danrhAbsolutely incredible after getting it wrong on Iraq that people in the White House are apparently still actually listening to the same idiots that wanted to march into the “axis of evil” countries like Iran, Syria etc (while at the same time using the secret police of the Baa’thist regime in Damascus to torture suspects dropped off in rendition flights because they don’t want to get caught doing it themselves!)
Its the United States mate. You know the folks with most capable military machine on the planet. They will have plans ranging from all out invasion right down to some dude nicking the “Big Red Button” from right under the Ayatollah’s nose. Thats what military planners do, they try to plan for everything. This analyst is not telling us anything that anyone with half a brain can’t figure out on their own. Of course they have freaking broadscale plans. You have to consider ALL the options before you can start rejecting them.
Daniel
danrhUnless China has formally signed up to it, then China is not legally bound by it. The MTCR or any international treaty does not have any right to decide who they apply to, only sovereign nations can choose to be bound by such treaties by signing up to them. Its one of the most basic principles in international relations.
I think I was pretty clear that China has not signed. I merely pointed out that China has verbally stated on quite a number of occaisons now that it would abide by the condition of the accords. Nothing more.
Well China can take out any factory in the US, does that make it remotely likely that China would? Technically having the right (via dubious reasoning) does not make it likely to happen in reality. Using SOC’s logic, China would have just as much, if not more, justification to start taking out factories in the USA for illegally supplying weapons to Taiwan.
I don’t believe I ever mentioned anyone having a right to do such a thing and in fact i indicated I felt it would be rather unlikely. Nonetheless if for some reason the US felt to undeniable urge to “obliterate” one particular factory in China then I’m pretty certain they could mange it.
As for Australia, please. Even with tankers, they would only be able to physically reach targets close to the coast. Without any stealth platforms, they would have to try and punch through the entire PLAAF and PLA SAM and AAA networks to hit targets on the mainland. Even if you send in the entirety of the RAAF on one mission it would still be mission impossible, and chances are not many, if any of those planes would be coming back.
1) who said anything about an airstrike.
2) the point was that unless the two nations are actually at war or expecting the imminent erruption of hostilities then most of the world top 50 odd developed nations (and quite a lot of other ones too) could probably manage to take out a single “factory” in another nation. The problem is not really managing a single surprise attack its what to do about the fallout afterwards.
Basically I was taking taking umbrage to Mr ragingwire’s rather jingoistic response. Patriotic fervour is all well and good but a healthy dose of reality never goes astray.
Daniel
danrhWhere is this international treaty ? Who decide US? and as far as trying to obliterate China well Just give it a try man!
Well a quick trip to your favourite search engine should turn up the MTCR info page to explain what is being talked about. Now neither the PRC or Iran are signatories to the MTCR accords but it has agreed to abide them at various times over the years. Talks have been a bit on again off again wrt to China joining as a partner nation for the MTCR.
No one said obliterate China, SOC said one factory in China. I doubt its a very likely course of action for the US to take but if they wanted to they could. Hell I reckon Australia could do it if we really wanted to. The problem would not be that one initial target, rather it would dealing with the fallout from the strike or trying to repeat the feat.
Daniel
danrhNo big ‘celebration’ here and I haven’t really seen any anywhere else either. I’ve just been getting around to writing and thought that some might be interested in what we did all those years ago.
Mike
Okay, it just got mentioned a few times in the news down here and the local ABC station had it as the topic of the morning quiz. Just seemed a bit funny.
danrhI remember reading a few days later that RAAF F/A-18’s had finally been given the go to bomb, everyone down here was cheering- don’t know why, most of the real work was over by then.
Yes I rememeber.
Not so well I’m afraid Ja. The ADF only sent a naval task force and a few small grounds teams of support staff to the ’91 conflict. The Bugs only went to the ’03 shindig.
Daniel
danrhCan I ask why it seems a big deal is being made about this anniversary this year? Not belittling the contributions of those involved just finding it strange that the 16th anniversary is suddenly in the news. Since when do we “celebrate” the 16th anniversary of anything? Obviously last year was the 15th anniversary and I don’t remember even a whisper.
Daniel
danrhA second thread on this subject? Why? One was bad enough. The original is currently active. Apparently the posting guidelines around here mean nothing.
Daniel
danrhThe Raaf selected the F18 over the f16 becauce it had two engines.
Had nothing to do with the fact that the Bugs was more capable in the Air to Ground and BVR arena’s from the start. The capabilities found in todays F-16s were not there back during the Mirage replacement period. Don’t just take the part of the story that suits your own bias.
Daniel
danrhI have read several Australian articles stating much interest in the F-22. That combined with several of my Australian friends (two of which served in the Australian Armed Forces 1-currently 1-recent past) with similar opinions and I came to that conclusion. I did not say it was a fact or a majority and anything of the sort……..Clearly, the current Australian Goverment thinks the F-35 is the way to go. Personally, I agree with that accessment and have expressed that opinion on several occasion. (i.e. including many times on this forum) That said, I was just sharing what I have read and heard through personal accounts. As for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Former Members of the Australian Defense Force and Aerospace Companies. That sounds like a sizeable number to me……….with all do respect!:p
Note: I also hope you are not implying that because you service in the Oppositions Party or are a former Member of the ADF. Your opinions would be of less value??? 😮
1) Opposition Spokesman: Robert McClelland made the original speech in April of 2006. At that time he was Defence spokesman under Opposition Leader Kim Beazley. Beazley is a former Defence Minister and has been a big supporter of the F-111 and the Fortress Australia doctrine throughout the years. Since then the Labour Party has dumped Beazley and has a new Leadership team with McClelland having moved on to be the Foreign Affairs spokesman. Statements made prior to this have little if any bearing today.
2) Former Members of the Australian Defense Force: Okay lets narrow this, ONE Former Member of the Australian Defense Force namely the Air Vice Marshall.
3) Aerospace Companies: Not what I said. I said “some sections of the defence and aerospace media”, and I thought it was pretty obvious to all who follow Australian aerospace affairs that I meant almost solely one Dr Carlo Kopp.
danrhRAAF Air Vice Marshall Peter Criss comes to mind……for one!:D You live in Australia don’t you? So why ask a question that you already know? 😮
I ask the question because it is patently obvious that despite my residence in and citizenship of the nation question I have obviously missed out significant developments within Defence arena. Last week you informed us that
Australian Public Opinion is clearly in favor of the ulimate fighter
and now this week its
many including some prominent members of the Australian Goverment and RAAF have expressed a strong preference for the F-22 Raptor!
So far all I’m aware of is a statement by a spokesman for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and opinion pieces from FORMER members of the ADF and some sections of the defence and aerospace media.
danrhClearly, everyone knows that the Super Hornet is a stop gap until the arrival of the F-35 thereby replacing the F-111’s! (or at least that is what the politicians are saying?) Yet, many including some prominent members of the Australian Goverment and RAAF have expressed a strong preference for the F-22 Raptor!
And who would these people be?
Daniel
danrhThat is just so they can claim it can replace both the F-18s and the F-111s.
Personally I think a few land attack cruise missiles fired from Collins class subs could easily replace the F-111 with much less risk of POWs being created.–snip–
Garry’s Ramblings
–snip–
Of course the valid point raised is what does Australia need F-22s for?
What does it need F-18s for?
If the problem is defence then what they need is a decent navy with Harrier type fighters that they can protect their shores from. Any land invasion is best stopped at sea before it even lands. Subs and carriers are the best solution to stop an invasion force. F-111s and F-22s are for external interventions… preemptive self defence or Regime Change. The former can of course be implimented by carrier groups too as shown by the attack on Pearl Harbour, while the latter requires troops on the ground, which no F-22 can manage.
Yes fleet assets are a powerful anti invasion tools but they are slow. The RAN has two main fleet bases located at Freemantle in the west and Sydney in the East. From Freemantle to the North West Shelf area for instance is around 1200nm. At a sustained speed of 20kts your ships could be on station within three days. If its a war situation and you suspect the enemy has submarines in the area then your trip likely to be much slower. Diesel subs like the Collins will also be much slower to get on station. If your ships are out of place at the beginning of a conflict then it could be could sometime before a gap is closed. Aircraft on the other can cover large distance much quicker. Redeploying to the bare bones bases in the north is something that is practiced regularly by the RAAFs squadrons. Aircraft can also be switched from one theatre to another more readily. With air refueling there is potential for missions to be flown directly from home bases. The RAN and the RAAF complement each other.
As to why Australia maintains such capabilities despite the lack any real threat its fairly simple. Once a capability is allowed to lapse it can take a good 10-15 years to reaccquire. It does not necessarily take that long for a nation that already has an extensive base from which to start to build up its forces and it does not necessarily take that long for a powerful ally to fall on hard times and start to re-evaluate its commitments. The ADF is insurance, it may not seem like we need it now but that may not always be the case.
Daniel
danrhNO!!!
But why does virtually every country in the world have a military it rarely, if ever, uses!?!?!
Stupid nationalistic pride is the answer.
Interesting read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux11.html
Or perhaps the reason people hardly ever use their military is because virtually everyone has one. This is a circular argument mate. Human nature is what it is, ain’t nothing short of the Lord God himself going to change that.
danrhGee Scoot. Did we get bored today and decided to dredge up every old F-22 thread we could find?
Daniel
danrhWell, that maybe the case yet Australian Public Opinion is cearly in favor of the ulimate fighter………….:eek:
It is? Which public are we talking about because the one I live in doesn’t even know what we have now never mind what we might have 5-10 years in the future.
Daniel
Sign In
