US tanks to replace Australias crappy leopards

I just found this.

news.ninemsn.com.au...

why can't they just make their own.
It was a pretty good decision low, and the leopards really do need replacing. but was there a better choice? What do you think.

I don't understand why the U.S. is always so eager to sell our technology and equipment. Yes, I know we need the money (refer to National Debt), but it's stupid to provide other countries with weapons of war, when we are just setting ourselves up for failure in the long run.

Mr. M

During the Gulf war, American soldiers were surprised to discover that much of the equipment they were salavging from the Iraqis was our crap, mostly outdated, but some newer.

We are selling the Patriot missile system to the Saudis.

Yes, selling weapons to everyone is stupid security policiy, really, but thats our gov. I dont know why Australia, of all placxes, wants new tanks, its not like they are engaged in warfare and the like all the time. They should save thier cash for better things.

Right. What do they need all of those tanks for? Are they planning an attack sometime soon? Not like they have a fighting chance anyway.

Mr. M

It isn't like they get the same stuff that we get. What we provide to them is a lower tech version of what we use. It isn't as capable or (in my opinion) as lethal.

What is wrong with making money off of this?

Nothings wrong with making money. What's wrong is supplying weapons to the rest of the world. We should be more conservative and discreet with our weapons sales, not just selling them to anyone who has the money.

Mr. M

when u spend billion for r&d on tech its hard to recoop the costs.....they are just trying to do that....


do i think it is right? no....we shouldn't sell everyone our tech. I think it can hurt is in the long run in general.


later,

Reason

Whats wrong with making money off it, Coolhand?

That attitude is burying this country.

Selling our weapons to whoever? Granted, the Australians are civilized, smart, and arent a bunch of crazy loons who plan on overrunning anyone and everything. They are stable, they dont bother anyone, they dont need to.

But what about the other countries we have "made money" by selling them our stuff? iran, China, Iraq, Saudi Arabia,, ect. Whats wrong with it? Were selling our tech, even downgraded versions of it, to people who have no business carrying around sticks and rocks, let alone nukes, tanks, ect. What was wrong with Clinton selling our nuke secrets to China? he made a little money off it! As long as we make some money, why not?

Todays friend is tommorows foe, ever thought of THAT? Iraq was our bosom buddy for years, when they were battling Iran, we sold them all sorts of goodies. Hmmmmmm, back then, it was ok, we were making money off of it! But now..........hmmmmmmmm.

We sold # and trained the Taliban. Just cuz someones a friend today dont mean they will stay that way. granted, i doubt the Ozzies are gonna end up on anyones #list anytime soon, least of all, ours. But its the principle: we have the nasty habit of being indiscriminate with selling our stuff to whoever. THAT is plain stupid.

And for the record, Star Child, the Ozzies actually have a pretty kick ass military, if they did invade someplace, they would probably succeed. But, they have better things to do with thier time.

Something that has yet to be mentioned:

By selling them our tech (downgraded as it maybe) we make it easier to operate with them in the future.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Whats wrong with making money off it, Coolhand?

That attitude is burying this country.

Selling our weapons to whoever? Granted, the Australians are civilized, smart, and arent a bunch of crazy loons who plan on overrunning anyone and everything. They are stable, they dont bother anyone, they dont need to.

But what about the other countries we have "made money" by selling them our stuff? iran, China, Iraq, Saudi Arabia,, ect. Whats wrong with it? Were selling our tech, even downgraded versions of it, to people who have no business carrying around sticks and rocks, let alone nukes, tanks, ect. What was wrong with Clinton selling our nuke secrets to China? he made a little money off it! As long as we make some money, why not?

Todays friend is tommorows foe, ever thought of THAT? Iraq was our bosom buddy for years, when they were battling Iran, we sold them all sorts of goodies. Hmmmmmm, back then, it was ok, we were making money off of it! But now..........hmmmmmmmm.

We sold # and trained the Taliban. Just cuz someones a friend today dont mean they will stay that way. granted, i doubt the Ozzies are gonna end up on anyones #list anytime soon, least of all, ours. But its the principle: we have the nasty habit of being indiscriminate with selling our stuff to whoever. THAT is plain stupid.

And for the record, Star Child, the Ozzies actually have a pretty kick ass military, if they did invade someplace, they would probably succeed. But, they have better things to do with thier time.

Oh cmon....This is Australia.
We're basically Americas 51st state we're that friendly.

"Australian Democrats Leader Andrew Bartlett commended Senator Hill for sticking to a commitment made last year not to buy tanks equipped with depleted uranium armour or depleted uranium ammunition.

"The Australian Defence Force is providing an example to other countries that there are alternatives to depleted uranium," he said.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Aldo Borgu said there was no doubt Australia was getting a good deal.
"


I'm glad we're not getting or using depleted Uranium though.

We tell Country A that we won't sell them anything.

We tell Country B that their order has been sent.

Country B sells weapons to Country A.

Yeah the concern here is that the money might have been far better spent in increasing the size of the Army moreso than giving it a harder fist. The majority of the ADF missions at present constitute Peace-Keeping or Nation-Building operations, rather than open combat.

The utility of these tanks seems rather limited in the current environment. I don't know how many soldiers that $550 Million would have trained and paid, but I think an influx of manpower is required by the ADF moreso than Firepower in the current environment.

Originally posted by Kano
Yeah the concern here is that the money might have been far better spent in increasing the size of the Army moreso than giving it a harder fist. The majority of the ADF missions at present constitute Peace-Keeping or Nation-Building operations, rather than open combat.

The utility of these tanks seems rather limited in the current environment. I don't know how many soldiers that $550 Million would have trained and paid, but I think an influx of manpower is required by the ADF moreso than Firepower in the current environment.

Well yeah it is mainly peacekeeping and nation building missions.

We are just concerned for our guys doing the job as the leapard armour aint nearly as good.

Anyways Australia wont be selling any of it's stuff.

You can have manpower...but without the right equipment to keep them safe...who wants to be the man?

they won't sell if they 'didn't have a better one or something completly new.
maybe usa has got hovertank with active cloaking and energy weapons and energy shielding. because they are working on all of these technology.

Originally posted by StarChild
I don't understand why the U.S. is always so eager to sell our technology and equipment. Yes, I know we need the money (refer to National Debt), but it's stupid to provide other countries with weapons of war, when we are just setting ourselves up for failure in the long run.

Mr. M

Austrialia is an ally!!! I want the guys fighting on the same side as me to have the best equipment possible!

Well I don't see anything wrong with selling weapons to allies and when I say that I mean real allies, not some obscure country you want to make money off of. In war it's better to have well equiped allies than poorly equiped ones because then they're more of a help and the gear is compatible when it comes to repair, allies can help each other out with repair, spare parts and ammo in the field if one of the allies is cut off from their own supply line.

Another thing:

Making versions of something, that is not as technically advanced as the one that we use, makes it cheaper for us to buy it in the first place. Are those of you who argue against foregin sales prepared to pay much higher costs for our military equipment?

Yeah DaRAGE the thing is none of those missions require heavy Armor, APC's and light armored vehicles are typically used in these scenarios, I don't think the Leopards have left the mainland since Vietnam? MBTs are a pain in the arse to move around.

What do you rekon they should do with the leopards. instead of scrapping them, do you think they should sell them to the iraqi's and refurbished?

Originally posted by soothsayer
We tell Country A that we won't sell them anything.

We tell Country B that their order has been sent.

Country B sells weapons to Country A.

Exactly!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. That is exactly why we should refrain from dispersing weapons of war to other countries (allies or not). The potential for them to fall into enemy hands is too great.

Another thing. Why are our Special Forces guys going all over the world, training other country's SpecOps units? That makes no sense what so ever. I have participated in some, and I'll tell you, it's pointless. They teach us what they know, we teach them what we know. But when compared, what we know is far more valuable then their info. They can't offer us anything, really. Kudos to the Russians and Lithuanians, though. Those guys are hard core!

Mr. M

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by StarChild]