A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:41:05 GMT

That depends if its a replacement submarine or a M1 tank aquisition...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (robertf2) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:33:01 GMT

NewGolconda wrote:
Rather than being politically motivated, I would define he last decade as not being afraid to buy what we need without 20 years of naval gazing, rather than "politicvally motivated".

That should be "navel gazing", as in belly button, with an 'e'..

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:24:42 GMT

Interesting story.

Rather than being politically motivated, I would define he last decade as not being afraid to buy what we need without 20 years of naval gazing, rather than "politicvally motivated".

The other spin, about aligning force structure with "strategic needs" is more rubish. The only strategic need they see as real is the need to spend the money in other portfolio's.

Defence structure to meet strategic needs...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:12:46 GMT

Bear in mind both the ALP and the Coalition have the same policy regarding the highway between JDHQ and Canberra: get defence to pay for it, they're the ones using it. Which isn't actually such an outlandish idea, the only people who need the better highway are defence, why should DOTARS pay for it?

As to ALP defence policy, apparently Rudd is up at 3 Bde barracks in Townsville today, so brace yourselves. Prior to that there's nothing really known. The ALP website is...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (sons of anzac) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:31:43 GMT

Anybody else slightly worried aboutt he ALP announcing they would use the Defence Infrastructure funding to pay for the highway upgrade between the new JDHQ at Bungendore and Canberra? I dont mind a partial contribution from D.I funds as it is a logical contibution but to fund all of it? Sounds like a "creative" use of defence funds. Think of all the possibilities............................ woe betide anyone that actually wants to buy defence equipment for the pointy end.
...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:08:51 GMT

Bear in mind that the ALP has said they will honour all commitments made by the current government: ergo, the RAN will have 2 LHD 3 AWD, the army will have two extra infantry battalions and a bucket load more Bushmaster, and the RAAF will have a squadron each of C-17 and Super Hornet. As such, in many ways the ALP will not be able to avoid being expeditionary, we have the equipment and the operational doctrine to support it; changing that posture would take time, far more time than a one-two...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (pascaly) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:09:18 GMT

This article was in the Melbourne Age yesterday;

http//www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/labor-no-to-fourth-warship/2007/11/07/1194329319406.html

With this in mind, and the reiteration of a new White Paper, what do others seriously think the outcomes will be? I feel a return to an almost-but-not-quite-DoA...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:48:40 GMT

Sorry about that New Golconda, I've a poor tolerance for people who are unable or unwilling to accurately comprehend unambiguous statements.

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:31:27 GMT

Guys - we dont call each other cretins here. Not even eijets.

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:22:03 GMT

jim3au wrote:

More interesting to me is that the ANZACs cannot task Seahawk in their hanger. I missed or forgot that. I was surprised by that.

Erm... I can only presume that you're misunderstanding my statement: "In the context of the DoA we examined a joint OPV program with the Malaysians (the Tier 3 surface combatant IIRC), we framed a requirement for an anti-shipping helicopter to go with...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:43:28 GMT

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:41:24 GMT

Jim WH

You missed it, I missed it, whatever. Challenger, I could just as easy have said Centurion.

More interesting to me is that the ANZACs cannot task Seahawk in their hanger. I missed or forgot that. I was surprised by that.

We did not send the Leopards to Indonesia, as it then was, because it affronted Indonesian sensibilities. We did have them ready to go.

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:28:17 GMT

Jim3au wrote:

Are the British using their Chieftains?

Sh!t, I almost missed this (thought I must have misread it). You do realise that the British Army retired the last of it's Chieftains almost 15 years ago don't you? They were replaced by the Challenger (which was introduced into service in 1983), which have subsequently been replaced themselves by...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:18:46 GMT

If we'd had to send over the Leo's to ET we would well and truly have been in the poop. We had a total of maybe two brigade's worth of infantry out there with (at most IIRC) a squad's worth of ASLAV cavalry, B Sqn 3/4 Cav and 5/7RAR mounted in M113AS1/2. Add to this that there were half a dozen other nations with a greater or lessor contribution on the ground, and you can see that any widespread ground combat would have been very nasty. I've no doubt that INTERFET would...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:00:04 GMT

IIRC the Leo1's were on standby, had things got nasty a squadron would have been on the next relay of LCH's.

This puts them in the same category as the hornets, for that matter.

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:42:28 GMT

I considered for a solid 20-30 seconds comprehensively replying to your post Jim3au, and then came to the conclusion that life really is too short to bother. You're clearly disgruntled with the current government, which you are entirely entitled too, but your analysis is woefully misguided.
Just focusing on the tanks for a moment:
*We did not deploy Leo to ET for a few very good reasons. First and foremost we weren't expecting to get shot at (which also explains the shape of...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (rabid stoat AUS) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:34:06 GMT

Much of this is too long ago for me... I know nothink!

What I do want to know is, will defense spending and acquisitions continue at the current fairly high level for the foreseeable future, or will we see another slump?

Is defence spending reliant on which political party is in office, or are the times we live in the key factor? I would say defence wasn't seen as a key issue in the eighties and nineties, but is today. Is that true? Will that make a difference?

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:54:50 GMT

I would argue that you are the partisan person here. I would go further and say that the Liberal Party had no particular brief about defence other than that the ALP had wasted too much money on it. In some respects they were correct. But once you go off and extrapolate to say that because the Liberals have recently spent a bit of money on defence, they have always had defence as a top priority, you are just ignoring history and reality.

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:22:30 GMT

Sorry, I should have been clearer in what I meant with the statement "ET happened", I was referring to the independence movements of 1999, not the preceding 20 odd years of occupation. That should never have happened, and actually we have none other than Gough Almighty to thank for that one. We do all realise that he actually put the idea of taking ET into the mind of several Indonesian generals in the first place and then implied that Australia wouldn't object in a meeting in...

Re: A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 07:09:02 GMT

There are other things that have been well reported about the Abrams tank purchase too. There are unkind people who suggest that the best thing about the tanks are they are visible. The SAS are simply not showy enough. No photo opportunities.

I think that the Army needs armour. I think that they need bands too. I can agree that the Army need some tanks that they can show off.

But if they are so useful, why are we not using them? There are a few Australian service personnel...

A new labour white flag, I mean white paper!

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:03:48 GMT

Mark Dodd | October 15, 2007