Dibbs soothsayer predictions

 

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

 www.citizensfordefence.org

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Chinese Stealth Fighter

                          Chinese Stealth Fighter

Dibbs soothsayer predictions  

bobIvory Tower professor Paul Dibb assures us a war between the US and China is unlikely and we have no need for 3-4% of GDP defence spending. (Talk of a US-China war “a dangerous miscalculation” the Australian 23/4)

These soothsayers must have a direct line to God if they can predict that Australia has no need for a modern and highly trained defence force.

Why don’t these clairvoyants tell us the strategic risk of a serious clash between major powers in Asia and then we can be reassured? Is Dibbs claiming 0.05%, or 25% or a 50% chance of major hostilities in the next few decades?

Australia needs hard military defence as an insurance policy no matter what the astrologers predict.

A communist country has little regard for trade when the national interest is considered. China is a country that can starve to death millions of its citizens in the name of a cultural revolution and run over its citizens in tanks if they ask for democracy.

For all Dibbs wild predictions of no major Asian conflicts into the future a strong case can be made that there is every chance that there will be violent struggles coming in Asia because the stage is rapidly being set.

China can call on 2.25 million troops in uniform in a conflict with North Korea having a million troops available. Indonesia has a million troops to call on plus numerous militias. Other nations have massive troop numbers for their size as well.

Chinese Aircraft Carrier

Chinese Aircraft Carrier

A major clash between North and South Korea is nearly inevitable as nuclear bombs are brought into the equation. If this occurs it is a good bet China will back North Korea as well as taking over Taiwan and the Islands in the South China Sea.

Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan and other nations have axes to grind and a major blow up will be the ideal time for them to settle the scores.

The US’s ability to control the events would probably be well beyond its capacity.

Australia would be a defenceless continent with limitless natural resources and a small population begging to be invaded or bullied by any assorted coalition of Asian nations. In fact, Indonesia could have had a coup d’état by then or a government takeover by Islamist sympathisers and could easily walk into a defenceless Australia.

It is hard to fathom why defence analysts continue to decry any need for Australia to increase its defence spending to 4-5% of GDP to match the funds the US is contributing to our security. These analysts are more than ready to have Australia continue on as a sycophant nation without credible defence capability begging for China to like us and expecting the US to defend us if we come into a threatening situation.

Dibbs has no strategic plan except to hope to good luck and continue to be a free loader on the US. If this is analytical cleverness, we want no part of it.

Israeli soldiers

         Israeli Soldiers

The US, for all the diplomatic niceties it voices, knows the score and has a long memory as it should. Influential US politicians have called us freeloaders and have warned that there can be no “free ride” in defence matters.

If Australia had a fair dinkum strategic plan based on the Israeli model where over thirty years we could continually upgrade the effectiveness of our defence force, we could be capable of defending our continent in most instances if needed with probably a topping up of weapons, missiles, ammunition and other supplies from the US.

Dibbs comments are surely simplistic, and are giving Australia a false sense of security that it has no need of a modern high technology defence force honed to perfection.

Molan knows the score

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

www.citizensfordefence.org

Molan knows the score

bobMike Scrafton’s criticisms on the ASPI Blog of Jim Molan’s article in the Quadrant highlights the divide between those schools of thought that want Australia to have a modern high technology defence force based on a sound strategic plan (Molan’s thesis) and those commentators and bureaucrats who back a pacifist view of subservience and timidity (Scrafton’s view).

Most of Scrafton’s comments about Molan are imaginative to say the least and shows Scrafton to be not interested in Australia developing a real defence force but more interested in knocking any attempt at us acquiring one.

His fixation on China is a distraction which he puts forward as a possible reason why it would be futile for us to aspire to a highly capable defence force. Even if there are no known threats threatening the security of Asia, we need a defence force as an insurance policy to guard us against the unknown.Molan2

But there are endless security threats in Asia that could affect this nation in the years ahead.

Asia is an armed camp with 2.25 million soldiers in uniform in China, a million soldiers in North Korea, a million soldiers in Indonesia and millions of soldiers in Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and countless other nations.

North Korea is bellicose and armed with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. China is nuclear armed and in the middle of a massive arms build up. Most nations are acquiring submarines and building up their defence forces.

There are conflicts between China and Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines over China’s claim for almost all of the South China Sea. Also there is conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, Malaysia and the Philippines, as well as a land dispute between China and India. (There are more).

Sure, we can make alliances with many of these nations which may allow us to sleep better at night without a defence force, but at the end of the day alliances are only a scrap of paper which can be ignored or reversed. Australia has little in common with these Asian nations with different religious values and human rights beliefs.

Most of their governments are inherently unstable and it is not unusual to see a series of coup d’état with much bloodshed which would almost instantly negate any alliance Australia had with these nations and could even place Australia in sudden grave danger of conflict with these nations.

Molan is highly critical of the Australian defence organisation with good reason. It is a paralysed body that wastes the little bit of funding the Labor government has allowed it to operate with by sitting on its hands with no strategic plan worked out that a more sympathetic government in the future might feel needs funding.

If our US ally funds its defence force with 4-5% of GDP Australia should do no less. Is it Australia’s destiny to be a freeloader on the US military machine in the hope that we will get our defence on the cheap? Surely Australia is above such deliberate exploitation of a faithful ally that has extended its hand of friendship to this nation for more than 90 years.

Surely it is critical that Australia has a strategic plan over the next twenty years where RAAF bare bases Scherger on the Cape York Peninsula, Learmonth near Exmouth in Western Australia together with Curtin near Derby in Western Australia are continually upgraded with top end radar, surveillance drones, underground fuel storage, reinforced missile defences and other military improvements.

schergerSurely at RAAF Scherger in particular and possibly RAAF Curtin plans should be put in place to position several batteries of anti ballistic missiles to try to take out nuclear warheads fired by any rogue state at Brisbane, Sydney, or Melbourne.

These are the areas of discussion most concerned citizens of this nation want to hear. We want to feel secure in an unstable region.

Jim Molan seems to be one of the few commentators who gets this and has much to contribute.

Submission to Defence White Paper 2013

Robert Bond Director Citizens for Defence
www.citizensfordefence.org

Submission to Defence White Paper 2013

Government Defence Funding
1) The Australian government has never adequately funded our defence force. Our present rate of funding is 1.5% of GDP which matches the lows of the 1930s before WW2. For the last 90 years it has rarely exceeded 2% of GDP except during a war.
2) Our ally and saviour in WW2, the US, has spent an average of 4.5% of GDP annually in the last 90 years maintaining a highly efficient fighting force supplied with cutting edge technology. This force has attempted to maintain peace in the world by protecting western democracies like Australia from intimidation and invasion under a series of coalitions and defence organisations.
3) This arrangement has largely failed because most participating countries have cut their defence budgets to well under 2% of GDP and in conflicts relied on the US to supply all the weapons and equipment with countries like Australia providing a token number of troops without useful equipment in an attempt to maintain a semblance of support for the coalition.
4) We feel Australia is a reprehensible parasite feeding off the loins of the US war machine in order to pay little or nothing for our defence. This repugnant bludging on another nation for a responsibility that is clearly ours is shameful and against all the virtues Australians pride themselves as standing for.
5) Our actions will lead to our destruction in time as there is no free lunch in defence matters. It is clear to us that if there is a blow up in the world like North Korea bombing South Korea, there will be a series of other conflicts flare up whilst the US is distracted where repressed hatred has been suppressed over the past decades which will be beyond even the US’s capacity to control.
6) Australia will be very much alone in the world below billions of Asians to our north and the Great Southern Ocean to our south. It is just fanciful in this scenario to imagine the US disengaging a naval battle fleet and marines from the fight and sailing half way around the world to save us.
7) Our leadership on defence does not exist with decision after decision based on buying outdated weapons on the cheap to save a few dollars or to make work programmes for selected states by making weapons systems that will be last century relics. Never is the prime discussion on what weapon would be the most technologically advanced and suitable for the defence of a vast continent with 36000 kilometres of coastline.
8) Australia should be spending at least 4-5% of GDP annually to try to catch up to the rest of the world in defence preparedness.

Strategic defence plan lacking – HMAS Sterling
1) Lack of government funding is the root cause for the endemic helplessness pervading our defence organisation. There are no long-term plans that we can grow into that will dramatically improve the defensive capability of this country.
2) It is glaringly obvious that Australia should carry out a major upgrade of HMAS Sterling in Western Australia and share the facility with a US battle fleet and nuclear submarines until we are in a position to take over most of the Coalition responsibilities in the South Pacific.
3) Australia should purchase from the US ten Virginia class nuclear attack submarines and have them serviced at HMAS Sterling alongside American submarines until we become proficient in their use.
4) Australia should build air and anti-submarine warfare ships equipped with the latest US anti-missile and anti-aircraft weapons systems instead of outdated dieselectric submarines which will destroy the budget and be more than useless in any conflict against nuclear attack submarines.
5) Australia should aim to build up over time a tight naval battle fleet with the latest amphibious landing capabilities protected from missile and aircraft attack by escort ships and 2 aircraft carriers (built in Australia) equipped with STOVL F35 stealth attack aircraft with the fleet based at HMAS Sterling.

Strategic defence – Air bases at Broome & Cape York
1) There should be a plan put in place to fund over 20 years the progressive establishment of forward air bases at Broome and the top of Cape York. The first priority would be for a hardened airstrip followed by hardened fuel storage and ammunition and bomb bunkers deep underground. Radar and hardened bunkers for defence ground to air missiles would next be established nearby together with accommodation facilities and maintenance equipment storage.
2) These bases would act as forward operating areas to accommodate fuel tankers and attack aircraft to allow our defence forces to project power up to 2000 kilometres from our coast. Surveillance planes and reconnaissance drones could regularly operate between the bases and if the air force base at Darwin was included would effectively cover the whole northern approach to Australia.
3) It seems logical that an air force and army base should be built near Alice Springs in the Northern Territory as a storage depot for tanks and associated weapons for the army as well as a staging area for air force planes. These bases would have state of the art maintenance facilities to quickly repair equipment and return it to the front line.
4) The forward air bases purpose would be to carry only a few military aircraft and soldiers in normal times but if a need arose it could quickly accommodate 100 attack aircraft, associated fuel tankers as well as radar and electronics aircraft. This would allow the use of maximum force in the quickest time possible focused on the conflict trouble spots.

Dieselectric submarines are a catastrophic mistake
1) It is unbelievable that the leaders of a nation surrounded by three great oceans together with the Timor Sea and other waterways would consider the slow and outmoded dieselectric submarine as our main weapon to defend our 36000 kilometres of shoreline. This 4000 tonne relic to be built in South Australia will do little more than 25 knots for 50 nautical miles submerged and running on batteries. A vulnerable tanker is going to have to refuel and rearm it at sea if it is to avoid travelling from the battlefield to port wasting weeks of designated operation.
2) The American Ambassador, Jeffrey L. Bleich, has advised Australia that the US is more than willing to lease or sell nuclear powered Virginia class attack submarines to this nation to improve our defence force. If the Minister for Defence Materiel, Jason Clare, feels the US has reneged on this undertaking he should formally request a confirmation instead of mouthing off unfounded opinions.
3) These state of the art submarines can maintain a speed of 32 knots submerged for months on end travelling tens of thousands of kilometers in that time compared with an Australian built dieselectric submarine that will do little more than 25 knots for a distance of 50 nautical miles or 500 nautical miles at 4 knots.
4) In addition, the Virginia class submarines are equipped with five cutting edge sonar systems ranging from new active/passive sonar, to world leading low and high frequency towed sonar array backed up by the advanced electromagnetic signature reduction system built into it.
5) As well, this submarine has photonics masts instead of traditional periscopes located outside the pressure hull. Each mast contains high resolution cameras, along with light- intensification and infrared sensors, an infrared laser rangefinder, and an integrated electronic support measures array.
6) If Australia could purchase ten nuclear submarines in cooperation with the US it would alter the balance of power in the south pacific region. Australia will need all this high technology equipment and more in the next fifty years if it is to adequately defend its borders.

F35 Generation 5 stealth fighter the only choice
1) The Gillard government is now proposing to purchase another 24 super hornet FA18s which will displace the purchase of the F35 stealth fighter undergoing final testing before production gets under way. Our politicians aim is to save a few pieces of silver by buying superseded FA18 aircraft which are not stealthy and whose air frame design originated forty years ago as a generation 4 fighter.
2) This is a false economy given that Australia can purchase state of the art generation 5 stealth fighters before the end of this decade. Why spend $120 million on old technology when in a few years we can get the latest technology for $190 million which will be effective for 30 years.
3) Conceived in the mid 1990s, the tri-variant F-35 represents the pinnacle of more than 50 years of fighter development technology. Designed to dominate the skies, the F-35 combines the 5th Generation characteristics of radar evading stealth, supersonic speed and extreme agility with the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history.
National defence forces with high technology equipment and honed to perfection are an insurance policy guarding our future.

Australia should contribute to US “Pivot to Asia”

Robert Bond Director Citizens for Defence
www.citizensfordefence.org

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

nimitz91.jpg
Australia should contribute to US “Pivot to Asia”

bobAustralia has to do more to assist its ally, the US, in its “Pivot to Asia”. We are living in fantasy-land where the government and most of our politicians say “she’ll be right mate” when our lack of a defence plan is brought to their attention. The strategists and Ivory Tower soothsayers are only too willing to back up the government with wild predictions that Australia is never likely to face future threats and we have no need of a functioning modern defence force.
Yet anyone who even makes a cursory study of Asia can see that the politicians are barefaced liars willing to jeopardise the defence of this nation for an easy life doling out middle class welfare cheques instead of investing in defence assets.
Asia is an armed camp with 2.25 million soldiers in uniform in China, a million soldiers in North Korea, a million soldiers in Indonesia and millions of soldiers in Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and countless other nations.
North Korea is bellicose and armed with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. China is nuclear armed and in the middle of a massive arms build up. Most nations are acquiring submarines and building up their defence forces.Korean missiles
There are conflicts between China and Japan, Thailand and Cambodia, Vietnam and China, Malaysia and the Philippines, to name a few.
Are the politicians and their lap dog crony’s blind, deaf, and dumb or just stupid for allowing this nation to be utterly defenceless in a military environment as threatening as the above?
The US is willing to place 2500 marines in the Northern Territory for training so one would think that Australia has so much to gain from this in learning marine skills that we would pay fully for the infrastructure needed to accommodate such a force and contribute something to their upkeep whilst they are here.
Yet the US is puzzled as to why the Gillard government seems to have cooled off on the idea of even having the American marines on Australian soil.
Is it Australia’s destiny to be a freeloader on the US military machine in the hope that we will get our defence on the cheap? Surely Australia is above such deliberate exploitation of a faithful ally that has extended its hand of friendship to this nation for more than 90 years.
We have no functioning defence force by choice and yet we cannot even expand the facilities at HMAS Sterling in Western Australia to allow our ally a place to berth an aircraft carrier battle fleet and nuclear submarines.
This would be first class assistance to an ally in its quest to “Pivot to Asia” and would demonstrate Australia’s willingness to contribute to its end of the Alliance capabilities.
CVN21 aircraft carrierAs well, we should lease and purchase up to 10 Virginia class nuclear attack submarines over time to be serviced under US supervision at HMAS Sterling until we are familiar with the process.
It is just another example of our politician’s lack of common sense that they want to land us with antique diesel electric submarines for the next fifty years which are a third as effective in battle as the Virginia class submarines and yet cost 40% more to purchase.
Ten well managed Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines would be asVirginia effective as 30 unreliable one off Australian designed and built dieselectric submarines. The Collins fiasco is an example of what will probably be the eventuality if Australia decides to go it alone down the Collins path again. In fact, the world has moved on since Collins was built and the technology is advancing at such a rapid rate that a bad outcome is almost guaranteed.
The whole of Northern Australia is within reach of the modern Russian attack aircraft that Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia possess now, not to mention their plans to expand the number of these weapons into the future.
We can make alliances with these countries which make us feel cosy without a defence force but they can make alliances between themselves against us in an instant if it suits their purpose at the time. At the end of the day an alliance is but a scrap of paper.
One must wonder what is in the politician’s minds that they leave this nation so comprehensively defenceless.

Defence Alliances are just scraps of paper

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

 www.citizensfordefence.org

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Defence Alliances are just bits of paper

bobBenjamin Schreer, a senior ASPI defence analyst, advocates a White Paper which avoids any suggestion of a future conflict with China and suggests if such an event ever comes to pass we leave it up to our ally the US to deal with.

It is hard to fathom how educated analysts put in writing that “staying close to the US also allows us to spend relatively little on defence, and gives us access to intelligence and world class military technology”. It highlights this nation’s willingness to bludge on another nation for a responsibility that is clearly ours which is shameful and against all the virtues Australians pride themselves as standing for.

Even the meagre funds made available by the Australian government are being frittered away in an organisation that has no direction other than to helplessly sit on its hands and avoid any ambitions of long term strategic plans that more generous governments might feel need funding.

Analysts feed into this sea of despair by suggesting we form alliances with Indonesia, and every other nation between here and China and we will then need no defence force.

For Schreer to give the opinion that “Indonesia’s external threat perception is focussed north, not south” is hardly a basis for Australia to remain unprepared. In the first instance only a soothsayer could predict what this comment suggests.

The recent export cattle crisis displays the brittleness of the relationship between us and our close neighbour even when Indonesia has the most pro western government in its history.

This nation of 250 million people has the highest proportion of Muslims per head of population of any nation in the world. Indonesia is in a constant battle to contain the violent Islamist element and its many sympathisers. Westerners are regularly being targeted and murdered in that country.

Indonesia has had several coup d’état in the past where dictators have reigned with great loss of life. Yet our Ivory Tower Academics have stared into the future and infallibly advised our government that an Islamist takeover will not happen and we need no defence preparedness.

The truth is the Islamists have already claimed northern Australia as part of a future Islamic kingdom and in the event of any Coup they could have a million militia with machetes and wearing sandals roaming the north and there would not be a single thing we could do to prevent them.

Indonesian IslamistsGive them their trusty AK 47 sub-machine guns and grenade launchers and who knows where events like this could end. The north is a comfortable overnight rubber duckie ride from Indonesia and given the lack of security, small population and remote locations it is possible for thousands of militants to land undetected.

The whole of Northern Australia is within reach of the modern Russian attack aircraft that Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia possess now, not to mention their plans to expand the number of these weapons into the future.

We can make alliances with these countries which make us feel cosy without a defence force but they can make alliances between themselves against us in an instant if it suits their purpose at the time.

The only alliance Australia has that seems rock solid is with the US and this nation is facing significant defence spending cuts over the next ten years which will certainly place it under great strain with its “pivot to Asia” strategy.

One would think any serious defence analysts would be suggesting that the three bare RAAF bases in Northern Australia, Scherger, Curtin, and Learmonth be continually upgraded over the next twenty years into hardened forward skeleton bases with radar, underground fuel storage and hardened missile defences even if it means the closing and downgrading of some bases in southern Australia.

Ivory Tower wimps it on JSF fighter

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE
CF-1_flight_test
Ivory Tower wimps it on JSF fighter

bobPeter Leahy, director of the National Security Institute at the University of Canberra, advocates that Australia cut its order for 100 Joint Strike Fighters to 60 planes and put at a higher risk our national security for the next thirty years whilst we await the arrival of the next generation drone strike fighter.

In fact, if the delays in delivery of the JSF seem inordinate, it is hard to imagine the delay in delivering such a complicated new weapons platform as a drone strike fighter. The JSF may have to serve this country for 40 years before it can be replaced by a proven unmanned fighter.

The Ivory Tower brigade keep chanting the mantra that Australia is under “no well defined threat” and yet Asia is arming with submarines, ships, hot Russian Sukhoi Su-30 attack aircraft, and more.

The whole of Northern Australia is within reach of the modern Russian attack aircraft that Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia possess now, not to mention their plans to expand the number of these weapons into the future.

We can make alliances with these countries which make us feel cosy without a defence force but they can make alliances between themselves against us in an instant if it suits their purpose at the time.

The only alliance Australia has that seems rock solid is with the US and this nation is facing significant defence spending cuts over the next ten years which will certainly place it under great strain with its “pivot to Asia” strategy.

Should the US presence in Asia be challenged, Australia is in for rough weather. We are isolated by geography to the Deep South, bordering the Great Southern Ocean with billions of Asians to our north. We are on the other side of the world to our traditional allies. We are a plum ready for the picking with vast natural resources in a large continent with a small population and no defence force.

Our continent is the size of the US and has a coastline of 36,000 kilometres to defend. Yet all our learned Ivory Tower professors can argue about is whether we should have 100 or 60 JSF attack fighters. Get real professors. Neither number comes close to securing Australia but the more aircraft we can afford the more secure we will be. The US has 2 to 3 thousand attack aircraft at any one time defending its nation and is continually striving for more and better aircraft.

Attrition losses of aircraft in any conflict will mean that any prudent country should have many aircraft in reserve. With the advent of modern intelligent air to air missiles the attrition rate is going to be higher than ever in future conflicts.

http://files.air-attack.com/MIL/jsf/f35c_dualrefuel.jpg

2 F35 fighters taking fuel from tanker

Air to air refuelling tankers and airborne early warning and electronic warfare aircraft will be the new front line in air warfare and there will be a need for more aircraft to defend these valuable and vulnerable assets, not less. Russia will soon be marketing missiles to the world that fly over incoming attack aircraft to specifically attack AWAC aircraft and fuel tankers causing major enemy disruption.

Australia is in an ugly situation with its government refusing to fund to the best of our ability a defence force capable of putting up credible resistance against any nation which puts us under overt or covert pressure, whether it be economic, social, or military.

The situation will become even uglier unless we buy as many US aircraft, weapons, and submarines as we can at the right price and assist our ally, the US, in completing its pivot into Asia.

Anzus is a mirage

              Hillary Clinton and Bob Carr at ANZUS meeting

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

ANZUS is a mirage

The Australian National University’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre regularly delves into the murky depths of defence alliances in Asia and the world in the hope of coming up with some magic formula which will protect Australia from reality.

It gives the university limitless scope to pontificate on endless strategic plans where nations of the world combine in alliances that keep the peace and in the process excuse the Australian nation from prudently spending money on modern weapons and training.

The weakness with Ivory Tower strategy is that the participants are convinced that they can foretell the future and as a result Australia has no need for hard military power.

The simple facts are that these professors and scholars are putting the cart before the horse as strategic theory and alliances are meaningless unless the Australia has the military might to back up its own security.

It is clear to any realist that ANZUS has been a failure for a long time. New Zealand has no air force whatsoever and Australia’s policy to the US is take, take, take, and never give. We will take US marines into Darwin. We will take their aircraft into northern airfields and we may even grudgingly make half hearted provision for US warships to berth at HMAS Sterling.

No partnership can survive where one partner systematically exploits the other partner. Australia is little better than a parasite feeding off the loins of the US war machine in order to pay little or nothing for our defence. This repugnant bludging on another nation for a responsibility that is clearly ours is shameful and against all the virtues Australians pride themselves as standing for.

Our actions will lead to our destruction in time as there is no free lunch in defence matters. It is clear to us that if there is a blow up in the world like North Korea bombing South Korea, there will be a series of other conflicts flare up whilst the US is distracted. Other nations, where repressed hatred has been suppressed over the past decades will take advantage of this opportunity to even up the score. This unrest may be beyond even the US’s capacity to control.

Australia will be very much alone in the world below billions of Asians to our north and the Great Southern Ocean to our south. It is just fanciful in this scenario to imagine the US disengaging a naval battle fleet and marines from the fight and sailing half way around the world to save us.

All the strategic theory in the world or academic soothsayer’s crystal ball gazing quickly becomes irrelevant in such situations where military force becomes our last line of protection. In a scramble to protect ourselves new alliances of convenience will have to be forged on the spot with nations in a similar predicament.

These potential alliance partners will only wish to combine with Australia if we have a hard hitting defence force with a wide range of high technology weapons. Australia, as well will be reluctant to link up with nations who have little or no modern weapons systems.

Maybe the ANU strategists can tell us how to proceed when their hyped up alliances and strategy crash in the first few days of a world where multiple conflicts break out simultaneously.

The US has changed the game with good reason and now expects its allies like France, Britain, Germany, Australia etc, to start pulling their weight. We should be warned by the US’s withdrawal from the leadership roles in Libya, Mali, Syria, Iran, North Korea and many other conflict zones throughout the world.

HMAS Sterling (US may share base)

Time is running out for Australia should it wish to carry out a major upgrade of HMAS Sterling in Western Australia and share the facility with a US battle fleet and nuclear submarines until we are in a position to take over most of the Coalition responsibilities in the South Pacific. The US has many alternative choices and once the US reaches a decision, Australia will be the loser.

Many Australians smugly think that ANZUS or a series of alliances will save us if the need arises but history shows that alliances only work when self interest is common to all participants and fall apart the moment self interests diverge.

This is why National defence forces with high technology equipment honed to perfection is desperately needed as an insurance policy guarding our future and a worthy contributor to ANZUS and other Coalitions.

US Alliance with Australia is failing

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

US Alliance with Australia is failing

 AUSTRALIA is a “critical pillar” in the US pivot to Asia and the rebalancing of its military strategy, the region’s most senior American commander says.

Chief of US Pacific Command (PACOM) Samuel Locklear, speaking in a teleconference from Hawaii, said Australia was vital in the world order that is emerging for the 21st Century.

Our ally and saviour in WW2, the US, has spent an average of 4.5% of GDP annually in the last 90 years maintaining a highly efficient fighting force supplied with cutting edge technology. This force has attempted to maintain peace in the world by protecting western democracies like Australia from intimidation and invasion under a series of coalitions and defence organisations.

This arrangement has largely failed because most participating countries have cut their defence budgets to well under 2% of GDP and in conflicts rely on the US to supply all the weapons and equipment with countries like Australia providing a token number of troops without useful equipment in an attempt to maintain a semblance of support for the coalition.

Aussie Sailors HMAS Sterling ( Lacking Funds)

The Australian government has never adequately funded our defence force in that time. Our present rate of funding is 1.5% of GDP which matches the lows of the 1930s before WW2. For the last 90 years it has rarely exceeded 2% of GDP except during a war.

Australia is a reprehensible parasite feeding off the loins of the US war machine in order to pay little or nothing for our defence. This repugnant bludging on another nation for a responsibility that is clearly ours is shameful and against all the virtues Australians pride themselves as standing for.

Our actions will lead to our destruction in time as there is no free lunch in defence matters. It is clear to us that if there is a blow up in the world like North Korea bombing South Korea, there will be a series of other conflicts flare up whilst the US is distracted. Other nations, where repressed hatred has been suppressed over the past decades will take advantage of this opportunity to even up the score. This unrest may be beyond even the US’s capacity to control.

Australia will be very much alone in the world below billions of Asians to our north and the Great Southern Ocean to our south. It is just fanciful in this scenario to imagine the US disengaging a naval battle fleet and marines from the fight and sailing half way around the world to save us.

For all the nice words spoken by the Chief of US Pacific Command and most US Officials and Presidents, Australia is not playing the game expected of a true ally of the US. We should be warned by the US’s withdrawal from the leadership roles in Libya, Mali, Syria, Iran, North Korea and many other conflict zones throughout the world.

The US has changed the game with good reason and now expects its allies like France, Britain, Germany, Australia etc, to start pulling their weight.

It is glaringly obvious that Australia should carry out a major upgrade of HMAS Sterling in Western Australia and share the facility with a US battle fleet and nuclear submarines until we are in a position to take over most of the Coalition responsibilities in the South Pacific.

Australia should purchase from the US ten Virginia class nuclear attack submarines and have them serviced at HMAS Sterling alongside American submarines until we become proficient in their use.

We should build air and anti-submarine warfare ships equipped with the latest US anti-missile and anti-aircraft weapons systems instead of outdated dieselectric submarines which will destroy the budget and be more than useless in any conflict against nuclear attack submarines.

Australia should aim to build up over time a tight naval battle fleet with the latest amphibious landing capabilities protected from missile and aircraft attack by escort ships and 2 aircraft carriers (built in Australia) equipped with STOVL F35 stealth attack aircraft with the fleet based at HMAS Sterling.

US Aircraft Carrier Nimitz

If Australia could purchase ten nuclear attack submarines in cooperation with the US it would alter the balance of power in the south pacific region.

National defence forces with high technology equipment honed to perfection would be an insurance policy guarding our future and a worthy contribution to the Coalition with our ally the US.

Nuclear Subs the only defence

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Nuclear subs the only defence

 Paul Dibb, the Ivory Tower academic from Australian National University, and advisor to the South Australian government on defence matters is highly critical of any suggestion that Australia acquire modern nuclear attack submarines. He not too subtly suggests that South Australia is the only location for the construction of outdated diesel electric submarines that are incapable of the task of defending our 36000 kilometre coastline.

This political intrigue destroys any confidence concerned citizens for defence may have had in his opinion as little consideration is given to what submarine would most effectively protect Australia into the future.

The American Ambassador, Jeffrey L. Bleich, has advised Australia that the US is more than willing to lease or sell nuclear powered Virginia class attack submarines to this nation to improve our defence force. If the Minister for Defence Materiel, Jason Clare, feels the US has reneged on this undertaking he should formally request a confirmation instead of mouthing off unfounded opinions.

If Australia could purchase ten nuclear submarines in cooperation with the US it would alter the balance of power in the south pacific region.

These state of the art submarines can maintain a speed of 32 knots submerged for months on end travelling tens of thousands of kilometers in that time compared with an Australian built dieselectric submarine that will do little more than 25 knots for a distance of 50 nautical miles or 500 nautical miles at 4 knots.

In addition, the Virginia class submarines are equipped with five cutting edge sonar systems ranging from new active/passive sonar, to world leading low and high frequency towed sonar array backed up by the advanced electromagnetic signature reduction system built into it.

As well, this submarine has photonics masts instead of traditional periscopes located outside the pressure hull. Each mast contains high resolution cameras, along with light- intensification and infrared sensors, an infrared laser rangefinder, and an integrated electronic support measures array.

Australia will need all this high technology equipment and more in the next fifty years if it is to adequately defend its borders.

It is a sheer waste of money to blow upwards of $60 billion on eighty year old technology submarines with a view to saving some Australian jobs when these submarines will be blown out of the water by the far more nimble nuclear attack submarines they will be opposing in any future conflict.

The US is world leader in nuclear submarines and we should buy this proven technology from them. The US has 12 Virginia class submarines in service at present and all their state of the art systems are operating flawlessly.

It is an insult to this nation to suggest that we are incapable of operating nuclear submarines because we have no nuclear industry. This is the type of typical backward thinking that has seen Australia defenseless for decades and reliant on the goodwill of the US for security. This nation would still be firing cannon balls from wooden ships if our forbears had displayed the same level of helplessness as our present politicians and Paul Dibbs.

The US is our ally and has offered us the opportunity to purchase nuclear attack submarines. The US has shown an interest in berthing an aircraft carrier battle group and nuclear submarines at a joint facility at HMAS Sterling in Western Australia. This seems like a golden opportunity for Australia to expand HMAS Sterling at our cost to accommodate the US ships and maintenance facilities where our nuclear submarines and other ships could also be serviced.

Other alternatives would be for nuclear expertise to be bought in from overseas sufficient to operate nuclear submarines with major servicing to be done at Guam or Pearl Harbor until we develop the necessary expertise.

The Virginia class attack submarine is an ideal match for the vast Pacific, Indian and Great Southern oceans that surround our continent. Our weak kneed politicians and academic advisors should show some backbone by finding the ways and means of acquiring and operating this modern technology for our defence instead of lumping us with Neanderthal technology submarines incapable of the most basic defence needs of this nation.

Draft Defence White Paper 1213

Cameron Stewart’s appraisal of the draft copy of the Defence White Paper is a damning indictment on every politician in Federal Parliament. (Chinese military power “shifting pacific balance” says defence white paper, 21-12).

It bears no relationship to the strategic defence needs of this nation but tries to accommodate a nation that refuses to stand on its own two feet by denying funding for modern high technology weapons.

Yippee, we are still in line to waste $50 billion on 90 year old technology by building 1930s style dieselectric submarines which have a submerged range at full power of probably 50 nautical miles. In the first week of a conflict the enemy’s nimble nuclear submarines will destroy them all in a low risk turkey shoot unless they are hiding in the shallows.

It is time for Australia to take our defence seriously and nuclear submarines, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and armed drones should be at the forefront of any White Paper.