"While the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter will deliver a potent and survivable strike capability with precision stand-off missiles and supported by AEW&C and tanker aircraft, the 2009 Defence White Paper stated that the Government places a priority on broadening our strategic strike options.
This will occur through the acquisition of maritime-based land-attack cruise missiles, fitted to the air-warfare destroyers, the future frigate and the future submarine.
By not recognizing that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be unable to stand up to emerging Pacific-Rim threats, Dibbs has no way of doing anything else but endorsing a policy that will make sure that any "Air Warfare Destroyer", or other surface ship will end up like the Repulse and Prince of Wales.
Without credible air superiority, any dream of going after someone other than a 3rd-world nation that doesn't have a threat-air-force lacks any good sense.
And...
I do not believe that we should conjure up the number of submarines we require based on highly unlikely scenarios of war with a major power adversary – namely China – which we would attack with Tomahawk cruise missiles. I would expect the new Defence white paper to move away from that sort of highly provocative language and to acknowledge that nuclear deterrence and the intensity of economic interdependence in Asia does put a brake on the potentiality for major power conflict.
If not for deterrence against communist China, then for whom? Fortunately communist China hasn't been bullying anyone in the South China Sea.
Oh wait... they have.
But back to costing (btw, Australia is in debt and has wacky annual budgets that are nanny-state dreams par excellence) and more on his air power assumptions:
...By far the most expensive projects in the current Defence Capability Plan are the Future Submarines with acquisition costs of about $25 billion,the Joint Strike Fighters for $16 billion...
There is no credibility in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter coming in at $16B...or less.
If he sees long-range cruise missile attack as a real need, well, Australia threw that away already with the F-111. Rise and repeat. Each day and not waiting days for a sub with a few shots to be in position.
Even easier to do if he refuses to see expeditionary communist Chinese forces as a future Pacific Rim threat.
1 comment:
Conventional attacks against Mainland China are useless. To do that Australia would have to go nuclear.
So I think focus should be on (i) being compatible and interoperable with whatever units the U.S. can reasonably be expected to operate in Australias neighborhood; (ii) maritime anti-access systems to make life hard for any ChiCom surface and subsurface and strategic aerial units roaming Australia's eastern and western approaches; (iii) having a robust ISR capability able to reach as far as the South China Sea; and (iv) a robust long-range anti-ship cruise missile capability reaching into the Java and Celebes Sea (and if it does not exist, develop and build it!)
Post a Comment