I to sympathize with some of what Dupont said:
The savings should be ploughed back into more "boots on the ground", allowing the army to strengthen its ability to deploy more troops on missions like those in East Timor and the Solomon Islands.
"We ought not to direct a high proportion of our limited defence resources towards maritime systems and platforms designed primarily for great-power conflicts."
However, we would have a gain in manpower if it wasn't off on the other side of the world doing a fool's errand in Operation:USELESS DIRT.
And, we also need more small patrol ships and a frigate replacement
I am OK with the sub numbers if they are Euro-design small-crews. The big sub rent-seeking effort, the Hobart-class air-warfare destroyers, the Canberra-class flat-tops and the Just So Failed will waste manpower and cash we do not have.
3 comments:
Nonsense. Dupont is a dill.The Indonesians are not that stupid, not are the Chinese.
I have a hard time seeing why Australia needs stuff that can't be forward deployed or is short ranged. Does anyone really think about an invasion? Happy invading then! Even if using some of the islands as jumping-off point. I think priority should be near-unconventional infantry with a fitting amount of easily deployable 2D/3D mobility assets, strategic ISR (that comfortably reaches the Chinese coast), and long-range strike assets whereby I would prefer land based long-range cruise missiles (long range as in 5.000km, against both ships and land targets), and then enough subs to make any enemy coming through the Sunda islands uncomfortable. But face it: Why should anyone attack Australia? What would that be good for? Perth (and maybe Darwin) could have major value as a forward USN base, but otherwise I'm not sure. In any case if Australia is serious about the whole Chinese thing interoperability and compatability with U.S. assets has to be priority number one.
Distiller you are correct. Why woild anyone attack Australia if they know we have a "carbon and mining tax"?
Post a Comment