"Defence, and Navy in particular during times of peace, is generally the first casualty in budget cuts. Alas there are enemies looming on the horizon."

If only the Government would get real and axe the 'new (although obsolete-technology and far-away delivery) submarine' project, thereby saving some $80 billion.

I TOLD YOU SO.

All a bit late to be worrying now.

The horse has bolted and the enemy is already inside the gate.

If I had my way I would cancel the visas of PRC migrants and send them packing back to China and start de-coupling from China in a big way.

But it won't happen because Australia's dishonest and untrustworthy politicians, bureaucrats and business people can smell Chinese money a mile away and are already trying to bring tens of thousands of more Chinese into the country, even prioritising them over Australians wanting to return home.

The government know about the future of fuel but other than rent space
in the tank farm in Kansas US and hope they can engage tankers to
transport fuel from the Gulf of Mexico to Australia they have done nothing.
I suspect they know nothing can be done about it.
Convert all transport to electricity is the only real solution.
There are a few operational steam locomotives around and they could
provide a model for new construction.
Then that would need a lot of steel and coal, back to the future ?

I agree with the author on the practicalities of his suggestions, but relying on the pressed service of private craft is actually a sign of a stuff up.

A famous example of a monumental stuff up, corrected by private enterprise, is the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940.

Ttbn seems to recognise the problem before the necessity to repeat a Dunkirk experience: Put the broom through the navy in a meaningful way, replacing the problematic personnel who consider a fighting force with a focus on PC as a substitute for blood and guts warfare, as a priority.

Dan

No Bazz, navy ships today use effectively jet fuel.

For the navy to defend our huge coast it needs a large fleet of cruise & ICBM missiles. Any ships we tried to use would be about as effective against our potential invaders as the half dozen poor old Wirraways we sent up to defend Rabaul against the 100 Jap aircraft supporting the invasion in 1942.

Yes a dozen nuclear attack subs could buy us some time, & perhaps some retaliation ability, unlike our planned museum pieces Turnbull has saddled us with.

You'll like this ttbn. My son was undertaking an overhaul on one of the old HMAS Manoora's 6 engines. He had a bunch of stokers, navy talk for mechanics, which included 2 lady stokers, in our ‘womanised’ navy.

Now these ladies had been through the same training as the male stokers, but perhaps had not absorbed it as well. They did not seem to understand just which places were dangerous to stand during removal of some very heavy bits of cast iron. He was quite concerned for their safety.

The cylinder heads were to be sent to a shore facility for machining. To get them off the ship they had to be taken up 5 decks to the upper deck, then down to the dock. This involved traversing 150 meters of passageways, & 5 very steep companionways between decks. As the heads came off a stoker was given the job of moving each one off the ship. The heads were way above the weight a girl was allowed to life, so he detailed both of them to move one cylinder head.

Still too heavy for them combined, they asked how they were to do it. Pointing to a chain block he told them to use their initiative. In retrospect he decided this was the best idea he'd ever had. Rather than the couple of hours it took other stokers to get a head off the ship, the girls took 2 days. Now that's efficiency in the new defense force. While it was still not exactly a safe activity, he reckoned it was a lot safer for them than being right where some very heavy bits of engine were about to be going, & it saved him both time, & a lot of worry, & the girls from probable injury.