RiiWas thinking more of the useable airfield analysis. It pointed out the large increase in accessible airfields available to C27J sized aircraft compared to C-130s. From memory, the C27J will enable the RAAF to access around 4 times the number of fields within Aus compared to the Herc.
Anyone care to guess how many more airfields within Australia A400M can access than C-17? :rolleyes:
RiiAnd 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.
Brazil’s FX-2 is a strange beast. I could envision some convoluted deal whereby Brazil takes all the 2000-9s with full technology transfer as part of an agreement with France for joint carrier construction and fielding of evolved Rafale in mid-2020s.
Obviously that’s just one scenario, but the longer this FX-2 business drags on the more convinced I am that something huge is bubbling beneath the surface, and if Dassault secures the UAE contract the 2000-9s could certainly be part of it.
RiiHad China been “reasonable” or did nothing, the US would have found it hard to contain China. But it is none other than China’s actions that drive China’s neighbors into the arms of the US.
I agree. China has been very foolish of late, and the United States has reaped the benefits. If current trends continue then it is entirely possible that we will see the formation of an anti-China containment bloc, something which was far from inevitable and must be regarded as something of an own goal by China.
However it would be a mistake, I think, to believe that this is necessarily a stable arrangement. The lack of shared interests and solidarity between containment partners will leave the arrangement prone to fracture, whilst the predominantly naval setting of most conflict scenarios will tempt all partners to believe in the possibility of limited and decisive outcomes, thereby lowering the threshold for conflict, further reinforcing the trend posed by UAVs and cyber-warfare.
RiiThe article, apart from being badly written (read like it was edited by a robot) demonstrates that the french were offering better cuisine at the defence expo!
Champagne and croissant vs. … haggis? :p
(Ok so I have no idea about English cuisine — or any cuisine for that matter — but talk about conforming to national stereotypes!)
RiiI like how the Eurofighter Consortium is reduced to ‘Britain’. It’s France vs. England again, as it was and ever shall be! 😀
*spits across the channel*
RiiWell unlike you I do actually have time in the ADF, the Growler is about as fast as a Shornet 🙂 obviously what I have said has gone over your head and you do not understand what the Growler will bring to the table for the ADF
You asserted that the Growler conversion had ‘very little to do with JSF’, which is false. The 2001 decision in favour of JSF was explicitly predicated on the desire to maintain a single fast jet platform rather than repeat the fighter/striker mix of F/A-18 and F-111.* The acquisition of Growler (and by extension almost certainly the other dozen Super Hornets) as permanent elements of Australia’s air combat capability therefore directly repudiates one of the core arguments underlying the original selection of JSF.
I don’t have a problem with the Growler acquisition, not least of all because I was never enamoured of the ‘one jet’ idea in the first place. But it certainly represents a departure from plans of just a few years ago and makes it that much harder for you and yours to play Baghdad Bob and claim that all is proceeding as the JSF visionaries have foreseen.
The fact of the matter is that Australia has already begun to waver on JSF, stands a good chance of wavering further, and — if the American sequester goes through — could conceivably fall off the boat entirely. And it is also true that to attribute this to the shortcomings of the latest government, rather than to the ongoing failings of the F-35 program and the wanton irresponsibility of the Howard government in selecting a paper airplane based on LockMart Power Point presentations and whiskey with USAF brass and American pollies in the first place, is totally ridiculous and reveals you to be every bit as blindly partisan on this subject as e.g. Kopp and Goon are accused of being.
Even for those unfamiliar with the Australian context, that Australia’s recent delay re: the F-35 program so closely echoes similar movements from many other program participants seriously undermines the idea that the delay is politically motivated and/or unwise. Certainly it’s politically convenient for the present government, but that’s as far as one can reasonably go.
* Hmm, where have I heard this issue of basket vs. egg numbers raised before? Oh yeah, I was just talking about it in relation to the wisdom of operating a mere five C-17s and A330s. Seems top brass and I think along similar lines. :rolleyes:
your obvious hatred and racism towards the US and contempt for the US/Australian relationship is rather pathetic
Asserting the Australian national interest as distinct from the United States = hatred and racism. Got it. :rolleyes:
RiiOK then :rolleyes: I will back away, not make any sudden moves and make no eye contact !
You could always read the 2009 Defence White Paper to get the same message expressed in more diplomatic terms. 🙂
RiiBut that lack of political influence can get played out in a lot of subtle ways.
True enough. But by the same token one can offer support — enough to avoid alienating folks — in inexpensive and ultimately non-committal ways also, e.g. joint disaster relief planning and operations, assisting the FBI in taking down Kim DotCom, etc.
RiiFairy tail ending LOL. How much political pull do you really think a politically isolationist NZ really has in the corridors of Canberra? Seriously.
Umm, none? NZ doesn’t need to exert any ‘pull’, it can merely count on the fact that in the face of virtually all conceivable threat scenarios other nations will, by the lights of their own interests, act in ways that incidentally serve to protect NZ interests.
RiiBecause sooner or later “freeloaders” always get dumped?
Reality isn’t a children’s story with a moral ending, sorry. :rolleyes:
US can stamp its foot all it likes, fact is it isn’t going anywhere. NZ can and therefore should freeload off the American commitment to the region.
The reason America is so paranoid about its allies freeloading is because they can run the logic as well and they know that their allies should be freeloading, which is why the chief activity of American diplomacy involves getting those nations to act in ways contrary to their own long-term interests, typically by using economic carrots and sticks.
(Or in Australia’s case they just have to pat our politicans on the head and reassure us that we’re an important part of the global system and what a nice milky treat we deserve! Ah, the legendary Australian inferiority complex :p)
RiiNot sure I would say it has been accepted, nor has it been made official
The conversion of the Shornets to Growler brings a totally new capability to Australia, very little to do with the JSF.
The delays…. well once again very little to do with the JSF, much much more to do with the most dysfuntional Government in Australian history. The 12 have been pushed back in the budget for political reasons, this flow on pushes back the even bigger order for the JSF out of the budget forcast period prior to the Government loosing the election it thinks it can still win 🙂
Hilarious.
So Growler isn’t a fast jet to be covered under the ‘one fast jet’ policy under which JSF was selected.
And the delay in ordering all but the minimum contracted aircraft is because the Australian government is foolish/incompetent/etc. … even though Turkey is doing exactly the same thing and a number of other nations are to varying degrees re-evaluating their commitment.
The spin is strong with this one. 😎
But we won’t have long to wait: if American sequestration goes through and pushes the ‘affordable’ JSF window out to 2025 it won’t be a question of whether we operate a mixed fleet but whether we operate any F-35s at all. :rolleyes:
RiiOther might rephrase it to “working with like minded nations to defend the political and economic order on which New Zealand relies for its own wellbeing.”
Why would one invest one’s own scarce resources in doing that when other nations will carry on the task regardless and much more effectively than NZ could ever hope to?
RiiI think China is investing in JH-7 for EW capability.
I can definitely see an enlarged J-20 at some point along the lines of the proposed FB-22. Maybe need to get a better handle on what WS-15 is going to be capable of first.
RiiThere are some tiny, little issues regarding Turkey’s adminssion into EU such as human rights violations and the fact that they’re a predominantly Muslim country.
Yeah, but those are issues that could’ve been negotiated and dealt with in good faith. Many things are possible when all parties recognise a certain outcome as in their best interests and are willing to compromise to get there, as was once the case.
It was the War on Terra that screwed it all up. Inflamed xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe, and turned the Turkish public against the Americans and their Euro buddies waging war on Muslims. The well is poisoned on both sides now. Europe is drawing inward and Turkey has a new sense of and pride in itself and no longer sees Europe as a goal to aspire towards.
Culture and religion still play a role even in civilised Western Europe.
And Turkey is intimately entwined with the history and culture of Europe. The raw material is there to divide or unite according to one’s inclinations.
I agree the carrier is the admission price of The Club of Countries Wot Matter.
Carriers and nukes … well, mostly carriers I guess. Nukes are rather more limited as tools of state, although obv. effective within their niche. Turkey already has American nukes anyway. :p
No reason Turkey couldn’t go on to build several such vessels. 3-4 LHDs with two F-35B squadrons between them?
RiiCertainly plausible enough — borrow an existing design and switch out some planned F-35As for Bs. As for how useful it will be — how useful is Brazil’s carrier? Carriers are about prestige and admission to The Club of Countries Wot Matter as much as anything else.
Europe is going to rue spurning Turkey in the decades ahead. Could’ve been a first-rate military and economic contributor to the EU, and a growing one unlike UK/FR/GR. Oh well.
Sign In
