Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (CliffS) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:11:00 GMT

jim3au wrote:
...Are our neighbours going to fell any less threatened if we go with the smaller ships? If so how much?...

The French Mistral design lost out to the Navantia bid because, using the JC1 LHD, we could do more with less. Apart from the military applications which ruffle our neighbours' feathers, 2 x JC1 LHDs will enable us to pull our ASEAN friends' taxpayers out of the mire of the next...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:40:18 GMT

Remember that were the LHDs cancelled, presently the alternative put forward by some connected to the Labor Party is to go with four smaller ships. These smaller ships are still big and capable compared with what we presently have and they would cost more than going with the two LHDs presently ordered. They would cost more to build, more to maintain and more to run.

How much more changing the order would cost would be interesting to know but the idea of taking on a more expensive...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (CliffS) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:57:52 GMT

Jim3au: Strictly IMHO, the formalities will be observed, but we will not be ordering the F-22. We don't need it and we can't afford it. To avoid embarrassment, the hypothetical F-22 order will be assessed alongside the existing F/A-18E/F & F-35 commitments.

RabidStoatAUS: The AWD order should survive; whether for 3 or 4, we should obtain this vital capability. LHDs? I can't see Rudd finding a way to cancel them. As I ranted earlier, the disaster-relief potential of...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (rabid stoat AUS) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:20:10 GMT

A few thoughts: First the fighrters. I really don't get all this fuss. If its true the Air Force recommended waiting to replace the F-111, Nelson should undoubtedly have listened. But what's so wrong with the F-18F? I can't see how owning a couple of dozen could be a bad thing! The US navy certainly seems to have backed it all the way. I'm not even entirely convinced we NEED (as opposed to WOULD LIKE) the F-35. I feel 100 Super Hornets would keep Australians safe for quite...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:39:06 GMT

I think that the author is wrong, we really have asked for the F 22s. When a minister of the Crown, the Commonwealth of Australia, Minister for Defence specifically, publicly announces that he has spoken to the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America about the possibility of acquiring F22s, then it is safe to say that we have asked. When Mr Gates answers press questions on the Australian Minister for Defence's enquiry about how we should try to have the law changed so that we...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:37:35 GMT

My one solace - things are never as good, or as bad as they seem at the time.

Commopn sence from Sheridan. I cant believe this F-22 business. Sure two score and ten of these would be awsome, and suit our strategic environment, strengths and weaknesses and eventually F-35 fleet down to the ground. But they are not selling, and if they did, could we afford it?

Super Hornet for me. Interim - sure, but maintain capability, give F-35 breathing space, reduce 111 risks, current...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:41:54 GMT

This is a very new thing in recent Australian history.

At the end of WWII Australia could mount a sizable amphibious operation. That capacity was pretty much lost. Even when we still had a carrier, our capacity to put troops ashore and support them was pretty limited. Until 1994 and the aquisition of Manoora and Kanimbla landing and supporting even a small number of troops on land was not something that the RAN was geared to do.

The RAN could fight the navies of...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (CliffS) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:18:23 GMT

"...The two amphibious transport ships costing $1billion each could also be heading for the chop. The Rudd Government believes neighbouring nations would feel threatened as the ships could hold an invasion force.

fwalker@sunherald.com.au

Source: The Sun-Herald"

Can you believe this twaddle? Neighbouring nations SHOULD feel threatened by our amphibious reach - that's what defence is all about in this region. We have to talk softly and carry a big...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:01 GMT

People may well have a say and these may well be taken into account but the three people selected are important indicators as to where the Government is coming from.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-to-slash-howards-defence-spend/2008/02/23/1203467452248.html

One might wonder where all the information for this article is coming from. It paints a pretty picture. There is nothing safe. But again, who is saying these things? Where is the information coming from?
...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (Michael ODonnell) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:24:53 GMT

What a complete load of BS. Just like the "Future Forum" that they are supposed to have, you can bet that they won't really pay any attention to what people say that does not fit with their model of defence. Let's face it, what government (on any level) is really going to admit that the public does not agree with them for whatever reason. Labor knows that they don't have public support on this, a recent poll said that the Coalition was the preferred party when it came to...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (sons of anzac) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:29:59 GMT

Public 'will have say on ADF strategy'

By Mark Schliebs

February 22, 2008 11:57am

Article from:

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:37:42 GMT

Yes, no, maybe.

We are seeing a much deeper and more significant public discussion on our strategic posture on the role of high end capabilities in it. The articles by Dibb and White are suggesting the Howard government went to far toward an interventionist, global strategic doctrine and associated high end equipment. They would prefer a more regional and local outlook, with lower capability, and to them more affordable equipment. They want the Rudd government to re align the...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (jim3au) — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:22:56 GMT

Foreign relations is more than a hobby to Rudd. we are yet to ascertain more than we learned in the campaign. If foreign affairs is your area of interest, then you have to have a formed view of defence. He will have a view about our security needs. He must have a very educated view of the security requirements of our region.

What we are seeing ow is a government struggling to balance election commitments and the political need to be seen to be doing something about interest rates....

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:03:25 GMT

Common Sence - Sherridan

"The Rudd Government has indulged in some silly, unnecessary and anachronistic rhetoric about East Timor showing the need for us to bring the troops home from Iraq. In truth, if $22 billion a year cannot allow us to deploy 3500 people overseas then we are not getting value for money.

There is no contradiction between our regional role and our wider contribution to a global security order. A big defence force can do both. A small defence...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (CliffS) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:32:36 GMT

sons of anzac wrote:
I can only hope that these same defence consultants and strategic analysists as well as the Minister, and Prime Minister, get a good grilling by the media over this.

Not that they will...

Yeah - looks like we're back in the Hawke/Keating "Dibb is Right" era. Remember those...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (sons of anzac) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:23:27 GMT

I can only hope that these same defence consultants and strategic analysists as well as the Minister, and Prime Minister, get a good grilling by the media over this.

Not that they will- there seem to be few journalists our there in the mass media that are interested in defence and can see beyond spin (if not actually repeating it or having their own agenda themselves). The military publications such as Defence, Navy News, Contact etc can be fobbed off as "interest...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (sons of anzac) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:10:43 GMT

We sure are being buttered up for a radical change......... the repeated utterances by Ministers and favoured consultants (Dibb / White / Kopp et all) of strategic "disconnect", bad procurement and contract management and wrong equipment choices by the previous government is not good.

RAAF - I'd say the Super Hornet's are a no go which means unless they get another type of interim plane there will be a dangerous gap between the F111 and existing F18A's,...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (pascaly) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:45:19 GMT

Shame on us I guess for believing their election BS.

I like how they even managed to work climate change into this too.

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:53:06 GMT

well, to be f.f.f.f.f.fair to the labour party (god that was hard) these guys are more former pundits and policy makers. Labour has yet to specify how they will cut.

Your point re the election is well made, indeed they were pretty much "all of the above, and we might even get the F-23 as well....."

To my mind these constant unofficial stories and comments are highly ominous. In a modern westminister system good news comes at a major press conference, full of...

Re: Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (bager1968) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:48:10 GMT

Right, all Australia needs is a Coastal Protection Force, a few ceremonial flag-bearers, and some nice cheap short-range defence-only fighters.

Bloody lying Labor Party.

They intended from the start to slash the forces, and lied to everyone to get elected.

Line them all up against the wall and waste the morons.

Dibb, Dibb, Dibb

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:35:19 GMT

Same crap, I was right in he 80's, we only need OPV's and armed police, how dare the Howard government buy equipment for the Army.

Razor gang must establish discipline