France has built at least one and possibly two Mistral amphibious assault ships, also known as helicopter carriers, for Russia. Russia paid 1.2 billion euros in advance in early 2011, but delivery of the ships has been put on hold indefinitely. The money is still with France.
Could this be in part explained because France re-joined NATO in March 2009, and NATO, with Hollande as a cheer leader, was complicit in toppling the elected government of Ukraine in 2014. One objective - the main objective? - was to wrest control of the Black Sea port of Sevastopol from Russia.
This objective failed rather spectacularly, with Crimea again a part of Russia as it was before 1954.
Also, on November 18th, 2014 Sputnik news reported that the French government has denied access to the Russian training crew for the Mistral ship Vladivostok docked at St. Nazaire.
http://journal-neo.org/2014/11/20/the-mistral-affair-breach-of-contract-or-hostile-act/
When was Putin made Russian Leader for Life? I thought he was serving a five year term as President.

True Australia's conventional defense force is small but we could develop icbm's whenever we need to.

Progressive Pat, Australia couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

We would need to beg any potential invader to hold the invasion until we got three of our six submarines working at least some of the time, got our vintage Vietnam helicopters out of mothballs, and received at least a couple of our American SuperDooper Hornets already six or more years late in delivery!

As to us producing ICBMs in a hurry, well, the Yanks have probably located them all over Australia without our knowledge so there's probably no room!

In the world of war, Australia is a non-event, a drink carrier, a joke.

Best thing we can do is to drive the Americans from our shores and become neutral!

And as for President Putin's unsmiling face, how's this for a thousand word photo:
http://rt.com/files/opinionpost/31/de/b0/00/1.jpg

Hi Halduell

Your Mistral, Ukraine, France in NATO theory, probably doesn't hold water. Many NATO nations also maintain military commercial relations with Russia although France is probably the most extreme current example.

The reliance of many NATO members and Ukraine on Russian gas also complicates relations.

France has had varying statuses within NATO for the last 65 years. The French have this irritating tendency to put their own national interests first and the power to build significant conventional and nuclear military forces.
---

Hi progressive pat

It usually takes around 30 years to develop ICBMs and also the related nuclear weapons - so Australia would take too long to counter Russia, China and maybe India. The logic of relying on the US nuclear umbrella ("extended deterrence") makes more sense and is a major benefit of Australia's relationship with the US.

Yes Putin cracks a smile http://rt.com/files/opinionpost/31/de/b0/00/1.jpg in his off-guard moments - but do you reckon this is more typical http://youtu.be/K9g36QB5uos ?

---

Hi David G

I reckon you truely admire the Yanks deep down :)

Its true that:

- without US superpower protection we'd be stuffed

- our Collins subs remain below par in availability and overly expensive to maintain

- Australia is OK for helicopters although the Tigers have come in very late and over-budget.

- the Hornets and Super Hornets were on time and budget, thankyou Boeing, but

- the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters are years late and over-budget, no thankyou Lockheed Martin

- small ballistic missiles on Australia's future submarines make much more sense than vulnerable ICBMs

The history of neutral countries are that they are frequently invaded anyway (eg. Belgium), have their own nuclear weapons (eg. India, maybe Israel) or are implicitly protected on NATO's flanks (eg. Sweden and Switzerland)

Cheers

Pete

Progressive Pat, I side with D.G. here.
We spent years testing rockets at Womera, and are even building smart bombs.
We know how to make stealth bombers/drones to deliver them anywhere.
We invented the pulsed laser light uranium enrichment, and could even build bombs here.
We invented the scram jet, more that a capable vehicle for delivering such devices, and from a relatively safe distance; launched from the belly of a stealth bomber, delivered by remote control and via the stratosphere.
All well and good; given the huge gap between knowing and doing; talking and walking.
Were we serious, about self defense self sufficiency/reliance, we would up the defense spend to at least 5% of the matching that, with defense related R+D!
The problem here is a government hell bent on doing S.F.A. and or, politically expedient sweetheart deals?
If we were serious about intended self reliance!?
The very first thing to go would be our tax system, with more holes than Swiss cheese; and which virtually allows those, mostly foreigners, earning the biggest profits, to escape with paying little if any tax!
The second would be the junking of the heritage listing of the GBR, to ensure we have the fuel needed to fight any self defense effort indefinitely.
And don't forget, defense industries need energy/communications; simply cut off by a few well aimed missiles, that shut down the national grid!
D.G. is right!
We currently have one weeks worth of reserve fuel!
A thousand fighters are worthless if out of gas and stuck on the ground; ditto amour, ships and subs, and just waiting for a pearl harbor style attack, to ram the, wet paper bag message home!
Rhrosty.

@Plantagenet, posted Friday, 21 November 2014 11:40:04 AM
Pete
I'm not sure which part of my post you suggest doesn't hold water.
Russia did order the Mistral ships
She also paid for them in advance
France accepted the order and the advance payment
The ships have been built
Delivery has been denied
France has kept both the ships and the payment
As for the NATO link, while I admit this does have some supposition on my part, I base that on my impression that the NATO countries, the EU in general and Australia are all looking in their relationship to the US more and more like the old music logo, His Master's Voice.
It's a national shame we could not have chosen a more neutral stance, but as Abbott's national agenda tanks, he is drawn to playing on the international stage to compensate. To do that, he needs a patron as this article so amply demonstrates. He could have just stayed at home and concentrated on being an English speaking Asian nation, but I fear that would require more courage and imagination than our PM has shown to date.

Brave Sir Rhrosty

As is often your want you ere on the side of nationalist science fiction.

Taking your unsubstantiated claims in turn:

- It was the UK that for years tested rockets at "Womera" (sic) including the Blue Streak medium-range ballistic missile and Europa rocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_(missile)

- the Russians and Chinese are still developing "stealth bombers" and "stealth drones". Only the US has completed these stealth items and made them operational.

- However I agree that Australia developed the SILEX laser Uranium enrichment method (which we handed over to the US and Japan). But a working nuclear weapon takes a while longer.

- we partly developed a scram jet (with some US help) but are yet to find a practical use for it.

You are a visionary with your talents somewhat askew of accuracy ;-)

Cheers

Pete

Hi halduell

1. Twas the author (a good mate of mine) who brought up the Mistral-Russia link - so there's not dispute with 'im-me there.

But your original claim:

"Could this be in part explained because France re-joined NATO in March 2009, and NATO, with Hollande as a cheer leader, was complicit in toppling the elected government of Ukraine in 2014. One objective - the main objective? - was to wrest control of the Black Sea port of Sevastopol from Russia."

needs further development, with more causative proof.

In any case NATO politics veer off the Pacific focus of the article.

2. Re your point "When was Putin made Russian Leader for Life? I thought he was serving a five year term as President."

Strictly speaking Putin is not Leader for Life and you are right. But as Putin has been the acknowleged strongman ruling Russia since 1999 Putin has beeen Leader for 15 years SO FAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#Political_career .

Putin has been Playing the only recently established Russian Constitution by alternating between the jobs of President, then Prime Minister, then President again. In this Putin has been aided by his subordinate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Medvedev who obligingly reciprocated by taking Predent then Prime Minister turns and terms.

The Russian people oddly seem to cherish Leaders for Life to order Russia around.

Regards

Pete

In April this year the USS Donald Cook was in the Back Sea as an agent of intimidation against Russia. An unarmed Russian Bomber disabled all US advanced AGIS electronic weaponry and buzzed this disabled ship 12 times. I've read this story from many sites.

Could this be the reason why Putin positioned his warship off the Australian coast and there was no action from our war mongering elites ? Perhaps Tony's shirt fronting Putin was a bit risky.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/

Dear Arjay

I'll have you know that that was the USS Donald Duck. But most seriously Vladimir Putin's Top Secret personal account of the episode - that I just deciphered (personally) goes thusly:

On 8 April 2014, USS Donald Cook deploy to Black Sea in order to shamefacedly attempt to sink Russian Black Sea Fleet at anchor. Brave aviators of Putin's Peoples Airforce (Su-24 bombermen) struck terror in hearts of capitalist scum and broke Donald's phased array radar very badly. Radio Moscow report greater victory than 1905 drubbing of brave Russian fleet at Battle of Tsushima Strait by Four-eyed Asian peoples.

Prezident Obama, he being six-pack body surfing man that Putin likey :) (see topless photo
http://cdn03.cdn.socialitelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/shirtless-barackobama-photos-12222008-07-675x867.jpg ) vow revenge against brave Russian Navymenz and upon G20 Brisbane scared away Great Red Varyag Fleet alla by his-selfie.

By Orders Of

Vladimir "Hot Lips" Punani

@ Arjay posted Friday, 21 November 2014 7:42:56 PM
Another intriguing story that I remember reading at the same time as the USS Donald Cook incident was one that told of another US warship running aground near (I think) Samsun on the Turkish Black Sea coast. Since a warship running aground seems unlikely unless somehow pushed, I wondered at the time if another plane had overflown that second ship and disabled its navigation system? Or is all this the same story? Whatever, it seems the advanced AGIS electronic weaponry is not the only point of vulnerability.
Give it a rest, Pete. First you make good points, and then you talk absolute rubbish.

For what it's worth ... Russia has never invaded Australia (although Fort Denison is still on high alert and ready for action). However, Australia HAS invaded Russia - in 1919 to be exact.

If you don't believe me, look it up.

And for another 'for what it's worth' - if Putin is Leader for Life, then he's certainly a popular Leader for Life, with an approval rating for many years in the 65% to 85% range. That's any Western leader's wet dream (given they average about 40% max - that's if they're lucky.

Halduell you may also find this link interesting. Putin does not need gunboat diplomacy. Lots of people like Paul Craig Roberts and the CEC are saying that our banks are insolvent. Here is evidence for confiscation of bank deposits.http://cecaust.com.au/bail-in/

Putin says get your money out of Western Banks.
http://worldtruth.tv/russian-leader-warns-get-all-money-out-of-western-banks-now/

Pete, I said tested rockets not built!
However, given our scientists and skilled technicians probably assembled them here, duplicating the now dated science is well within our technical expertise.
As is building acrylic mini subs that are powered by a two decade old venturi system, that enables them to virtually fly through the water; and all but invisible to current countermeasures.
We also have the technical ability to build underwater capable rockets
And if you can eyeball where they're going, far easier to aim and adjust for effect!
And we know how to make fusion bombs.
The difficult part is containing and controlling the reaction.
Something the size of a large grapefruit carried by a single rocket, will simply vaporize any ship, currently plying any ocean! Even one with a five foot thick hull!
Nuclear subs are as large as any WW11 aircraft carrier, with each one able to carry a hundred mini subs!
As I said, we know plenty, but are doing little?
We lead the world in mass produced molded carbon fibre, and in fact, we are making the wing tips for the dream-liner.
It's just not a huge technical step to go from wing tips to whole planes?
A microscopically thin layer of copper coating, and hey presto, stealth bomber/fighter/mid air tanker!
And a fighter bomber just doesn't need to be that fast, even super silent subsonic will do, if it can fly from here to London/Moscow/Beijing and back, undetected and able to delver a bellyful of smart bombs/two dozen air to air/ground missiles!
As I said earlier, we need to up our defense spending to a least 5% of the GNP, and match that with defense specific R+D!
As always, the best form of defense is attack!
Sudden, sharp and surgical, it would only need to be done once; if ever at all!
Rhrosty.

And if any air campaign was matched by an equally rapid but perfectly timed naval attack, the fight would be over before it started.
Think, just three nuclear powered subs, could conceivably use southern or northern polar ice as cover, to approach from and deliver their cargo of (300)even less detectable mini subs, each one armed with say six fusion bomb tipped rockets, that can attack from everywhere under or over the water, and simultaneously!
Lets be practical; if we were strong enough, we'd never ever be attacked or threatened by any nation or neighbor?
Which in turn would mean, we'd never have to fight!
As a very wise man once said, use a velvet glove, but carry a big stick!
And we can create that big stick right here and mucho plenty jobs, along with mucho plenty more tax payers; and just by sticking with what we know.
We might have to buy our nuclear subs off the shelf; or better, build them here using overseas sourced technicians and helium cooled nuclear pebble bed reactors?
Which would be my first choice, given they're hardly likely to run out of fuel or defensive speed capability, halfway through any military action or engagement! Ditto home defense related, underground rapid rail!
And all of the aforementioned affordable, if we just make avoiding a fair share of tax impossible; as would be the case if we converted to a single stand alone, unavoidable but inherently fair, expenditure tax!
And that would also mean, all those currently carrying the entire tax burden, would have to carry considerably less of it!
Even so, I think the extra one hundred billion per on offer, would buy plenty of military R+D, plus plenty of military hardware, along with too good to refuse, military pay packets; or indeed, the very professionalism that buys!
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhrosty

Imagination is a good thing.

Yes so much is possible for Australia in the submarine realm if the Abbott government was prepared to take risks.

A nuclear propelled Virginia or more economical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine may become a necessity for Australia - soon after we invest in conventional subs. We can't overly rely on the US as one day it may not be able handle a combination of resurgent Russian and rising Chinese nuclear navies. India (also in our region) is also developing nuclear powered and armed subs and may not always be friendly.

Rocket powered super-cavitating torpedos are already a Russian specialty with other countries also developing them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercavitating_torpedoes .

Launching 100 sub-glider Autonomous Underwater Vehicles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider is also possible. They are useful as reconnaisance drones and as slow moving torpedo-mines.
---

Hi Killarney

I believe you. Australians with British Army units did get involved in the post 1917 Russian Civil War on the side of the mainly-Tsarist "White" Russians.

Earlier in the 1850s some Australians would have fought in the British Army against the Russians in the Crimean War.

Yes Putin is undoubtedly popular with most Russians - who are prepared to trade political opposition rights for the comfort zone of authoritarian rule.

As I said on the string (Friday, 21 November 2014 4:12:17 PM):

"The Russian people oddly seem to cherish Leaders for Life to order Russia around."

Regards

Pete

To my mind this discussion highlights a couple of basic facts.
There WILL be another world war, that's a historical inevitability.
Oz cannot defend itself.
We simply do NOT any longer have the manufacturing base to even support our existing forces, let alone arm or increase them.
We need to rebuild our manufacturing base just to ensure our own survival as a free nation.
Building our own defense capabilities and industry would serve us well on many levels in many areas
Doing so would have massive spin-off benefits in employment and wealth creation.
It is only the idiotic blindness and ethical/moral corruption of the Two Party system that has lead us to this disastrous state of affairs.
WE NEED to stop pandering to the commercial interests of the multinationals, they won't help us when the war begins.
We NEED our own fuel industry, our foreign supplies are far too easily cut off far beyond our range or abilities to defend them.

Building an industrial base is all about intelligently drawing on the lessons and products of large businesses (which have multinational connections)

- rather than pursuing radical nationalist political views.

Australia has never had the industrial base to design and build complete up-to-date weapon systems.

- Wirraway was a modification from the American Harvard trainer

- Boomarang was oddly similar to the obsolete Brewster Buffalo

- the pride of part Aussie designed Aussie manufacturing was the Collins sub...

All Aus building of warships and jets has been an exercise in assembling mainly foreign designed, mainly foreign made parts - which yield the excellent Mirage jetfighters, ANZAC frigates etc.

This method avoids having an economy built for wartime needs during peacetime - noting the Soviet economy crashed by 1990 because it spent too much on weapons development-construction rather than the consumer sector.

Oh, that's all right then Planta's, come the next big war we'll just tell the enemy that they can't attack us because it' not economical for us to fight them shall we? And of course they'll promptly pack up their toys and go home, apologising for disturbing us.
We haven't been great at building for our self-defense in the past so therefore we shouldn't even try now?
Lets just ignore that fact that warfare has changed enormously over the last 50 years or so, that the tyranny of distance doesn't protect us any more, that we used to have industries that could be converted to war production without too much time or effort, but that we now have no such thing.
Let's also ignore the fact that our economy is imploding, that we NEED something, anything, to pull us out of the doldrums, that we can no longer rely on Britain or America to defend us as we are too easily interdicted due to the aforesaid advances in surveillance and strike capacity of the modern military machine, you know, the one we DON'T have?
I won't suggest potential future enemies, you can do that for yourself, but it doesn't matter, as it stands now we couldn't defend ourselves from ANY of them, and that sorry state of affairs is as indefensible as we are.

G'dayBruce

Doesn't take considered German like planning over decades. Its all so obvious.

What we need to produce are our own:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile that only China has been able to produce

- stealth bombers and stealth UAVs that only the US has been able to produce

- nuclear subs with thermonuclear weapons would be essential. Only Russia and the US have fully designed such nuclear subs. Even the UK, India and France needed to copy US or Russian designs.

After being broken in with the broken Collins, the Australian Submarine Corporation with DMO would be perfectly capable of the above. This is the current pinnacle of Australian weapons building http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2014/06/04/minister-for-defence-air-warfare-destroyer-added-to-projects-of-concern-list/

To help we have Woomera - and of course the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithgow_Small_Arms_Factory could build us a 1960s machine gun - for the trenches or the beaches.

But being negative is just defeatism or accurate?

Pete

Hey plantagenet, what about those lovely private yachts, oops, I mean patrol boats, oops, I mean illegal boat people boat tugs, we built in Cairns.

Of course the unions damn near sent NQEA who built them broke with their demands, when they had the company over a barrel with delivery dates. I ran a couple of the international cats they built, a 27 & a 29 meter, & apart from a few new chum boat builder mistakes, they were pretty well put together.

They had to have a 3 month shutout to get the cost structure back under control, or go broke, when the contract ended, so may not have been that profitable.

I can imagine the bloody awful mess the sub building cost structures would be, after so long on government contract.

Hi Hasbeen

Its great that you triumphed in the defence of Australia - not against the enemy but of course against the Unions. Only a few months delay is luxury. Not like the AWDs - whats a loose $Billion here and there?

Could those refugee regatta tugboats, with a bit of tweaking be converted into Future Frigates?

Some Unions followed-follow a proud tradition of defence against the capitalists who would defend us. Some Unions went-slow-sabotage during World War II even breaking US aircraft on Qld docks to thwart those nasty American capilatists bent on defending Australia.

Meanwhile Australia has sent some of its best defence engineering brains and designs to Mobile, Alabama producing some even bigger Cats http://www.austal.com/us/products-and-services/defence-products.aspx

Cheers

Pete

Planta's, it strikes me that you're the one being negative, do you have any positive ideas for the defence of Oz?
What do you think we should DO that might increase our safety in the war-to-come?
You might feel comfortable disparaging my suggestions and pointing out all the possible difficulties but what's the point of that, really?
I at least am suggesting things that would HELP our nation, provide employment and infrastructure etc, and ultimately protect us.
So, I ask again, what are YOUR answers to the clear and undeniable dangers we will face in the future?
I don't see outsourcing our defence overseas being practical, so what else do you have in that magic box of conservative miracles?
I'd be interested in an answer from Hasbeen too for that matter.

Bruce there is only one thing we could do to defend Oz. Acquire nuclear armed cruise missiles. We would have to acquire heaps of the things, not just a few, as we may come up against a large numerical, if not all that effective force.

We probably could build them, given 10 years lead time, at about 5 times the cost of buying them, but we would have to lock up thousands of greenies to be able do it

We should have shore, air & ship based missiles, & we should spend enough on training, yes actually practicing with million dollar missiles, to actually know how to use the things.

I am an ex fleet air arm pilot, from when we actually had a few well armed ships. Yes our aircraft were a bit of a joke, but we could handle any threat we faced at the time. We actually were allowed to fire one unarmed air to sea missile per pilot per year for training.

My son has just resigned from the navy, as the whole service is now the joke. Our only amphibious ship, which should be here at present, getting ready to support any areas seriously damaged by cyclones, is a public servants luxury hotel at Manus Island.

Time to send the bludgers some tents, & sack any that complain, & bring the bloody ship back here.

Our ships are half armed, & the crews have no idea of how to fight them, if they had to.

We have an infantry trained for peace keeping, & as targets for Muslim insurgents.

Our air force could just about get out of sight, before returning to base to refuel.

There is not a damn thing we could build to improve the situation, except perhaps decent infantry vehicles, able to protect men from roadside bombs.

Otherwise we should make every public servant serve 2 years of every 5 in the infantry, including a tour in Afghanistan. This would not help the army in any way, but should reduce the bureaucracy by 50% pretty quickly, one way or another.

Hi G'dayBruce

I was talking about me not you when I said - "But being negative is just defeatism or accurate?"

Even a century ago Australia couldn't design and build state of the art surface ships, subs and front-line aircraft. Since 1914 the technical gap has only widened. So its more sensible, and economically sustainable to buy them overseas but be able to service-repair them here.

As Hasbeen says - other than armoured cars other weapon systems are beyond our capacity to design and build.

As Hasbeen says Australia should have a nuclear weapon capability. I would suggest though the delivery vehicles be ballistic missiles (not cruise) because cruise can be shot down more easily and flies too slowly for a pre-emptive strike. Best that the launch platform be submarines (preferably nuclear propelled) because land based ICBMs or bombers are too vulnerable.

Also we need - something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

Despite the wishlist above - remaining in alliance with the US brings all the military intelligence benefits (including satellites), US nuclear protection and more powerful conventional forces than Russia or China.

You may have a vision but what actual weapons systems do you suggest?
--

Hi Hasbeen

Thanks for your comment - see my response to them in the G'day Bruce reply. Through your own experience and your son's you clearly know what you're talking about.

Regards

Pete

It's amazing really that the whole world dances to the WAR WAR WAR polka, the dance invented by the Yanks in 1945.

Yeah, since the Yanks decided to run the world to suit themselves by building a massive army on a credit card, all the rest of the world has joined in the endless-war dance.

Some nations have spent up big on armaments. Some haven't. And some, like Australia, have become craven, servile acolytes of America buying their old Vietnam helicopters, some of their tanks, and we still await delivery of fighter jets which are years behind in production while we make submarines that don't work.

Yeah, thanks to the Yanks the whole world sits on the edge of a nuclear precipice. We don't know when the first nukes will fall but fall they will because the Yanks want to take Russia and China out of the world domination stakes before they get any stronger.

Meanwhile, on the FORUM, people argue back and forth, powerless little people who the Yanks have no interest in.

What the Yanks want is global domination, total power, and they'll do anything to get it and will kill billions if they have to!

What a sad reality! What a sad indictment of the human race!

The American Soldier Ants will control our world one day! And we can't blame anyone but ourselves!

Time to grow up David G, your wish of ostrich like head in the sand is a recipe for loss of sovereignty.

The poms had a bloke called Chamberlin who thought like you some time back. His attitude cost millions of lives in the long run.

We have seen the mutually assured destruction theory put to the test of time, & it works. The best way to prevent war is to be too well armed to be an easy target. If attacking you is not likely to be successful, & profitable, you are unlikely to be attacked.

That of course means sitting on fools who want to be lambs for the slaughter. Not too heavy are we?

Hi David G

Yes the US economy has some (although not total) reliance on defence industry.

When I was in London in 1981 constantly arguiung with students from the London School of Economics they fairly blindly followed a unilateral nuclear disarmament totem. Their thinking was "the UK should surrender its nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union as its better Red than Dead". That was in 1981. In 1988 it was the Soviets who began to fall apart, partly due to US-Reagan military pressure. The Cold War ended and it was (and still is) a more peaceful world.

Unforseen benefits of Western military power.
---

Different subject:

Where I said "The South China Sea is potentially worth many $Billions in undersea mineral and energy resources and perhaps military bases on the islands." Someone from antichrist US has sent me a link:

"China building massive island big enough for airstrip, report says" http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/11/23/china-building-massive-island-big-enough-for-airstrip-report-says/#.VHKzDuj00CE.mailto Report says:

"IHS Jane’s said satellite imagery it obtained showed that in the past three months Chinese dredges have created a land mass that is almost the entire length of Fiery Cross Reef in the contested Spratly Islands."

This partly manmade island seems to be-becoming suitable as a seaport for Chinese warships and tankers. So China may have the industrial power to outbuild the opposition in the South China Sea. Interesting how Japan responds.

Regards

Pete

Australian navy 1939.

Two heavy cruisers (Australia and Canberra)
Two very modern light cruisers (Perth and Sydney)
One old WW1 light cruiser (Adelaide)
Five destroyers.

Australian navy 2014

One helicopter carrier/ assault ship (Another being fitted out)
12 frigates.

True

European dictators:

1939=Hitler, Mussolini

2014=Putin

Yellow Peril:

1939=Japan

2014=China

I think this underlines the need to build effective submarines, not the hyper expensive pieces of junk we have presently.