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.