But you're still not comparing apples to apples. Any comparison to 40 years ago is meaningless because, as you said, the strategic circumstances 40 years ago is very different to today. Why should we benchmark ship numbers off what we had 40 years ago? It's about as relevant as benchmarking off what we had in the world wars.
This is where debates on forums often get sidetracked to being essentially meaningless. The ADF should be built around the strategic circumstances NOW and in the predictable future, not based on romantic notions of the past or, even worse, romantic notions about what we want the strategic circumstances to look like (ie, Kopp-esk massive dogfights between Flankers and F22s in the South China Sea).
The fact is, the strategic circumstances of now create a far more stable security environment (at least in the conventional sphere) than 40 years ago. Which is why all other developed nations have reduced their military capabilities. Which makes the fact that Australia hasn't even more impressive (or at least less depressing, depending on your point of view)
If you believe what I’ve said is meaningless, fair enough, that’s your opinion and I respect that, and I certainly wasn’t going down some fantasy Kopp / APA path either, especially a ‘this vs that’ scenario, where that came from, I have no idea.
But just to be clear, back to my comment where I said: ‘I can't help but feel that we have gone backwards compared to some of the others that have come along in leaps and bounds over those 40 years’.
The point I was making was that relative and
compared to the significant growth of our neighbours, we had gone backwards, more about their increased capabilities and less about any perceived significant reduction on our part, maybe to be clearer I should have used words such as, ‘the gap had closed’.
And yes agree, the strategic circumstances have changed in our region in the last 40 years, yes it is a lot more stable, and hopefully it stays that way too, and one of the plus sides is that our neighbours are far more capable of investing in their own defence and security, and as a collective in our region that is good for all of us, share the burden.
And again I agree that the Navy and ADF should be built around the strategic circumstances of today and the predictable future, no argument there, the problem is the disconnect between what a particular Government says we need and what it eventually does.
We’ve had two DWP’s in the last six years (and another due in 18mths) outlining an impressive list of equipment to achieve the Government’s security goals, but then the Government of the day turns around and takes Billions of dollars from defence which at the end of the day, (and the problem for a following Government), makes it more difficult to actually turn what is written on a piece of paper into reality.
Years ago when the Navy wanted larger (and no doubt more expensive) OPVs, instead it got cheaper smaller ACPBs, the 2009 DWP said yes to 20 larger OCVs, now the 2013 DWP has put that project on the back burner, what is the new Government going to do? Who knows...
Is all of that driven by a positive change in our strategic circumstance? Probably not, probably more to do with the budgetary position of the Government of the day.
As to the RAN itself, I wasn’t suggesting that it was all doom and gloom, yes over the next few years we are going to see an impressive array of new equipment and capabilities, 3 AWD’s, 2 LHD’s, a fleet of new Romeo helicopters, hopefully a firm decision on what type of sub, and how many, will replace the Collins class, etc, etc.
At the end of the day, I’m just a civvie, I only have access to what is in the public domain and what I see and hear on sites such as this to help form my opinions (rightly or wrongly), do I think the Navy should have more capabilities?, yes in certain areas I do, is it doom and gloom?, no it isn’t, never suggested that.
