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.

Spindoc,
I discussed that our biggest threat will come from the hungry and governments intent on distraction.
Who and where are we going to first strike at?
25 very, very expensive fighters going to do against a swarm of better fighters?
As for 12 subs what makes you think that they are safer look at the Brit and French subs colliding under the water. And the Collins that was hit by a ship.
One sub = how many billion. We haven’t got the sub mariners to fully crew the subs we’ve got.
Torpedo supplies 18 month delay et sec
One cruiser = billion comparatively slow.
One Destroyer One missile i.e. the Gen Belgrano
A fleet of fast frigates and patrol boats could cope with more incursions and comparatively quicker and cheaper to replace. Many more targets.
AWD tanks where? the logistics? Show me a tank that can cope our desserts/jungles/ and the Gulf country…the bulldust would clog everything the weight would bog them down, the heat well... and when in swamps good luck.

“We need bases all along our northern and western coast line.” Remember the ship load of refugees landed in the west and how many weeks before we found out? Think germ warfare, we have no defence against malicious release of animal diseases.

“Soldiers should be trained for asymmetrical warfare and how to fight in our terrain.” What good are soldiers who know how to march and fight in Pucka when where they’re required to fight is our desserts, swamps, ranges, jungles? Rapid deployment forces are required.
Why else are our commandos so valued overseas?

A full frontal attack is unlikely and if it does we will be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
We need the best bang for our buck.
I’m arguing for making it more difficult to land unobserved and therefore more discouraging for invaders. Appropriate tools for the job, not toys for big boys.
Only a small percentage of the forces are trained for disaster and usually as a last resource.

examinator, there are 2 more roles for our military.We export our expertise to our neighbours and build bridges at this important level. And we contribute to Peace Keeping worldwide and regionally.

Perhaps our best defense is that no other nation has historical claims or grievances against this land.

Our other great defense is that we trade freely (the freer the better) in goods, services and culture with our neighbours.

There is no foreseeable threat that would warrant too much change to our policies. Maybe GW or population growth might at some point, but not now.

ASymeonakis my family came from Germany in the 1880's and lined up to fight for Oz in both world wars. You are Greek eh? And would not defend Australia against a Greek attack? Would you take up arms with your countrymen then? Niiiiice.

A Symeonakis,

Anyone who could not support Australia if it were being invaded by another country is NOT an Australian. No matter what a bit of paper says.

PaulL
You have right, but most important it is not how people should be but how realy they are.
I remind you the German minority at Poland, Chechoslavakia, etc they gave the excuse to Xitler to invate in these countries.
You know that Hitler was thinking to invade in Australia of cause the german minority.
It is not only Hitler who used the German minorities the same things happened WITH ALL OTHER COUNTRIES.
One time, I heard, when we had problems with Turky, muslims from a Greek town bought 500 axes in one day! Do you think they bought the axes for decoration?
THE MINORITIES ARE GOOD WHEN PAECE BUT ON WAR TIMES THERE IS A BIG QUESTION!
WHAT THEY WILL DO?
PaulL
When I went to pick up my visa from Australian High Commision , the secretary said me=We know that you will involve with politics in Australia. We have many migrants and it is good if we know how they feel=
I had so many problems in my workplace and as sole parent and I had to shut up my mouth until to pass the bad, dark days.
The migrant who says that he loves Australia more than his country in realy he not only does not love Australia but he does not love his own country too.
These cheap people care only for their self and nothing else. As they sold their motherland with easier way they will sell Australia too.
I am an honest and stait person, I CAN NOT TURN THE GUN AGAINST GREEKS, and I believe the same thing will happen with the mass majority of Australians, they can not fight against the countries from their origin
I could fight against Greece only if they do something very wrong, a big crime.
PaulL
Most people hide their feelings, they afraid to express their self, we do not know if they are happy or hate us.
Many times we have to choice between the bitter truth and the happy lie, I always prefer the truth.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios,

You can only speak on behalf on yourself.
No one else.

My ancestry is Lithuanian. Of which I'm proud,
other Australians have other ancestries, however
when it comes to defending our country - we'd
all do it without a moment's hesitation.
This is our land, our people!

Morning examinator, Just addressing a couple of misunderstandings. I did not mention “our” first strike capability at all, I said we need to keep our aircraft away from enemy first strike capability. That is away from our northern coastline, that we will always do.

As for our enemies having a “swarm of better fighters”? Not sure what you have in mind. SU 28’s Mig 31/35’s? Fighters are for Intercept/LowCap and HiCap patrol. None of the fighters listed in ”Janes” as being operated by any of our potential enemies can reach Australia. I think you are “mixing up” various technologies.

You mention Collins Class subs, which is a patrol sub. Then you mention the British and French subs in the news. Those subs are not patrol subs, they are Trident Missile Subs. Then you mention a “Cruiser”, we don’t have any cruisers. Then you mention “One Destroyer One Missile i.e. the Gen. Belgrano” The Belgrano was sunk by the British submarine HMS Courageous with two WWII type 34 torpedos. Then you mention AWD Tanks? AWD’s are Air Warfare Destroyers you goose, not Tanks. You really do talk a right load of old coblers.

If you really want to get across the ADF technology, how the ADF intends using it and in what scenarios, get a copy of the last defense review white paper. Then you can be better informed and not sound such a blithering idiot. Thank goodness you are not managing Australia’s defense capability.

Spindoc,

Perhaps you are right; I'm not across all the buzz words. I make no claim to be a military expert sorry if you thought I was. As a humanist I too am glad I don’t handle military strategy.

I’ve been reading a number of articles by "supposed" experts and I was curious as to what people thought of the strategy of so many 'eggs in one basket', 'gearing up for non-Australian conflicts' and alterative strategies. This is the point of subject.

The white paper to which you refer is a military perspective/interest only. Military intelligence is an oxymoron in the bigger picture. A standard military response to others buying faster planes is we must do likewise and so arms race goes (not the military’s concern but it should be ours).

Common sense suggests that if our focus is on self defence be over looked as being a threat to others, while discouraging intruders.

I would suggest that we as a nation should look at our over all Defence Strategy. That includes civil defence (major catastrophes and coast watch activities). As it stands these are in varying degrees of fragmentation, duplication and authority across several authority levels and departments…each with their own agendas. Not surprisingly co-ordination is an issue as is the immediate availability of resources. Crisis is not the time for these avoidable issues. To me it makes sense that the military with their superior organizational structures should be a lead force in disasters e.g. the Forces should have been on stand by during the hot days waiting to be involved at a moments notice. Not waiting to be invited days later.

In the case of coast watch the navy should have a big presence where it counts ready to turn illegal fishing boats/ smugglers of all flavours and harm doers back at the national limit.

Strategy (focus) first then decide on hardware not the other way around In which case emphasis on hardware buzz words and capacities are irrelevant.
Well that’s the way this blithering idiot sees it

Examinator,

Specifically focussing your defence forces based upon speculation about the ‘unique’ threats of the future has the very real potential of leaving you equipped for the wrong war. The American Army after Korea was convinced they would be fighting the Russians in a hot war in continental Europe. Consequently they were entirely unprepared for the war in Vietnam. More recently the Canadian loony-lefties decided the focus of their military should be low intensity peace-monitoring missions. This left them ill-prepared for the vicious but conventional war fighting in Afghanistan.

You say >> “our biggest threat will come from the hungry and governments intent on distraction. “

Thats fine. Thats your opinion. I personally don’t agree with that analysis and you certainly haven’t provided any evidence of substance to back it up. Tailoring our defence forces based on a guess that we won’t need conventional war fighting skills leaves us EXPOSED.

you say >> "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."

The war in the Balkans to stop Slobdan Milosevic was won by modern Air Power. The first Gulf war was won using a combination of modern air and land power. Same goes for the Falklands war.

Australia has been caught short on a number of occasions in the last century, having severely limited equipment and trained men when they were needed. In fact, Britain’s decision to downgrade their capital ship presence in the South Atlantic led directly to the Falklands conflict.

Many of our neighbours have large populations and limited resources. Australia is without doubt a particularly valuable acquisition for regional powers on the rise. India and China are both currently upgrading their hi tech war fighting platforms. It is prudent that we ensure that our current deterrent capability is not eroded by these changes.

Currently we have approximately four squadrons of fastjets, roughly 100 platforms. I would be absolutely amazed/appalled if we were to end up with only 25 jets.

TBC

CONT,

you say >> "A fleet of fast frigates and patrol boats could cope with more incursions and comparatively quicker and cheaper to replace."

Firstly, in any conventional war the battle will be won or lost before we can replace a capital ship. Secondly, Frigates without highly advanced detection systems are slow moving targets for a decent submarine, like the Collins (and for modern jets as well). Subs are BY FAR AND AWAY the best deterrent factor we currently have. WITHOUT QUESTION.

you say >> "AWD tanks where? the logistics? Show me a tank that can cope our desserts/jungles/ and the Gulf country"

Tanks have tracks, by the way. And ours, the M1A1 ,currently operates successfully out of bases in the Northern Territory, where they are VERY HIGHLY thought of. Modern asymmetrical warfare, as in Iraq has only INCREASED the importance of armoured vehicles. I wonder what type of asymmetrical warfare you think we’ll be fighting in the outback anyway?

You say >> “One Destroyer One missile i.e. the Gen Belgrano “

This is a massive oversimplification. Firstly, the keel for the General Belgrano was laid down in 1935 and the ship was launched in 1938. It was NOT a modern warship by any means. Nor were the two destroyers which were meant to be protecting it. Secondly, the Belgrano was sunk by a SUBMARINE.

You say >> “ What good are soldiers who know how to march and fight in Pucka when where they’re required to fight is our desserts, swamps, ranges, jungles.

I don’t know which army you are referring to but it isn’t the Australian Army. The units of the Australian Army are HIGHLY regarded globally for their skills and training. There are a number of specifc training centres around the country where asymmetric warfare exercises are undertaken. And where exactly do you think most training exercises are held? In the deserts, ranges and jungles, thats where.

One of the reasons our commandos and SAS are so good because they have a very good grounding in the basic skills needed BEFORE they start commando /SAS training.

PaulL,
You should read Spindoc’s points then my response.
One point though we do disagree that of gearing for the wrong war.
To me there is only one situation we should be involved in the safety (defence) of Australia and Australian life.
At the risk of re-fighting the Falklands war. You should read the history of the islands.
Then consider how that for 200 people in some god forsaken wind swept islands a piss ant territory miles from mother England. It represented no plausible threat to The UK. Yet the UK was/is prepared to make all sorts of sacrifices in the name of jingoistic pride. Lastly it wasn’t invaded because the Brits had cut back their fleet it was because the Argentinean govt. mistakenly thought that the Brits wouldn’t bother to respond with war. Given that then 90% of everything including the wool went through Argentina and the islands seemed forgotten. In context Thatcher need a distraction as did the Argentinean govt. If we criticise Israel then UK is infinitely more anal in this instance. Was the Argentinean govt wrong in invading… you bet.

Spindoc PaulL, and others.
In hind sight this wasn't one of my better posts.
I should have used the term 'Our Military Posture' rather than Strategy.
As someone who likes precision I admit didn't offer that in my supporting details... Mia Culpa I'll do better next time.

The initial point of the post i.e. The wisdom of an outward looking Military posture and high cost hardware V Defence posture still remains as a debateable point

It does make me laugh

Ah what a shame sending the men and women to puckapunyal.

They are there to train and then will be off to their units, whether in darwin, townsville perth, adelaide, and so on and they will get to see the beautiful landscape whether dust or rain.

Tanks have a very good capability and also the lavs which are very good and the dust, well on exercise your vehicle is not a show pony and they work extremely well.

Been there done that.

Bushfires.

All members in defence can be reddied in case of disaster but it is up to the states to ask for assistance and if they dont ask then defence is not called in.

Been there done that.

So if you want to winge then see your pollies at state level.

S.L Ulrich
ex army

Examinator,

You say >> "Lastly it wasn’t invaded because the Brits had cut back their fleet it was because the Argentinean govt. mistakenly thought that the Brits wouldn’t bother to respond with war."

The Argentineans were confirmed in this belief when the UK decided to remove its Naval presence in the region. They further calculated that the UK did not have the ability, after selling another of its aircraft carriers, to support a miltary force large enough to cause them problems. They were very nearly right.

Regardless of your dislike for thatcher etc, the simple fact is that the Argentineans INVADED the islands and attempted to take them by force agaainst the wishes of the islands residents.

I guarantee you that if we were talking about muslims, or almost any other religous or ethnc grouping, loony-lefties would justify virtually any action in response.

you say >> "Strategy (focus) first then decide on hardware not the other way around In which case emphasis on hardware buzz words and capacities are irrelevant."

The purpose of a defence whitepaper is to lay out the militaries expected roles and as such provides a basis for training, purchase of hardware, planning, logistics etc. There is a new one under consideration at the moment.

We clearly present no threat (offensively) to our bigger neighbours in the region. Our defence force is currently structured to provide a significant deterrent to any enemy considering attacking us. In addition, we have the ability to intervene in those areas in our region for which we hold some responsibility. Ie the solomons, PNG, east timor, etc. Our forces are structured in a way which makes it easy for us to fight with our allies if and when required.

We DO NOT have an independent ability to undertake offensive action on a scale which threatens regional powers like India, China or even Indonesia.

You should really have more of a read about what is going on in defence. Here is the 2000 white paper. Have a read of the executive summary. It should clarify a few things for you.

Dear Tapp,

Thanks for your bit of information
about the Defence Force and bushfires.
I'm the first to admit that I don't have
all the answers - so I'm pleased when someone
sets me straight. Most of the time I find
myself - digging up info from other sources -
that I think are relevant to the thread I'm on.
Anyway, along those lines ... I've got a question...
for anyone that can answer it.
This may be slightly off-subject but I'll ask it
anyway?

Do we need US bases on Australian soil?

The reason I ask this is - I came across a book
while cleaning my shelves at home,
written by Peter Garrett - back in 1987, called
"Political Blues." In it Garrett says, and I
quote, " The US bases in Australia - Pine Gap,
Nurrungar, and North West Cape - are three of
the biggest pimples on the face of adolescent
Australia. Despite their description as "joint
facilities" (which always goes with any mention of
them), the fact is that no Australians including
our own Prime Minister, can tell you anything
substantial about what goes on there.

They are secret bases. American built and American
controlled, they exist to serve the policies of that
country while we, the hosts, remain in the dark.
And while they carry on behind closed doors and
wire fences, the mad rush of the arms race of which they
are an integral part continues unabated..."

How relevant I wonder are Garrett's comments of yesterday,
to us today?

Should we be worried? Are US interests the same as Australia's?
I'm just curious.

Paul,

Let’s be clear I don’t dislike Thatcher I just don’t see the justification on logic grounds to deify someone who is a historical foot note. She added nothing of a lasting nature.
Have you read the history of the Falklands?
I also agreed that Argentina were wrong in invading. I offered a well documented political technique of distraction used by both countries.
The Argentinean Military would have known that UK either would have been able to mount a military defence either alone or with allies. My reading suggests it was Thatcher’s govt pride that made the diplomacy BEFORE the invasion fail.

Winnie was prepared to sacrifice a whole city for the greater good and was considered a hero surely one has to wonder why the UK was prepared to spend and continue to spend for no greater good ? (Save jingoistic pride and/or distraction). The Appeasement argument is nonsense as was UK being under attack. Paul as I said I’m not interested in re-fighting the Falklands war.
Can we agree to disagree and move on to the point of the topic?

Governments decide on postures based on foreign policy and risks. Howard changed our military Posture. It is at this level the topic was pitched. Military do not look at the diplomatic consideration they look at potential military threats from a military perspective.

What we see as threatening may not be how others see it. True we can’t take on China or India et al but Indonesia’s trust in us is rather slim.

My over arching point was that we are vulnerable on our north/west coast line. White papers aren’t concerned with disease control, and small incursions. But think of the consequences of Foot and mouth etc being maliciously introduced to ferrel animals and the consequences to Australia? Currently we have a CSIRO team of > 12 people who focus on Cape York and islands.

Tapp.
You’ve over interpreted what I said read the rest.
I think military should lead major catastrophes.
Tanks are vulnerable as planes are they need logistical support and are useless in some terrain