UnicornThe ‘Region’ is leaving us behind though in matters of conventional warfare capability, equipment, power-projection and skills.
Regards
Pioneer
It depends on what you call the region.
If you stretch it up to Japan, China and South Korea, or North West to India, then we are not in a competitive race with those countries, nor do we seek to be.
However Australia spends more than the rest of South East Asia (South of Korea, China and Japan) combined on defence. We have to, we are a small population of 21 million scaattered across an area bigger than all of Europe from London to Moscow, St Petersberg to Lisbon. We have to have technological capabilities to offset the twin tyranny’s of distance and demographics.
The rest of the region south of the big three (PRC, ROC & Japan) are fully aware of the vast technological and capability gulf which seperates Australia and the rest of South East Asia, why do you think they constantly exercise with us? Because Australia is seen as one of the arbiters of the Status Quo between regional nations.
The ADF and the politicians are aware that we are not likely to engage in a major high tech shooting war, at least not in the next decade, unless it is due to treaty obligations such as a DPRK invasion of the South.
That said, one of the reasons for that is that we have the capability to defend Australia and its regional interests in the face of most potential threats, and it is well understood throughout the region.
One of the main guarantees of that is the preferential access to US capabilities, including technology, intelligence, war stocks and diplomatic support. One of the reasons we receive this is because the US sees Australia as one of its very few reliable allies.
Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of our payment towards accessing those capabilities.
We do not act like a world power, we act like a capable regional power, with the capabilities to back it up, now and into the future.
Unicorn
UnicornI am sorry, but you don’t seem to understand.
The US has publically and repeatedly stated that the F22 is not available for export, to anyone.
The Japanese are making noises about the F22, however they are also making noises about an indigenous stealthy fighter.
Be that as it may, the statement from the US is that the F22 is that it is NOT available for export.
Are you suggesting that we should refuse to buy F35s because it isn’t the F22, and wait until our refusal to buy the F35 means that the US will magnanimously make the F22 available?
I think you will find yourself sadly mistaken.
As for basing your facts and figures on anything that emenates from APA mob, Kopp, Goon or that tame ex-Russian fighter pilot they have detoxed enough to try and string coherent words together, I suggest you look elsewhere, he has zero credibility in the ADF or industry.
Unicorn
UnicornPeople, do some of you actually think about what you are posting or do you post first, think later?
The entire damned RAN is approximately 11,000 personnel.
Exactly how, pray tell, are they going to man an aircraft carrier when we have issues currently manning the submarine and surface fleet?
Or don’t small things like reality intrude into your idle daydreams?
Oh, and Pioneer, I am not a fan of Costello, but the governnment of which he is a member have or are funding three new Air Warfare Destroyers, two new amphibs, 14 Armidale patrol boats, an interum tanker, new maritime helicopters, upgrades to the FFG’s and Collins and a number of other major programs.
That’s without the C17’s, Rhinos, F35’s, additional Bushmasters, M1A2’s, MRH, Tigers, C-27s and a host of other defence procurement…
Before you throw too many stones their way on defence matters, I suggest you have a good look at someone like Canada and realise that the current government, while they have much else to answer for, is doing all right by the ADF.
Unicorn
UnicornFFS Pioneer, have you been listening to that worthless turd Kopp again?
THE RAAF WILL NOT GET THE F22. NOT NOW, NOT EVER.
Did I make that clear enough?
The RAAF has selected the F35, the US Government has made it clear the F22 is not available for export, not to Australia, Israel, or Japan, not now and probably not ever.
If it is made available for export, which is very unlikely (you see a lot of B2s and F117s in non-US service don’t you?) you can bet it won’t be in any timeframe useful to the RAAF fighter acquisition decision.
If you want to see the background to this, from professionals in the ADF, I suggest you wander over to the Fifth Collumn, (http://www.thefifthcolumn.ru/forums/index.php) a forum for Australian Defence matters and read the posts there.
Unicorn
UnicornThe principal reaon the RAAF bought Hornet was that it was equally capable in both air to air and air to mud.
The main alternative was the F16 as the F15E was too expensive, however the clincher was that the Viper was single engined, and the RAAF had come off operations with the Mirage III, and the Sabre before that and didn’t like the loss rate associated with single engines ops.
Thus twin engines was the clincher. The Rhino got selected because it is the perfect transitional gap-filler in case the F35 is late, and requires significantly less transitional and operational costs than equivalent aircraft, given its distant relationship to the Hornet.
The F35 is single engined, but really the RAAF has little option as there is really nothing else that meets their requirement that is a) affordable, b) available c) as capable
It’s not that its a naval fighter, its that it was what was available that met the requirements.
unicorn
UnicornA few clarifications.
Australian pilots on exchange with the USN and occaisionally the Marine Corps, already train to land on carriers as part of their training and deployments.
The issue under discussion here is that the Rhino drivers will be trained by the USN, using the USN’s existing syllabus. They will be treated for all intents and purposes in exactly the same way as USN Rhino trainees and will undergo the same training.
The USN isn’t going to modify it’s own training program for what, to the USN, is a very small number of foreign pilots, the RAAF pilots will simply get the same training as the USN pilots, which includes carrier landing training.
Once they get said training, they will undergo the standard landings on carriers in both training aircraft and Rhino’s, get certified as having passed that section of the syllabus and move on to the next part.
The difference is that the USN drivers will then continue to remain qualified once their training is up and the RAAF pilots won’t.
I swear, too many people here seem to have little understanding of the realities of the Australian situation. The RAN will never have the budget, and more importantly the manpower to operate fixed wing CATOBAR carriers.
The outside chance is that the RAAF may procure some of the STOVL examples of the Lightning II for operations of the new Canberra class amphibs. Said operations being undertaken at some significant detriment to the Canberra’s principal designed function, which is to embark large numbers of helicopters and troops for amphibious operations.
Sorry guys, but Australia is a well resourced middle ranking power with a strong budget and a small population, which means their kit will usually be very good, but limited by available manpower.
Aircraft carriers are well outide the scope of reality for Australia.
Unicorn
UnicornReturning to the original question…
Well, India is looking to purchase one Stealthy Frigate from a foreign yard and several more to be constructed domestically. So, with several good designs currently available. Which, would be ideally suited to India’s needs???
Stereguisshy?
Unicorn
UnicornLets hope the Rudd government can win the election and change things for the better.
Surely you are joking?
Hugh White is telling people that he will be returning to head the Defence Department in a Rudd Government, with White back, can Ball and Dibb be far behind?
Back to the Sefence of Australia days, I am getting really bad Deja Vu.
It took more than a decade to reverse the damage they did last time, as anyone who was in East Timor can attest that it could have fallen over badly, thanks to the DoA structure gutting the military’s capability to project power, even somewhere as close as Timer Leste.
Sorry, but I see no benefits for Australia in the defence area in a Rudd government.
Unicorn
UnicornThats just a sad and transparent attempt to distort facts. The Chinese maps are nothing like those Spanish maps you speak of. They are different in some many ways anyone with a working brain would be able to easily tell that, and I feel it would merely be a waste of time to list them since you clearly do not care about facts that do not fit with your skewed view of the world and reality.
Ah of course. They are Chinese maps, and that makes all the difference.
Sorry, I misunderstood you, I didn’t realise that as they are Chinese maps then they don’t need to be tested, they must automatically be correct.
It’s obviously so much easier when we all agree with you, avoids all those nasty issues involving proof, facts, government-stoked nationalism, rewriting of history and such.
Carry on old bean.
Unicorn
UnicornThanks to a number of very helpful people, both here and elsewhere this is what I was able to glean.
Uncorn
UnicornNo, it is you who do not seem to understand. Ancient Chinese maps were not created for propaganda but reference. Maps are one of the very few things that do not lie, especially old ones.
Ah, the ‘old maps’ defence.
The same ones that China tried to use to say that all of the Spratley’s / Paracels were Chinese territorial waters, up to 12 nautical miles from the coasts of several other soverign nations.
That one was so laughable that the Chinese never tried to push that into international jurisprudence, knowing they would lose.
That’s like saying that as ancient Spanish maps said that anything ‘beyond the line’ belonged to Spain, the US, Canada, Mexico and the nations of Central and South America are vassels of Spain.
Sorry mate, you need to do better than that.
Unicorn
UnicornPlawolf and Hell King, Do you actually read other people’s posts before hitting the reply button?
If you had you would have seen that I said that China was neither any better nor any worse than any other major power. I did not say China was worse, I said it was the same.
They all play power politics, and China, or the UK, or France or whoeever tryingto claim the moral high ground over the others is not just foolish, it’s laughable.
Oh, and Plawolf, Tibet was and Taiwan is a nation state.
I understand that these inconvenient facts upset the Chinese nationalists no end, but they are facts.
Tibet, if not invaded by China, would probably still be an independent nation state, similar to Bhutan and Nepal, rather than a colony of China.
Taiwan is independent of China with a functioning, fully-fledged democracy and an independent foreign policy.
Upsetting to those in China who don’t like this state of affairs, but another unpleasant fact none the less.
Ignoring reality that doesn’t match with your perception of reality is not a healthy state of mind.
Unicorn
UnicornChina has the right to a military that can defend itself especially since most of the countries that criticize and the ones you’re worried about have a recent history of invading, occupying, and/or complicite in crimes on China. So China has the right to the capability of defending itself from one to all of those countries.
Yes, they had to defend themselves from Tibet, India, Vietnam and Taiwan, plus defend the peace-loving sealife of the Spratleys from exploitation from those countries with a legitimate claim to them.
Please, don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that China is somehow blameless.
It plays the same geopolitics as the rest of the major powers, and if it thought it could have got away with it without US intervention would have invaded and conquered Taiwan by now.
China is no more a paragon of diplomatic virtue than the US, France, Russia, the UK or US. It plays the same power play politics as they have.
Unicorn
UnicornChina is the first “non-European” country since then to threaten that domination.
I think you can leave the polemics at home please.
And I do believe that Japan’s destruction of the British, Dutch, French and US control of the Asia-Pacific region in 1941-42 also qualifies as ‘threatening that domination’.
In fact the world is now a very different place after that war, with a large number of today’s nations former colonial possessions that were forcibly de-colonised by the Japanese and incorporated into the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, then liberated by the US and allied forces in 1943-45.
The British and European nations accomodated the rise of the US as a major economic and industrial power early last century, the same is likely to happen with China.
Unicorn
UnicornQuickest, easiest and cheapest option would be for Taiwan to simply tie in with the USN’s Burke production before that program ends, they get all the benefits of massive economies of scale without having to sink the costs on development.
Unicorn
Sign In
