Hey, Firstly thank you for your kind comment regarding a speedy...

Hey, Firstly thank you for your kind comment regarding a speedy bounce back. I really appreciate it. I was trying to directly reply. But it seems as though I've been blocked. It's strange that my posts have been reported previously and yet, an article has been posted that largely supports my sentiments on these forums. By the way, if my post gets reported this time, I'll lodge a complaint and have it re-instated.

I'd just like to make a couple of comments regarding the post above and in particular, the link to the article.

There's been some argie barie in relation to my comments and my comments have been described as "trash talk". That's fine and I don't hold that against anyone. I do find it interesting that the article that has been posted mirrors my sentiments in relation to my two recent postings with regards to;

1. Australia having a moat - It's called the ocean
2. That Australian defence would focus more on missile defence, Air force and Navy because what's the point of spending a bundle of cash to fight a war on our turf. We need to stop any incursion in the first instance. The enemy need to know that we have the capability to 1. - intercept missile attacks and 2. - have the ability and mobility to lob a few in their direction too. Like I have previously pointed out, because we have never really fought a full scale war on our turf, barring the events in our top end, Aussies don't seem to understand our vulnerability. God knows where we'd be if we weren't 'girt by sea'. I used to work with an ex-miltary soldier. He used to say to me "Mate, we really need to set up a network of missile launching platforms that are based in our top end and have the missiles pointing north". I suspect that in the current day, he'd also want those missiles pointing N/NE right about now. I used to laugh at him.

After having read the attached link, I don't see how it varies much from my sentiments on EOS threads. And yet, people suggest that I talk trash. And yet, I don't report those posts. I can take it. Here's some quotes from the article that was posted;

1. "In an interview with Guardian Australia, Dibb calls for the Australian defence force to focus on maritime strike capabilities."
2. "Back then, Dibb’s report described Australia as “one of the most secure countries in the world” as it was “distant from the main centres of global military confrontation, and it is surrounded by large expanses of water which make it difficult to attack”.
3. " He says defence planners must take seriously the possibility of Chinese bases with military potential being established to Australia’s north and north-east."
4. "Dibb now advocates a policy of “deterrence by denial”, whereby Australia develops the capability to attack an adversary’s forces and any of the associated infrastructure directly threatening Australia. This would depend on the possession of highly credible accurate, long-range missile strike capabilities.
5. "We need to refocus the ADF – and this is a non-trivial issue – so it is essentially a maritime strike capability,” Dibb says
6. "By maritime I don’t just mean at sea or under the sea. I mean over the sea, with long-range strike missiles and long-range strike air force capabilities.
7. "“The real test for this review will be to say to army: you’re no longer going to be structured for fighting wars like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Middle East, you actually have got to stop thinking about spending $27bn on infantry fighting vehicles,” he says.

And then, the article that was posted provides a link to this:

The government has committed to an overall increase in defence spending, but there has been speculation a long-planned army project for up to 450 infantry fighting vehicles could be scaled back or scrapped.
(Date of quote - 24th January 2023)

I have also mentioned in the past, that the EOS RWS is a one trick pony. It might be good, but defence is evolving rapidly with new technologies that is being underpinned by the large scale players with billions of dollars to spend on R&D. The current Market Cap alone for EOS is $92m. That in itself already creates barriers for contract tendering whereby it's not uncommon for a company with a market cap like that of EOS to not even get over the first hurdle of any tender submission. It might work in UAE, but...

So, that's why I make the point that just because a Director may be astute because they've been involved with Travel, Wine and Chickens, in no way, shape or form does any of that exposure automatically transfer into global defence and Government contracts.

Thanks again for your kind wishes. All the best to you.