We\'re no longer in the 19th Century Toto!: It\'s good to see a carefully argued piece on Defence appearing in this site (as elsewhere, they are too rare). I do, however, have to disagree with both the thrust of the argument (that I read to be a clarion call for more expenditure on the Navy so as to secure the Air Sea Gap) and with a number of the specific claims in it.
First, the concept that what what we really have to fear is a repeat of WW2 and that a big powerful navy is the answer to our problems. You may have seen the recent UN Report from Prof Andy Mack on trends in Human Security. The most significant finding is that interstate wars have become more infrequent and nowadays almost unthinkable between globalised states. What we have left are internal conflicts and outright banditry. Big, expensive ships do not help us with these. Given international developments over the past two decades, the idea that conventional war could flare up in SE Asia and thus bring the Air Sea Gap into relevance are about as likely as Britain once again going to war with France (and for exactly the same reasons). This is not to say that we do not have security challenges in our maritime regions, but that the requirement is for a \"maritime constabulary force\" rather than for big, expensive, and effectively impotent Frigages or Destroyers. The same argument applies to the obscene proposals for 33,000tonne amphibious ships (in comparison the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne was only 16,000tonnes). The desire of Navy to recover the glory days of admirals at sea with lots of captains in attendance are but hankerings for a return to the 19th century, when the navy mattered and grateful governments showered it with funds to pursue their steelclad fantasies.
Comments