Just curious as to the general perception of the fitness, competency, equipment and leadership of the U.S. military from the perspective of our overseas members?

"Please don't hurt us"?

I would just LOVE to hear from a Frenchman on this one.

They probably are wondering who we learned to Blitz krieg from.

By and large, they believe that the US relies far too much on technology and equipment, and not enough on the individual soldier. They also believe, and I happen to agree with them, that the 'zero casualties' policy is going to cause more trouble in the long run than it's worth. "Let's JDAM that house that the suspected enemy ran into instead of risking an infantry section to capture them." End result, dead women/children and suspects, and absolutely no actionable intelligence. In order to achieve result, you have to take risk, and the US won't take that risk.

That said, I know of no professional soldiers that believe that the US can be beaten in a conventional fight. Only problem is that's not what the US faces these days.

British Army forum (Unofficial) is Army Rumour Service
An Irish one is Irish Military Online

Advance warning: Americans with thin skin will not enjoy their visit to ARRSE. It's a fantastic site, though you have to understand the British sense of humour. If you see 'septic' or 'spam' it means 'American'. (Read the ARRSEpaedia for explanations)

NTM

Quoted: British Army forum (Unofficial) is Army Rumour Service NTM

heh that some funny stuff , especially of you imagine it in a heavy cockne  accent

Quoted: By and large, they believe that the US relies far too much on technology and equipment, and not enough on the individual soldier. They also believe, and I happen to agree with them, that the 'zero casualties' policy is going to cause more trouble in the long run than it's worth. "Let's JDAM that house that the suspected enemy ran into instead of risking an infantry section to capture them." End result, dead women/children and suspects, and absolutely no actionable intelligence. In order to achieve result, you have to take risk, and the US won't take that risk. That said, I know of no professional soldiers that believe that the US can be beaten in a conventional fight. Only problem is that's not what the US faces these days. British Army forum (Unofficial) is Army Rumour Service An Irish one is Irish Military Online Advance warning: Americans with thin skin will not enjoy their visit to ARRSE. It's a fantastic site, though you have to understand the British sense of humour. If you see 'septic' or 'spam' it means 'American'. (Read the ARRSEpaedia for explanations) NTM

+1.

Too much support, ground troops and commanders not willing to let anyone get hurt because it will be on camera.  Wouldn't want to tangle with that "too much support" though.

Foreigner's Perception of U.S. Military?

They just want to know what love is.

Our military does rely more on technology than conventional tactics.  I think the reason for this is that Americans place a higher value on human life than most countries of the world and we are willing to spend the $$$ to limit as many American casualties as possible.

If they've got a problem with it, they should cease their heathen ways and try livin right.  Then they wouldn't have to worry about our technology.

Quoted: If they've got a problem with it, they should cease their heathen ways and try livin right.  Then they wouldn't have to worry about our technology.

Unfortunately, the typical Iraqi bystander who happened to have a family in the wrong place at the wrong time when the artillery rounds landed may not quite see it that way.

I guess I should add that the foreigners do distinguish between US Army and US Marine Corps. They generally seem to have a greater respect for the individual Marine's abilities, even if in the larger scheme of things Marines are less capable simply because they lack the same heavy support.

NTM

After being to Europe... three times.


Bunch of cowboys, who dont' really care about much other than their big toys.. and how they use them. Misguided bunch of kids... etc.

Here's a typical example thread from ARRSE.

www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=28936/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html

In the Training section, there's a fairly even-handed discussion on Basic Training differences.

BCT discussion

Some of the Brits are a little obnoxious, but so are one or two of the Americans who also chime in, so it's even. Indeed, pages 6 through 10 are mainly completely off-topic insult tradings, so you have to gloss over a lot of that for the 'meat'.  (That said, the exchange can be a very good example as to why the 'perception' of many Americans is what it is)

It  should also be noted that the British are still a little irked that in the 1991 war, the Americans killed more British soldiers than the Iraqis.

NTM

Quoted: By and large, they believe that the US relies far too much on technology and equipment, and not enough on the individual soldier. They also believe, and I happen to agree with them, that the 'zero casualties' policy is going to cause more trouble in the long run than it's worth. "Let's JDAM that house that the suspected enemy ran into instead of risking an infantry section to capture them." End result, dead women/children and suspects, and absolutely no actionable intelligence. In order to achieve result, you have to take risk, and the US won't take that risk. That said, I know of no professional soldiers that believe that the US can be beaten in a conventional fight. Only problem is that's not what the US faces these days.

I'd agree with both of those statements.


(Although since I've lived in the U.S. and become more aware of aspects of U.S. training and military than I was aware of while I was in the army in Denmark, I have become more and more impressed with the U.S. military).

Quoted: Just curious as to the general perception of the fitness, competency, equipment and leadership of the U.S. military from the perspective of our overseas members?

You're from Vermont...you're a foreigner, you tell us.

SPAM = Spastic Plastic American Motherfucker Common name for our American allies, derivation unclear but none the less very fitting. Septic tank = yank Petrol as in petrol tank = yank See spam North American so called allies that got us into a fix in Iraq due to our spineless leader lacking the backbone to say no, ram it Georgie. Have a habit of downing allied aircraft and shooting up allied troops no matter what recognition method used although to be fair they do tend to shoot at their own troops/vehicles/aircraft with equal enthusiasm. (This has been going on since at least 1944 when General George Patton threatened to take the 3rd Army out of the line, turn it 180 degrees and blow up the 8th Army Air Force airfields to stop the frequently incompetent blue on blue incidents the Army Air Corps were then inflicting daily on their own side.)

 

wtf ever, stuff it brits

Quoted: Very destructive, they kill people and break things, they have lot's of 'Big Boyz Toyz'... ANdy

damn straight.

Quoted: wtf ever, stuff it brits

As I said. Thin-skinned Americans will not enjoy their visit to ARRSE.

NTM

The US military relies on its high tech toys too much.  

As long as they say they really want to be on our side I'm okay with the Brits.  England, it helped
our eventual conception, we fought her for our freedom, and now they are the 51st state.


..........ETA: and now they envy our freedom.

Quoted: The US military relies on its high tech toys too much.

You're not too bright are ya?

Quoted: Very destructive, they kill people and break things, they have lot's of 'Big Boyz Toyz'... ANdy

so as the brits...

Quoted: As long as they say they really want to be on our side I'm okay with the Brits.  England, it helped our eventual conception, we fought her for our freedom, and now they are the 51st state.

i thought its going to be Puerto Rico

Quoted: Foreigner's Perception of U.S. Military? They just want to know what love is.

sorry, youre wrong this time....


theyre hot blooded,  check it and see.....
theyve got a fever of 1 hundred and three....
come on,  GabbasaurusRex, do you do more than dance?

Quoted: Quoted: As long as they say they really want to be on our side I'm okay with the Brits.  England, it helped our eventual conception, we fought her for our freedom, and now they are the 51st state. i thought its going to be Puerto Rico

Other than illegal narcotics what can Puerto Rico contribute to the union?  I actually believe we will one day merge the UK into the U.S. without having to conquer it.  E.U./Socialists collapse will be a sight to see, I suspect another world war will expediate it.

Quoted: By and large, they believe that the US relies far too much on technology and equipment, and not enough on the individual soldier. They also believe, and I happen to agree with them, that the 'zero casualties' policy is going to cause more trouble in the long run than it's worth. "Let's JDAM that house that the suspected enemy ran into instead of risking an infantry section to capture them."

The Wermacht had the same opinion. We all know what happened to them.

Quoted: The US military relies on its high tech toys too much.

Uhhhhhh, your point? Isn't what they buy them for?

It would be unprofessional for an infantry officer to try to seize objectives without using supporting arms and technology he has readily available at his disposal. And it would be dumb.

If the enemy had this technology, you think they'd hesitate to use it?

You don't toss away your men like piss in the wind when you have a better means of accomplishing objectives. That's what 3rd world peasant armies do. And that's seperates us from them.

^^ but most of it are pretty useless in MOUT and CO-IN ops especially in Iraq

Quoted: ^^ but most of it are pretty useless in MOUT and CO-IN ops especially in Iraq

Incorrect.

ok, what other high tech toy/s other than the UAVs thats been proven to be useful in killing insurgents and protecting the troops effectively from IEDs?

Compared to the Germans, American soldiers are rather big/obese.

Quoted: ok, what other high tech toy/s other than the UAVs thats been proven to be useful in killing insurgents and protecting the troops effectively from IEDs?

Night Vision.

which is not too useful during the day when the insurgents are most active

Quoted: Quoted: ok, what other high tech toy/s other than the UAVs thats been proven to be useful in killing insurgents and protecting the troops effectively from IEDs? Night Vision.

Tactics

duh?!

Quoted: ok, what other high tech toy/s other than the UAVs thats been proven to be useful in killing insurgents and protecting the troops effectively from IEDs?

Sigh.

1) GPS. You have heard of GPS, no?

2) Night vision, especially thermal imaging.

3) UAVs are 'high tech', in case you haven't noticed.

4) IED jamming gear. Google it.

5) Improved body armor. I know, tough guys like you don't need it, but it has helped keep our casualty rates down.

6) Proliferation of radios throughout smaller units.

That's just off the top of my head. You really should expand your sources of knowledge; 20/20 and 60 Minutes are going to give you a pretty skewed view of what's what.

We frequent their clubs, drink their beer and marry their women!           We’ll that’s what most the bar fights were started over…………..I think.    

the big ticket items...not those little thingies you mentioned which are common among modern armies...

your high-tech equipment is pretty much useless when fighting a domestic insurgency simply because it's designed for mass destruction and can't be used in the close-in, urban enviornment where the majority of insurgent attacks take place.

yes, you COULD use it and destroy whole cities or neighborhoods and that probably would effectively kill off the insurgency, but what's the trade off for doing so? In a war in which the hearts and minds of the average citizen are the key to victory, killing innocents in droves is not likely to lead to additional support for our mission, is it?

Quoted: the big ticket items...not those little thingies you mentioned which are common among modern armies... your high-tech equipment is pretty much useless when fighting a domestic insurgency simply because it's designed for mass destruction and can't be used in the close-in, urban enviornment where the majority of insurgent attacks take place. yes, you COULD use it and destroy whole cities or neighborhoods and that probably would effectively kill off the insurgency, but what's the trade off for doing so? In a war in which the hearts and minds of the average citizen are the key to victory, killing innocents in droves is not likely to lead to additional support for our mission, is it?

I guess the Marines and Soldiers in the battle of Fallujah didn't get that memo.

Quoted: Compared to the Germans, American soldiers are rather big/obese.

Which Germans would that be? The ones who's asses we kicked or the ones who's asses we saved?

Quoted: the big ticket items...not those little thingies you mentioned which are common among modern armies...

 Yes, the DEW line is of limited use against insurgents in Iraq. But guess what, brainiac, GPS was developed for the military. How the hell doesn't that qualify as 'technology'? Ditto all the other crap I listed.

your high-tech equipment is pretty much useless when fighting a domestic insurgency simply because it's designed for mass destruction and can't be used in the close-in, urban enviornment where the majority of insurgent attacks take place.

What the unholy hell are you going on about? Did Santa bring you head-trauma for Christmas?

yes, you COULD use it and destroy whole cities or neighborhoods and that probably would effectively kill off the insurgency...

Like what? What the hell does your extra-chromosome ass consider to be 'technology'? You are just blabbering on about 'mass destruction', while ignoring GPS, radios, jammers, artillery radar, and all the other crap that actually gets used.

Quoted: Quoted: Compared to the Germans, American soldiers are rather big/obese. Which Germans would that be? The ones who's asses we kicked or the ones who's asses we saved?

Today's Germans buddy, it's quite striking.
Also,I do wonder at times wether the use of steroids is common among certain US service folks, I've seen some huge guys.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Compared to the Germans, American soldiers are rather big/obese. Which Germans would that be? The ones who's asses we kicked or the ones who's asses we saved? Today's Germans buddy, it's quite striking.

That would be the ones we saved.

Quoted: I've seen some huge guys.

You better hope they don't see you looking!  

Quoted: Quoted: I've seen some huge guys. You better hope they don't see you looking!

Haha!

I often hear that the US military now uses the "soft" approach and doesn't take "chances" or "risks" to achieve objectives. Rather, we "rely" on technology and firepower to avoid "danger".

Well, I can think of many cases where the US military did just the opposite in the past, often completely unecessary and when better means were available. The tough approach usually worked, but it often resulted in a much greater loss of life than was necessary.

A perfect example is the various "hill battles" that were fought throughout Vietnam. Never have I seen such cases of senseless waste on the part of our military commanders (due mainly to the tactics and thinking of the period). This is particularly true of Hill 875 at Dak To and Hill 937 in the A Shau Valley (better known as Hamburger Hill).

In both cases, a large force of enemy defenders occupied the hills and were extremely well dug in, with bunkers, trenches, and spider holes. Many of the bunkers and spider holes were connected by tunnels. These made very defensible positions. And our normal array of infantry weaponry (mortars, 40mm grenades and 60mm and 81mm mortars were incapable of penetrating many of these defenses, especially underground tunnels where the enemy often sought refuge when things got too hot on the surface. In addition, many of these bunkers and tunnels were reinforced with logs and rocks, so while they weren't all that deep, they still provided protection from heavier weapons, including US artillery and the napalm and smaller bombs so often used by US aircraft for close air support.

So what do we do? We recon and determined the enemy was there. Ok, that part sounds good. But the next step is what baffles me. We then bring in a battalion or two of infantry, line them up, and make a frontal assault on the enemy, advancing uphill, right straight into the teeth of the enemy defenses! Our guys usually ended up getting pinned down, suffering heavy casualties, then calling in air and artillery that was minimally effective because the enemy had his tunnels to escape to when this began. Then when the artillery and air strikes ceases, they'd reassume their positions and the whole thing would be played out again. Eventually the enemy would be killed off or finally withdraw, just leaving the hill, but would return later to retake the hill without a shot being fired, after we withdrew. Then it would get repeated once more. What a brilliant way to fight a war huh?

However, had our ground commanders at the time instead used sound strategy, rather than trying to make each battle resemble storming the beaches at Normandy all over again, none of this would have been necessary and we could have taken all of those hills very easily and with little loss of life on our part.  We had tons of readily available airpower, including B-52 bombers. Why weren't they used EFFECTIVELY?

Had we used the common sense type of decision making processes then that our commanders display today, here's how those battles would have gone down: Recon patrols would have confirmed the enemy presence. Perhaps they would have even engaged briefly (or not, depending on the circumstances. Then we would have quietly withdrawn to new positions back away from the hill (or under the cover of arty and tac air which would have been pinning in the enemy in their bunkers and tunnels if engaged). Then the heavy hitters would have been brought in (B-52's), carrying 2000 pound bombs with delayed fuses. Those bombs would have penetrated deeply enough and had enough charge to totally annihilate anyone hiding in those positions. The bunker and tunnel systems would have been destroyed, the enemy would be dead and buried within their fortifications and we would have had few, if any casualties in the process. And, since these were isolated areas, there would have been little danger to civilian villages. Now tell me, which would be the better method? There is a time to be John Wayne and then there are times for being smart. The use of our men sent against hills in such a fashion was not smart, nor was it responsible, consdering we had other, more effective means we could have used......if they had only been employed.

I am all for using guts and taking risks in appropriate situations. But there are times when brains work better than brawn. For example, in Fallujah, we had to go in with a ground assault force to take the area. And we did so, with great success I might add. Yes, we suffered casualties in the process. But this was the type of battle that couldn't be avoided and our tactics were based on the situation at hand. We couldn't just bomb and shell the enemy in this city randomly, because of the obvious civilian presence. So we went in with a complete combined arms team of infantry, armor, artillery and air. And it was used brilliantly and with great success. And we fought the largest and toughest urban battle we'd seen since Hue in Vietnam. But rather than misusing our forces in a an unnecessary way when other choices were available, this was clearly a case where an assualt by ground forces on a defended position made sense.

Therefore I don't view our military today as "soft" or "unwilling to take risks". Instead, I see our military being much smarter and more professional than they were 30 or 40 years ago, a time when unnecessary risks were taken when there were better ways to accomplish the same mission.

We're glad that theyre on our side.

Talking to the .mil guys over here, they seem to thnk that the yanks have some great toys, but don't maintain them properly. Stuff that your guys see as disposible, ours would see as repairable and maintainable. It comes from the U.S. being very much richer than Australia. You can afford to be far more casual wth your gear than us. A good example are the Perry class frigates. They were designed to be cheap, disposible patrol frigates with a 20 yr service life and very little scope for upgrade. We've paid off the two built in the U.S., kept the 4 built here (better quality steel), and are now upgrading them with SM-2, RAM CIWS, Nulka decoy, etc. and plan for keeping them for about 30-40 years. We also took a couple of Newport class LSTs, gave them a real hull, instead of the flat bottom it had, took off the derricks and turned them into LPHs. When our guys got hold of them, they were appalled at the amount of rust in them. They had just left the fleet, and were barely seaworthy. Our Navy guys were of the opinion that they were the worst buys that had ever done, and resented the gov forcing them on the Navy.

On the topic of fighting prowess, well, our guys are better
They like training with the U.S. military, and reckon that thay're a competant fighting force. Size is a handicap that goes both ways. Our .mil is small, so there is alot that we can't do. However, we make better use of our limited resources. The U.S. mil is MUCH larger and richer, so can do more, but because they have never had to learn how to make do with very little, they need more resources than our guys to accomplish the same job.

As for being casualty conscious, well, every western country has the same problem. There are that many (usually left-leaning) groups out there just waiting to make political capital of of the bodies of dead servicemen and -women that no commander or esp. gov is willing to risk too many casualties. Hopefully Iraq has taught the US the lesson that it is not the end of the world when your soldiers are killed. Their sacrifice is supposed to be honoured, not avoided and ridiculed. We haven't learnt that one over here yet.

Quoted: They like training with the U.S. military, and reckon that thay're a competant fighting force. Size is a handicap that goes both ways. Our .mil is small, so there is alot that we can't do. However, we make better use of our limited resources. The U.S. mil is MUCH larger and richer, so can do more, but because they have never had to learn how to make do with very little, they need more resources than our guys to accomplish the same job.

Because we are in a war-time footing, large amounts of money and equipment are being handed out.  That wasn't always so, Clinton years where very frugal.   My EOD unit's training budget was pathetic, we got just enough ammo to qualify on our weapons. The explosives training allocations was a fucking joke, so bad we didn't even bother to draw it as each EOD tech was allocated 2 blocks of C-4, some blasting caps, and M-60 igniters with some time fuse.  TWO farking blocks!!!!

We had to scrounge for everything from maintenance and other support or buy it ourselves.

Some Brits are just envious because we whipped ass then had to save them.

Quoted: Quoted: They like training with the U.S. military, and reckon that thay're a competant fighting force. Size is a handicap that goes both ways. Our .mil is small, so there is alot that we can't do. However, we make better use of our limited resources. The U.S. mil is MUCH larger and richer, so can do more, but because they have never had to learn how to make do with very little, they need more resources than our guys to accomplish the same job. Because we are in a war-time footing, large amounts of money and equipment are being handed out.  That wasn't always so, Clinton years where very frugal.   My EOD unit's training budget was pathetic, we got just enough ammo to qualify on our weapons. The explosives training allocations was a fucking joke, so bad we didn't even bother to draw it as each EOD tech was allocated 2 blocks of C-4, some blasting caps, and M-60 igniters with some time fuse.  TWO farking blocks!!!! We had to scrounge for everything from maintenance and other support or buy it ourselves.

I hear what you're saying, but this perception goes back a loooong way. The American way of war has always been to take alot of stuff, use alot of stuff, and throw alot of stuff out. Its just a size thing. the Klinton years might have been bad, but you did ok under Regan and Bush I, not so good under Carter, then were on a continuous war footing right back to WW2 with a massive military.

Our military budget is US$8.9B. Out of that, we have
Army: Organisation
The Australian Army is being organised so that it can deploy a number of battlegroups, consisting of infantry, armour, artillery etc in the correct proportions relavent to each type of mission. For this, nine seperate army units are being structured to act as battlegroup headquarters:
1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th Bn, Royal Australian Regiment are light infantry battalions, with 5/7 Bn as a mechanized battalion and the 4th Bn as a newly raised Commando Bn. The Special Air Service Regiment also fulfills Counter Terrorism and Long Range Recconnaisance.
1st Armoured Regiment
2nd Cavalry Regiment
2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment (Queensland Mounted Infantry)
1st Aviation Regiment
[edit]
Statistics
Australian Army statistics
Personnel (Regular Army) 25,200
Personnel (Army Reserve) 17,200
Main Battle Tanks 71 Leopard 1
Infantry fighting vehicles 113 ASLAV
Armoured Personnel Carriers 700 M113
Land Rovers
Artillery 376
Aircraft 132

Royal Australian Navy
Major Surface Combatants

[edit]
ANZAC class Frigate (MEKO 200) (7)
HMAS Anzac (FFH 150)
HMAS Arunta (FFH 151)
HMAS Warramunga (FFH 152)
HMAS Stuart (FFH 153)
HMAS Parramatta (FFH 154)
HMAS Ballarat (FFH 155)
HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156)


[edit]
Adelaide class Guided Missile Frigate (FFG7) (5)
HMAS Adelaide (FFG 01)
HMAS Sydney (FFG 03)
HMAS Darwin (FFG 04)
HMAS Melbourne (FFG 05)
HMAS Newcastle (FFG 06)
[edit]


Amphibious Forces



HMAS Manoora
[edit]
Kanimbla class Landing Platform Amphibious (former Newport class)(2)
HMAS Kanimbla (L 51)
HMAS Manoora (L 52)
[edit]
Landing Ship Heavy (1)
HMAS Tobruk (L 50)
[edit]
Balikpapan class Landing Craft Heavy (6)
HMAS Balikpapan (L 126)
HMAS Brunei (L 127)
HMAS Labuan (L 128)
HMAS Tarakan (L 129)
HMAS Wewak (L 130)
HMAS Betano (L 133)
[edit]
Mine Warfare Forces

Huon class minehunter (6)
HMAS Huon (M 82)
HMAS Hawkesbury (M 83)
HMAS Norman (M 84)
HMAS Gascoyne (M 85)
HMAS Diamantina (M 86)
HMAS Yarra (M 87)
[edit]
Patrol Vessels

[edit]
Fremantle class patrol boat (12)
HMAS Fremantle (FCPB 203)
HMAS Townsville (FCPB 205)
HMAS Wollongong (FCPB 206)
HMAS Launceston (FCPB 207)
HMAS Ipswich (FCPB 209)
HMAS Bendigo (FCPB 211)
HMAS Gawler (FCPB 212)
HMAS Geraldton (FCPB 213)
HMAS Dubbo (FCPB 214)
HMAS Geelong (FCPB 215)
HMAS Gladstone (FCPB 216)
HMAS Bunbury (FCPB 217)
[edit]
Armidale class patrol boat (1)
HMAS Armidale (FCPB 83)
[edit]
Survey Vessels

[edit]
Leeuwin class ocean survey vessel (2)
HMAS Leeuwin (A 245)
HMAS Melville (A 246)
[edit]
Paluma class coastal survey vessel (4)
HMAS Paluma (A 01)
HMAS Mermaid (A 02)
HMAS Shepparton (A 03)
HMAS Benalla (A 04)
[edit]
Submarines

[edit]
Collins class submarine (6)
HMAS Collins (SSG 73)
HMAS Farncomb (SSG 74)
HMAS Waller (SSG 75)
HMAS Decaineux (SSG 76)
HMAS Sheean (SSG 77)
HMAS Rankin (SSG 78)
[edit]
Replenishment Vessels

[edit]
Fleet Oiler (1)
HMAS Westralia (O 195)
[edit]
Dual Stores Replenishment Vessel (1)
HMAS Success (OR 304)

Royal Australian Airforce

Aircraft


A F-18 Hornet of the Royal Australian Air Force
As of 2005, the following aircraft are operated by the RAAF:
71 F/A-18 Hornet fighters, built in Australia under licence from McDonnell Douglas. The F/A-18 fleet has been the subject of various upgrades since it entered service in the 1980s and remains capable, but fatigue issues may mean that it will not remain a viable front-line air defence option until the planned retirement date of 2015.
35 General Dynamics F-111 bombers, a mixture of the original long-range F-111C type, RF-111 reconnaissance variants, and ex-USAF F-111G attrition replacements.
20 Lockheed Martin P-3 Orion maritime patrol and strike aircraft, upgraded to AP-3C standard.
24 Lockheed Martin C-130H and C-130J Hercules transports.
14 de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou tactical transports.
33 BAe Hawk lead-in trainers.
67 Pilatus PC-9 advanced trainers.
50 PAC CT/4 basic trainers - better known as the "Plastic Parrot", owned and operated by BAe Systems.
5 Boeing 707s: four are dual role tanker/transports, one a pure transport. Because of the electoral cost of spending public funds on new VIP transports for politicians, the 707 fleet remained on VIP duties long after the high ongoing maintenance costs made it uneconomic. At one stage, Australian ambassadors had to make a practice of requesting special waivers of the usual aircraft noise regulations from foreign governments prior to official visits. Since the long-term lease of two Boeing 737s, the elderly 707s are now used for military purposes only.
3 Bombardier Challenger 604 VIP transports.
2 Boeing BBJ 737 VIP transports.
[edit]
Flying Squadrons
No 1 Squadron - General Dynamics F-111 (Ground Attack)
No 2 Squadron - Boeing Wedgetail (AEW&C) (operational 2007)
No 3 Squadron - McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (Air Defence)
No 6 Squadron - General Dynamics F-111 (Training/Ground Attack)
No 10 Squadron - Lockheed P-3C Orion (Maritime Patrol)
No 11 Squadron - Lockheed P-3C Orion (Maritime Patrol)
No 33 Squadron - Boeing 707 (AAR)
No 34 Squadron - Boeing 737, Bombardier Challenger 604 (Transport)
No 36 Squadron - Lockheed C-130H Hercules (Transport)
No 37 Squadron - Lockheed C-130J Hercules (Transport)
No 38 Squadron - De Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou (Transport)
No 75 Squadron - McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (Air Defence)
No 76 Squadron - BAE Systems Hawk 127 (Advanced Training/Close Support)
No 77 Squadron - McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (Air Defence)
No 79 Squadron - BAE Systems Hawk 127 (Advanced Training/Close Support)

Plus the usual bases and bits and pieces that any military has, plus the Reserves. All of this for US$8.9B per year. Now you see what I mean when I say that our guys reckon that you have lots, and that take lots of gear why you deploy. I'm not saying  that either is better. But I hope that you can see what foreigners mean when they say that the U.S. relys more on technology an LOTS of equipment. It is becuase, compared to everyone else, you do. On the ammo and training issue, before the 1999 East Timor deployment and WOT stuff boosted reserves, it was estimated that there was enough ammo in the country to last 1 week of war.

Quoted: But I hope that you can see what foreigners mean when they say that the U.S. relys more on technology an LOTS of equipment. It is becuase, compared to everyone else, you do...

I still don't understand your logic. Because we have a metric assload of equipment, we 'rely' on it more than other nations rely on the same equipment? I don't see how we rely on our tanks or fighters or whatever more than any other nation does. It's just that we have more tanks and fighters.

Our defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, is something like 3.2%. France is at ~2.9%, and Great Britain is at ~2.5%. So while our spending, as a percentage of GDP, is slightly higher than the Western average, it certainly isn't extraordinarily higher than other Western nations. And that 3.2% is 3.2% of a ~12.5 trillion USD/year GDP, so we have a similiarly proportioned slice of much bigger pie to play with than does a France or Germany.

As for us having lots of stuff, sure we do. We need it. If China should invade Taiwan, it isn't going to be France that rushes wing after wing of the latest and greatest fighters to defend Taiwan. Should another war happen in Korea, it won't be German divisions sent to the scene. When Kosovo needed bombing, who was called upon to provide the biggest number of sorties? And not but a few years ago, there was this little union of republics, soviet and socialist in nature, that needed staring down. And so forth.

Besides, we learned our lesson from WW2: Don't go to war with 'just enough'. Why buy 500 M1 Abrams when we can afford 5000? One carrier might make France giddy, but we want 12, plus a horde of assault ships. 200 F-16s would be good, but 2000 would be better.

*shrug*

I'm not saying that the perception isn't there, but I have yet to see any reasonable explanation put forward for it.