Clearly thoughts from people who have no idea of the specific roles each unit plays:
Reports Of Plans To Merge Paras And Marines
Printable View
Clearly thoughts from people who have no idea of the specific roles each unit plays:
Reports Of Plans To Merge Paras And Marines
Good grief, I bet you had to count to 10 when you saw that Gil!
Well John............when you work out most of the Destroyer fleet is sick and in docks, aircraft carriers leaking and no planes to go on them, the Navy will need someone to dance with on a Friday and Saturday night onboard to bring morale back up..............and it ain't going to be Paratroopers :lol::lol:
Can just see it now on the field Para's - "Well its not our lot to do that " Marines - "Well we do boats planes scare us" only as a fo par guys but each service has its specialties obviously a bean counter has crunched the numbers.
Cost cutting the armed services what a pack of horse $hite a country needs an at strength armed services to protect the nation interests no matter where.
When you reduce that service you reduce the freedom why don't they thin out the bean counters and leave the soldiering to the soldiers as thats what they do for us.
Sadly our armed services are constantly on the back foot having to scrimp to make do making do will not cut it when the $hit hits the fan because even as a militia John Howard has ensured we are as weak kneed as a Kangaroo without a tail.....!!!!
Its frustrating as hell....
As a question do bean counters get issued a weapon and told the enemy is in that direction go and sort them out! Just a question?
:rofl: Well that's had me laughing all afternoon Gil ..... Joking aside, when will this endless round of cuts stop, its depressing and it must be crushing for moral, bloody Politicians and the civil service bean counters...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ----------
You are right there Ron,You are right there Ron, I must say though, I always thought the Australians invested quite well in defence, a generally well thought out and balanced procurement plan across all three services, or am I reading it wrong mate?Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
How does one merge an Army unit with a Naval unit? Who resigns their commission and joins who? Who's rank insignia gets used?
CF tried amalgamating the Services(instigated by our current PM's communist rat offspring of unmarried parents daddy.) starting in 1968. All Services are back to their traditional ranks, uniform colours and insignia.
"..."Well we do boats. Planes scare us"..." Can't imagine a Real Marine being scared of a wee airplane. Or much of anything else.
"...constantly on the back foot..." Nothing new about that.
Isn't the first time units have been amalgamated either. The Blues and Royals were The Royal Horse Guards and The Royal Dragoons were two units before 1969. And both Harry and Willy are former officers there.
The whole thing is pure media hack speculation anyway.
The Govt says 'Jobs for Australians' yet our new subs are being built off shore - we as an island surrounded by sea do not posses an aircraft carrier for fixed wing aircraft even though we have aircraft that can use one, I think our newest one uses choppers a chopper is ok if your hunting a sub I guess.
An article on the M1A1 MBT ~ why can't Aus buy the current model as we are with the Strike Fighter its a bit sad if your sending your PBI in without adequate support.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...0-jOrmMamTxFtq
I view all the statements made on defense spending by any Govt past/present or future as circumspect they love taking our taxes but the disparity is perks verses equipment......the soldier deserves the very best of everything a country can give him/her as they are the ones putting themselves in harms way give them the best chance of eliminating the enemy and coming home to their loved ones again.
Mate, my eldest granddaughter's husband was an engineering officer in HMAS CANBERRA. He told me that the flight deck isn't strong enough for the weight (and landing force) anything but helicopters. That means that helicopter gunships with their limited linger, range and capability would the only close air support an opposed landing could expect if the ship was operating independently and beyond the range of land based RAAF close air support.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
I think somewhere in Qld there is a swag of landing type craft that were made at XXXX $'s quietly rusting away as they were made to big to fit on the deck of the carrying ship or something to that affect.
Always the same everywhere. As soon as things start looking peaceful, the Armed Forces get whacked.
I just read my new few books about Korea, and that's exactly what happened then.
The problem is, when you need to gear up, there is always someone paying the bill in the meantime.
Plus, nowadays, you also have to consider that the new technologies will certainly not allow for fast responses to lack of armaments, of specialists and of trained men.
Unfortunately most politicians have never worn a uniform and don't have a clue about what they are deciding upon.
Paul, if that's right, then that is outrageous and and a scandalous waste of Australian taxpayers money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S.
Canberra and her sister have been built with ski jumps (not bolted to the flight deck, but part of the intrinsic design) to enable them to operate F35B's, the jump serves no other purpose.
Should Australia procure a number of B models, then Canberra and her sister would be very useful and capable light multi roll aircraft carriers.
As Ron quite rightly says, Australia is an Island nation.
Like the UK its entirety dependent on its main line of supply, ie the sea.
After a very long wait, the UK has finally woken up to the need to operate Aircraft Carriers again and is in the process of commissioning two 70,000 ton vessels.
The UK has decimated its conventional defences to fight the War on terror, a grave mistake and one that will one day bite us on the arse.
If I was a US taxpayer, I would be very unhappy at having to guarantee and fund Defence for the entire Western world!
"...our new subs are being built off shore..." Better than buying old Brit Upholder class subs in 1998 that were way past being serviceable. Our lot bought several that tried to sink after catching fire, on the trip across the North Atlantic. So don't buy used kit from the RN.
"...we have aircraft that can use one..." CF's F-18's are carrier rated. As are the drivers. And we have no big boat to put 'em on.
Sad to say, but for most soldiers, in most Armies, I believe Kipling got it right.
Thanks O/T pretty well spot on was the pic of the chaps with the No 4 with the spike attached moving forward I must confess have not seen to many shots of that type plenty with the '07 but not the spike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
I fully agree on all points.
Re: CANBERRA and the F35s - I sent my grandson in law video of the F35 carrier tests when he was first posted aboard CANBERRA knowing that her flight deck had a 'jump jet ramp'. The ship was still going through her post commissioning work-ups and certifications at the time. That was when he told me she wasn't fixed wing (F35, etc.) capable because the deck wasn't strong enough. My immediate thought was, 'Well that's f*cking great isn't it?' Yeah, it's great having a ship that can deliver and amphibious force, but it's a lot better if the ship can defend and support the ashore force. Basically, it rules out anything operating independently of land based or carrier borne aircraft if the operating against a significant opposing force.
But then, I'm not the bloke at the top of the pile in the ACT who makes the decisions and signs the cheques.
Mind you, CANBERRA performed sterling duty when she went up to Fiji after the cyclone went through.
perhaps the Collins class subs have something to do with that decision?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
Words fail me............Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
The brainless morons that dreamed up this idea need to be taken aside and given a :slap:
I will agree Merle the "Colins" had their issues but most of which was sorted I think they ended up buying the fire control system from the USA Navy, foggy memory that there was an issue with noise from the prop shafts cannot remember but there was a noise issue.
In the end they ended up a pretty quiet fish which if you can believe what was said about them gave the USN's hunter killer submarines curry apparently in wargames, once a friend I knew was out a fair way fishing when one of these things surfaced fired up the diesels to get under way he thought it was on fire the amount of black smoke that issued from it bit like the Canberra Bombers with their starter cartridges.....
Here's another told to me that when the US carrier is out with its fleet there is more to it under water a story I got from a friend who was at Gage roads W.A's Naval base that when the fleet was in Freo the sub/s attached to them surfaced at night with just the sail visible.
Whether true or not does not worry me as it makes tactical sense to have one or two attached as the best way to kill a sub is with another one.