Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan
The thing about seizing and holding a beachhead in a remote part of Australia is that it begs the question, to what end?
|
I'd be more inclined to think land transportation via rail (not a huge amount going into remote areas, but should get you part way) and trucks would be generally safer for defending Australia - can't sink a truck like you can a ship. Admittedly you need more trucks and drivers than a ship, but Australia already has the necessary infrastructure, especially if you pull in civilian contractors to haul supplies.
Ships would still be needed, but I'm just not convinced you need an entire battalion of specialist marines. Just can't see them being required any time in the next few decades, at least not in a true amphibious role. Chances are those ships and the troops they carry will see more action doing disaster relief missions around the Pacific islands than anything close to combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the money/aircraft issue doesn't work the same for the US as for Australia. The aircraft already exist, although many of them might be doing other jobs until the airborne guys need moving.
|
But are all those aircraft actually needed for the other duties all of the time? Cannot there be a reduction in aircraft if the Airborne forces are reduced or done away with entirely? Doesn't that save money on maintenance, fuel, training, and replacement aircraft?
True, a capability needs to be maintained to shift troops by air, but airborne troops trained specifically for parachute insertions and the aircraft needed for those drops seems rather out of place on the modern battlefield.