Dutton deports kiwi criminals

[Wally Raffles]

News to me. My book on the Owen gun recounts how the defence procurement people were absolutely determined to trash this gun to the extent of thinking up impossible design requirements, and then deliberately fudging the results when the gun was tested twice and came through with flying colours. The book states that the gun was so good that even the yanks wanted to buy it for the Pacific War. I have never heard of anybody in WW2 using this gun except the Australian army (and the Japanese army who used captured Owens). However, the gun was used by the British Army in Malaya during the Malayan emergency, when the Chinese minority tried to take over Malaya on behalf of Red China. And, I am sure the Chinese minority will do the same thing sometime in the future in Australia, too. Isn't multiculturalism great?

There is a reference in Wiki to the Americans (MacArthur) wanting this gun but I also note that Wiki sought and did not get a citation to support the proposition. From what you can read there, it looks like the Owen was preferred to the Thompson, as being far more reliable, able to function after being dropped in the mud and immersed in sand.

[brian ross]

Oh Gosh, Brian, I see that I missed a long post by you on this thread, and I will happily respond to it right now. I was scrolling back a couple of pages because I was certain that I posted that link about the Tiger gunship, but I could not find it. Can't explain that. Anyhoo, here it is, right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv2go0VYdso

Two years old. Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk. Lots can change in two years you realise?

Incidentally, on this youtube link, you will notice that one of the "Australian" Tiger pilots is actually a Chinese. When we go to war with China, I sure hope this pilot remembers in which direction he should be pointing his gunship.

He is required by Australian law to be an Australian citizen to be a member of the ADF. As part of that, he is required to swear an oath (or take an affirmation) that he will defend Australia and it's government. I doubt that his "racial" ancestry will stop him from following through on that. How typical of a Racist to question his loyalities. Tsk, tsk.

"Train them well, the men who will be fighting at your side.
But never turn your back on them when the battle turns it's tide."

Further to that, I also know that worldwide, all of these crap helicopters our stupid procurement board bought were grounded because in Chad, a French Tiger on operations against the Muslim terrorists you are an apologist for, simply fell out of the sky and killed the French crew.

Care to quote me where I have ever apologised for Terrorism? Provide a link of course. If you fail, what does it suggest about your childish tactics? Here, I will even provide you with space to do it:

Subsequent to the crash, newspaper reports confirmed the worldwide grounding of Tigers because crash investigators were unable to discover why the Tiger had crashed. The Procurement board bought these crap machines probably because just like you, they just hate the yanks and will not buy American weapons, even though everybody knows US weapons actually work.

I just tell that to my American friends. I don't hate the Americans. I dislike their government and their el Presidente but I wouldn't call it "hate" as such.

The reason why they chose the Tiger was 'cause they were feeling their way with the idea of an attack helicopter. They didn't want the Apache as it was considered too big and too complex. They didn't want a light scout helicopter like the Italian Mangusta and so they plumbed for the Tiger which was middling cmplex and medium in size. The Tiger they chose though, was a unique version, neither the German or the French version but halfway in between. It appears they bit off more than they could chew. Just as the Navy did with the Sea Sprites.

Thank you for publishing that photo of a flying Tiger helicopter. I won't bother asking you to authenticate it's flying date, because I am so far ahead of you on points that don't need to make you authenticate everything you say.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. "Points"? Really? You cannot even remember to put a link into your post. Tsk, tsk. Really?

Brian Ross wrote

Who cares? If they hidden, they are out of reach of their owners as well, Bogan. What you appear to have missed is that the new laws make possession and use of such weapons illegal. Whenever the Police raid a property for drugs or stolen goods they invariably turn up illegal firearms. If they weren't illegal, those firearms would remain in the possession of the criminals. So silly, hey to pass laws that make it easier for the Police to charge possessors and confiscate weapons.

Brian, I was almost called up to serve in the Vietnam War as a....

Luckless, voteless conscript, damned to do or die,
In paddy field and brothel, and all for Marshal Ki"

And like 50,000 vote less young Australians who refused to be conscripted, I was not going to go. I learned then, that just because something is illegal, does not mean that it is immoral. And just because something is legal, it does not mean that it is moral. Today, almost all Australians will admit that the Vietnam War was a huge mistake and that 500 young Australian men died for nothing. We were right, and the government of the day was criminally wrong. The deaths do not include the thousands of brave and patriotic young Vietnamese boys who died, and also the Vietnamese civilians who died because of our involvement.

I have always been pro military, and I think I understand soldiers, and how soldiers think. I was once in the CMF, and I know that young soldiers in my troop were driving up to Queensland to purchase L1A1 SLR's which were illegal in NSW but could be purchased without a licence in disposal stores in Queensland. I* know they were doing it because they bragged about it. With our own battalion owning a single Centurion tank (probably because they wanted the troopers to know what one looked like) and nothing else except a few trucks and six Ferret armoured cars, everybody knew that if a real war ever came we would be flat out finding enough rifles to hand around. The 107 other un modernised Centurions the Army owned (we still had valves in the radio's fer Christ's sake) would all have gone to the regs.

Battalion? Owning an MBT? Ferret scout cars? Really?

I can believe you were once in the CMF. My brothers were as well. Indeed, my oldest brother had his number pulled in the lottery and took the CMF option to avoid service in Vietnam on the advice of our father who had served in WWII. I agree Vietnam was fought for the wrong reasons in the wrong country. It was a silly war which was run for no real purpose as far as Australia was concerned.

The CMF was always the poor cousin of the Regular Army. The Regular Army hated the CMF (and by extension the ARes). The CMF relied on the traditions of citizen-soldiers, the Regular Army - Royal Australia Regiment - was a new formation in 1946 and had no traditions, no history. It did not fight in Korea. It's first action was against the Indonesians in Kalimantan during Operation CLARET in 1965. As a consequence it attempted to starve the CMF of resources. Indeed it still does, today to some extent - even though supposedly there is only one Army defending Australia and ARes soldiers have proved themselves on deployment to the Solomans, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq on individual contracts.

The reason why violence and massacres are occurring today has nothing to do with firearm availability. If it had, then massacres would have been common events during that time in Australia's history when our firearm laws were almost non existent.

They were. Their victims however were considered "fair game" to white settlers - they were indigenous Australians for the most part. Semi-automatic long arms and pump action shotguns however were only a relatively recent introduction, coupled with Hollywood's influence as well as rising mental health problems, meant they were increasingly being directed to White people as well. Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Westfield and Port Arthur pointed to a problem that was increasing. One of the few good things Howard did was listen to his advisors and decide to nip it all in the bud. Australia declared that it didn't want to go down the US route to perdition. No matter how you attempt to unjustify what Howard did, the Australian people have backed and continue to back the decisions made in the UFL.

Brian Ross wrote

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. How many firearms do you think the ADF has, Bogan?

The last I heard anything about that was twenty years ago, and the figure was 70,000 Steyr rifles. And the government was going to close down the factory in Lithgow which produced them. I don't know if the factory was closed, but I did hear that the government intended to produce another 20,000, probably so that they could sell them to our potential enemies. They could have made a motza selling the rifles at our international air ports to the (according to the "moderate" Australian Islamic Council) "thousands" of "Australian" Muslims who wanted to go fight for ISIS and get bombed by the RAAF.

The ADF has over 500,000 rifles - primarily Steyrs with a small number of L1a1s kept for ceremonial purposes. Lithgow Small Arms factory was sold in 2006 to Thales a defence industry contractor and still produces rifles and other small arms under license for the ADF.

They probably dropped all of our old SLR's in the ocean off the North Coast of NSW, like they did with the Owen Guns. With a bit of luck, the fishing boats dredged them up in their nets like they did with the Owen guns, and they sold them to the deplorables. You know the deplorables? , The "brutes" the public think are heroes "when the guns begin to shoot." Just as well Evelyn Owen did not invent and manufacture the Owen Gun after the gun buyback. Or John Howard would have had him banged up in Long Bay instead of him being regarded today as a great Australian.

All the L1a1s were melted down. Along with the majority of the Owen guns and F1 SMGs. No Owen guns that I know of were dumped off the NSW coast. However, it might have happened, although I doubt they were would be in a useable condition today.

Brian Ross wrote

We have far more than we had in 1941, I can assure you of that.

If you are correct, then for the first time in debating you for 10 years, I hope that you are right.

I am. I have seen a part of the War Stocks holding. It is vast (by Australian standards).

Brian Ross wrote

We have considerably more military equipment than we owned in 1965 when we went off to Vietnam.

The problem being, that our armed forces were already woefully underequipped at the time of Vietnam, and they are arguably only a bit better today. Our tank force went from 200 Centurions, to 108 Leopards, to 40 M1A1's. How you see any "improvement" is beyond me. All of our artillery is wheeled. We do not have a SAM defence at all, mobile or other wise, much less something as vital as ABM defences, which are especially needed now that North Korea has directly threatened our country with an ICBM strike.

*YAWN* Oh, gee, I am really terrified. I am sure the the North Koreans are going to waste an ICBM on Australia when they are surrounded by the Russia, China, the USA and Japan and ROK. Gee, which city are they going to aim at? Darwin?

We do now have SAM defences? Gee, I am sure that the 16 Air Defence Regiment at Woodside in Adelaide will be surprised to learn that.

Our Tank force is small, I grant you but I do not believe we need tanks, well not MBTs. A medium tank would be more than sufficient for our needs. Australia is simply too remote to face MBTs storming ashore across the beaches.

Our artillery? Gee, wheeled? Really? And why would they need anything else? I have heard though that the Army is seeking an SP version of the 155mm gun but been unable to find one that satisfies their needs. It has trialled several over the last two decades. Perhaps they are just too fussy?

The "improvement" that I see has been a general recognition that the nature of warfare has changed and our role in it has changed. 50 years ago, we had very few APCs. Today we have over 800 M113s, several hundred ASLAVs, Bushmasters and we are soon to receive the German Boxer wheeled APC as part of Land 4000. We have changed from the L1a1, the M60 GPMG and Bren LMG to the Steyr, the L7 GPMG and the Minimi LMG. We have changed from WWII artillery to the L119 Light Gun, the M198 155mm gun. We have adopted large numbers of wheeled vehicles to move stores, troops and so on. Again, as part of Land 4000 we are adopting the German MAN 4x4/6x6/8x8 trucks. Overall, the Australian Army is a much better army than it was in 1965.

Brian, ONE Russian Armoured division consists of 325 tanks, and a whole range of armoured fighting vehicles which don't even exist in the Australian Army. These include SP artillery, SP AA guns, SP AA guided missiles, SP radar equipment, SP heavy rocket artillery, and IFV's, all of them tracked.

Who cares? We are not facing Russia.

In 1945, Australia had the 4th biggest air force in the world. Our Air force then went from 150 Mirages, to 75 grossly overpriced and clapped out Hornets, and the last I heard, we will buy 40-60 even more grossly over priced F-35's. I think we have given up on the idea of buying bombers now that the F-111's are in the bin. Great improvement.

The F-111s were clapped out. They were replaced by F/A-18Es and Gs. We have acquired aircraft that are substantially more capable than the F-111 ever was. Our F-111s lacked ECM and SEAD capability. The F/A-18Gs have both of those. We can now, independently mount an attack, suppress enemy air defences and destroy a target. The RAAF has WEDGETAIL AEW&C aircraft, which can detect enemy aircraft hundreds of kilometres away and direct the F-35 JSFs to attack them from unexpected directions undetectable because of their stealth. We have inflight refueling aircraft which allow our aircraft to perform missions significantly longer ranged than we have before. We have P-8 Maritime Recce aircraft which are amongst the best in the world.

You appear to be living in the 1940s.

In WW2, with just 7 million people, our navy consisted of 2 heavy cruisers, 2 or 3 modern light cruisers, one WW1 light cruiser, six WW2 destroyers, plus smaller "sloops" and "corvettes". Today we have no cruisers at all. No destroyers. And (if I remember correctly) seven to ten frigates. Another great improvement. Oh, and we do have 5 clapped out obsolete diesel eclectic submersible pork barrel "submarines" (we have to keep the SA Labor trade unionists happy) instead of nukes, which we can't find crews for anyway. Probably because our seamen don't want to fight modern nuclear submarines with obsolete DE submersibles.

What you appear to have missed is that what is referred to as a "frigate" today is the size of a Destroyer and twice to three times as capable compared to one which sailed over 40 years ago. It possesses systems which allow it to detect submarines, aircraft many kilometres distance and to attack and destroy them. It has SAMs which are five times more capable than the missiles we used to have on our DDGs.

Our submarines are far from "clapped out". They are the most advanced and largest and quietist conventionally powered submarines in the world. They have advanced sonar systems and missile and torpodoes which can destroy targets at longer ranges.

Brian Ross wrote

You would not believe how big the War Stock holdings are. The Australian Army has more than three to four times it's present requirements in virtually every piece of equipment (except MBTs).

You are right, I would not believe it. Last I heard, the Australian Army did not even have a long range anti tank weapon comparable to the US TOW system. We had a dozen medium range MILAN's, which must be good weapons because the Sovs copied them. That's probably enough to equip one lousy infantry brigade. And we also had a dozen of those Swedish short range, laser guided, man portable, short range AA missiles, hardly enough to defend 3.5 million square miles of Australian territory. The only good thing Australia has defence ways, is that at least the deplorable population has some rifles stashed, or we will be repelling any future enemy invaders with frying pans. Or, like Britain in WW2, pleading to US sportsmen to donate their rifles so we can defend ourselves. Although, what with our penchant for importing our future enemies into our country as "immigrants", I don't know what good any of that is going to do, anyway.

Look, you sound like you're living in the 1940s. Really? The world has moved on. Australia has moved on. We are not going to be fighting the Battle of the Atlantic or the Battle of Britain. Stop being foolish. Australia has the defence forces that the Government(s) of the day are prepared to pa for. Do not attack the ADF, attack the politicians if you wish to be realistic. Of course, that would mean you'd have to attack the Australian people who elected them, right? It would mean attacking yourself.

Are you prepared to accept the cuts to social welfare, to health, to education, to everything because that is what would be required to equip the ADF with all the dream weapons you want them to have. Why do you want a defence force which is designed to fight Russians when we aren't faced by Russians? We are faced by regional powers, none of which can match Australia in resources and equipment. We occasionally operate out of our main theatre of operational interest but only in low-level conflicts such as COIN warfare in Afghanistan/Iraq. We are more than adequately equipped for that.

Brian Ross wrote

Oh, dearie, dearie me, the old Brisbane Line myth. Not again. There never was a strategy based on the idea of a line of defence going from approximately Brisbane to Adelaide. This was proved post-war in the Royal Commission which was created to investigate Eddie Ward's claims on the matter.

We have argued this one out previously.

We have? My, my, you've just confirmed to be who you are. Tsk, tsk.

The Brisbane Line did exist and the one thing that even a Royal commission can't explain is the massive RAAF bomber base at Tucumwal, who's only possible reason for existence in that fly blown place was to be a key part of the Brisbane Line, and to defend the south east of Australia. US Army Air Force General Kenney toured the base in 1942 and said "Great base you have here, move it 2000 miles closer to the enemy."

There are no records of a "Brisbane Line" ever existing. The Royal Commission proved that. When you can present me with documentary evidence I may be prepared to listen to you. You can't though, can you? I can present you with lots of books which deny it's existence. I can present you with the findings of a Royal Commission that denies its existence. You are harping on a myth. Tsk, tsk.

Brian Ross wrote

Australia lacked rifles in 1941-42. By 1944 all inadequacies had been made up. The weapons displayed in the Singleton Infantry Museum date from approximately 1941-42 not 1944.

Oh, did they? When Australians at the time believed, with good reason, that were facing immediate invasion from Japan, and we had nothing to stop it? Thank you, thank you, Brian Ross for that. Who's side are you on?

Some Australians may have believed that. The reality was they were mistaken. Badly.

Brian Ross wrote

Indeed, we had more than sufficient firearms by 1943 that we were equipping the New Zealand Army and the Pacific Islands Regiment - a foreign force made up of Pacific Islanders and sending SMGs to the UK forces in Burma.

News to me. My book on the Owen gun recounts how the defence procurement people were absolutely determined to trash this gun to the extent of thinking up impossible design requirements, and then deliberately fudging the results when the gun was tested twice and came through with flying colours. The book states that the gun was so good that even the yanks wanted to buy it for the Pacific War. I have never heard of anybody in WW2 using this gun except the Australian army (and the Japanese army who used captured Owens). However, the gun was used by the British Army in Malaya during the Malayan emergency, when the Chinese minority tried to take over Malaya on behalf of Red China. And, I am sure the Chinese minority will do the same thing sometime in the future in Australia, too. Isn't multiculturalism great?

There was another Australian SMG. The Austen. Look it up. It was, compared to the Owen gun a piece of crap, however it was used in limited numbers by Australia and sent off to the British in Burma where it was immediately discarded. Funny that.

Your Sinophobia is showing BTW.

Brian Ross wrote

The Japanese Army decided not to invade Australia because they were over-committed in China and the Imperial Japanese Navy who was in favour of invading Australia could not assure the IJA of the necessary supplies and protection while they were attempting to occupy a continent about 1.5x the size of mainland China. The IJA did not have the forces available. There was no reference to Australians being a "warrior race" or any other such bullshit.

The only part of what you wrote that was valid, was that the Jap Army did not want to invade us because they were already over extended. But the Jap Navy did. However, at the time, Australian author and bushman Ion Idriess was working for the Australian Army training Australian soldiers to fight a Japanese invasion force Boer style, which lends credence to my claim.

You are deliberatey misreading what I typed. Stop it. I know you're smarter than that. Find me a single reference to a Japanese document which makes that ridiculous claim.

Brian Ross wrote

I think you're relying far too much on your old firearms magazine articles. I would recommend to you a copy of A.T.Ross. Armed & ready : the industrial development & defence of Australia, 1900-1945, which goes into considerable detail about Australian defence industries.

You are stereotyping gun magazines as unreliable sources of information, Brian. Need I remind you that stereotyping is a PC Cardinal sin? You are in danger of getting expelled from the Social Justice Warrior caste for Conduct Unbecoming An Ideological Zealot.

I got a better idea. Why don't you read Hal Colbatch's "Australia's Secret War" which recounts your left wing union comrades best efforts to sabotage Australia's war effort during WW2, when we were fighting for our national existence, against an enemy who would have mass murdered every male and mass raped every female they could get their hands on? Including socialist wharf labourers, coal miners, and their wives and daughters. Your comrades sabotaged our war effort then, and you are trying to do it right now with disinformation. Are you a Chinese national, Brian? Or do you face Mecca when you pray?

Brian Ross wrote

Chinooks were sold off because of the internecine tussle between the RAAF and Army over who should control them. The RAAF decided they didn't want them and the Army decided they didn't want them. The Government stepped in and told the two services to stop acting like children and the RAAF was forced to accept them. The RAAF's nose had been out of joint because of the wholesale move of the medium helicopter forces from their possession to the Army's in keeping with the revised management of helicopter assets brought about by the 1986 Defence White Paper - something the Army had wanted since the Vietnam War.

The fact remains that these vital aircraft were almost scrapped or sold off before somebody with authority in Defence grew a brain and realised that we needed them. Idiots.

Really? I thought everybody, according to you in Defence were a "bunch of idiots"? Tsk, tsk, a contradiction, hey?

Brian Ross wrote

I have already address your claims WRT the FFGs in another thread. They are old, worn out ships. The RAN has replaced them. QED.

The history of WW2 revealed just how important "obsolete" class A weapons of war are. Britain would have been knocked right out of WW2 if it had not been for FDR (shock, horror) breaking US law and transferring 50 "obsolete" WW1 four stacker Kidd class destroyers to the Royal Navy to act as frigates during the Battle of the Atlantic, the longest and bloodiest naval battle in history. These magnificent "obsolete" ships performed sterling service with the Royal Navy, the US Navy, and (ironically) the Japanese Navy. Had Britain been knocked out of the war by the Axis U boat blockade, Hitler could have won.

These "obsolete" ship were perfect for two missions. They freed up modern fleet assets from doing vital missions such as convoy escort. And they were also vital for very dangerous missions far forward in enemy territory, such as reconnaissance screens, coast watcher resupply, and the rescue of downed aircrew, where it was felt that risking modern fleet units for these tasks was not justifiable.

Australia's own "scrap iron flotilla" of WW1 destroyers did similar sterling work in the Mediterranean, while our two heavy cruisers built just after WW1 (Canberra and Australia) were arguably verging on obsolescence as well. Canberra was sunk at Guadacanal, while your precious socialist New Zealand wharf labour unionist comrades were refusing to load vital transports for Guadalcanal while it was raining. "HMAS Australia" soldiered on to the end of the war, where it attracted kamikazes like fly paper attracts flies. This was probably on account of it's unique three funnels which made the Japs think she was something special. After soaking up three kamikaze hits in one day, one US admiral who witnessed "Australia" getting hit, time after time and still fighting, flashed to "Australia", "Your fine ship can certainly take it. Proud to be associated with you."

Other examples. An "obsolete" SWORDFISH bi-plane put a torpedo into the Bismarck which blew off it's rudder and allowed the Royal navy to finish it off. The SWORDFISH strike on Taranto which put a couple of Italian battleships out of action which changed the naval balance in the Med. Venerable B-52's, 70 years flying and still soldiering on. "Faith, Hope, and Charity" the three "obsolete" Gladiator bi-plane fighters on Malta who held the line against the Italian air force until the Spitfires could get to Malta.

So please tell me how turning our FFG frigates into fishing reefs is a smart thing to do, Brian? Especially since the next war is going to be a "come as you are" war where losses on both sides will be immense because of the accuracy and lethality of precision weapons, and where it will probably be over before any more weapons of war can be constructed.

Our FFGs had cracked hulls. They were considered unsafe by the inspectors who inspected them. They had seen a hard life in the Southern Ocean. They were declared unsafe and should be disposed of. We had already purchased and were building their replacements, the ANZAC class. The FFGs were disposed of.

Tell me, how are you going to resurrect them? Bring them back up from the deeps, hey? The past is the past, the decisions were made and acted upon. The FFGs were disposed of. Some were sunk. Some sent to the breakers' yards. They are gone, well and truly. They have ceased to pine for the Fjords!

The USN has declared that their ships are not worth repatriating and has disposed of them. There are no more OHP class FFGs available except second hand from Taiwan, Pakistan and few other navies. Personally I suspect it would be cheaper to build a new ship, with new systems which are substantially more capable than the OHPs which were designed, from the outset, to be cheap and nasty.

[brian ross]

News to me. My book on the Owen gun recounts how the defence procurement people were absolutely determined to trash this gun to the extent of thinking up impossible design requirements, and then deliberately fudging the results when the gun was tested twice and came through with flying colours. The book states that the gun was so good that even the yanks wanted to buy it for the Pacific War. I have never heard of anybody in WW2 using this gun except the Australian army (and the Japanese army who used captured Owens). However, the gun was used by the British Army in Malaya during the Malayan emergency, when the Chinese minority tried to take over Malaya on behalf of Red China. And, I am sure the Chinese minority will do the same thing sometime in the future in Australia, too. Isn't multiculturalism great?

There is a reference in Wiki to the Americans (MacArthur) wanting this gun but I also note that Wiki sought and did not get a citation to support the proposition. From what you can read there, it looks like the Owen was preferred to the Thompson, as being far more reliable, able to function after being dropped in the mud and immersed in sand.

It was also significantly cheaper to produce and operate. The Thompson used extensive machining whereas the Owen was designed to use minimal machining. The Thompson also fired .45 calibre rounds, which were not produced in Australia during the war, whereas the Owen used 9x19mm Parabellum rounds which were produced downunder. The Thompson was liked but because of the expense of production and the cost of operation the Owen was preferred (or not, as actually the Army preferred the British Sten or the Australian Austen SMGs).

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

He is required by Australian law to be an Australian citizen to be a member of the ADF. As part of that, he is required to swear an oath (or take an affirmation) that he will defend Australia and it's government. I doubt that his "racial" ancestry will stop him from following through on that. How typical of a Racist to question his loyalities. Tsk, tsk.

1. Bong. You just stereotyped racists, Brian. Naughty, naughty. We racists can stereotype but you SJW's can't. Because us racists don't go around proclaiming that stereotyping people is wrong.

2. How stereotypical of socialist internationalists like you, Brian, to claim that most people are not primarilly loyal to their own race or culture. Got bad news for you Briney. The whole idea that national and cultural loyalty is not relevant to most people, is a concept dreamed up by naive leftist white people, with their quixotic fantasies of one world government. It has no currency with other races or cultures. It certainly does not apply to Islam which demands total loyalty to Islam. And I have never heard of any Chinese publically slagging off about China, or their race, or their culture, which all Chinese are intensely proud of. And with good reason. At least three "Chinese/American" high ranking US defence scientists have defected to China taking with them US ultra secrets on ICBM's, Stealth aircraft, and nuclear submarines. If any Chinese publically tried to emulate stupid leftist white people and slag off about their country and culture, or do a Chelsea Manning, or an Edward Snowden, or a David Hicks, this is what would happen to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW9QRxePJSo

3. With 200 "Australians" fighting for ISIS and getting bombed and killed by the RAAF. 500 "Australians" prevented from leaving Australia to fight for ISIS. And with the Australian Islamic Council saying that "thousands" more "Australians" want to go and fight for the Caliphate, the idea that imported ethnics abandoning all loyalty to their former homelands or cultures to become thong wearing Aussies chucking "shrimps" on the barbie, has taken a real hit lately But not with you or you caste of leftist dreamers. You just put on your ideological blinkers, and refuse to recognise what is observable reality, because you refuse to see around your peculiar socialist internationalist ideology.

Brian Ross wrote

Care to quote me where I have ever apologised for Terrorism? Provide a link of course. If you fail, what does it suggest about your childish tactics? Here, I will even provide you with space to do it:

But Brian, you are an apologist for the world's most dangerous and terrorism endorsing religion. And you flatly refuse to recognise it's danger to your own people. Even though Islam declares it's violent hostility towards non Muslims in it's own holy book. It's Koran instructs the faithful on their obligation to never co exist peacefully with others, and that they must always attain cultural superiority, and it is okay to use force and terrorism to do it. Right there in black and white print.

I know! Why don't you just pretend that Adolph Hitler wrote the Koran? And that Islam is a white religion? I think then, Brian, you may be able to overcome your subliminal default prejudices which automatically give non whites a free pass on everything, and which and trigger your automatic double standard circuits. Then you should instantly grasp how dangerous Islam is.

Brian Ross wrote

I just tell that to my American friends. I don't hate the Americans. I dislike their government and their el Presidente but I wouldn't call it "hate" as such.

Oh, that could be true. You just seriously despise all white Americans who are not a part of ANTIFA, or who don't vote for AOC.

Brian Ross wrote

The reason why they chose the Tiger was 'cause they were feeling their way with the idea of an attack helicopter. They didn't want the Apache as it was considered too big and too complex. They didn't want a light scout helicopter like the Italian Mangusta and so they plumbed for the Tiger which was middling cmplex and medium in size. The Tiger they chose though, was a unique version, neither the German or the French version but halfway between. It appears they bit off more than they could chew. Just as the Navy did with the Sea Sprites.

Thank you, thank you, Brian Ross. I had forgotten all about the Sea Sprites. Yet Another stuff up from our incompetent defence department purchasing branch. Another fiasco which harmed our defence capability and cost the Australian taxpayers untold squillions. The Apache too big? The Tiger is only marginally shorter (2 meters) and lower in height (800 mm) than the Apache. I'll bet if you took a poll and asked every officer and soldier in the Australian Army which attack helicopter the defence department should have bought, the would unanimously say, "the Apache of course, you idiots." Especially the British version with the powerful Rolls Royce jet engines, which even the yanks envy.

Brian Ross wrote

Battalion? Owning an MBT? Ferret scout cars? Really?

Well, that Centurion tank, and the six Ferrets from recce troop lined up near the 1/15th Parramatta Lancers parade ground, and which I stood upon, must have been figments of my imagination.

Brian Ross wrote

They were. Their victims however were considered "fair game" to white settlers - they were indigenous Australians for the most part.

Oh, here we go. Let's use a topic entirely unrelated to defence to find some way to show how those evil, white, baby snatching oppressors "stole" Australia from the environment protecting indigenous Hobbits, who were living in eternal peace with each other, and who were marching forward in lockstep to civilisational splendour. And had the evil whites never arrived, Australia would now be a successful and prosperous black ruled country with 50% female fighter pilots, 50% female CEO's, and 50% female infantrypersons using renewable energy to manufacture Iphones, and taking refugees by the millions each year from everywhere.

To dream, the impossible dream. To reach, the unreachable star.....

Brian Ross wrote

Semi-automatic long arms and pump action shotguns however were only a relatively recent introduction,

The first pump action shotguns in Australia arrived in (from memory) 1885, and the first semi auto was the Winchester (in two calibres, .22 and .25) which was introduced a few years later. By the late sixties, every gunshop in NSW sold semi auto versions of US, Belgian, and even Swiss military rifles. No gun licenses needed. Boys could purchase any gun at 16 with their parents permission. Firearms were rented from gun shops. Firearms were for sale to anybody in the Trading Post newspaper. Sport stores and department stores all had a gun department. Guns were sold in suburban men's hairdressers. Ammo available in corner stores and petrol stations. Must have been massacres every day.

Brian Ross wrote

..coupled with Hollywood's influence...

Congratulations Brian, you finally said something right. You have been reading my post's on that subject, haven't you?

Brian Ross wrote

... as well as rising mental health problems,

.....caused by increasing drug abuse which you lefties and your media celeb, Trump hating mates seem to encourage. The Gay Mardi Gras being one giant drug binge, and all the pop stars and celebs who hate Trump all snorting their narcotrafficante supplied coke, sold by millionaire celebrity A list dealers like Ita Buttrose's nephew, to the Rose Bay and Elizabeth Bay resident politicians, judges, and trendies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSyBmUYxfJY

No wonder trendies support multiculturalism, the more South American immigrants, the more cocaine smuggled into Australia. With the trendy, homosexual, Green voting, virtue signalling, and gun hating suburb of Darlinghurst, having the most arrests for cocaine possession in NSW.

Brian Ross wrote

...meant they were increasingly being directed to White people as well. Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Westfield and Port Arthur pointed to a problem that was increasing. One of the few good things Howard did was listen to his advisors and decide to nip it all in the bud. Australia declared that it didn't want to go down the US route to perdition. No matter how you attempt to unjustify what Howard did, the Australian people have backed and continue to back the decisions made in the UFL.

We are going down the US route, Brian. And the British route. And the European route. With most firearm crime in the US being within the ghetto boundaries of the usual crime prone and welfare dependent minorities responsible for most of the immigration imported violent crime everywhere else in the western world, it is only a matter of time before Sydney and Melbourne, like gun free London, has a homicide rate greater than New York through stabbings instead of guns.

Brian Ross wrote

The ADF has over 500,000 rifles - primarily Steyrs with a small number of L1a1s kept for ceremonial purposes. Lithgow Small Arms factory was sold in 2006 to Thales a defence industry contractor and still produces rifles and other small arms under license for the ADF.

I hope you are right Brian, but I doubt it very much. I clearly remember the shock among gun owners when the Steyr was first introduced and it was announced that only 70,000 would be manufactured. Then came the news (in those dastardly gun magazines) that Lithgow Small Arms would be closed. Later came the news that the factory would be kept open so that another small batch of Steyrs would be manufactured. Now you are saying that we have manufactured over four times more? Sorry, I don't believe it.

Brian Ross wrote

All the L1a1s were melted down. Along with the majority of the Owen guns and F1 SMGs. No Owen guns that I know of were dumped off the NSW coast. However, it might have happened, although I doubt they were would be in a useable condition today.

They melted them down instead of dumping them at sea, probably because they had learned the error of their ways after the Owen Gun fiasco. The story was, that an unknown quantity of Owen guns were accidently recovered shortly after they were dumped into the sea. Some of those Owen guns were believed to have been used by criminals in The Great Bookie Robbery. And Lennie McPherson used an Owen, also believed to have come from the North Coast haul, to mow down Pretty Boy Walker in Randwick, in Australia's first drive by. And no, I can't verify the story about he guns being recovered. But that tale has been around among gun owner demographic for so long it is considered a fact and it can still evince head shaking and mirth in the right company. It may be just an urban legend, but Owen guns don't just drop out of the sky, and the guns used by the criminals had to have come from somewhere.

Brian Ross wrote

I am. I have seen a part of the War Stocks holding. It is vast (by Australian standards).

Hate to impugn your integrity, Brian. But my stereotype of white hating racists and Muslim apologists precludes them having any credibility with me. They will never let the facts get in the way of their world saving ideology. Still, I hope you are right. But knowing what incompetent, blithering idiots our defence procurement people are, that also precludes the idea that they could be capable of doing anything intelligent.

Brian Ross wrote

YAWN* Oh, gee, I am really terrified. I am sure the the North Koreans are going to waste an ICBM on Australia when they are surrounded by the Russia, China, the USA and Japan and ROK. Gee, which city are they going to aim at? Darwin?

Brian, only a few months ago, North Korea threatened to nuke Australia. That is an undeniable fact. Your attitude is similar to the captain of the Lusitania who simply refused to believe that a warship from a civilised country would fire on a civilian passenger ship. He believed that right up until the time the torpedo hit. It is a new world out there, Brian. And it is only a matter of time before those nut case Mullahs in Iran get nukes and ICBM's. They are doing oil deals with that nut case in North Korea to do just that. And then it will be a really dangerous world.

B

rian Ross wrote

We do now have SAM defences? Gee, I am sure that the 16 Air Defence Regiment at Woodside in Adelaide will be surprised to learn that.

Oh, that's right. Didn't we buy a few point defence Rapier SAM's? The same Rapiers that did so poorly in the Falklands war defending Port San Carlos against "obsolete" Skyhawks and Mirage 3's. ? Surely a few batteries of Patriots would be in order, especially the ones that can destroy incoming Iraqi SCUD ballistic missiles, which they were doing in Israel thirty years ago. Imagine what they are capable of doing now?

Brian Ross wrote

Our Tank force is small, I grant you but I do not believe we need tanks, well not MBTs. A medium tank would be more than sufficient for our needs. Australia is simply too remote to face MBTs storming ashore across the beaches.

Our artillery? Gee, wheeled? Really? And why would they need anything else? I have heard though that the Army is seeking an SP version of the 155mm gun but been unable to find one that satisfies their needs. It has trialled several over the last two decades. Perhaps they are just too fussy?

The "improvement" that I see has been a general recognition that the nature of warfare has changed and our role in it has changed. 50 years ago, we had very few APCs. Today we have over 800 M113s, several hundred ASLAVs, Bushmasters and we are soon to receive the German Boxer wheeled APC as part of Land 4000. We have changed from the L1a1, the M60 GPMG and Bren LMG to the Steyr, the L7 GPMG and the Minimi LMG. We have changed from WWII artillery to the L119 Light Gun, the M198 155mm gun. We have adopted large numbers of wheeled vehicles to move stores, troops and so on. Again, as part of Land 4000 we are adopting the German MAN 4x4/6x6/8x8 trucks. Overall, the Australian Army is a much better army than it was in 1965.

Oh God, what you have written is just too silly for words. You don't work for Defence Acquisitions, do you? We don't need tanks? Yeah, I think I heard that one before. And fighter planes don't need guns. And the aircraft carrier is obsolete. And the UK will never have to fight outside of Europe again. And the day of the Infantryman is over. And the bombers will always get through. And we don't need manned aircraft. And all slant eyed Japanese pilots can't see in the dark. And all Japanese bomb aimers are cross eyed.

Do you wonder why Australia did not send any force to Kuwait during the first Gulf War? We have previously always been boots and all into every other war the yanks and the Brits ever got into together. Do you think it might have been because our regular Army is basically no larger in manpower and weapons to a single infantry division? This for a comparatively wealthy country of 25 million with abundant resources who provided four fully equipped AIF infantry divisions in 1939, when our population was only a third the size it is now. It would have been embarrassing had we gone to the Gulf and had to display to the world how woeful and insignificant our single infantry division "Army" was, when matched alongside US and British armoured and mechanised divisions? About the only useful task the Australian Army could have managed in that war was guarding the latrines in Dharan air base.

It is bad enough that the Australian Army is tiny and it is always well on the back of the queue behind the RAAF and the Navy when it comes to big ticket defence acquisitions. But if we are going to have a tiny army, at least it should be well equipped with force multipliers, and able to multi task. If the British, with four times our population can raise an armoured Division (I think they had four armoured and mechanised divisions in Germany under NATO) with all the weapons of a real armoured division, Australia should at least be able to provide a fully equipped armoured or mechanised brigade.

Brian Ross wrote

Who cares? We are not facing Russia.

I hope not. Russian armoured and mechanised divisional equipment scales are typical of a serious modern division, and they would not be much different in arms and types of equipment to a modern European, US, or Chinese Division. Compared to world standards our infantry only army is a joke and could only be useful in a jungle war, when jungle only comprises about 5% of the Australian landmass. Unlike probably every other army on planet Earth, the Australian army is not configured to defend it's own territory. Prior to the Falklands war, defence "experts" told the Thatcher government that aircraft carriers were obsolete, and that they should scrap their two assault landing ships (HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid) because Britain would never again fight outside of Europe. Bong. Wrong again. The British army set sail from Britain in what the Royal Navy called "British Railways Assault Transports".

Only ten years ago we did not really think that the Chinese would turn into Nazis and threaten to close off one of the most important maritime trade routes in the world. Times change rapidly, and having military flexibility will be the difference between winning or losing our next big war.

Brian Ross wrote

The F-111s were clapped out. They were replaced by F/A-18Es and Gs. We have acquired aircraft that are substantially more capable than the F-111 ever was. Our F-111s lacked ECM and SEAD capability. The F/A-18Gs have both of those. We can now, independently mount an attack, suppress enemy air defences and destroy a target. The RAAF has WEDGETAIL AEW&C aircraft, which can detect enemy aircraft hundreds of kilometres away and direct the F-35 JSFs to attack them from unexpected directions undetectable because of their stealth. We have inflight refueling aircraft which allow our aircraft to perform missions significantly longer ranged than we have before. We have P-8 Maritime Recce aircraft which are amongst the best in the world.

We finally have AWACS and in flight refuelling, forty years after the air force begged the government to buy them. That is a belated improvement I will grant you. As to whether the Super Hornet is better than the F-111, I would point out that that is like comparing Mosquitoes with Lancasters. The F-111 was a medium sized ,very fast, very long range bomber with the ability to attack targets at very low level at night using it's Terrain Avoidance Radar. The Super Hornets are based upon a medium ranged fighter with disappointing speed and performance, which has been configured to do a bombers task, which includes using modern stand off weapons.

Even if you want to argue that it is a better plane, we still have too few of them and our potential enemies are buying very good, up to date fighter planes. Like the J-10, the SU 27 and probably soon, the Mig 35. All of these planes are probably as good as, or even better than, the 40 year old F-15, which the F-18 is definitely inferior to. It's funny how it is "uneconomic" to mothball "obsolete" 30 year old warships when our supposedly modern "bomber" force is based upon a patch up of 40 year old fighter design which was inferior as a fighter to the F-16 and F-15 when it was built.

Brian Ross wrote

What you appear to have missed is that what is referred to as a "frigate" today is the size of a Destroyer and twice to three times as capable compared to one which sailed over 40 years ago. It possesses systems which allow it to detect submarines, aircraft many kilometres distance and to attack and destroy them. It has SAMs which are five times more capable than the missiles we used to have on our DDGs.

Frigates, destroyers and cruisers may be all bigger today than yesterday. But Australia still only has (I think) 10 frigates, no destroyers (although some are being built) and no cruisers. Ships today may be bigger and more lethal, but so are the opposition warships. Our navy is a lot smaller than our navy in WW2 when our population was a third the size, and we were much less prosperous. That is a damned disgrace. But I suppose you think it is more important to keep squandering our money on importing crime and terrorism prone ethnicities who are forever welfare dependent? It creates jobs. Just think of the benefits. More prisons, prison guards, police, lawyers, judges, social workers, parole officers, security guards, housing commission tenants, employment officers, anti terrorism police, translators, and Labor voters.

Brian Ross wrote

Our submarines are far from "clapped out". They are the most advanced and largest and quietist conventionally powered submarines in the world. They have advanced sonar systems and missile and torpedoes which can destroy targets at longer ranges.

I don't believe it. The lead boat was so defect ridden it was scrapped. And there must be a good reason why few seamen want to crew the damned things. But I can see your point of view. We can't upset those Labor voting SA ship building unionists, can we? And if South Oz closes it's naval shipbuilding, there won't be much industry left in that electricity deficient Labor Stronghold.

Brian Ross wrote

Look, you sound like you're living in the 1940s. Really? The world has moved on. Australia has moved on. We are not going to be fighting the Battle of the Atlantic or the Battle of Britain. Stop being foolish. Australia has the defence forces that the Government(s) of the day are prepared to pay for. Do not attack the ADF, attack the politicians if you wish to be realistic. Of course, that would mean you'd have to attack the Australian people who elected them, right? It would mean attacking yourself.

No, I just attack the left wing loonies who think that money grows on trees, who hate mines and industry that provide the funds they want to squander to buy votes, who want to destroy the Australian economy with this stupid HIGW hoax, who oppose everything that advances our country or makes any money, who handicap taxpayers by insisting that we import crime and welfare prone immigrants of questionable loyalty by the tens of thousands which costs us God knows what, who think that gender neutral pronouns and same sex toilets are the most important topics we should be discussing. Who bow and cringe to "Indigenous" Australians who are our least productive and most disruptive and throw pots of money at them. And then there is our woeful defence procurement people, who have a long history of making the most idiotic and immensely expensive mistakes, over, and over, and over again We should sack them all and replace them with their tea ladies, who would have more common sense when it comes to deciding on the purchase of weapons based upon price and performance. And then we wonder why we can not afford a defence force which would be proportional in size and ability to the one we had in 1939? When we had a third of the population and were significantly less prosperous.

Brian Ross wrote

Are you prepared to accept the cuts to social welfare, to health, to education, to everything because that is what would be required to equip the ADF with all the dream weapons you want them to have.

I am saying that given our population size today, and given our high level of prosperity today, something is rotten when Australia's defence forces do not even compare in size and performance to one we had in 1939-1945. We do not even posses the modern equivalents of the same classes of warships we had in yesteryear. Our air force strike force keeps shrinking. Our tank force keeps shrinking. Our Army is basically a well equipped single infantry division with the capability of engaging only in infantry tasks in a jungle environment. It does not compare with the capability of an armoured or mechanised force which is what we should have at least have some capability in, if we ever need to fight an enemy on open ground, like in our own country.

Brian Ross wrote

Why do you want a defence force which is designed to fight Russians when we aren't faced by Russians?

Port Denison in Sydney was constructed in 1855 to be our first line of defence against a Russian attack and it still is.

I'll guarantee that the Chinese Red Army is organised along Russian lines, with similar equipment scales, and probably better weapons since they copy and reverse engineer every effective weapon system in the west. They are even now manufacturing unlicensed copies of the Minimi machine gun, as well as Hummers, f-35s, Blackhawk helicopters, C-141 transport planes, and Predator drones. Your statement is insane. "Forward defence" is a very good idea. But you still need an army which has at least some credible capability to take on a modern armoured of mechanised enemy deployed on open ground on your own territory. Look back over the last 60 years of Australian forward deployment and see who suffered the casualties? The Army took almost all of them, and it is the least well financed of all the services and not even capable of defending it's territory. Which is indicative of a defence establishment where airy academic thinking, careers, politics, inter service squabbles, stacking up their superannuation, and improving their golf scores, is more important than providing effective weapons to the service and personnel which for 60 years has done almost all of the fighting and dying.

Brian Ross wrote

We are faced by regional powers, none of which can match Australia in resources and equipment.

Ever heard of an expansionist Nazi country called "The people's Republic of China"? Indonesia is a Muslim state, and Muslim equate to religious fascists who are no friends of ours. We are only separated from Indonesia by the width of the Timor Sea, which most Australians wish was considerably wider.

Brian Ross wrote

We occasionally operate out of our main theatre of operational interest but only in low-level conflicts such as COIN warfare in Afghanistan/Iraq. We are more than adequately equipped for that.

Just what the British defence 'experts" told Thatcher before the Falklands blew up in their faces.

And we were not prepared for a low level conflict like Afghanistan with the crummy Eurocraptor helicopter gunships that we bought. We must have been the only army in Afghanistan who could not provide our troops with helicopter support. That is utterly disgraceful, and it was criminally dangerous. I have read books on the fighting in Afghanistan, and it was screamingly obvious that it was only the intervention of the approaching Apaches which prevented outnumbered and almost surrounded allied units of platoon or even company strength from being completely wiped out. That was why our gunship choice was another expensive fiasco by our idiot defence procurement officials that could have had very serious consequences, if we had not been lucky.

Brian Ross wrote

There are no records of a "Brisbane Line" ever existing. The Royal Commission proved that. When you can present me with documentary evidence I may be prepared to listen to you. You can't though, can you? I can present you with lots of books which deny it's existence. I can present you with the findings of a Royal Commission that denies its existence. You are harping on a myth. Tsk, tsk.

I have that book and I read it. It did not convince me one iota. It was about as convincing as the miserable arguments justifying the "stolen generations" hoax, and the HIGW hoax.

Brian Ross wrote

Some Australians may have believed that. The reality was they were mistaken. Badly.

All Australians believed it. The normally placid PM Curtin exploded in anger over Churchill's continuing attempts to stop the Australian AIF divisions returning to defend our country, because he knew we were almost defenceless with not even enough rifles to hand around. Apparently that was also the problem when Japan bombed Darwin and the RAAF ran for their lives. They thought that Darwin was about to be invaded and the RAAF ground crews did not even have rifles to defend themselves with. (No, I can't verify that either, I recently moved, twice, and my two books on Darwin are packed away somewhere.) My mother was in Brisbane when the first US soldiers arrived and she said it was "like the second coming of Christ". That was how grateful the almost defenceless Australians were to the USA saving out arses. Thank you, USA.

Brian Ross wrote

You are deliberately misreading what I typed. Stop it. I know you're smarter than that. Find me a single reference to a Japanese document which makes that ridiculous claim.

Sorry, I can't supply a references for most of what I write, but most of what I write you already know is true anyway. I just love history, and I have spent my life reading history, and I pick up information which usually cross connects with other information, and it sticks in my mind, probably because it is either funny or very interesting. I read somewhere, probably in a gun magazine where stories bemoaning our lack of defence preparedness do regularly appear, that the Japanese army did not want to invade Australia because Australians were a warrior race (which we were, as Australian soldiers had a fearsome reputation in WW1) and we would fight them Boer style if invaded. That is entirely credible, and it cross connects with the information I know about Ion Idriess training Australian soldiers to do exactly what the Jap army supposedly feared.

Brian Ross wrote

Our FFGs had cracked hulls. They were considered unsafe by the inspectors who inspected them.

I suppose I should demand to see the survey reports as proof of what you say? Could I remind you that the same defence "experts" "reported" that the Owen sub machine gun was a dud and not worthy of production? And it is funny how those 60 year old aluminium M113's you mentioned earlier never cracked. I do know that aluminium can be welded, and quite frankly, I don't believe that these ships were in a dangerous condition. 37 ships of this class are still in service worldwide and the US navy mothballed their own FFG's 7's for possible future use. The USA would not have done that if their own ships were in a similar supposedly dangerous condition as ours. Implying that we drove our ships harder than the US navy sounds like crap to me. And HMAS Melbourne, I believe, is still in service.

Brian Ross wrote

They were declared unsafe and should be disposed of. We had already purchased and were building their replacements, the ANZAC class. The FFGs were disposed of.

The Kidd class WW1 destroyers had also had their replacements built. But thank Christ somebody had the foresight to mothball them or Hitler might have won the battle of the Atlantic, and then the European war. I'll bet that some Brian Ross clone in the USA was telling the US Navy at the time that the Kidd class was obsolete, in a dangerous condition, and they should be scrapped. Unfortunately for Adolph Hitler, nobody listened to him.

Brian Ross wrote

Tell me, how are you going to resurrect them? Bring them back up from the deeps, hey?

Don't be silly, I never even implied that. But I think that one FFG is left and after we decommission it, we should mothball it. Or, we could do what our fabulously incompetent defence establishment did to the HMAS Melbourne aircraft carrier. Sell it to a foreign ship breaker which was a Red Chinese front company, so the Chinese can tow it to Shanghai and let their marine engineers can examine it, so they can build their own attack carriers. Another Australian defence department fiasco. With the FFG 7 Melbourne, the Chinese could tow it to Shanghai and reverse engineer them to make their own FFG 7's.

Brian Ross wrote

The past is the past, the decisions were made and acted upon. The FFGs were disposed of. Some were sunk. Some sent to the breakers' yards. They are gone, well and truly. They have ceased to pine for the Fjords!

The lessons of the past are supposed to guide our decisions today. The destruction of our FFG-7 frigates, only one generation out of date, was a mistake, if we heed the lessons of history.

Brian Ross wrote

The USN has declared that their ships are not worth repatriating and has disposed of them. There are no more OHP class FFGs available except second hand from Taiwan, Pakistan and few other navies.

23 FFG7 frigates are still in front line service with Spain, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Poland, Taiwan and (possibly) Australia. Gee, I would have thought that this clearly displays that such ships, only one generation out of date, would be perfect for the still important second line duties in a a time of war, in a navy as bereft of warships as Australia's? As matter of fact, it is interesting how new western warships today keep hanging on to the same old and reliable weapons systems as their older warships. The same multi purpose missile launcher firing updated Standard AA missiles and Harpoons. The same CIWS Gatling gun. The same triple AS torpedo launching tubes. The same old venerable 1917 designed .50 calibre Browning machine gun. The same OTO Melara 76mm gun, which seems standard on many frigate sized ships in every western navy. And there is one other thing. FFG's can carry two AS helicopters, and even an old ship can carry modern helicopters.

Brian Ross wrote

Personally I suspect it would be cheaper to build a new ship, with new systems which are substantially more capable than the OHPs which were designed, from the outset, to be cheap and nasty.

The cost of bringing mothballed FFG 7 frigates back into service would be unimportant in a time of war where the main problem is getting enough ships at sea to fulfil a multitude of tasks with too few ships to do it with. And, where there is no time to build new ones.