Julia Gillard is finally sent packing

For example what is a tri service unit?

 

most Americans couldn't even tell you who our Prime Minister is, or for that matter the capitol of Australia Lol...

@ hillbillyhippy

a tri-service unit would be one made up of all three services, such as we have had recently in East Timor with the medical service we provided there for them

 

Yes we can talk about results like the proven utility of the frigate fleet or the submarines when ever they manage to put to sea for naval exercises that is or the armies various infantry forces. Is it therefore prudent to invest in large and expensive boutique assets like air warfare destroyers and flat tops? You also need to keep in mind that the navy has ongoing problems keeping its current fleet either operational or seaworthy.

The Abrams presents the same problem for the army, big expensive and probably worse than useless in littoral environments. Although they may have some use in training with the marines, or maybe not. Mind you the mechanization disease has effected allot of militarise from the wehrmacht down to Assads Syrian army with predictable results.

Then again business is business and defense procurement continues to be big business. Its all abit like TARP. Many governments creates markets for otherwise very large and insolvent firms to ply there trade in toxic assets and or useless and dangerous products.

 

I'm not too much into the economics of it all, but many people have said that we would be better of with a lot of smaller offshore patrol vessels, and perhaps four AWD's than the current mix of Frigates we have. As for the larger assets like the helicopter carriers, I think that given the region we operate in, and the potential for conflict, they are important. My brother says the English tank is better.

 

We all come at things from differing perspectives which is interesting.

Yes I have seen the navy league argue in one of its publications for a third carrier and a fourth air warfare destroyer. The sky seems to be the limit. Mind you in reality our defense/economic ties/dependence on the US and regional allies/powers will at the end of the day determine much of the force structure/strategy which as you may agree will include the carriers and the AWD's and much else. Australia has always had rather limited security autonomy for obvious reasons.

 

Australia was letting in "Illegal Refugees"/ "Asylum Seekers"/ "Boat People" call them what you will, because they wanted a seat on the Security Council in the United Nations.
but now that they've got that seat they are sending them to Papua New Guinea, Naru & Mannus Island.
Mainly because there's a Federal Election in three weeks time.