Vacancy

I haven't seen any evidence that government funded Defence advice organisations know what they are doing when it comes to building a reliable infrastructure ready for war.

Bringing up percent of GDP for Defence spending is a useless argument. Funding for Defence is what ever an entitlement-driven society says it is after they have had their fief.

Then there is the issue of all of the overly expensive hardware Defence wants or has that is incompatible with living within our means.

Any kind of AFVs Australia needs have to swim (like a Russian made BTR or BMP). Indonesia has BMP-3s. Given the region, that is practical.

At least we have M-113s. However Defence again shows a lack of understanding of how we would use these or even interest in keeping them around.

Troubling, is when you see cutaway artwork of our future flat-top amphibs, main battle tanks are in them and not M-113s.

M-1 tanks...M-1 tanks with no real HE round aren't of much use. They are not useful for water obstacles. Other people make main battle tanks that have water obstacle capability. M-1 tanks are heavy and will be of questionable use on some of the Pacific Rim roads. They also suck a lot of fuel.

So yes, I would rather have BMP-3s, BTRs and M-113s than M-1s for anything Australia does in its region of interest.

The flying club:

The classic Hornet; $11,770 per flying hour. Super Hornet; $23,131 per flying hour. MRH-90; $31,790 per flying hour. Tiger; $13,430 per flying hour. Wedgtail; $57,500 per flying hour.

F-35? Possibly 3-4 times that per flying hour of our classic Hornet and it will not be able to take on emerging threats.

Big dollar navy:

The air warfare destroyer will certainly be more to operate than the smaller frigates we have. Both in crewing needed and expense. This nation needs a replacement Frigate and patrol boats in number to secure our borders against illegal arrivals by boat.

The submarine requirement discussion in Australia is sad. It is completely dominated by rent seeking. The requirement that keeps being floated around does not describe that of a big conventional submarine, but that of a U.S. Virginia class nuke sub. Don't want a U.S. Virginia class nuke sub? Better change the requirement.

Strategic thought in this country on the topic of Defence is not good. I just saw another self-important paper where Ross Babbage was marked as one of Australia's leading strategic thinkers.

Most of his thinking in the last disaster of the 2009 Defence White Paper showed a keen interest in ignoring the realities of net-centric warfare in general and air combat, specifically.

I suppose things could always be worse?

They are. The current government has spent way into the red over the past several years. Defence purchases while the federal budget is patched up (this will take years) will not resemble anything in the current white paper (2009). Or it seems, given the pedigree of "strategic thinking", the 2013 paper.