|
Post by Joey on Sept 21, 2018 13:23:43 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Sept 21, 2018 18:22:45 GMT 10
But strangely not a mention to helping out with the genocide happening in West Papua from the Indonesians?
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 21, 2018 19:34:37 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Sept 21, 2018 19:39:09 GMT 10
Makes good sense to me. IMO one of the most probable scenarios is food and fuel shortages, economic upheaval and wide scale social unrest caused by a belligerent China messing with our sea lanes to pressure Australia into accepting their dominance. Much more likely than a shooting war. Yep. Except I doubt anyone will be at all influenced even if our entire military capability was stationed there. ... perhaps if we purchased a proper offensive nuclear submarine fleet someone might take us more seriously.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Sept 21, 2018 19:55:08 GMT 10
Interesting stats SA Hunter, thanks for posting them up for our enlightenment. I wonder how anyone knows what China is really spending on these places. What is officially stated (by either party - giver or receiver) could be quite different to what is actually going on? I'm surprised we are outspending China. And if we really are ... what does that say about us? We are worse than China when it comes to influencing/meddling in Pacific Nations affairs? I'm real pleased I'm not running the country ... making these calls on what to spend and how to spend on foreign countries is both sketchy and thankless.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Sept 21, 2018 21:48:34 GMT 10
With the money they are spending on the Cook Islands, and their remote location in the middle of the ocean there, my money would be on them to start developing those islands up very soon as a military staging post or refueling base. That's what I would do if I was them speaking long term militarily
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Sept 21, 2018 23:06:59 GMT 10
I'd prefer to see us build our own submarine fleet... and surface ships... and aircraft... etc.
But this country's bureaucrats seem to delight in making our manufacturing industry nonviable; the red tape in making & selling anything here is why I've chosen to stop manufacturing.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Sept 22, 2018 9:05:17 GMT 10
". perhaps if we purchased a proper offensive nuclear submarine fleet someone might take us more seriously." My understanding is our deisel subs perform very well in exercises against the yanks. We just don't have enough of them or the trained crews to man them. I'll have a look on the net to see if I can find an article or two about that. I've read here and there that our current Collins or any diesel subs are only for peacetime work. We have them pull in to the wharf here from time to time. A few years back one was parked here for weeks waiting for parts or some such. How long does the average naval exercise go for? WW2 showed clearly that the best subs in the world at that time; the late war U boats; were defeated largely by airpower and by being detected at the surface getting to and from operational areas. Diesel subs need a reliable supply of diesel (questionable in a drawn out confrontation) and much more time on the surface. I hear nuclear subs can stay down for months at a time if they have to thereby cutting risk. I'm certainly no naval technologist but I equate diesel subs with piston engine aircraft ... obsolete in a real modern battlefield.
|
|
Pion
Senior Member
Posts: 353
Likes: 422
|
Post by Pion on Sept 22, 2018 9:23:07 GMT 10
Actually far from it...a diesel sub on exercise recently got inside the envelope of à US carrier group and launched...most embarrassing but the reality of it is that upgrades in tech can be a game changer at all levels...the day of the diesel is not yet done...
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Sept 22, 2018 13:54:44 GMT 10
So IMO having the best weapon platforms is pointless if your people management processes encourage skilled staff to leave the service. Absolutely agree. Military's everywhere have a habit of undervaluing their good people. Its also a feature of the public service sector. There are many, many less important jobs than national defence that pay a sheetload more with way less effort and risk. It gets even worse when countries resort to forcing people into the military. Pleased to hear your daughter is being correctly valued now.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Sept 22, 2018 13:58:32 GMT 10
|
|
Pion
Senior Member
Posts: 353
Likes: 422
|
Post by Pion on Sept 22, 2018 17:00:11 GMT 10
So IMO having the best weapon platforms is pointless if your people management processes encourage skilled staff to leave the service. Absolutely agree. Military's everywhere have a habit of undervaluing their good people. Its also a feature of the public service sector. There are many, many less important jobs than national defence that pay a sheetload more with way less effort and risk. It gets even worse when countries resort to forcing people into the military. Pleased to hear your daughter is being correctly valued now. The NZ military suffers the same despite saying publically that their people are their best resource...unfortunately it has been my experience in several different services that individual staff officers often forget this premise and treat staff like they don't exist because they can...they have a name for their type - wankers...like most services and corporations often some in the higher echaelons are actually those that need weeding out for not remembering they exist to assist staff not the staff existing to complete their career path...
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Sept 23, 2018 0:00:45 GMT 10
The government needs to set their wages to a decent standard to give a better since time for the troops to stay on after their 3yrs, otherwise they will just continue to loose everyone to the private sector/paid mercs. And this huge PC push for female only soldiers at the moment, who ever the ADF hired as their "diversity consultant" needs to be shot. If they have to make the physical entry tests so low now for the female entrants just to get numbers through while also forcing the recruiters to turn away viable male applicants is just beyond a joke. It should always be the way it was, best applicant for the role at the time regardless if they were male or female. If there was a huge lacking if female applicants, then spend a little money on the research as to why women weren't signing up for service. Its not rocket science, but then it is just another government branch with an abundance of bureaucrats
|
|