Comment into a post...

Making a post out of this comment from Bushranger:

---

Bushranger 71

Bravo M&S; a whole bunch of very pertinent questions.

The Canberra inner sanctum has the misguided belief that Australia is a medium power and must have the capacity to project military force. Well; the reality is Australia has only 0.32 percent of world population generating only 1.16 to 1.19 percent of world economic effort (3 sources). During the Vietnam War, US President Lyndon B. Johnson referred to Vietnam as "a piddling piss-ant little country". The same could be said of Australia today.

Instead of focusing on proven hardware best suited for operations in adjacent rugged wet tropics environs, the Army/Navy have pushed the notion of deploying expeditionary forces to involve in faraway conflicts at behest of the US. The costs of supporting and protecting one LPD (not an LHD because they have a ski ramp) just to move a battalion group will soak up a big slice of ADF operational capacity and that can hardly be cost-effective employment of small force assets.

There are 2 major fundamental flaws with Australia's defence policy. Firstly, it contends that CONAUS can be defended against armed attack which is physically impossible, but DETERRENCE of interference with trade corridors and littoral assets is a more realistic and affordable aim. Secondly, support of mainly foreign-parented defence industry takes precedence over maintaining cost-effective adequate and credible military preparedness.

A whole bunch of well proven upgradable platforms have/are being shed and replaced by somewhat unproven alternatives with astronomic operating costs. Whereas Australia was once able to rapidly deploy a few Iroquois by C-130 to provide regional assistance, the thinking now seems to be trundling Canberra class LPDs around as support bases for such needs. That is simply not an affordable proposition whereas a bunch of JHSV-1 would have provided much greater tactical flexibility.

Just prior to Election 2007 in which he was defeated, Prime Minister John Howard announced acquisition of 2 x LPDs and associated MRH90 helicopters as a going away present for his former Minister for Defence Peter Reith, then employed by Tenix (now BAE Systems) who originated the aircraft carrier project with intent for fixed wing inclusion in their concept. Just blatant and very flawed politicizing of defence needs.

Australia needs to stop chest beating and realize it is pretty much a
post-colonialism misfit in a region of the world that will become
increasingly dominated by the ASEAN Plus Three bloc of nations
(including PNG and Timor-Leste with Observer status).

Within the past 2 weeks, Prime Minister Tony Abbott (John Howard lite) has announced intent to acquire P-8 Poseidon to replace P-3 Orions and Global Hawk/Triton, both to be based in South Australia which is an economic basket case with an election nigh. While GH/T makes good sense, a much more affordable option for manned LRMP needs would have been to optimize the P-3s as is being done by the RNZAF. Again we see the politicians failing to act responsibly regarding defence requirements within the economic capacity of the nation.

Australia has previously had a modest capacity for smallish shipbuilding which could have been sustained by focusing on more appropriate size ships from frigate/corvette size downwards. But the Australian Government has not adequately husbanded that industry, preferring instead to involve outfits like BAE Systems who just syphon profits out of the country, thus diluting defence spending capacity. The extent to which foreign-parented defence industry is effectively subsidized in Australia is far greater than for the foundering automobile industry.

Forgacs in Newcastle was recently forced to sell off its floating dock to foreign interests, that asset having previously been used for docking of RAN warships. Would it not have been wiser for the Federal Government to acquire that invaluable facility as defence infrastructure and lease same to smaller shipbuilders?