Do we need a (surface) navy ? John Quiggin
What nice irony. No sooner does John Quiggin suggest that Australia should give up having a naval "surface fleet", and the media reports that the Navy can barely staff the meagre submarine fleet we already have.
Submariners have always been overstating their usefulness. I remember hearing a navy officer in (I think) the late 70's saying that the new cruise missiles that were then being developed would remove the need for an attack capable air force for Australia.
The fact is, Australia with its mix of defence roles (local participant in regional disputes, contributor to worthy larger causes across the globe, and potential defender of our own continent) is always going to need a mixed force with a bit of everything. What to put in that mix is always going to be controversial, but very radical force restructures are never likely to be politically palatable or popular with the public. And that is how it should be.
2 comments:
Umm, doesn't that reinforce my point? Trying to do a bit of everything means you do nothing well.
JQ
To a degree, yes, in the sense that we are never going to have an ideal force structure for all of the disparate things we would like to do.
But I think that is just unavoidable given our location, size, and importance in the region and internationally. My point is that I don't think it is actually unwise to try to cover all roles, even if know none of them will be dealt with ideally.
Post a Comment