I think that the authors enthusiasm for the Seasprite says all that needs to be said about his understanding of the realities of defence.

Hello Grumbler. Respectfully suggest you carefully peruse the first link in the article. The Kiwis have purchased 8 as new proven Seasprites reconfigured by the manufacturer for just AUD204million including 2 spare airframes, spare parts, weaponry and simulator. Those Seasprites (about $12million each) have virtually the same capabilities as the highly expensive MH-60R (around $43million each) and Australia will spend well above $3billion to acquire 24 Romeo platforms. It would have been much cheaper to optimise the RAN Seahawks in service and pursue the bargain Seasprite opportunity availed by NZ. Wasteful defence spending by Australia just has to be curtailed with greater emphasis on progressively optimising proven assets to capitalise on initial taxpayer investment and assure continual adequate and credible military capacity.

A well argued article.

Australia fortunately is allotting less money to defence. Hence we are less likely to get the urge to buy off-the-plan bright ideas from European and US transnationals.

Its more likely Australia will acquire just 24 JSF F-35s if at all (not 100) and only operationally fly them in Australia in 2022.

Meanwhile new submarines are totally unaffordable with our declining defence spending.

Progress on new submarines will involve more empty announcements from the Gillard Government rather than concrete actions for the next few years. I think no plans should be made until Australia decides to buy 4 Virginia Class nuclear powered attack submarines - with that decision probably being taken in the second term of an Abbott Government.

Pete

Before one decides on which of the military hardware options to adopt one must first have a coherent defence strategy allied with a consistent foreign policy. Once the conceptual framework is established then one has to tackle issues of the suitability of the hardware, coupled with an efficient procurement process.

All of these preconditions have been lacking in recent Australian history under both Coalition and Labor governments. The submarine fiasco, the sea hawk helicopter fiasco, and the premature decision to buy the jsf which even the Pentagon doubts equates with value for money (they clearly don't read Greg Sheridan's desperate spruiking in The Australian!)

We are now promised yet another Defence White Paper that will reverse many of the key planks of the Rudd government White Paper. Budget allocations are like a yo-yo making effective forward planning very difficult even if the military procurement process was efficient which it clearly is not.

To describe our foreign policy as schizophrenic and ill-informed is to be kind. In the 1960s Asia used to be described as the "near north" which seemed to me to be some sort of recognition of geographical realities. That was never developed as it should have been. Instead Australia followed the US into a disastrous and ill-conceived land war in Vietnam. The lessons from that fiasco were clearly not learned because we followed the Americans into Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Last month there were joint exercises with the Americans and the South Koreans provocatively staged on the North Korean border.

If we are singularly incapable of an intelligent and independent foreign policy then it is hardly a matter of surprise that defence procurement should be a comparable shambles.

Hi James

I agree and take it you are well across the many obstacles to "coherent defence strategy" including:

- the many realities of differing political views and interests, including

- inter-service rivalries

- the intellectual capture, sometimes by services, of the Men (rarely women) who write White Papers

- men enamoured with jets that roar hence importance of marketing at Air Shows

- the personal preferences of Defence Ministers for pet projects eg. Beazley-Collins Sub

- state (eg. South Australian) job-electoral priorities

- industry development

- union priorities

- Federal Government ideologies

- more electoral realities

- Defence Department agendas

- budgeting and risk

- opportunity costs and trade-offs (eg. health, NBN, education etc)

All these get in the way of a Good Hard Look.

If we really adjusted our defence strategy to that ethereal thing - an independent foreign policy - this would probably point to a need for Australian nuclear weapons, that is less reliance on American nuclear weapons.

Cheers

Pete

Hi Pete. Agree with everything you say except the final paragraph. Plenty of democratic countries pursue an independent foreign policy (not necessarily ethereal) without feeling the need to resort to nuclear weapons.

What is manifestly lacking as both our contributions imply, is an intelligent debate about the real issues and all their attendant problems. I am frankly sick of the posturing that passes for policy debate from the Coalition and Labor.