All of which would have to come across large stretches of water to endanger Australian territories, facilities, etc… perfect conditions for AWACS-controlled intercepts in favorable situations.

Any time the RAAF is elsewhere it would almost certainly have allies… usually the US.

The only possible exception would be a Timor-type repeat.

My friend, I think we need to look beyond the conventional / classic air attack scenario……… of aircraft themselves having to overfly Australian territory to drop bombs on targets!
The proliferation of state-of-the-art air, surface and sub-surface missiles to anyone and everyone, along with the proliferation of just as modern and effective diesel-electric submarines, the range and payload afforded to the proliferation of the Soviet/Russian (and potentially Chinese J-11’s) means that a potential adversary could launch strikes against target/interests in or of Australia.
Compounding this problem is the seeming wanted neglect of the ADF to see and adopt an adequate integrated (and it does not have to be prohibitively expensive) air defence system/network – incorporating ground-based air search radar, AWACS/AEW (If it was not bad enough that the RAAF has taken 20-30 years too long to acquire an AWACS/AEW platform – the ‘Wedgetail’ system is still not fully operational, and is still teaming with issues!!) and SAM/AAA (criminally the ADF as a whole has elected to systemically neglect this layer of air defence!!) .
In my personal opinion distance of Australia stopped being our saving grace after the wake up call of the Japanese bombing of Darwin. Something the ADF has chosen (ignorantly) to simply overlook for the want of what I term ‘Bling’ systems).

Then finally one has to wake up and smell the roses to the fact that aircraft carrier has and is becoming an appreciated weapon system of reach and influence!!

Regards
Pioneer

The guided-missile Zumwalt class destroyer and she is the biggest destroyer ever built for the U.S. Navy.

Cutting-edge Navy warship being built in Maine

I thought this class had been canned due to cost and poor U.S Navy management :rolleyes:

Regards
Pioneer

Z-10 and Mi-24 are different helicopters, not truly comparable.

Agree, and this is the point I was trying to make!
The Mi-24 Hind (like that of the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk) is unique in its ability to deliver firepower in support of the troops it carry’s!! Which the Z-10 does not do!

Regards
Pioneer

why china need buy su35? they can make true stealth fighter already. Russia cannot make true stealth fighter yet that is why su50 look so similar to su27. only half stealthy but J-20 is almost full stealthy. i admit, only engine is weak area.

To be fare, China has not had the Technology Transfer Restrictions imposed upon it like that of the former Soviet Union, when it was in the process of developing combat aircraft, during the Cold War!
China has also been able to circumnavigate much time and money in R&D in overt and covert means, to develop much of its modern military industry – hence why so many Chinese weapons systems look so similar to other Western & Soviet/Russian weapons at times!
P.S lets wait and see if the Chinese actually build and field the J-20 in substantial numbers!!

Regards
Pioneer

For comparison…there are lines of similarity though..

That’s interesting……..they,re F-15 Eagles aboard and taking off of this carrier!!

Regards
Pioneer

19K11 – I think there were a few other differences, from Swedish neutrality to the (cough) “aggressive” marketing by Lockheed…

I think you have hit it on the head LowObservable, regarding the fact difference between the marketability of the Draken and the Starfighter!
The fact that Sweden was ethically and politically compelled by it’s neutrality to be very limited who it was able and willing to sell their advanced and excellent Draken design too. Where on the other hand Lockheed (with the critical endorsement of the U.S. government) was willing to sell the Starfighter to everybody and anybody!!

For one, I personally would have loved the RAAF to have procured and operated the Draken, as a replacement for it’s CAC CA-27 Avon Sabre’s, in place of the Dassault Mirage III. The RAAF’s like, want and appreciation of the Rolls Royce Avon turbojet would have been meet without any issue (although saying this I think the RAAF was wrong not to have pushed for the Avon-powered Mirage III, which Dassault had both anticipated and flown in prototype form!!)

Regards
Pioneer

My 20-cents worth………

For a start, I think Australia seriously has to grow up and start looking at its defence in an individual sense, which is then and only then complemented by its political and military alliance arrangements!
I’m somewhat embarrassed to say that we haven’t learn the lessons from our balls-and-all reliance and faith in the Singapore Strategy of the 1930-1942. Where we put all our faith in our primary Allie Britain coming to our defence. Hence our political masters neglect of our individual defence needs and requirements for the sake of $$$$ and want to please our masters.
I do not see our 21st century defence posture is to different to that of the pitiful Singapore Strategy – except our prime allie is now that of the United States in place of Britain.
For me I would like to see both sides of Federal politics grow up and grow a pair and smell the roses! The reality is that both sides of Federal politics (along with the ADF’s top brass) have become completely and utterly imbedded and infatuated with the United States.
Dare I say, we have become the United States Deputy 🙁
I truly think that Australia needs to take a leaf out of Singapore’s book when it comes to not just developing its defence but effectively implementing it. One only needs to look at Singapore’s realistic indigenous weapons and equipment programs! Weapons and equipment specifically designed, developed and delivered for it’s own military’s needs and requirements. How much money does the ADF have to spend in modifying and adapting U.S and European designed equipment for our unique requirements and environments? Add to the the often over looked importance that such an effective and efficient military industry gives to the general economy of small country’s like that of Israel, South Africa, Singapore etc…. This type of industry is not just about guns and bombs and death, as the technological expertise is adopted and implemented into other non-military industries.
I will not pretend that this would be easier done than said – especially with Australia itself beginning to fall into the perils of a miniature Military Industrial Complex, where political fraternization with military industry has not just distorted the true operational needs of the ADF, but has shown itself to have cost the ADF in both terms of cost and capability – i.e Collins Class SS’s, Kaman SH-2G Seasprite, F-35 JSF….. oh and politician’s fraternisation the likes of Andrew Peacock (President of Boeing Australia), Peter Reith (Tenix)
One only needs to see and witness the waist of money, time, resources and probably most importantly skilled labour when it comes to the Australian Government, along with the ADF’s detrimental process of employing a so-called competitive tendering process for the building of such important, expensive and technologically advanced weapons platforms such as the Collins Class submarines, ANZAC class Frigates, Navantia (Canberra class) LHD’s, then there is the Hobart class AWD’s. It’s both derogative and embarrassing as an Australian to see State politician’s when not in bed with private military industry, or grovelling to Federal politicians to compete for the location of these important and costly national interests to be built in their State. When the building of not just these ships, but the true creation, neutering and expanding a solid and continues state-of-the-art facilities and expertise should be consolidated in the national interest! Now some might argue that one specialised ship-building facility could not handle all these projects simultaneously – and they would be right to say and think this! But the fact of the matter is that the Australian Government (predominantly the Howard Government) should not have waited then decided spontaneously to not just build but have all these classes of advanced ships enter service at the same time – (my wife shops and buys with more discipline than this!!). For what become of the ultra modern and ultra expensive facilities in South Australia, which were used to construct the Collins class subs. More importantly what has come of the expertise of the specialist which built these submarines? Common sense dictates that these same facilities employed in the building of the Collins class sub’s will (and should) be fully utilised in (and if) the overly ambitious desire to acquire twelve new and advanced submarines under Sea 1000 project at a staggering £20 billion. For both the Australian Government and ADF to consolidate and nurture a focused defence industry like that of ship/sub construction, could also afford the stimulation and creation of a town/city which stimulates maritime engineering and construction as an industry, which would also stimulate an ongoing industry base where skilled workers will automatically continue their skills, training and expertise to the next naval construction program(s). In having such a sensible industry arrangement, it would potentially (if the Australian Government is smart and sensible) spill over to education and commercial fields.
But ales, I am a realist! I cannot see Australian politician’s thinking past their own inflated political careers and after politics employment prospects. State Governments will continue to near on knife one another to gain contracts in their own States, at the detrimental cost of the nation well being and national defence needs. Military industry will feed on the so-called structural make up of the Commonwealth of Australia, whilst sadly our potential adversary’s will bewilder at a Government, it’s people and its capitalist industries wiliness to put politics and profit before the importance of defence.
Finally my question has to focus on how Australia / ADF is going to be able to not just man these new submarines, but also how will they support them? Does the proposed £20 billion cost of these twelve new subs factor in operational costs and maintenance? If the ADF truly plans to operate and maintain twelve operational advanced submarine – be them diesel-electric or nuclear – would they be willing to support them with ocean going support ships, or will their operational capability be diminished by the need for them to return to Australia when in need of refuelling, re-arming, replenishing……?
It’s sad for me to say, but I truly think that the ADF and Australian politicians alike have become infatuated with modern weaponry which we have witnessed whilst working with our allies the United States and Britain. I cannot blame, I have myself seen and operated with both these allies, and to have been impressed! But the ADF is not the U.S Army USAF or USN. The Australian people – nor Government (although they are getting there!) have the stomach for an imbedded military psyche or a self propitiating military industrial complex on which the country’s employment and revenue relies upon. Hell the only significant military account the average Australian can recall is that of the 25 April – ANZAC Day, and sadly it’s not just because of its Australian military significants – I’m embarrassed to say it’s because it’s a public holiday, for which everyone plans around.
I for one do not see how we need the likes and size of Spanish Navantia (Canberra class) LHD’s! I for one cannot see an Australian Navy commander employing them in the full order of what they were designed and intended to perform, let alone putting them in harm’s way with 4 x 25 mm Deck Guns as their prim defence (escorts or no escorts!!) The designs excellent flight deck will not be utilised by VSTOL aircraft like the F-35C – let alone the cheaper and perfectly expectable AV-8B Plus to support amphibious ops or to provide air-defence to the beach-head area. Their use of LCM’s will dictate the LHD’s having to come closer to hostile shore and enemy defences than what is sensible. I personally favour 3-4 LPD’s the size of the (but not necessary) Bay class (HMAS Choules), which had to be purchased it in a hurry (only after more modifications) by the Australian Government, due to neglect and oversight of its existing dilapidated amphibious assault fleet and the yet to be build Canberra class ships.
I personally agree with the selection of the Spanish designed Hobart class AWD’s over that of the more expensive U.S Arleigh Burke destroyer design. My only complaint and concern with the entirety of this long over-due and needed air-warfare capability, is that once again we have succeeded in purchasing an existing and operated design for a given price (which was cheaper of the two contending bids). But now the RAN is doing its common trait (as it had done with the Collins class subs and the SH-2G Seasprite….) of trying to add something to an existing and perfectly working combat system, which is not broken. This added system is the Australian Government and RAN wet dream to once again be one of the big boys and add a Anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capability to the Álvaro de Bazán class design. It will be interesting to see how much this want of an ABM capability is going to detrimentally add to this important classes over-all costs, and what impact it will have on its service entry date. The other thing that deeply concerns me with this ABM capability, is if this capability will effect/dictate the operationally flexibility of this AWD! For will it mean that the Australian Government & RAN will be more inclined to keep this class of ship tethered close to Australia, so as to provide a ABM capability in Australia’s defence, compensating for the ADF as a wholes neglect of an adequate – if any ground-based air defence network – AAA & SAM’s, bar a literal handful of point-defence RBS-70’s. But don’t get me started on the ADF complete and utter lack and neglect of ground-based air-defences!!

Regards
Pioneer

Neo-Conservative red. There are a plenty on the “far” right that see this military-industrial complex as borderline evil.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think it’s safe to say that both major political parties in the U.S are addicted to defence, as is most of the American people!

Well I hate to say it, but these defence cuts are (and need to be) just the beginning!
I think the American adventure in Afghanistan / Iraq is going to cost the U.S military dearly, not to unlike what happened post Vietnam!
The U.S military has had its decade in the sun, absorbing a ridiculously inflated budget like a sponge. The issue is going to be how they (the Pentagon) is going to cope weening themselves off it? Then there is the issue of ‘medical repatriation’ of the hundreds of thousand’s of service personal, both physically and psychologically. Then there will be the issue of recruiting and retention again!
History does repeat itself!!

Regards
Pioneer