The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The myth of the Howard Government's defence competence > Comments

The myth of the Howard Government's defence competence : Comments

By James Sinnamon, published 21/11/2007

Why Howard and Nelson could not have saved Australia in 1942.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I think the author is drawing a very long bow in claiming that Australia would have been defeated in 1942 if Howard had been in charge. The fact is that Australia was very lucky in WW2. Japan didn't even decide to enter the war until 1941, when the prospect of rich european colonial pickings, together with an inability to come to a modus vivendi with the United States and still continue with its territorial ambitions, became irresistible. Even then, we were saved by the inability of the axis to come up with any strategic plan. If the Germans and Japanese had decided that Japan would move into the Dutch East Indies around the time of the Battle of Britain and acquire all its resources (particularly oil), and then attack Malaya and Australia, while leaving the Phillipines strictly alone, the US would have done nothing. Then, having secured its supplies, Japan would have attacked Siberia at the same time the Germans attacked Russia from the west, and Russia would have had the two front war, and would probably have been defeated.

The claims that Australia was able to provide for its defence equipment locally in 1941 takes no account of the very much simpler technology of the time. To make similar provision at present would be almost impossible, and would at least require a national sacrifice comparable to that of Israel. In being able to procure modern equipment at a tiny fraction of its development cost is a benefit that few on the left appreciate. We do extremely well out of the US alliance.

As to the criticism of the F-111 replacement, trouble is I remember the scathing criticism when we purchased the aircraft, mostly from those on the left who hate defence spending, and expected us to be defended by the UN, or good intentions or something.

I believe that the major threat facing us in the next few decades will be from countries demanding we take millions of their surplus population. The tiny dribble of illegal immigrants at present is only a foretaste of the avalanche to come.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 8:32:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm Lets see.......

A submarine or two - no crews and upgrading in progress.
An attack helicopter or two - well, who knows when they will be available.
An early warning aircraft or two (AEW&C) - perhaps soon... a long delayed project.
A M113 or two - Vietnam era troop carriers being refurbished........really!
An F/A 18 or two - HUG (Hornet Upgrade Program) appears to be in difficulty. I can see another squadron of Super Hornets or two, being purchased.

A FFG or ANZAC or two - Well not really. Suitable for coastal duties (deep water only) and no threat scenario's, if there is enough crews. Upgrades also in progress which to date have resulted in the permanent operational loss of two FFG and the wasting of a few million or so.
A fleet oiler or two - well the new one does not handle helicopters very well (but it does carry oil) and the other one is on deployment and soon to be refitted.
A landing ship or two - well we have not had them very long. They were a bit rusty when we purchased them and we had to spend millions in attempting to fix them. I would not like to live on one (as crew or a deployed soldier). New one's will be at least a decade in arriving.

An Abraham's or two - land bound, no ships to carry them and the new landing barges are suffering structural defects. Nice pictures of them on exercise though. (Only 1 Abraham's can be carried on a C-17).

The really big decision of course is over which shoulder to throw the next billion or so of taxpayers dollars in pursuit of yet another "you beaut" defence procurement.

And pigs might fly. (Woops, actually they do but they are being retired from 2010).

Oh well........
Posted by PaulJP, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 9:43:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly,

I don't claim to be an authority on the subject matter, but I believe that I have gained knowledge sufficient as to allow me to write a useful article that might help correct one of the Big Lies of the current election campaign.

Some of the ideas in this article were first raised in an earlier discussion thread of 28 July "Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860

Nigel from Jerrabomberra,

If you chose to pronounce my whole article as "ill-informed twaddle" then perhaps you should respond to its core arguments instead of making pronouncements about issues not raised in the article.

In regard to the Collins class submarine's combat system, the only aspect of my article to which you have responded:

As a consequence of the criterion for 'interoperability' with the US, the submarine designers were forced to use, contrary to the recommendations of the government sponsored MacIntosh/Prescott report that 'only proven in-service systems' be used, the Raytheon Combat Control System (CCS), a wholly unproven derivative of a system for larger nuclear powered boats, was used instead of the the German STN Atlas ISUS-90 system which had been successfully used in 10 of the world's conventional submarine fleets. The need to adapt the CCS to a conventionally powered submarine has posed major design problems. If you maintain that this has somehow brought Australia's "conventional submarines into the 21st century", please provide more details.

---

In regard to the privatisation of defence housing, it's beside the point when privatisation began. To it's shame the Labor Party did privatise many assets when it was in office, but this was not a policy that any Labor Government worthy of its name would have adopted. In fact, Federal Labor's privatisation policies originated in John Howard's unsuccessful 1985 election campaign.

I for one, am getting weary of the argument for privatisation you have advanced. Because you can cite examples of how defence housing may not have been well managed when it belonged to the government, it therefore necessarily follows that it must be privatised.

(more later)

James Sinnamon (author)
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 22 November 2007 2:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nigel from Jerrabomberra

You seem to be saying that Labor ran down the defense forces some fifteen years ago. That might well be true, but that's not what the article is about. As for East Timor, you may wish to read the excellent study Dr. Clinton Fernandes, entitled "Reluctant Saviour", who has a little to do with military matters which a modicum of research will lead you to discover.

http://www.scribepub.com.au/Catalogue/Reluctant%20Saviour.html
http://www.etan.org/et2004/october/13-21/20sav.htm
http://www.etan.org/et2005/october/08/13defens.htm

Concentrate on the issues of the article; the purchase of new planes, tanks and naval vessels and engage in a cost-benefit analysis. Could a better choice be made?

Apropros the original article, the following appeared in today's Age newspaper

"Either way, defence will change"

WHOEVER wins the election, Australia's defence and security concerns — and the strategies to deal with them — will change significantly over the next three years.

Both sides have committed to a new defence white paper to map out the country's strategic direction, a move strongly supported by the defence hierarchy.

More at:

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2007/11/21/1195321865871.html
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 22 November 2007 7:10:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It should be the policy of any Australian government to get us as close as possible to being able to defend ourselves. Our manpower will never match the likes of China, India or the US but instead we could just try to have a much bigger version of what we have now, a technologically sophisticated (though this could be improved further, well trained, and manpower effecient military.

It is rather embarassing despite the circumstances that a island like Britain with much less coastline has a much greater defence ability than a whole continent. We must do whatever possible to remedy this and make Australia's coastline secure through a world-leading navy, with the air and land support to back it up.
Posted by aussie_eagle2512, Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:34:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This post from Webdiary with the title "God Help The Country If Howard Wins" at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2200#comment-72124 may be of interest:

The admirable Senator John Faulkner has posted a lengthy catalogue of the Howard government's bacchanal at the expense not just of the taxpayer, but of national security as well. Read it all at http://eherald.alp.org.au/articles/0306/magopine23-01.php .

An idea of the processes involved in defence procurement can be gained from Richard Pelvin's article (scroll down) Acquiring Armour: Some Aspects of the Australian Army's Leopard Tank Purchase at http://www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/Publications/journal/AAJ_Summer_05_06/AAJ_Summer_05_06.pdf

Howard deserves to be sacked for his cavalier Joint Strike Fighter 'decision' alone, never mind the long list of scandals and rorts provided by Faulkner.
Posted by cacofonix, Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:37:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy