thobbesIn terms of rail networks, you’re talking about a pretty limited resource: http://www.frog.org.au/rail_information.html
Some significant bases not capable of being supplied by rail: Scherger, Harold E Holt, Learmonth. As for road, I wouldn’t wan’t to be relying on a road convoy in the Top End anytime in the wet season; dirt roads means quagmires.
Geography kind of matters a lot.
My main point about geography is that there is no serious need to redeploy massive amounts of assets from Darwin/Townsville to Melbourne or Hobart or Sydney.
The defense of the realm is concentrated in the North where the potential threat is.
And as stated Australia also have C-17s and C-130Js. The C-27s are good for odd cargo, regular resupply and small quantities of men (less than 2 platoons worth).
As I keep stating the C-27s main job will be in support of Australian international commitments.
thobbesSo you expect the ADF to spend days (weeks) driving all around the continent, spend days waiting to catch one of the few transcontinental trains that may (or more likely not) go to where they want to go, or use small boats to get to external territories?
If it’s war and you need to redeploy troops quickly to some part of the country, I’m using trains as well as aircraft. A lot of heavy equipment would be shifted via road/rail as there is insufficient airlift to redeploy a whole brigsade and it’s equipment quickly.
Also if I need to move batallions of troops across country I’m using C-130s, C-17s and chartered/requisitioned civilian airliners.
Have you read the ADF’s rationale for buying C-27J sized aircraft? Perhaps you can detail how that analysis was flawed? Perhaps you can tell us why the air lift group has go it wrong too:http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-australian-airlift-comes-of-age-381854/
You’re putting words in my mouth. I never questioned the C-27 BUY – I merely stated that the C-27 seems to fit into the expeditionary warfare model.
thobbesTo the contrary the US welcomes a re-armed Japan. It was the US that was pressuring Japan to cross out the Article 9 of the peace constitution and become a “normal” country with a full military again, and the US will get that new Japan with Abe Shinzo.
The US does but none of Japan’s neighbours do.
Australia will follow where the US leads them.
Other than a brief stint under Paul Keating’s government, Australia’s foreign policy establishment has not had a single original thought.
They have always followed whatever Empire they’re cosing up to regardless of impact.
And they got shocked when their big friend abandons them (Britain in WWII and when it joined EU in 1970’s).
Yet Australia has a war plan against China.
As stated, it’s inherent racism and policy myopia. If the US ever goes to war with China, I’d rather Australia stay out ouf it.
I do not fancy living in a nuclear wasteland (I live in a small city that probably would not get attacked directly).
thobbesAnd the really, really interesting question: the future of 60-odd extensively upgraded Mirage 2000-9.
I really can’t fathom who’d want these.
I could see Brazil getting a small batch to replace current Mirage 2000C/B which are nearly out of life but that’s about it. Perhaps Jordan to replace F-5 but then they retired more capable Mirage F1s due to cost of operation..
Argentina doesn’t want 2nd hand, Pakistan is not a customer cause Dassault would not want to jeopardise Rafale contract.
thobbesDon’t forget the KC-30 as well.
Check out the distance between Hobart (S) and Darwin (N), then Norfolk Island (E) and Christmas Island (W). Calculate the size of the Aus EEZ. Then check out the distance between Darwin and Guam or Honolulu. Therein lies your answer.
Actually geography is kind of irrelevant.
There is absolutely no threat to eastern or southern seaboards of Australia. If someone is doing an amphibious assault on Manly beach, the war is already over.
The vast majority of combat forces are in the north already in Northern Territory and Queensland. Only 7 Batallion/RAR is still in the south of the country and that’s in Adelaide. You can use rail network to get them up North.
The level of reserve forces in Australia’s south is minimal too. SA/TAS can barely scrape up a batallion of reservists. C-27 isn’t really a great asset for redeploying troops from one part of the continent to another.
Finally the North of Australia is actually reasonably well endowed with paved airstrips that can accommodate large aircraft for mining purposes.
The other important factor
The Australian military has been reorientating to an expeditionary warfare role since Howard’s era – LHDs, Air Warfare Destroyers, C-17s etc.
C-27s are required on the assumption of conditions similar to those found in Vietnam.
thobbesIt really does seem like a CIA thing. The Iraqi AF never had much love for Saddam.
thobbesI see.
Also why Iraq send 140 aircraft to Iran when Iran was their enemy? Iran was never going to return them – heck they had problems exchanging POWs from the war (this was only resolved in 2003).
thobbesStill seems a failure on Coalition’s behalf to stop 140 aircraft.
As stated if it was a massed strike package on Coalition airfields or positions, it could’ve been disastrous for Coalition forces.
Unless evacuation was a covert operation to undertaken by CIA?
thobbesDon’t get it twisted. When Castro came to power the US welcomed him with open arms. He seemed like someone who the US could deal with. Then Castro went rogue and started acting crazy. His ambition to be a player in Latin America drove him into the arms of the Soviets and he nearly caused WW3. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis.? The United States has been wary of him ever since. Please get your facts straight.
You miss a key word in my statement. It’s “the US still treats them as an enemy at the gate.”
It’s not 1962 or even 1988 anymore. The US could try for engagement but that would peave certain voting groups in south Florida.
Funny how all these different countries seem to agree upon a common enemy. Are they all nuts or is China becoming drunk with power? It is a question that demands an answer
If you ask the South Koreans, they will add Japan and North Korea as enemies as well.
North Korea lives off Chinese aid.
Australians have always found Asians to be the enemies. Australia was founded as a country in 1901 based on a fear of the Yellow Peril. Australia was against racial equality clause in League of Nation charter and has happily participated in any Anglo-American adventures in Asia. Australia is living off China but it finds them the enemy because they are Asian. In the past it was the Indonesians, the Japanese (even in the 1980s there was big concerns about Japan buying up QLD) and the Chinese who had come to work in mining in the 1800s.
Mongolia has been run as a Russian outpost for over 100 years now.
Taiwan, Vietnam and India are old enemies of China. All have had altercations with the Chinese even before China became “drunk with power.” China’s last war was in 1979 when they invaded Vietnam. India fought border wars with them in the 1950s or 1960s (can’t remember which one) as did the Soviets. Taiwan is a special case altogether.
As for land claims, pretty much every SE Asian county claims the Spratleys, whilst territorial disputes also exist between Japan and Russia.
Asia is not Europe where most land disputes have been settled over several hundred years. Situation is still fluid.
To paraphrase your comments, “Don’t get it twisted…Please get your facts straight.”
thobbesCL 13B Mk 6 had a much uprated engine over other Sabre models (32.36 kN versus 26.3 kN for an F-86F). From memory the wings also were different with wing leading edge slat to improve performance.
Also the Mig-17F had the same armament as a MiG-15 (1 x 37mm gun and 2 x 23mm gun). Radar equipped versions had AA-1 Alkali missiles but they were not exported in any great numbers. Though areodynamically it was superior to baseline F-86’s.
thobbesA pic tells more than a thousand words according to the old Mongol General Subutai, here is 2 pics that prove China to be the greediest SOB since Kublai Khan
You seem to be forgetting a few that have come since Kublai Khan – the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the French, the English, the Ottoman Turks, the Italians, the Americans, the Japanese, the Germans, the Russians/Soviets etc etc.
But then China is the new bad guy so of course they’re the most evil. Have you heard about their concentration camps in which they’ve gassed millions of Jews or how they’ve been distributing small pox infested blankets to native Americans who have no immunity to it.
The PLAN has even been bombarding Chinese ports with early wooden screw frigates in a bid to open up the China opium market to the China East India Company.
Crazy evil Chicom *******s.
thobbesWhat are the details of the Iraqi evacuation of 120+ aircraft to Iran?
How come these weren’t intercepted and shot down?
After all the Iraqis could’ve been launching a massed strike and using Iranian airspace to bypass US patrols – after all they did a similar thing in 1980-88 when they used Saudi and other airspace as an escape route or overflew Kuwaiti airspace.
thobbesNo, it was a very valuable aircraft for the defence of the USSR against the huge USAF bomber fleet – a bomber fleet which was the sole means of delivering nuclear weapons at the time, as well as conventional bombs. Not obsolete, but specialised.
If the USSR had built bomber-interceptor & air superiority versions, with different guns, & sent the latter type to Korea to escort the bomber-interceptors, I’m sure the loss ratios would have been different.
The interesting thing is that bomber interception became the obsession in both Eastern and Western aircraft design even after ICBM’s started to become common.
thobbesChina is not antagonising Australia.
The only thing keeping Australia’s economy in the black is China’s purchase of Australia’s minerals.
Hence the two-speed economy in Australia – the mining boom areas in the West and North East are doing really well whilst the suburban East coast is suffering economically.
Without China, Australia joins the rest of the developed world in an economic slump.
As for South Korea, their main problem is North Korea.
thobbesOn 1 June 1944, a total of 149 German divisions were deployed on the Eastern Front.
The US, UK and their allies faced 70 divisions deployed in the West, to which we must add a further 23 that they faced in Italy.
So although the Eastern Front contained the largest number of German divisions, the other fronts were not exactly thinly manned.
To further complicate the situation, a portion of the divisions on both the Eastern and Western fronts were divisions in name only, some reduced to little more that regimental-sized formations. Some units were formed of Osttruppen of limited usefulness, most of whom served on the Eastern Front.
Most of the divisions in Normandy were undermanned and poorly equipped “Festung” (Garrison) divisions consisting of men unfit for regular duty as well as elite units being reformed after being effectively destroyed on Eastern Front.
Even after June 1944 the Wehrmacht still retained the bulk of the elite formations on Eastern Front. E.g. if you look at Panzer type Divisions in June 1944, 20 were assigned to EF, 10 to WF and 2 to Italy (and 1 of those was being transferred to EF – 1st Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring).
Also the vast majority of the units by 1944 were as you said understrength and had been rebuilt many times and often to ever decreasing TO&Es.
The Soviets bled the Germans dry between June 1941-June 1944 in Moscow, Rzhev, Stalingrad, Kursk and chase to Dnepr, Kiev. And in June-July 1944 they destroyed Army Group Centre.
By mid-1942, there was only a few infantry divisions capable of offensive action and these were destroyed in Stalingrad.
After that the offensive capability was concentrated in Panzer and Panzergrenadier Divisions and these seldom had full capability – in fact some were never rebuilt and only operated as Kampfrguppes.
Basically the Soviets destroyed equivalent of hundreds of divisions before the Allies landed in France. The Soviets had also destroyed the creme of the Wehrmacht prior to June 1944. In fact after Kursk the Germans were never able to rebuild their elite cadres to any great degree.
The Western allies purpose was to open a second front to alleviate pressure on Eastern Front.
The Italian Front failed to do this effectively as the Germans contained the offensive and the Allies got bogged in what was effectively trench warfare.
Sign In
