The A320-200s have twice the range of the mini-me B717s, so I guess it will mean they can service the West, as well as further North and South as well. Good news? We’ll see….
OK that makes sense. So in that context Mr Kopp has as much right to comment on what is reasonable both in terms of cost and capability as any other Australian does.
Exactly. That was never in dispute.
Don’t get me wrong, I reckon a lot of his ideas a reaching but some have technical merit and deserve further study.
Quite, but the problem is that the government has different ideas.
But the vitriol poured out against Mr Kopp personally have no place in a reasoned debate on defence cost and capability trade offs.
Kopp’s credibility has been tarnished not by his technical arguments, but mostly by his analysis of our strategic environment which, politely, could be best described as alarmist. That reputation tends to carry over onto almost everything he writes now. When in the public eye, especially as a prolific specialist writer, one has to be careful of what one says, as the wrong reputation can be very hard to reverse. A bit like Politics.
Along those lines of course Kopp’s assertion that the CAF and CDF are just plain lying is not warranted either.
I was not aware he had accused them of that. Again, he needs to watch his words. This does not help his reputation at all.
If you want overkill, check out the RAN’s plan for it’s 27000 ton helicopter ships. I remember the Poms calling the Harrier carriers “through deck cruisers” in order to get a carrier fleet back on line without calling them carriers (the press at the time dubbed them “see through cruisers”).
I disagree. Consider the way the ADF is evolving now. LHDs will get a lot MORE use than our aging F-111s. While the final decision on the new ships is yet to made, we do need a larger amphibious/sea-lifting capability. The concept is sound, and has been in the debate pipeline now since the East Timor melt-down.
Sign In
