http://aviaforum.ru/showpost.php?p=1277786&postcount=177

#3 in this series: 😮

It’s possible that CUDA has merit, however one should always be suspicious when weapons are designed around the aircraft (e.g. AIM-120C, NSM, CUDA) rather than the other way around.

Not bad for an aviation forum. 😉

I think you’re a being little harsh, though. There is not a nation anywhere that isn’t simply a product of it’s history and geography, a clash of where it hopes to be, and the accidents of history that made it what it really is: good, bad and otherwise.

Of course, but it is still interesting and useful to explore those influences, and I find it unfortunate that Australia’s historical circumstances have given rise to a nation that seems unable and unwilling to stand on its own two feet, to be counted for what it is rather than laughed out of the room for trying to be what it is not: a significant actor on the world stage.

The (very) condensed version of my take on the world and Australia’s place in it is that we are entering a period of unprecedented global change manifested most obviously and significantly in the Australian context by the relative decline of American power in the face of a rising China. I do not believe that conflict between these two nations is inevitable, but I do believe that it is possible, and increasingly likely from the mid-2020s to mid-2030s, and further that in the event of such a conflict it is entirely possible that America will lose. Worst-case scenario is the eruption of major conflict between China and the United States, strikes conducted against US bases in Australia leading to Australia’s entry into the war, the defeat of the US-led alliance and imposition of terms on a defeated Australian nation.

In this context, I do not believe that Australia’s present relationship with the United States serves its long-term interests. Unlike many other nations in the region we have no obvious source of conflict with China; siding with the Americans, hosting their bases on our soil, etc. actually produces a risk of conflict which need not otherwise arise. This is not to deny that the current order underwritten by American hegemony is amenable to Australian interests, however the benefits that America’s presence in the region provides will be maintained with or without Australia’s participation in a formal alliance — that is to say, we can (and therefore should) freeload on the American commitment to the regional status quo, and the likelihood that such disruptions as may arise are far more likely to involve other nations (Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.) than they are to involve us.

My prescription for Australian foreign policy, therefore, is a gradual dampening of our relationship with the United States, tending towards the adoption of a Switzerland-esque model of armed strategic neutrality. Military spending would rise gradually under this model, extending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2025, i.e. the onset of the first ‘high risk’ period identified earlier. And of course there would be no more globetrotting adventures to sap the national wealth.

Just a bit of context for my perspective on these and related matters. :p

As to Australia’s early and steady drift from it originally British identity, all I can say is: the gold rushes, the Irish, Germans in the Barossa, frontiers, and explorers mapping the great unknown to the West. Even RL Stevenson, visiting in the 1800s, could see which way things were going to turn out.

It sounds like you know rather more about it than I do. There’s a course I’ve got my eye on regarding the formation of Australian identity, but I’m not sure if I’ll be able to fit it into my History major. I’m from SA and have German blood so there’s a personal angle too which has fired me in various intriguing directions of late. 🙂

Sadly NO ONE CARES! No one gives a toss at how many billions are lost in rediculas deals which never come to fruition ($900MILLION wasted on the seasprite debarcle… and NO ONE CARED!)

Indeed, the scale the malfeasance which occurred is shocking. I’m not even sure what the Australian equivalent to impeachment is, but in a sane world John Howard would certainly be up for it. Even disregarding the national security implications, corporate execs go to jail for misconduct on a much smaller scale. Personally I wouldn’t be averse to a treason charge, but I’m trying to keep within the bounds of vague plausibility.

Even if you think the above is hyperbole, it is astonishing how little interest there is in this matter in Australian circles. We’re talking about a program on the same or even greater scale than the NBN, which was a major election issue and still is today. Imagine if the NBN had been handled the same way Australia’s Future Air Combat Capability was handled: there would be heads mounted on pikes being paraded around the country. And yet — nothing. Not a blip.

Even the Canadians — whose story is very similar to our own — have realised what an unacceptable farce the JSF decision was and are now conducting a responsible evaluation process. Why is Australia different? The obvious answer — that Australia’s political and defence establishments have been more thoroughly Americanised than even the Canadians — is difficult enough to imagine, let alone accept, yet alternative explanations are thin on the ground.

All that is extremely small stuff. Also East Timor was tryiung to make up for the fact that Australia actively supported the invasion of E. Timor and turned a blind eye to atrocities there.

It also fitted in with Little Johnny’s vision of Australia as America’s deputy sheriff in Asia.

Australia’s foreign policy to 1941 was Anglo-centric. Australia regarded itself as more British than Britain.

1945-1970 – the economy was stilled Anglo-centric and then the Australians got kicked in the **** when UK joined EU and lost preferential trade treatment.

Since then Asia has become Australia’s most important export market, but Australia still views Asia as hostile. Indeed in the 1980s there was even issues with Japanese investment.

Since 1945 foreign policy has mirrored US foreign policy. If the USA decided to invade or nuke Australia, Australia would gladly support this motion.

After Paul Keating lost power, successive Australian governments (Howard, Rudd, Gillard) have continuously reinforced foreign policy ties with America over that of Asia. Meanwhile Asian ties languish and Australia gets left behind (look how long it took for Australia to be invited to ASEAN talks).

Howard was trying to rebuilds some 1950s vision of Australia’s place in Asia (though I agreed with his economic reforms).

Rudd even had the nerve to tell Chinese students their government was bad in a Chinese school in Mandarin. He was also busted telling Hilary Clinton to prepare for war with China.

But then his foreign policy background is Taiwan.

Gillard is a foreign policy luddite.

I think a lot of Australia’s ‘issues’ when it comes to foreign policy stem from our Anglo heritage and the fact that our nation never had the chance to form a distinct identity before the onslaught of globalisation. We are the children and cousins of empire — first British, now American — and see the intrigues of Great Power politics as our birthright.

At the same time we are acutely conscious of our irrelevance in the grand scheme of just about everything. The consequence is that we cultivate a grand inferiority complex, seek to involve ourselves in issues around the world (e.g. Egypt, I remember Rudd sticking his nose in there, what the ******* ****?) and are forever seeking approval from the powers that be, exemplified most obviously by Howard’s puppy-like relationship with GWB. We want to be involved, to be recognised, to receive a pat on the head and be told that we really matter. It’s all rather embarrassing.

Regarding Gillard — ugh. I recall an interview she gave shortly after becoming PM, in which she confessed to be not overly interested in foreign policy. At the time I thought that was merely refreshingly honest and gave it little thought. But it turns out that she does have opinions on foreign policy after all — those beamed directly into her head from the White House. I can’t believe she wanted Australia to join the US and its half-dozen bought cronies in voting against Palestine at the UN. 😡

A random anecdote to close things off: in Olaf Stapledon’s astonishing future history work Last and First Men, published in 1931, Australia rates a brief mention during the extermination of Europe by the United States. He writes that Australia was reduced to neutrality ‘not through cowardice, but out of divided loyalties’. I find this very interesting, as it shows an awareness of a transition then occurring in Australia from British-centred identity to American-centred identity, and this occurring even before the United States had supplanted Britain on the world stage. Also interesting is that he does not attribute the same divided loyalties to New Zealand: the Kiwis are said to remain loyal to the British empire (and are thus eventually exterminated by the Americans also).

Mig-33

Love the shot, but can’t figure out which aircraft mated with Fulcrum to produce it. 😮

Its also quite clear that the cheapest offer on the table will have a massive advantage…

Clearly you don’t recall what happened the last time the US tried to build a jet under a constrained budget.

More likely is that T-X will be merged with the Next-Generation Bomber program to take advantage of a common development path and economies of scale. As a concession to risk management, the aircraft will be required to take off vertically.