http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/05/Defence-White-Paper-goes-too-far,-too-fast.aspx#continue

 

A good point about the cruise missiles.

Lol, everyone has cruise missiles nowadays. Most large/modern navys have had them for decades. I think it is stupid that we don't have them already. We should have gotten them ages ago.

 

It's not like we are building nuclear warheads and strapping them to ICBMs pointed at China with some anti Chinese slogan written on the side to boot which is how this guy is reacting.

The Chinese reaction was probably just the common-or-garden-variety reaction

to this sort of thing. If they don't make a fuss, it seems strange - so they

make the obligatory fuss and then everyone gets back to business-as-usual.

Edited May 6, 200915 yr by mandatory05

Its good to have a big stick.

It's good to walk softly.

 

I don't see anything put forward in the white paper as being unreasonable or overly aggressive. Wolf is right we our navy forces have for a long time now significantly lacked the ability to preform long range offensive strikes against enemy targets. While its true that we for the most part have created and maintained our armed forces purely as a defencesive deterrent. The changing needs of today and the forecasts for the future show that we will need to increase our offensive forces as well if they are to continue to be a effective deterrent. Not only that but if we are drawn into any direct conflict we need to have the ability to strike the enemy where it hurts with precision weapons at great ranges. Otherwise even a vastly technologically inferior opponent will simply over whelm our small defence force. I hate to think what is possible if we were to meet our equals or heaven forbid someone of greater technologically advantage and numbers.

Its good to walk softly, then when threatened pull out the big stick and start swinging.

Nothing to fret about .. usually generic statements from two countries who respect each other capabilities

the only thing that grates me with defence spending on big ticket items is that (as in everything else) they become outdated quicker than previous purchases so the return on investment is disproportionate.

 

Oberon Class Submarines approx 30+ years service

Adelaide Class Frigates - (4 still in service) 20+ years service

Daring Class Destroyers - 20+ years service

 

 

Collins Class - first ship commssioned July 1996

ANZAC Class - first ship commssioned May 1996

 

 

Whilst I appreciate that the whitepaper outlines that 'Over the next 20 years....' these classes will be decommissioned.... I wonder what advantages the latest (ANZAC & Collins classes) purchases have really bought us and are we likely to be in a similar situation 10-15 years down the track......

 

I also question the need for cruise missiles.... surely harpoons which are currently to be able to be fired from the collins class (and were also fired from the oberon class) are sufficient for the defence of our nation..

 

 

Sources:

http://www.navy.gov.au/Adelaide_Class

http://www.submarineinstitute.com/?doc=64

Good discussion on T5C about this, most of the commentators are defence journos, in the service, ex-service etc so fairly knowledgable . . .

 

http://www.t5c.biz/showthread.php?t=6767

 

you'll prolly get prompted for a username & password (put in place to defeat the spambots), username & password will get you in.

the only thing that grates me with defence spending on big ticket items is that (as in everything else) they become outdated quicker than previous purchases so the return on investment is disproportionate.

 

 

Better that than have your enemies be able to beat your ass.

 

Australia as of this second would have a very tough go in defending herself against a major threat. This is nothing against the fighting men of Australia but what good are soldiers if you can't move them and their supplies where you need them?

 

Thankfully China has the same problem but they are working on it so we better do likewise.

 

If a country like China who treats their own people like trash gets enough power I'd bet everything I have on them having a crack at us or one of our allies.

 

I don't trust the buggers, not one bit. A country that leases a portion of itself for as long as it did thinks long term. They betrayed us once already siding with the North Korean aggressor not 5 years after we kicked the Japanese out of their homeland. Without our arms and training they would never have gotten them out on their own......

 

I don't trust them at all.

Edited May 7, 200915 yr by Snazzy

it won't be china it will be India, how much money has china got invested here in Australia? compare that to India. China owns a lot of this place.

 

http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq162/paulwar2/9d42e1dc.jpg

 

and how much trade do we do with each?

 

Indo-Australian trade registered record increase from just US $ 1.4 billion in 2000-01 to US $ 5.7 billion in 2005-06. (Of this, India’s exports to Australia were valued at 0.8 billion and Australia’s exports to India were US $ 4.9 billion).

China has now overtaken the U.S.

and Japan to become Australia’s number one trading partner with bilateral

merchandise and services trade set to exceed $A60 billion in 2007. Australian Bureau

of Statistics (ABS) data show that in the 12 months from July 2006 to June 2007,

Australia’s merchandise exports to China amounted to $A24.8 billion (up from $6

billion in 2000) while merchandise imports from China reached $A29.2 billion (up

from $A9 billion in 2000).

Edited May 7, 200915 yr by Pudgeinabowl

just on Defense, found this little tidbit . . .

 

http://www.theage.com.au/national/defence-rejected-minister-spy-link-concerns-20090506-avc4.html?page=-1

 

Defence 'rejected' minister spy link concerns

 

* Richard Baker and Philip Dorling

* May 7, 2009

 

Defence officials responsible for a covert inquiry into Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon's relationship with businesswoman Helen Liu believe she has had links with China's military intelligence agency.

 

The officials, who are the subject of two high-powered inquiries, claim to have raised concerns within the Defence Department that Mr Fitzgibbon was receiving gifts from and living in a Canberra house owned by a woman they believed was connected to the Second Department of the People's Liberation Army general staff headquarters.

 

The Second Department is responsible for intelligence collection covering military, political and economic developments outside China.

 

The officials formed the view that Ms Liu was linked to Chinese military intelligence following inquiries that extended to her business activities, her contact with Chinese diplomatic and consular officials assessed to be intelligence officers, and her connections with senior Chinese Communist Party officials and PLA officers.

 

The officials said concerns about a potential security risk relating to Mr Fitzgibbon were dismissed.

 

"It didn't go anywhere," one senior Defence security intelligence official told The Age. "I don't think it went up the chain of command at all.

 

"We looked at Fitzgibbon and Liu, and the links between them raised real concerns that we thought were worthy of an official investigation, but it was clearly too much of a hot potato for the hierarchy.

 

"In a department in which arse-covering is an art form, no one would want to be the person who broke this news to the secretary and the CDF (chief of Defence Force), who had enough troubles with the minister."

 

The official claims to be one of several civilian and military officers who covertly investigated Ms Liu and Mr Fitzgibbon for several months.

 

Much of the alleged investigation was conducted outside work hours without using Defence IT systems. It is also alleged a Defence Signals Directorate officer gained access to Mr Fitzgibbon's personal information on his office's IT systems.

 

"Some of the information about the minister was circulating around the department, and I don't think we were the only people looking at it, but some things involved a bit of research," the official said. "There were limits to what we could do and we didn't get all of the story, but what has come out later about Fitzgibbon's failure to declare trips to China only strengthened the concerns.

 

"There are big questions about just why the minister has been so obligated to Helen Liu and what the full extent of their relationship has been.

 

"Imagine the stink if the US defence secretary was found to be hooked up with the Chinese businesswoman with close connections with the Chinese military."

 

The official said he and his associates were struck by apparent parallels between Ms Liu and Katrina Leung, a Chinese-American businesswoman who over almost 20 years operated as a double agent for the Chinese Ministry of State Security and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 

In 2003, Ms Leung was acquitted of espionage in the US. She was later convicted of a tax-related offence.

 

The Defence Department has confirmed the inquiry by the Defence Security Authority into the covert probe into Mr Fitzgibbon was still under way and a report would be finalised soon for submission to Mr Fitzgibbon.

 

The department has declined to say whether any matters have been referred to the Australian Federal Police.

 

A month ago, Defence secretary Nick Warner confirmed more than 200 Defence officials had been interviewed and 850 had signed statutory declarations denying any involvement in investigations into Mr Fitzgibbon's personal affairs.

 

A separate inquiry is being conducted by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the allegations concerning unauthorised access to personal information on Mr Fitzgibbon's office IT systems.

 

Ms Liu, who is believed to be living in China, has strongly denied any assertions she has been an intelligence operative of the Chinese Government, despite being praised by pro-Beijing groups for accurately transferring information about Australian politics and policies to Chinese ministries.

 

Mr Fitzgibbon has said no one has ever raised any security concerns about his relationship with Ms Liu, who he has described as a close personal friend.

 

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation said in late March it had no information relating to Ms Liu that would give rise to any security concern regarding her activities or associations.

 

According to people involved in the pro-democracy groups in Sydney in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Ms Liu was active in anti-Beijing protests after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

 

She disappeared from Sydney's Chinese dissident scene a few months later. When she reappeared in Sydney in the early 1990s, she suddenly had access to large sums of money, began amassing a multimillion-dollar property portfolio and started courting Australian political figures.

 

In 1993, she paid for Mr Fitzgibbon and his father, federal Labor MP Eric Fitzgibbon, to travel first class to China to attend the opening of a hotel development. Joel Fitzgibbon was not an MP at the time but was expected to succeed his father as the federal member for Hunter in NSW.

 

Ms Liu has strong ties with senior Chinese Communist Party figures and has had considerable support from the Chinese Government-controlled Bank of China.

 

Between 1995 and 2007, her companies donated $40,000 to Mr Fitzgibbon's election campaign and another $50,000 to the NSW ALP.

 

When details of the covert probe into his relationship with Ms Liu broke in March, Mr Fitzgibbon came close to losing his job when he admitted he had failed to declare she had paid for trips to China in 2002 and 2005.

 

He had also misled the public when he denied receiving large gifts or travel from Ms Liu.

 

With NICK McKENZIE

^^^^

| | | |

 

 

see

I'm with smokey on this.

 

I daresay china have their finger in a lot of countries pies...

just thinking on that a little, not saying that China is, but i 'could' see them doing something like that, grooming a potential source high in govt for their own benefit (not Manchurian Candidate style, but more for info) as they appear to think long term whereas our pollies say they think long term but their long term is generally the next election . . .

 

[edit] - suppose thats a side benefit of not having a democracy tho, leaders have the time to scheme

Edited May 7, 200915 yr by Heat-seeker

well the chinese have done that b4, in ww2 they had female spies get close to some of the bussiness men that delt with the japs and some of the jap higher ups to get info on them and eventualy get them assasinated.

They also withheld a lot of arms support only to use them in Korea against us.

we might already be holding India back....what are we doing in Afghanistan?

Australia as of this second would have a very tough go in defending herself against a major threat.

 

without having a clear idea on what you regard as a major threat, name a time period when we this wasn't the case.

 

Does anybody honestly believe that China is the big bogeyman that everyone should watch out for? Didn''t the cold war teach us anything?

I wonder if we would have the same projection of power if we built some new f111 airframes and kept them in service for another 20 years ?

Would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

:hi:

currently no they are not a threat, but in the future who knows... also wat do u mean abotu the cold war? the cold war was actually very very serious, people dont seem to relise just how close it was to the buttons being pushed then... *FLASH*

 

without having a clear idea on what you regard as a major threat, name a time period when we this wasn't the case.

 

Does anybody honestly believe that China is the big bogeyman that everyone should watch out for? Didn''t the cold war teach us anything?

Didn't the cold war teach us anything?

 

That if we all sit around for the better part of a 5 decades pointing Nukes at each other while naming space based anti-missile defense projects after multi-billion dollar grossing movie series :starwars:, A Superpower will collapse?

Does anybody honestly believe that China is the big bogeyman that everyone should watch out for? Didn''t the cold war teach us anything?

 

I don't think we have anything to be worried about. It's good we're getting some new toys to play with but the chances of China invading us are slim and even if they did, sure they could invade but occupy and control - no chance.

 

Our allies would come in and help us drive them back into the sea.

yes thats all well and good, but to be honest id rather not let it come to that in the first place.