what I am trying to get at is is it in the US’s interest to try and get other countries that have no or limited strike capability to have the capability

Sure, but it’s not necessarily in New Zealand’s interest even if the US was to cover all the upfront costs.

With China’s recent (and foolish) boisterousness the US has no shortage of potential strategic partners in the Pacific, but NZ is unlikely to be one of them — not in the sense of making any real contribution, not if they’re smart. Better to focus attentions on Philippines, Malaysia, even Vietnam.

I personally think that a striker variant would be very much in the interest of PLA planners.

I’m sure it would, in a vacuum. But PLAAF/PLANAF have limited resources as does Shenyang, lots on their plate already including multiple Flanker variants, and platforms in service or development which in concert already cover much of the same spectrum (JH-7A, J-16, J-20, H-6K) and, well, the Flanker platform isn’t getting any younger! I just don’t see it happening.

In New Zealand’s position I’d be doing exactly what they’re doing. Can’t afford any real capability, why bother pretending? Rely on a combination of geographic isolation, US engagement with the region, and those fat Australians. Bonus: no friction with China. I wouldn’t take those F/A-18s even if you paid me. Doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try of course, NZ pollies just as dumb and open to ‘encouragement’ as they are everywhere else. Might get lucky. 🙂

Australia has good reason to be paranoid about national security. We live next to the most densely populated muslim nation on earth, whose people have successfully attacked us numerous times- they also have little regard for freedom and human rights, and have proven themselves willing to take territory by force.

Lecturing Indonesia about human rights when we fed the Indonesian military intel which was used to massacre hundreds of thousands of people… lol

Why we would trade carefully selected aircraft and equipment, all carefully chosen to fit into our complete tactical and strategic requirements

What nonsense. C-130J was chosen because it was the only option at the time. C-17 was chosen so as to allow us to better engage in activities we shouldn’t be engaging in at all (Irag and Afghanistan) and to airlift platforms we shouldn’t have acquired in the first place (M1s).

I’m certainly glad your ideas are not used when deciding the streategic picture myself and 1200 other diggers face when our task group deploys.

A few months back a handful of Taliban managed to destroy 8 aircraft at Camp Bastion. If those had been Australian aircraft we could have lost entire national capabilities in that attack.

But sure, so long as nothing resembling warfare with its accompanying attrition ever takes place, the practice of fielding more platform types than units of those types is merely wildly inefficient rather than treasonously negligent.

I guess larger numbers of cheaper Land Rovers would be preferable over smaller numbers of better Bushmasters?

If we could only afford five Bushmasters then fifty Land Rovers would certainly be preferable, yes.

Same reason the Raptor was always out of the question: we couldn’t afford enough of them to make the investment a sensible one.

Australia wants a larger say in world politics, befitting our economical strength and our land mass and strategic position- each of which, will need a stronger bigger ADF with more capabilities.

Australia’s relative economic standing is in irreversible decline, the long-term budget outlook is grim (which doesn’t bode well for Defence spending), and our ‘strategic position’ is kneeling between America’s legs, something which doesn’t require anything other than a token ADF structured around providing moral support to the Americans. Just the kind of ADF you seem to be in favour of.

I note the Australians have the Globemaster/ Hercules/ Spartan combination and manage to have the P-8 as well. Bearing in mind that the Australian economy is very much smaller the the British it does rather beg the question.

Operating four* airlifter types (C-27J, C-130J, C-17A, A330) each at low unit numbers is absurdly inefficient and hardly something to be emulated. Larger numbers of C-295/C-27J, A400M and A330 would be preferable.

* Five if you count Chinook, and we’ve **** all of those as well!

Well, let’s see the Australia Defense Force will be equipped with the AWD Aegis Destroyers, Super Hornets, M-1 Tanks, BPE/LHDs, F-35s, Seahawks, etc. etc. etc. in the coming decade. Yeah, you right what a mess……:rolleyes:

Should be 1-2 more Air Warfare Destroyers and ditch the M1s.

BTW What would you suggest an old Russian Aircraft Carrier and a couple squadron of Mi29’s??????;)

What would I have suggested back in 2001? Not joining F-35.

What would I have suggested in ~2007 to replace F-111? F-15AU.

What would I have suggested in ~2013 to replace F/A-18? Tiffy.

What would I suggest today in light of the abysmal decision in 2001 and the band-aids applied thus far? More Super Hornets, cancel F-35 acquisition.

So, you think Australia (for example) can wait another 20-30 years until the arrival of a 6th Generation Fighters??? :rolleyes: So, I guess the RAAF suppose to soldier on against PAK-FA’s, J-20’s, J-31’s, and who knows what else! 😮

We’re already looking at 2020 before F-35 can enter RAAF service, that’s why Defence is looking at more Super Hornets. What’s a few more years?

Australia doesn’t need VLO in the handful of years between F-35 and UCAV availability, and by the time the combination of SHornets and UCAVs no longer suffices F-35 will be totally outclassed anyway.

On the other hand, if we chuff along with proven and affordable SHornets then in the late-2020s we can take another look at a market bristling with alternatives — F-35, KF-X, AMCA, SAAB-5G, F-3, Rafale/Typhoon+, Euro 6G, T-50, LMFS — and make an informed decision as to a true next-gen capability then. The right capabilities, at the right cost, at the right time.

Who knows, by 2025 perhaps even F-35 will emerge as a responsible choice. Stranger things have happened.