It could be argued that no war since WW2 has been won on the field or by capital equipment. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (USSR), Afghanistan (US and friends), Somali, Assorted other African tribulations, Iraq 1&2…none

Even Pearl Harbour and the USS Cole should tell us how vulnerable it all is. One wonders how much of a history buff you need to realize that the time of capital war equipment and symmetrical warfare has come and gone.

Realistically what can we resist with 25 expensive flying targets, 12 subs, a comparatively mini Navy of capital ships against real armadas and several hundred planes and will their owners be our real threat? Even a traditionally army against what will be no real match against armies with catering divisions larger than our army.

AWG or cyclical event the melting ice caps, inundating sea water will take a long time to right its self.

to our north we have millions/billions if dispossessed or starving enough would put Australian on their to do list.

No, no and no again I am not saying we are in imminent danger from some horrible hoard.

What I am saying is that we need to have forces that are trained/capable of defending us.

Instead of the mooted 12 new subs and other massive capital equipment we need to have a fleet of rapid deployed frigates and patrol boats (with or without sexy crew members [ABC’s Patrol Boat]).
We need bases all along our northern and western coast line.
Soldiers should be trained for asymmetrical warfare and how to fight in our terrain.
They should be trained in emergency services.
The air force needs to be placed where the action is not in Victoria or Sth Aus but in our north so training flights can help with coast watch.
If we must have defence forces let them be able to specifically defend us and be useful in peace time.

We should when required offer our allies those servces we have not create an services to suit them.
Ok warrior types rip it up.

Dear examinator,

I agree with your take on this subject,
and I came across the following, while
scrawling the web:

"Charles Darwin's University Dan Baschiera has called for
special Australian Defence Force bush fire-fighting units
to be set up, and says soldiers should be on standby for
immediate response during the bushfire season.

Mr Baschiera says it isn't good enough for the army to be
called in to assist the fire service once the fires are
already out of control. He claims that climate change is
going to bring more weather extremes and there needs to be
more resources to ensure speedy responses to events like
the Victorian firestorms.

A former organiser for Medecins Sans Frontieres says the
Australian Defence Force should be better prepared to
join the bushfire fighting effort."

I thing very few would disagree with these opinions - or your
rational.

examinator,

What do you mean by a "to do" list, all out invasion or massive illegal immigration, or both? Apart from the US no nation has the capacity to successfully invade OZ in the near future, and I don't think that our Asian neighbours regard us with covetous eyes. I agree with you criticism of our choice of military assets, but isn't that a consequence of our "great and powerful friend" mentality,we select equipment on the criteria of how readily it will integrate with the Americans' war machine. This is unavoidable if we maintain the US alliance.

We certainly need a coast guard where policing and quasi- military activities are combined. In the long term Asian nations will leave Australia far behind in economic and military capacity,no amount of hardware will protect us, diplomacy is our only option. I'm cetainly not suggesting we shouldn't have an effective self defence force.

Interesting thread examinator, though methinks you might be being controversial because you failed to define the “threat” against which you would deploy our defenses. Also there is no mention of strike capability only defense.

“Instead of the mooted 12 new subs and other massive capital equipment we need to have a fleet of rapid deployed frigates and patrol boats”

No thanks, I’ll settle for any sub, even a Collins Class, rather than being a sitting duck on the ocean. Sadly we don’t have AEGIS fleet cover like the US and NATO, that’s why we call our surface fleet “picket boats” This means they have a phone box on board, just time to make a call saying “inbound” before you go off the air!

“We need bases all along our northern and western coast line.
Soldiers should be trained for asymmetrical warfare and how to fight in our terrain.”

Nope! I’ll have the subs and AWD’s thanks; stop them before they get here.

“They should be trained in emergency services.” And ‘If we must have defense forces let them be able to specifically defend us and be useful in peace time”.

They are and they do, floods, tsunamis, civil reconstruction and bushfires, remember.

“The air force needs to be placed where the action is not in Victoria or Sth Aus but in our north so training flights can help with coast watch”.

Don’t agree, must be kept away from first strike capability, good where they are. Super Hornets and possibly F35’s can be in on our northern coast in an hour if needed. Air Warfare Destroyers are ordered, to be built by ASC in Adelaide (maybe?) They have Air cover and fleet defense capability. Good combo.

As for “coast watch”, the last of the low flying bombers is the F111, can’t imagine seeing much from a strike/interceptor at Mach 2.5 from 60,000 feet, c’mon examinator?

Not much wrong with multi-tasking our military, I agree. So long as nothing changes primary purpose and function.

I still like Subs though.

examinator =We need bases all along our northern and western coast line=
spindoc =We need bases all along our northern and western coast line=
What is the diference for the enemy if they do not invate North but in NSW or Victoria?
If they know or expect that our defence line is north and north west is not for our enemies better to invate in an other point, closer to Cambera and acomplish faster their goal?
Australia is a whole continent and it is extremely dificult to defent it. We can not stop them to take our country but we can make their life dificult, we can press them hard, to get out from Australia.
Australia is a multinational country. Do you think Australians from british background could fight against Britain?
Do you think Greek-Australians could fight against Greece, (I am Greek) Chinese-Australians could fight against China or muslims could fight against muslims?
Are you joking?
We, all Australians, could fight as one seoul only against UFO but not against the countries from our origin.
Australian not only is a huge country and very dificult to defent but it is a divided country and no one knows how would behave a big part from Australians.
In the past we put the German or Japan background Australians in detension centres and finish the story with them, in the future the majiority of Australians can not accept this kind of behave against Australians.
Slowly, slowly Australian foreign and military policy should and I am sure they will change policy.
Instead to waste the money on equipments it is better for Australian government to minimize the race discrimination, the atacks against muslims, and improve the relations between Australians.
Forget the past, new Australia is very diferent and every one must realized it, in other case, I think we will have big surprises!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis,

You're wrong!
I'm an Australian of British decent and I could fight against Britain, I'm loyal to Australia, relations between Australians would improve if people would not bring their foreign tribal feuds to this country and continue them through generation after generation. The Japanese and Germans were interned because they were enemy aliens, learn some history.

examinator,

I know my comments are OT(but still relevant to our defence) however I couldn't let Symeonakis's post go unremarked.I won't make any more comments on this topic.