DEFENCE

Australia is a small country with limited numbers of defence personals. However, it needs all levels of soldiers: those with small arms as special units or ordinary units, those handle sophisticated arms and those handle the systems. Australia cannot effort its number but ideas and wealth. As the main concern is defence, Australia must make best effort in it.

Even with sophisticated arms, such as fighter jets, submarines, tanks and ships, Australia can only afford small numbers. Obviously that is not enough to defend itself. Hence it must afford for strategy and ideology.

The advantage is Australia is an island continent. In any scenario, the aggressors must cross the oceans to reach Australia by air or by sea. So Australia can foresee the advancing enemies in any form. Australia can afford long-range defence strategies such as long range missiles, short range missiles, fighter jets and reliable radar system. However, the weakness is they can fight against slow and visible targets such as ships and bombers.

If the enemies afford pre-strikes before invasion, it can be hard for Australia. Pre-strike can come in the forms of rockets, fighter jets and satellite. Or such attacks can come via invasion of nearest countries such as Papua.

So there are three main points I found:

1.      Limited defence personals who must cover all oceans surrounding Australia

2.      Strategy and ideological based defence system

3.      And regional cooperation for defence.

Australia cannot afford losing its good soldiers. Australia must do everything to recover its skilled and experience elite defence personals. Australia must have most reliable defence technology suitable for its own ideology. Australia must support neighbouring countries for political stability and economic development so that they will be able to defend themselves.

Australia must make sure it doesn’t make a mistake by strengthening its potential enemies. All Australian neighbours are small countries except Indonesia who doesn’t seem to have an interest in becoming a potential aggressor – at least not in coming decades. The reason is it is democratised recently and is mainly concerned about economy.

As defence personals are limited, Australia must produce highly skilled units armed with most reliable technology. There will be limitedly skilled personals too and they should play a role in defending from home.

My particular vision is the naval with submarines.

I don’t see battle ships have a good role to play in defence except for transporting cargos.  They are so visible and need a huge number of skilled personals. It’s risky to send these skilled people into the battle field directly. By keeping them available for defence as long as possible, Australia will have an advantage. They will hold the technological based positions.

I know there is long range missile base (or bases) located in mainland Australia. They are best for deterring invading ships and heavy bombers and also good for attacking on targets far away. However, for pre-strike stages, during the attacks of the enemy are aimed on individual targets in Australia, such as city or town or ships or certain infrastructure, it can be hard to defend with missiles alone. For that reason, Australia needs mobile weaponry system – just like mobile missiles.

Australia has to defend itself at ocean. As ships are expensive and demanding, small submarines are ideals. They should be handled by a small team of crews who are not isolated from the base. The base itself should be mobile too acting as a mother ship. This will give opportunity for hiding the operations and stay illusive. Building up huge submarines as mother ships can be extremely expensive. Yet Australia can certainly afford a few. Mother ship, as deep diving submarines, will independently supply a fleet of small submarines, maybe no more than 30, with ammunitions and fuel and small repair works. There will be cargo ships but must be invisible too; perhaps they’re shallow diving submarines. Hence all naval activities will be done underwater.  Mother ships will never engage with the enemy’s warships. Their roles are supply and repair only.

The smaller submarines will have no more than six crews for 3 shifts. Each will have SAM system and anti-sub systems. They will not be responsible for attacking warships but reporting about them only. However, they should have flexible capability to face warships. To stay a nose ahead of latest systems, they should be able to dive deeper on demands and should have anti-sonar (radar?) shape/system especially on the back if possible. There must be an escape system for the crews sacrificing the rest of submarines (weapons & fuel tanks) other than the engine and crews chamber where they operate all systems – hence lighter, faster submarine. Weaponry systems should be installed outside the submarines just like the systems of fighter jets so that resupply can be done by a mother ship with fast speed. All external weaponry systems should be swift small torpedoes which do not destroy the whole ships and submarines but only to stop them from advancing. The reason is to make the subs lighter and able to carry enough hard points.*

The subs must be able to operate their systems whilst staying illusive especially when it operates SAM.  Both mother ships and attack subs must be supported by the crews from main bases and many of their systems should be handled remotely – with secret communication system. This will reduce overcrowding and the need to carry the supplies for crews. s

They must be able to operate in the water of friendly countries too.

Certainly the entire system is made of systems as a single network of defence system. Mainland missiles systems, air force systems and navel systems must work together as defence. What I’ve written so far is only for defence strategy. With enough numbers of submarines, mainland radar system, mainland missile systems and air force systems will do well although will be extremely costly. Australia will be able to have technology but it will need its allies for material supports.

Fighter jets do not need to go to the sea but to defend towns and cities only. In this case, defending the military bases are the tasks of air force so only light aircrafts that do not need large airfields are needed. Hence, visible airfields are not required. If underground airbases are possible, they should be desirable from which the fighters can hover for entry and exit. There can be many deep holes both real and unreal located away from major landmarks which are the natural targets during war time.

Whilst Australia places its defence network mainly in the northern areas, enemy’s submarines can penetrate it through by going around the continent or launch attacks from its allied region – either from Africa or South America even if such thing is not real now, it could be real in the future so it’s not a waste to consider such scenario.

I don’t know about anti-missile systems and how effective they can be. The best defence strategy is the world should be free from dangerous weapons.

For the Australia’s allies, they may have independent systems for their own requirements. I think Australia can afford that unless it’s a political issue. As seeing/spotting the enemy before first is important, it’s the main defence advantage for Australia. Having appropriate laws for defence is important. Also having agreements with allied countries for what Australia will do in certain events is also important for cohesive strategy. Australia may hold some secrets of its own though but rather in technological issues and the movements/activity of its military. As long as Australia can keep its illusive secrets, it will do well – that is its economy, diplomacy, skill and technology.

The main reason for defence is to keep peaceful prosperous conditions in Australia, in Asia Pacific Region and the world. It’s not just the interest of Australia but for wider human society. For the best defence, relatively peaceful world is desirable. As that’s the required condition, Australia should actively engage in internal and regional peace efforts as its foreign policy. Regionally it’s more important to have peaceful prosperous conditions. As conditioned by that, Australia must choose to play a negotiator role in any war scenario between its two neighbouring countries whether they are insignificant militarily. Australia must work with all concerned countries in the region to solve every crisis (mainly between two countries) Australia must have a tradition of negotiation and diplomacy especially regionally – as a non-permanent member of the UN’s Security Council. Yet Australia is responsible its own security and should be actively working for it. Relatively democratic political system has been so far the best system in the security of humanity – Germany and Japan are great evidences who are now as global leaders in economy and technology rather than war. Promotion of democracy around the world will make a better defence.

Obviously the main concern is which country spends what kind of money for its military for what type of efforts and strategy at all. If military is just for solving social problem and employment, certain military activities must not have been at stages of materializing. No doubt the way a country spends its money on military is the indication of its intention. By no means, Australia should be one of the countries that directly or indirectly support a bad military intention of a country. 

*[Winning the war is the whole point. Making sad memory is another. There is no point to kill so many lives if possible to avoid. Once the enemy is stopped somehow, the job is done. By stopping the advancing enemies, it’s possible to get more war prisoners who are as important as public attention/support and making a decision on war effort.]