DubyaFinally if Australia wants to deter someone, then just invest in some nuclear weapons. As anyone knows, nuclear weapons are the one true deterrent.
DubyaUsing you method of logic Dubya…. who does the USA intend striking?
I dunno but my memory may be fading but the USA has 40yr old B-52s….. what countries do they intend useing them on? What specific target do they have in mind?B-1 and B-2s…… again.. why have them?
Lets just retire them all then as there is no specific target “in mind” for those 3 particular aircraft anymore.
I seem to recall the F-111 doing well at RED FLAG also over the past few years coming up against more modern aircraft.
Australia has a vast expanse with very few airbases…. the F-111s range means it can fly across the country unrefuelled without the need for tanker support…. meaning should any hostile force land on our northern shores (not that it will happen, but you would be naive to think it wouldn’t) the “pigs” could reach virtually any point on the continent to support any land forces which is in enemy contact. This scenario has been played out many times before during exercises where F-111 were staged from Amberly and “bombed” targets in and around Scherger and returned to AMB. (Or sometimes Townsville).
These geriatric rust buckets as you put them have served us well and will leave a hole in our capabilites when retired… Practically any type of weapon has been cleared to hang off the aussie pig…. HARM, Harpoon, AIM-9, Popeye, CBUs, GBUs, LGBs and not to mention its Recce role as well.
To put it simply, anyone that can land an invasion force on Australian territory is not going to be scared off by a few F-111’s or even a few F/A-22’s.
As I said and I will keep on repeating, the only country capable of invading Australia is the United States of America.
Do you even realise the logistical requirements of conquering a continent? Australia may be sparsly populated but it is massive. Any invading army would have to have enormous logisitical capabilities.
DubyaAlso, you do not build your military to fight just what your neighbours actually have, commiting yourself to countering a specific threat that may change dramatically, you aim to counter what your neighbours will be using. Australia has to face Indonesia in twenty years time with what it buys in five years time, so must be able to deal with an evolving threat. The other problem is numbers – Indonesia is a threat because of its huge population, who if properly motivated could turn very nasty, not just because of the number of warships or fighters.
So the Indonesians are going to swim here?
Please look at reality.
Indonesia is a very large country that has a lot of ethnic problems be it Aceh, West Papua, Kallimantan, Maluku etc. Indonesia is not hegemonous in the least.
Their military serves mainly as a glorified police force and as a way of getting rich quick for the upper classes.
Indonesia’s ethnic problems will not be solved in 20 years time. Most of its problems have been brewing since 1945 and they occassionally flare up.
I am always appalled at the poor knowledge of our closest large neighbour here in Australia. They see it as some scary super power whose yellow hordes are frothing at the mouth to invade Australia whereas in fact it’s a relatively poor developing country with a lot of ethnic, economic and social problems .
DubyaDubya: mate I seriously think it’s time for your medication!
The TNI-AU are in the middle of buying more Flankers (they have four, 2x Su-30’s and 2x Su-27’s). They recently have committed to buying another 42 flankers. Calling Indfonesia a “Toothless Tiger” is a very dangerous call. Their navy is also being modernised, though at a slower pace, but they have a lot of potent corvette’s. And calling their Army a Police force, guess you’ve never seen these guys in action.
Our Pigs might be old but they have proven that they can still pack a punch! Don’t write them off so quickly.
They have 4 Flankers and might have 10 by the end of 2008. They have committed to 42 but then they committed to 60 F-16’s but only acquired 12 (another 9 were cancelled).
By the time Indonesia gets 42 Flankers, the aircraft will be thoroughly obsolete.
And do you seriously think the Indonesians are gonig to be attacking Australia anytime soon?
Even if they had 42 Flankers, they hardly have the capacity to invade Australia.
As I said, only the USA has that capacity.
And how long do you think those rust bucket F-111’s can keep on flying. They have been grounded on a regular basis over the last 10 years. Highly reliable stuff.
DubyaIt’s a Bell 214ST and it’s not a modification but rather an all new helo as far as I know. Kinda like an F/A-18E/F – similar looking to an F/A-18 but an all new aircraft in reality.
DubyaThrow a new Zhuk radar into it and a few R-77s underwing and you’re good to go.
But will the 5 Serb MiG’s get this level of upgrade or will it be just an upgrade of basic avionics such as transponders and radios?
DubyaI wonder how many Typhoons or Rafales that would get the Australian military?
Why would we want more aircraft? We can barely fill our fighter pilot requirements as it is anyway. I remember an article a few years ago in the Australian Financial Review that said that the RAAF only had a bit over half the fast jet pilots it needed.
Retention rates are pretty awful with many aircrew bailing out for the better paid civilian market as soon as they’ve served the required number of years. Even the rest of the military struggles to recruit. Aussie kids prefer to sit around smoking bongs and doing lame uni courses than serving their country.
So buying lots of fighters means we will have lots of shiney and insanely expensive jet fighters sitting around with no-one to fly them.
DubyaAnd who says the F-111 doesn’t play a role in Australia’s defence??
Its one thing being able to defend ones self…. another is to strike back when hit…… I think they call it “Force projection” ???
Strike back against whom?
Paul Dibbs said a few years back that the only country able to threaten Australia with conventional forces is the USA!
The F-111 is a pointless hunk of junk that spends more tinme grounded than it does flying. It’s a relic that was acquired to counter Indonesia’s purchase of Tu-16’s.
Indonesia is a toothless tigher. It has a small and ineffectual airfroce, a rust-bucket Navy and an Army which is mainly a glorified police force.
Other countries in the region are our allies and not really able to threaten Australia even if they wanted to.
And India and China would not be dissuaded by a bunch of rust bucket aircraft if for some clearly insane reason they wanted to lash out at Australia.
Dubya2/ for tactical transport – 3000kg is still useful load when it is urgently
required. Similar to the concept of ‘converted’ frigates & destroyers
re-tasked for special high-speed re-supply missions in combat zones.3/ high speed medical evacuation & aerial ambulance duties.
Also special forces insertion duties.
These sound a bit unrealistic. Where would you fit the spec ops with all their bulky equipment? And how would they be parachuted. As for transport, you’re still better off with a proper transport. Furthermore they are a lot more subtle. For example for Spec Ops you an use an An-2 or C-47 or C-212 with civilian markings. You cannot do that with a converted jet bomber.
Roles they probably are being used in:
1. Target tugs
2. ECM Trainers
3. ELINT/SIGINT
4. ECM Jammer s
5. Photo recon
DubyaPurchasing F-16’s makes no sense because the Mig-29’s, after they are overhauled, will not be obsolete for at least as long as an F-16. Especially if they are modernized and if more airframes are bought (we don’t know yet).
If the MiG-29 is only overhauled with minor avionics changes then the Serb AF MiG-29 is still obsolete by current standards, much like an early non-upgraded F-16A is obsolete as well.
DubyaI agree danrh. I think that given current ADF strategy dictates an increase in rotary capabilities and even possibly a decrease in fast jet capabilities.
The ADF’s main focus is providing niche capabilities in alliance type operations (mainly special operations), disaster relief and peace keeping operations in our neighbourhood.
This requires greater transport capabilities and the acquisition of additional transports and helicopters. The ADf is doing this with the acquisition of MRH-90’s, C-130J’s, A330 MRTT’s and C-17’s. I’d argue that additional Chinnoks are also necessary as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as recent disaster relief operations have shown such helicopters to be extremely flexible.
The cut backs to the tactical jet force are already happening. The F-111 fleet is on its way out and should be gone by 2010. The F-111 doesn’t really serve any role in the modern RAAF. It would not be used in Alied operations because it’s politically unviable. It is a bomber and therefore an offensive aircraft. The F/A-18 is viewed by the public as a fighter plane and hence a defensive system and deployable overseas. Not to mention that the F-111 requires specialised maintenance systems hwile the F/A-18 albeit modified is still utilised heavily by US forces.
DubyaPale: mate where did you come up with those numbers? I make the RAN out as needing at least 8 but 10 to cover everything! At the end of 2004 we had 7 Seakings in service and that had been left after the 12 we bought (this being 10 Mk.50’s in 1973 and 2 Mk.50A’s as attrition in 1979- all remaining Mk.50’s were later upgraded to Mk.50A standards). Also I’d like to point out that we will later follow up this order with another batch not only to replace the Seahawks, but as ships compliment when the new LHD’s come on line (these needing at least 2 helo’s per ship each of RAN type- the rest will be Army owned).
A few counter-questions/points:
1.) In 2004 how many Sea Kings out of the 7 were actually operational? Total number of airframes and number operational do not mean the same thing. Look at the F-111. The RAAF has 35 airframes, yet only 26 are operational (http://www.raaf.gov.au/organisation/technology/aircraft/f111.htm).
Could be a similar case with the Sea Kings.
2.) The Sea Kings were initially acquired as ASW helos to operate from the aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne. They were then replaced by the S-70B in the ASW role. Hence the number of Sea King replacements is not as high as the initial Sea King purchase because the aircraft are being acquired for a different role.
3.) Adding to point 2 is the question: is the Army going to operate MRH-90’s from the LPDs and whatever their replacement is? That is, is Australia heading toweards a Joint Helicopter Force similar to the one used in the UK? It would make sense given the small size of the force.
DubyaFinally some common sense.
DubyaPage 15 of the May AFM:
“In a separate project, Iranian Aircraft Manufacturing Industries (HESA), near Esfahan, has so far modified nine retired F-5As to F-5B Simorgh ( a mystical persian bird) configration, with help of Pakistani engineers. This modification which adds a second cockpit, is to fulfill an IRIAF requirement for more fast jey trainers. All the aircraft serve with the training unit based at Shiraz”
Interesting. The USA wants to “oblitemerate” Iran and is chummy with Pakistan. Yet here is Pakistan helping Iran with military equipment. Anyone see a conflict of interest?
DubyaThe threat is not to the USA but is regional. The Flanker upsets the balance of power in the region. Colombia for example is now outclassed. In the past their Krifs and M5’s probably had a chance against the WVR only F-16’s. And as someone mentioned they could even threaten Brazilian warships.
It’s not that Venezuela would go and sink the Brazilian Navy or wage war on Colombia but if anything should go down in the future then Venezuela’s Flankers threaten the Brazilian Navy or Colombia’s airspace.
The concept of balance of power isn’t based on actually using your equipment to wage war, it’s more about presenting a viable threat that cannot be cancelled out by existing countermeasures.
Sign In
