{"id":10822,"date":"2013-11-19T06:00:34","date_gmt":"2013-11-18T19:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=10822"},"modified":"2013-11-20T09:20:48","modified_gmt":"2013-11-19T22:20:48","slug":"why-an-amphibious-capability-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/why-an-amphibious-capability-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Why an amphibious capability? (part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Queensland.<\/a>Nic Stuart made a straightforward point<\/a> last Wednesday: if you want an amphibious capability, make your case. I do, so I will. But at least there has been plenty of debate. By a rough count there are a dozen or more posts on The Strategist<\/i> that have looked at the ADF\u2019s emerging amphibious capability, starting off with two post that I made back in December 2012 (here<\/a>) and January 2013 (here<\/a>). I won\u2019t reiterate the points I made in those posts, but I will suggest that those interested in the ADF and amphibious operations should read John Blaxland\u2019s new piece in the latest Security Challenges<\/a><\/em>, and take a close look at the role of the ADF\u2019s amphibious capabilities in operations over the last few decades, in particular in East Timor and the Solomon Islands.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also important to note the ADF\u2019s Principal Tasks that the Government expects the ADF to be able to do, and the role that an amphibious capability plays in them. They\u2019re set out in the 2013 White Paper<\/a> (PDF):<\/p>\n