Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
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.
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.
|
My only concern about depending on rail to allow for logistic flexibility is that rail is amazingly vulnerable to all sorts of issues. One person with 10, 15 kilo's of TNT - especially given how remote a lot of rail down that way must be - can easily put a stop to rail traffic. A decent set of tools can also sub for the TNT, and its hard to ban common tools. Devoting the manpower and resources to secure the entire length of the track is very counter-productive.