Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Dibb, Dribble, Dibb, Dribble, Dibb, Dibb
Aussiegunneragain    11/10/2010 4:44:54 AM
Silly old Paul Dibb is back at it again angling at his DOA doctrine by promoting submarines at the expense of amphibs. Apparently he hasn't noticed the number of times we have used amphibious units on operations in our direct region over the last 15 years. Nor has he read the White Paper, which gives a fairly clear indication of why we need both. Australia needs 12 large subs for security AUSTRALIA will need 12 big, long-range submarines to help it shape its own strategic future. The region will be increasingly dominated by China, says Paul Dibb, author of the 1987 defence white paper. In the wake of warnings about China's growing military power at the Ausmin talks, Professor Dibb will tell a Submarine Institute conference in Perth today it is time Australians took their strategic outlook much more seriously. "We ignore our own unique strategic geography at our peril in the decades ahead," he will say. Having a large, more potent submarine force must be a central strategic priority for Australia and there should be bipartisan agreement politically about that, Professor Dibb will tell the conference. The boats should be built in Australia, he will say, and they should be fitted with powerful long-range weapons such as cruise missiles. The current white paper has called for 12 long-range subs to be built in South Australia at an estimated cost of $36 billion, with the first of the boats to be operational from 2020. "Too much of the defence debate in this country is preoccupied with the short term. There is a blindness in Australia towards the need to do our utmost to shape our own strategic future. "We need to return to the fundamental importance of our strategic geography and focus on the potentially threatening historical changes that are about to occur to the geopolitical landscape in our part of the world." Professor Dibb will stress that Australia needs a larger submarine force and a potent air force and he will deride the purchase for the navy of two giant military transports. "We do not require two 27,000-tonne amphibious assault ships that will require protection by most of our surface, sub-surface and combat air patrol forces so they can put a token land force ashore." By 2030, China could have 100 quiet, modern submarines. Australia needs a submarine force to protect its interests at sea against increasingly credible adversaries, he will say. The boats need to be able to fight in a region extending from the eastern Indian Ocean to the South Pacific and from Southeast Asian waters, including the South China Sea, to the Southern ocean. They need to be able to work with allied navies in high-intensity combat. The US has only 26 attack submarines in the Pacific compared with China's 62. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/australia-needs-12-large-subs-for-security/story-e6frg6nf-1225950362509
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Aussiegunneragain    link   11/10/2010 4:46:42 AM
>>
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       11/12/2010 10:50:55 AM
It's a nice and warm, comforting feeling that nothing has changed. Especially his influence over the Defence Capability plan...
 
The man is a tool. Stuck in the 80's when 4 man Musorian special forces teams were the toughest threat that could be imagined (or that the Government was willing to pay for...)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/12/2010 2:50:08 PM


The man is a tool. Stuck in the 80's when 4 man Musorian special forces teams were the toughest threat that could be imagined (or that the Government was willing to pay for...)


the fast way to kill off any program is to have dibb endorse it.  he's another example of someone who's self importance exceeds his grasp of tactical and strategic issues.

australias answer to the "5min CNN General" strikes again

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       11/13/2010 8:26:46 AM

 Stuck in the 80's when 4 man Musorian special forces teams were the toughest threat that could be imagined (or that the Government was willing to pay for...)



I remember one Commander of the Divisional Artillery's Assessmnet exercise when the Murorians (or the Kamerians, I can't remember which now) were being played by our CO's driver and sig (the CO's callsign was zero charlie). The assessors came round to the guns and asked us questions, one of which was "who is the enemy". One smart arse replied "Zero Charlie Sir". It got a laugh and a line in the battery magazine.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       11/13/2010 7:46:00 PM

It's a nice and warm, comforting feeling that nothing has changed. Especially his influence over the Defence Capability plan... 
I'm not sure whether or not to be scared ... the last time a Government listenned to Dibb they cut defence expenditure by 25%
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics