional officers but it doesn't acknowledge exceptional officers either

                >encourages mediocrity and has very little meritocracy amongst the ranks of officers. It doesn't encourage innovation, just compliance and conformity in a fairly bland, beige environment and it doesn't take kindly to someone being competitive.
                That's Australian culture in general, tall poppy syndrome means that you really don't want to stand out in a group of Australians because they'll bash you down.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The majority of Australians never think about Singapore
                correct

                only indogs, pajeets and chinks attempting d&c false flags seethe about Singapore on these boards

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                >Australians never think about Singapore.
                Oh but we do, its a very important stopover for international flights... and that's about it!

                [...]
                Yeah its particularly noticeable with the US Officers if you get to do a deployment or exercises with them that they get a small chunk that's highly motivated and not real good, a large swathe of middle management who'll keep the place running and there's a surprisingly very decent sized chunk of their corps that really know their shit. Upside down, back to front and sideways they're really very impressive with some amazing levels of knowledge, accuracy and attention to detail done very quickly.
                Not to completely shit on us
                US troops seem to think Australian officers are the best things ever made because we can explain to them in simple, uncomplicated terms what we need to them to do and don't treat them like human garbage 🙂

                Sydney sider office workers think about it a little bit. Probably at least once a week.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >tall poppy syndrome
                Which everyone is guilty of to some degree, but in a leadership-oriented career when you're making important decisions people tend to have this wiener-eyed view that 'she'll be right' and sometimes when there's a raging gun battle, dogfight or enemy ship launching missiles its what I would argue 'not enough'. I sort of managed to make great working relationships with all my NCO's, I annoyed fairly much most of my contemporaries, staff officers hated me and my CO's tended to appreciate a command officer who was at least doing more than just turning up. You'd drag a trooper over broken glass before they'd ever tell you 'good job sir' but by the same account they never complain when you managed to get everyone home without someone getting their arse shot off or lost as frick either and that's fine, its just how it works
                But God help you if you frick up though
                Get a form in late, forget to sign something or ask for directions to something in the office and they're all over you like a rash.
                Everyone's an 'expert critic' from the cheap seats, but for the most part its just not an environment that encourages anything more than basics.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The majority of Australians never think about Singapore
                correct

                only indogs, pajeets and chinks attempting d&c false flags seethe about Singapore on these boards

                >Australians never think about Singapore.
                Oh but we do, its a very important stopover for international flights... and that's about it!

                >So it does in its own way, makes functional officers but it doesn't acknowledge exceptional officers either
                on the bright side, that's not too bad for a 26 million pax country, provided general standards are kept up

                the USA has both the manpower and the budget to afford to explore the tail ends of the curve - a system that allows the finding of exceptionally brilliant officers is also going to encounter exceptionally bad officers - but Australia, arguably, doesn't

                an army of NATO-standard midwits isn't a terrible thing

                Yeah its particularly noticeable with the US Officers if you get to do a deployment or exercises with them that they get a small chunk that's highly motivated and not real good, a large swathe of middle management who'll keep the place running and there's a surprisingly very decent sized chunk of their corps that really know their shit. Upside down, back to front and sideways they're really very impressive with some amazing levels of knowledge, accuracy and attention to detail done very quickly.
                Not to completely shit on us
                US troops seem to think Australian officers are the best things ever made because we can explain to them in simple, uncomplicated terms what we need to them to do and don't treat them like human garbage 🙂

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Australian officers are the best things ever made because we can explain to them in simple, uncomplicated terms what we need to them to do
                If you can teach Australian soldiers, you can teach pretty much anyone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Pencaplokan Timor Leste itu didukung US karena US merasa Fretilin yang saat itu jadi pemimpin Timor Leste itu bisa jadi bahaya buat sekutu AS yaitu Australia dan NZ karena bagi US Fretilin itu Komunis, mumpung sekalian Indonesia saat itu anti komunis banget . Jadi di caplok lah

                Setelah itu ribut-ribut dsb, malah Australia ikut turun gunung ke Timor Leste dan US harus pilih sisi dan US milih Australia, hal ini memojokkan pemerintah dan militer Indonesia serta diperparah kejadian yang dimaksud di atas. Dan akhirnya Indo lepas dari Timor Timur

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't ASIO a fricking sieve? I heard they were totally incompetent during the Cold War.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >things are always the same and never improve
        Use your brain instead of leaning on limited niche historical knowledge

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Isn't ASIO a fricking sieve? I heard they were totally incompetent during the Cold War.
        They were focused on sabotaging the left wing party, not on defeating actual threats. There were legit infiltrations of left wing organisations of course but that wasn't why they were doing it, they were just sometimes right like a stopped clock.

        CIA basically owned ASIO most of the time, probably still do mostly.

        Aus was kind of like Vienna for a while with US and USSR spies following each other around and each trying to infiltrate or overthrow the government.
        It took a while before Australian Labor Party turned into the current kind of middle-of-the-road business party like USA Democrats and UK Labour.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And now they just literally shitpost pictures of their toilet bowl on aus/misc/ to counter online rightwing extremism.
          >their suicide rate must be staggering

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ASIO can be a little bit moronic, however there’s also ASIS and the Signals Directorate who you never hear about since it’s rare for them to frick up.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the Signals Directorate
          I think those guys are mostly just doing grunt work for NSA, probably in Pine Gap.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Australian Glows are heavily embedded with the CIA and weirdly, Mossad from "the business" stories I've heard. Some Australian glows were at the top of the US intelligence services and were advising the JCOS.

      t. lived in Canberra and literally worked adjacent with glowies.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and were advising the JCOS
        The Jefferson County Open School?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry, JCS, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Top Pentagon guys. It was Australian's that were weirdly providing a lot of the bullshit "evidence" that Saddam had WMDs and was supporting Al Qaeda.
          One of the high level glowies I knew also was involved very heavily with Israel/Mossad at least that is where I think he got a lot of his initial training.
          The problem is the stories I heard were always just "funny" ones or "fun fact" ones from glowies that worked in different parts of the building that I chatted with on lunch breaks, you sort of have to connect the dots to try put together what they were actually doing and who they worked with.
          The best stories I heard were about the rampant LSD use in the CIA, and about a drone that looked like a bird that during it's big showing off to the big wigs, got destroyed by an territorial eagle.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It was Australian's that were weirdly providing a lot of the bullshit "evidence" that Saddam had WMDs and was supporting Al Qaeda
            Well that's why they were there then, they were saying what the whitehouse wanted to hear.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah made it look more valid coming from an "outside" source

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah made it look more valid coming from an "outside" source

              Yeahnah, the guys on the ground doing the inspections kept reporting it was all bullshit.
              The Canberra wankers were ignoring them and regurgitating the American 'reports' back to Washington to agree, but were accidentally or deliberately creating a feedback loop.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          jollycystic ovary syndrome

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and were advising the JCOS
        The Jefferson County Open School?

        >Joint Task Force-Space Defense Commercial Operations Cell (JCO) welcomes Defence Space Command (DSpC) to its global construct, Sept. 1, 2023.
        >The JCO is a U.S. Space Force-led initiative that utilizes commercial providers to deliver diverse, timely space domain awareness (SDA) capabilities and drive critical partnerships.
        >The JCO aspires to be a global system, operating across three regional cells – America, Pacific and Meridian.

        What a shit acronym.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They are the best faction in Squad

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They've been sleeping on the China problem for the past decade and a half, which is at least ten years after they should've fricking sat up and paid attention.

    but when they go hard, they go hard. they jumped from having nothing more threatening afloat than their dinky Perry-class frigates to Hobarts with serious area anti-air capability. they jumped from a bunch of increasingly obsolescent F-18s - Classic Hornets, not Super Hornets - to F-35s.

    and now they plan to jump from four conventionally-powered submarines to no less than eight nuclear-powered attack submarines, starting with three US Virginias and then the next-gen UK attack submarine.

    strategically, therefore, I'd say they're slow but not to be fricked with.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >They've been sleeping on the China problem for the past decade and a half,
      China has not been a problem to anyone but other bugs and US hegemony. They are a historical trading partner, and a close one at that.

      And despite that, the second you told us to jump, we said how high and to our detriment. You have simply not been paying attention. I'm sure you will when your MEUs will get kicked out of Darwin after this war though. Seppo brownie point strategy has bought us nothing whatsoever.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I Dundee Patterson from Perth Province agree with this fair dinkum post, I'll be writing my local abo rep to complain right away crikey

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You know it to be true.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >China has not been a problem to anyone but other bugs and US hegemony

        lol

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry and people who like consuming product and the multinationals that sell said product

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >They've been sleeping on the China problem
      the news non-stop fear mongers about them, what do you mean, also they're our biggest trading partner, there's no need for an invasion since we just sell them everything.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the news non-stop fear mongers about them
        they do now
        they should have recognised the problem by 2014
        like I said, when Aussies finally move, they go hard

        Isn't ASIO a fricking sieve? I heard they were totally incompetent during the Cold War.

        >they were totally incompetent during the Cold War
        WERE
        bear in mind that during that time, the entire Australian Government was learning how to get along by themselves without Mummy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Our economy is dependent on them, so I wouldn't call it "sleeping". Pissing off China means -50% GDP immediately.

      Considering YOUR fricking country doesn't even acknowledge Taiwan you should understand where we're coming from.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    we're gonna go big once autonomous weapons become a thing
    You don't need loads of infantry if you have a highly educated population and limitless natural resources

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Typical nato army which is not named us, will last for like one week in real war

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Aussies are just Bong lites, well equiped, well trained but small.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Aussies are just Bong lites
      More war crimes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lolno

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          solid argument anon, you really convinced me

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I dont argue with morons

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You're literally arguing on PrepHole anon

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A bunch of cheeky wankers

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    America-lite. Very capable, but can't sustain significant overseas deployments for very long.
    Critically understaffed, especially on ground troops.

    In the process of modernising almost every bit of kit they have and increasing platform numbers across the board.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >America-lite
      UK-lite, rather
      >Critically understaffed, especially on ground troops.
      34 billion US dollars
      59,000 active personnel, all services
      that is nearly 600,000 dollars per pax

      you really wonder where all those defence dollars are going
      should it really cost the best part of a billion dollars to field an infantry battalion?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        not into service personnel wages, that's for sure

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          how much is, let's say, the average NCO pay?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Seargent is on 130k at least. Do a 6 month deployment training hajis in Iraq, that becomes like 190k.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >34 billion US dollars
        And almost none of your equipment is manufactured in Australia and your personnel is far more expensive than the global averages, which means your 39b$ is worth far far more less than French 50b€ or 65b€ Korean.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >far far more less
          weasel words. can you give an actual number, rather than some vaguely-worded autofellatory imaginary notion you pulled out of your sordid canker-ridden arse?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >59,000 active personnel
        and yet they can't even put together a single division

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This figure includes Navy, Air Force, and defence support services.
          Given these numbers, they *could* put together a land division, once. But there will be no reserves. Which is perfectly normal for any military.

          Seargent is on 130k at least. Do a 6 month deployment training hajis in Iraq, that becomes like 190k.

          >130k at least
          >that becomes like 190k
          honestly that's pretty decent

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the army, 50,000 personnel not counting reserves literally can only field ~3000 infantry, the rest are POGs, support staff, PR people armor etc. That's pathetic.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Proof?

              Not really.

              There is just 250 million Indonesians so Australians (who are cowardly to begin with) are constantly in a state of near panic.

              >cowardly
              What nation are you from anon?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The three brigades of the 1st division (which is the only non-reserve force) only have 15 rifle companies between them

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Manpower is the easiest thing to bloat in a military though so as long as you have money its not really an issue

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Very capable, but can't sustain significant overseas deployments for very long.
      >Critically understaffed, especially on ground troops
      They're USA level of competence and equipment on Russia's budget, Taiwan's population and paid Dutch salaries.
      They can't afford much.

      Seargent is on 130k at least. Do a 6 month deployment training hajis in Iraq, that becomes like 190k.

      >Do a 6 month deployment training hajis in Iraq, that becomes like 190k
      That's a small fortune, at least as a salary.
      You can't buy an apartment out of disposable income but you could /very/ easily afford a 5-10year mortgage on a suburban house.
      And if you're deployed in Iraq, you're probably being paid tax-free so that's your take-home too.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The list of new equipment being acquired is staggering.
    ASW frigates
    GP frigates
    Nuclear attack submarines
    Underwater-support ships
    Landing craft in light, medium and heavy versions
    New submarine base

    Tanks
    IFVs
    SPGs
    HIMARS
    8x8 CRVs
    SHORAD
    Land-based anti-ship missile platforms
    Deployable field hospitals
    Radios
    Rifles and various small arms and ATGMs
    Attack and utility helicopters

    Updated electronic attack fighters
    F-35 regional sustainment including repair of engines
    Tankers
    Transports

    Satellite capability
    Radar and surveillance station upgrades
    Upgrading almost every airfield, base and facility in the country and island territory
    Billions on upgrading the two naval construction precincts

    Just to name a few. All that is needed now is for increased manpower to man all this without continuing to draw down troop numbers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's pretty standard in 2024.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty standard for a Cold War you mean, but really should have been started 10 years earlier. Especially the navy changes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No.
          You should look towards French, US, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Taiwanese, Indian, Chinese and other's military expansion and see that this is nothing unprecedented. Especially when you account the timescale on which this is happening.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Out of your list only the Poles, US and Chinese are properly expanding as if a war is about to start where they are about to invade or be invaded, the rest are modernising to various degrees, but arguably Australia is modernising more than the others.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Gonna go by the frogs here since I know their plans the best.
              Scorpion and Titan programmes and various other programmes, will see France with;
              >new MBT, MGCS
              >new APC, Griffon
              >new LPC, Serval
              >new scouting vehicle, EBRC
              >new generic helicopter platform, H160M
              >new frigate, FDI
              >new multirole frigate, FREMM
              >new SSN, Barracuda
              >new SSBN, SNLE3G
              >new carrier, PA-NG
              >new attack helicopter
              >new MANPADS
              >new IFV
              >new SoS fighter, SCAF
              >new SIGINT/EW platform, Dassault Falcon 8X
              >new Rafale standards, F4.1 and F5
              >new batch of ELINT satellites
              >new transport fleet, A400M(>60)
              >new AA missile, MICA-NG
              >new tactical nook with hypersonic capability, ASN4G
              ... kinda getting tired, I didn't even get into battlefield management system, drones, EW or new sensor tech ...
              As I said, Australia is nothing special.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Expanding isnt the same thing as modernising anon

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                France is expanding, but this isn't about France.
                Australia isn't unique in the year 2024.
                Everybody is expanding.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No it isnt, you just posted a list of modernisation and new equipment.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Mate, unless you Aussies count backwards too, 66 is larger than 0, talking bout tac transport here.
                Also, a modernised piece of equipment might as well be a new piece of equipment, for example;
                Akeron, a NLOS ATGM, might as well be something entirely different compared to its predecessor, MILAN, since it allows for use cases that were never avaliable before.
                Gepard, with its CT40 cannon and Akerons, is superior to a fricking car.

                Do you comprehend what I am communicating?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >66
                Total order is for 50 not 60. Looks like its you who struggles with maths. Also Frances heavy lift is pathetic for a nation that size and the budget it has.
                >modernisation vs fleet expansion
                They are not the same thing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Looks like I mixed u total tac transport numbers with A400M total orders, whatever.
                >They are not the same thing.
                I presented to you the fallacy of your thinking but you refuse to see because the alternative is what is good for you right now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Those countries are all 10x the size of Australia dumbass...10x or more in most cases.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            moronic frog alert

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Only China is expanding the rest arent.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The Poles are, compared to their size, they're adding thousands of new tanks, MLRS, SPG etc.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >1000s of new MBTs
                >500 HIMARS
                Only morons believe that will actually happen.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                of new MBT's
                >>500 HIMARS
                That's not what was said

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >thousands of new tanks
                Thats literally what was said

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >they're adding thousands of new tanks, MLRS, SPG etc.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >>500 HIMARS
                Are you ill?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Don't forget the K239 Chunmoo MLRS the Poles have started receiving

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >, MLRS, SPG etc.
                you cut off pieces of your dick like you cut relevant parts of sentences, didn't you?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >THOUSAND(S!) of tanks mlrs spg
                >NO I DIDNT MEAN A THOUSAND TANKS
                >OR 500 HIMARS FOR THAT MATTER
                Listen up chuck, Pooland isnt going through with any of that shit because they are poor.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Familiarise yourself with the proper usage of commas.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Familiarise yourself with the gdp of Poland then ask yourself is it possible for Poland to have more new MBTs than UK France and Germany combined.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, it's possible.
                Those 3 countries field 700 tanks. It's within Poland's 30 billion dollar defence budget to field 800 K2s, IF they wish to.
                Poland spends a bit more than half what UK and France each spend, and they have lots lower salary costs which is one of the biggest concerns for these countries.
                They already field 450+ tanks, 400 self-propelled howitzers, and 150 self-propelled MLRS, in total 1,000 vehicles.

                But crucially, Poland is (deliberately?) neglecting its air force. Its procurement decisions have focused on building up huge mass on the ground. Probably they assume that NATO will provide their air cover, or that they can put up an adequate air defence with what SAMs and combat jets they are acquiring. Tanks, even state of the art ones, are cheaper than state of the art combat jets.

                But that's not what anon claimed. Anon

                The Poles are, compared to their size, they're adding thousands of new tanks, MLRS, SPG etc.

                's
                >thousands of new tanks, MLRS, SPG etc.
                is achievable. You didn't see the "etc" as well, which if it covers IFVs, is even more achievable. All Poland needs to do is to field up to 2,000 vehicles COLLECTIVELY of all these and you're disproven.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Poland $24bn manpower 250,000
                >France $50bn manpower 205,000
                >UK $69bn manpower 185,000

                Ill be surprised to see if Poland can procure and maintain a fleet of modern vehicles. The legacy soviet stuff they have is a cake walk compared to the modern western kit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Its just mechanical work and if anything, fixing modern stuff got easier in that you plug in. See what's fricked and proceed to replace it and see if that fixed what was wrong. Plus modern power packs go in, out in about half a day- then send it off to someone else to plug into for the major finger fricking department while the unit gets back out to the front by dinner time.
                Rest is just sort of making sure there's enough parts and redundancy for what you intend to do with it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >comparing manpower in 2024
                mate, stop.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                mate, do you know how much Poland saves by not having to support a nuclear deterrent, carriers, and a fleet of combat jets?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, as much as they lose by not making anything on their own.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Compare yourself with a self-equipped military and compare it dollar for dollar.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                silly method of computation that would have to account for dozens of different factors to arrive at any kind of meaningful comparison

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    those are austrians you fricking moron OP

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Awful officer to enlisted ratio

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how's the military over in down-further-under

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Virtually non existent. They are Australias Republic of Ireland.
      NZ Military should make a decision, merge with the UK or the ADF.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Three men and a donkey. They'd shoot the donkey for budgetary reasons, if they had a bullet.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what does the NZ military even do? its in the middle of bumfrick nowhere, would anyone even want to invade it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They exist largely because its expected for a nation to have a military. Kind of like how once you reach a certain level of wealth you're expected to own a yacht, even if you have no interest in or use for boats. Their only practical use is to deliver food aid to poverty stricken island countries.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If the NZDF was being serious they would do like the Dutch did and basically become a semi-independent sub-component of the German and British armed forces, in addition to specialising in regional ASW

            but they're not, so they're fricking around basically

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >basically become a semi-independent sub-component of the
              *Australian Forces, I mean

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, Germany wondering why the frick there's a bunch of English-speakers as far as humanly fricking possible away looking to them for guidance is way more amusing.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >do like the Dutch did

              Frick its rough when 'why can't you be like the Dutch!'
              Yeah they are a great analogue in terms of pop/economics to base an armed forces off-of. NZ would essentially have less armour and infantry with a focus on maritime and air power, then its got a functional defence force that's basically doing what it would need to be capable of. You do want some degree of armour, artillery and infantry around as its a skill set you can integrate into allied forces and its not something you exactly want to 'forget how to do' because once its gone, its not coming back without a massive and expensive amount of do-over.
              But they don't
              So here we are, holding the fricking bag

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Reminder that the RNZAF has less than 50 airframes, and hasn't operated a combat aircraft in like 20 years.
                It's a glorified fricking airline.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh I know, but we're sort of stuck with NZ absolutely and very resolutely refusing to do anything at all.
                I think at this point they're just being contrarian because they think its very funny and everyone except us (Australia) is in on the joke just to come up some kind of generational hilarity. Nonsense aside, there's a great deal of reasons why the tyranny of distance doesn't mean you're immune to being fricked with and even less reasons available to respond to said fricking

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                3 billion US dollars isn't much, true, but it's something like 10% of the Australian budget. Integrating with the ADF will reduce overheads, so they could realistically field 10% of what the Australian Forces field. In terms of airpower, that's 1 squadron of F-35s to provide local air defence, and maybe three P-8s for ASW patrol, which would be a welcome addition to the Australian fleet.

                And that's just if they stick to their ridiculous 1.2% of GDP.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >1.2% of GDP.
                >[screaming internally intensifies]

                There was ' Plan ANZAC Bilateral Service Cooperation Plan' footed about a year ago to do a complete unfricking of the NZ army because apparently after the Wu-flu the whole organisation fell down and was at some critical level of being completely dysfunctional.
                >Motor Infantry
                >Spec Ops Tactical
                >Battle group integration
                So zee-plun was to get them back into the 5-eyes integrated training again and restore the skills lost over the last few years. It 'should' be possible to do it on a naval and airborne process as well, but that's a lot of money, equipment and time compared to just doing grunt stuff and fricking around in bushmasters

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They really ought to do the grunt stuff too of course. NZ is what, 4 million people? They should have an army of at least 2 small regular infantry battalion equivalents at readiness at any time. That's the barest minimum for security and far from impossible for that population size.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the barest minimum for security
                Against who?
                They have no real enemies except China and that's more of a trade partner that bullies them sometimes, even China isn't going to actually physically threaten NZ. Besides, China treats NZ with kid gloves to try and wedge Australia.

                >What do you want them to do?
                Contribute to regional anti-submarine defence, EEZ policing, a modest QRA capability, and a couple of small infantry battalions for anti-saboteur and anti-terrorism defence.

                >regional anti-submarine defence, EEZ policing, a modest QRA capability, and a couple of small infantry battalions for anti-saboteur and anti-terrorism defence.
                That's a pretty reasonable task list.
                I'd probably add regional stabilisation etc for when Fiji throws another coup or something, I think they already do that a bit though.
                Years ago, I was moving house in Sydney and my mover was a very tough looking Maori ex-NZSAS who told me stories about being deployed in Fiji after one of the coups. He was pretty glad not to have faced Fiji's army actually, he had a lot of respect for them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Against who?
                >anti-saboteur and anti-terrorism defence
                this
                Leaving aside international interventionism, even the most remote island sovereign nation (and NZ pretty much IS the most remote nation of any note in the world) needs to have some infantry capability. The military is really the final resort that stops gangbangers from shooting up the police. (And I bet NZ police are minimally armed.) Not having a military is what leads eventually to a Haiti situation. Also, NZ's membership in the Five Eyes means they must have a robust anti-saboteur defence one way or another, and having a couple of infantry battalions stood up is part of that.

                Honestly, how hard can it be? A battalion is 600 to 800 men. Two of those is 1,200 to 1,600. A standard readiness rotation cycle has 3 phases, so that'll be 3,600 to 4,800. It is so damn difficult to find 4,800 reliable warm bodies in all of 4 million man New Zealand?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It is so damn difficult to find 4,800 reliable warm bodies in all of 4 million man New Zealand?

                see

                The three brigades of the 1st division (which is the only non-reserve force) only have 15 rifle companies between them

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are more Kiwis in the ADF than in the NZDF.
                The NZDF should just stop, all transfer across into the ADF and stop pretending their whole Defence Plan isnt just "hide behind Australia" and hope nobody notices them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                feels like there are more kiwis in AUS than kiwis in NZ as a whole to be honest, everyone and their mother is packing up and heading over because the wages there are just so much better

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Is it so damn difficult to find 4,800 reliable warm bodies in all of 4 million man New Zealand?
                Successive governments have gone out of their way to make working for the NZDF as unappealing as possible. You'd have to really want to be a soldier to join, and even then you've got the ADF one plane ticket away willing to take you for higher pay and higher chance of deployment. Its hard to justify signing up for shit work far away from your family, when all your friends from school who became meat workers and tradesmen are all on 90k+, and if you're a young poor Maori (the armys historic main recruiting pool) then you've probably also got mates dealing meth making even more. Remember there's no GI bill in NZ, so unless you take a trade that specifically gives you civilian qualifications, you leave with nothing to show for it. Not even money now, since I'm told the on-base housing which traditionally allowed young guys to save deposits for their first house is now charging market rate rents, which depending on the area could be over 300 bucks. National has just pledged in the last few weeks to raise pays, increase deployments and improve equipment, but I think a lot of the experienced personnel have already left; and that's basically irreplaceable in terms of institutional wisdom; and its too little too late anyway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >RNZAF has less than 50 airframes, and hasn't operated a combat aircraft in like 20 years
                They're operating an airforce on the budget of a rich US kid's allowance.
                What do you want them to do?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What do you want them to do?
                Contribute to regional anti-submarine defence, EEZ policing, a modest QRA capability, and a couple of small infantry battalions for anti-saboteur and anti-terrorism defence.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What do you want them to do?
                Increase the budget to non-token levels.

                >the barest minimum for security
                Against who?
                They have no real enemies except China and that's more of a trade partner that bullies them sometimes, even China isn't going to actually physically threaten NZ. Besides, China treats NZ with kid gloves to try and wedge Australia.

                [...]
                >regional anti-submarine defence, EEZ policing, a modest QRA capability, and a couple of small infantry battalions for anti-saboteur and anti-terrorism defence.
                That's a pretty reasonable task list.
                I'd probably add regional stabilisation etc for when Fiji throws another coup or something, I think they already do that a bit though.
                Years ago, I was moving house in Sydney and my mover was a very tough looking Maori ex-NZSAS who told me stories about being deployed in Fiji after one of the coups. He was pretty glad not to have faced Fiji's army actually, he had a lot of respect for them.

                >Against who?
                Against the enemies of the people who maintain at their own expense an environment in which NZ has no enemies, which is not an accidental or permanently guaranteed state of affairs.

                tl;dr carry your weight

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Increase the budget to non-token levels.
                They don't have the money. NZ is a tiny economy.

                >Against the enemies of the people who maintain at their own expense an environment in which NZ has no enemies
                They don't want to play deputy. They do send some chaps along on USA coalitions though, as cheer leaders more than anything else really.
                It's about all they can contribute beyond cheese rations.

                >Against who?
                >anti-saboteur and anti-terrorism defence
                this
                Leaving aside international interventionism, even the most remote island sovereign nation (and NZ pretty much IS the most remote nation of any note in the world) needs to have some infantry capability. The military is really the final resort that stops gangbangers from shooting up the police. (And I bet NZ police are minimally armed.) Not having a military is what leads eventually to a Haiti situation. Also, NZ's membership in the Five Eyes means they must have a robust anti-saboteur defence one way or another, and having a couple of infantry battalions stood up is part of that.

                Honestly, how hard can it be? A battalion is 600 to 800 men. Two of those is 1,200 to 1,600. A standard readiness rotation cycle has 3 phases, so that'll be 3,600 to 4,800. It is so damn difficult to find 4,800 reliable warm bodies in all of 4 million man New Zealand?

                >And I bet NZ police are minimally armed
                Incorrect, they're pretty well armed but they don't use or need it so they don't usually carry it. They're all trained with glocks and ARs and are issued them. Street cops only carry batons and tasers but they have pistols, ARs and hard plates for their vests in a locked box in their car. They almost never need them.

                NZ has an excellent SWAT branch (arguably two). Their Armed Offenders Squad is considered very good, they almost never fire shots but are obviously heavily armed. There's an anti-terrorism squad too which is obviously as armed as you'd expect. They also have a protection unit who are always armed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >NZ is a tiny economy.
                Only 1.2% GDP in an economy of any size is a token effort.

                >They don't want to play deputy.
                True enough, they'd prefer others do it for them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Idk why mutts seethe so much about countries not contributing to their own defence. If they know other people will defend them why bother? As the person sticking out your neck for them YOU are the loser for letting them take advantage of you, but they expect them to feel ashamed or something

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not American, I'm Australian, so a relatively minor country that actually does what I'm talking about.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >As the person sticking out your neck for them YOU are the loser
                The USA doesn't lose by being the sheriff, they profit from it. It's not unreasonable to want other's who also profit from it to contribute though and I'm

                >Increase the budget to non-token levels.
                They don't have the money. NZ is a tiny economy.

                >Against the enemies of the people who maintain at their own expense an environment in which NZ has no enemies
                They don't want to play deputy. They do send some chaps along on USA coalitions though, as cheer leaders more than anything else really.
                It's about all they can contribute beyond cheese rations.

                [...]
                >And I bet NZ police are minimally armed
                Incorrect, they're pretty well armed but they don't use or need it so they don't usually carry it. They're all trained with glocks and ARs and are issued them. Street cops only carry batons and tasers but they have pistols, ARs and hard plates for their vests in a locked box in their car. They almost never need them.

                NZ has an excellent SWAT branch (arguably two). Their Armed Offenders Squad is considered very good, they almost never fire shots but are obviously heavily armed. There's an anti-terrorism squad too which is obviously as armed as you'd expect. They also have a protection unit who are always armed.

                who is defending NZ here.

                NZ is a poor country, it just doesn't have much wealth to go spending it on aircraft and stuff. There's a ROI that's pretty limited in their case.

                The argument here isn't who profits or who contributes, it's more about ROI. NZ would get very little for increased investment and lose very little without US protection whereas the US would lose a lot by giving up its hegemony and profits only a little by NZ spending more.
                The dollars NZ would spend might decrease US costs in the pacific slightly but probably not even 1:1 whereas NZ can use them far more effectively for education or whatever.

                Spending more on defence would cost NZ more than it would help USA, regardless of where any moral responsibilities might lie.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >RNZAF insignia is a flightless bird
                you cant make this shit up

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, ideally they'd act as a skeleton force and occupy themselves preparing to rapidly expand and integrate with the ADF if a real war kicked off, while maintaining some specialist capability. Like to Australia, as Australia is to the USA.

              Instead they do as little as humanly possible, while actively thumbing their noses at the people they rely on to protect them. I love the kiwis, I do, but they act like entitled little smug arses when it comes to defense.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          they come to Canada and do shitloads of cocaine

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    as of 2023

    For every one of the 219 star-ranked officers in the Australian Defence Force, there are just 260 other officers and enlisted members,
    For every one of the 863 star-ranked officers in the US military, there are 1,500 other officers and enlisted members,
    For every one of the 115 star-ranked officers in the UK there are 1,200 other officers and enlisted members.

    In the ADF, there is 1 officer for every 3.5 enlisted soldiers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You sure have a bee in your bonnet over the topic. Failed enlistment?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thats where most of the wasted cost goes - for all those extra Officers its not just their (large) salaries - they all need a 'job' so that means creating whole HQs and Branches that contribute nothing to actual combat effectiveness, at best they achieve nothing, more often they actually actively reduce combat effectiveness of the surviving frontline units by burdening them with additional external assessments, mandatory policy training, and the gender-indiginous-diversity bullshit.
      And to do this they all need to have a junior staff of lesser officers and clerks to write the policy documents, send out the training packages, hold timewasting meetings and compile irrelevant reports, and so they need more office space, more IT support, more desks and stationery, then these require building maintenance and utilities costs, etc etc.
      For every one of those Star-Ranks, plus the APS SES-band equivalent public servants in the Department, that's a large chunk of the budget not going to actual combat outcomes.
      >its not just excess Brass, the DoD APS is bigger than either of the RAAF and the RAN, almost bigger than both combined - it's ADFs second-largest Branch... and that's not counting all the civilian Consultants and Analysts they hire in.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I've always wondered if the reasoning for this is an ability to 'scale up' quickly. having a hardened core of soldiers is good, but if you need to scale up a military quickly, its arguable that having a surplus of existing trained officers to go with your freshly-mobilised troops would lead to a more effective force; useful when you have a smaller military and no mandatory military service.

        It's probably incompetence though

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the reasoning for this is an ability to 'scale up' quickly
          if they were that concerned about scaling up, they would devote as much resources to the Reserves

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the reasoning for this is an ability to 'scale up' quickly
          if they were that concerned about scaling up, they would devote as much resources to the Reserves

          1CDO was always an easy place to put qualified Army officers that muster out into the civilian sector, but I mean in a pinch even if you do shed lots of the heavier-brass its not impossible to bring them back into circulation. But it takes ages to train officers in the navy before you'd even trust them with a bathtub and rubber duck, the airforce just sort of promotes people the same as anyone else.
          >stick around
          >do the tests
          >don't frick up
          >get promoted
          I've argued in the past that Australia tends to make a double edged sword of both being respectful and egalitarian officer who will make sure his fellas are fed and have a bed before himself, but on the other hand it also encourages mediocrity and has very little meritocracy amongst the ranks of officers. It doesn't encourage innovation, just compliance and conformity in a fairly bland, beige environment and it doesn't take kindly to someone being competitive.
          So it does in its own way, makes functional officers but it doesn't acknowledge exceptional officers either

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So it does in its own way, makes functional officers but it doesn't acknowledge exceptional officers either
            on the bright side, that's not too bad for a 26 million pax country, provided general standards are kept up

            the USA has both the manpower and the budget to afford to explore the tail ends of the curve - a system that allows the finding of exceptionally brilliant officers is also going to encounter exceptionally bad officers - but Australia, arguably, doesn't

            an army of NATO-standard midwits isn't a terrible thing

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How come Australian military nurses start off with officer rank and pay but paramedics don't? Nurses in the reserves get 248 while paramedics get 220. Both are degree jobs- and there's less experienced paramedics out there than experienced nurses. Wtf?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      depends on the specific definition of "paramedic" used by the Australians

      my grand-aunt was a RN and she definitely had more training than say a platoon medic

      on the other hand, a friend's boss was an EM and he had more training than a RN

      it really depends

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I served for over a decade.
    PSA for the Ausgays: don't join up lads, it's not worth it these days. Cucked, pozzed leadership, forced lefty bullshit, and a broken body all await you. If you talked to me 10 years ago, I would've raved on about it, but my broken and jaded mid 30's self says to stay the frick away.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In a single pic, the real reason for AUKUS... to contain INDONESIA, not CHINA... it also massively expands the USA's presence in the Indian Ocean beyond Diego Garcia... but AUSTRALIA will disappear from the chart forever... soon to be past their use-by date as a G20 economy

    Without western alliances, Indonesia can take over Australia easily. Indonesia is growing 2 times faster than australia, thats why its military ranking keeps increasing, and australia stays the same forever. australia is one of the reasons Indonesia stays neutral between western countries and russia+china.

    without australia's presence, Indonesia will be ally of the west.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now military strength Indonesia is the 16th strongest in the world... stronger than Australia & some European countries.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    frick the indogs have found the thread

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *