Many analysts believe that China and India are future superpowers, not regional powers (they have both been that since the 1950’s). It is safe to assume that they will play a bigger role in the future as their economic, political and military might grows.

However, given the pattern of international relations since 1945, it is highly unlikely that either of these two countries will pursue military expansionism.

I don’t understand how Australia’s future lies with the EU. Australian links with the EU are not strong. In fact the Aussies were really pi$$ed off when Britain joined the EU, thus totally destroying any purpose to the Commonwealth.

Australia’s largest trading partners are mainly Asian. Japan is Australia’s largest export destination, followed by the US, China, South Korea, New Zealand, the UK and then Singapore. India is the 11th and is expected to climb higher in the future. Thailand is also expected to climb once the TAhailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement is up and running at full capacity. The EU is mainly closed to Australian agriculutral products due to the Common Agriculutral Policy. This is unlikely to change in the near future as the CAP is the glue that holds the EU together.

Our closest neighbours are Asian or Pacific, not the USA or the EU. We have a growing percentage of people who are not of Anglo-Celtic origin (e.g. 1996 Australian Bureau of Statistics figures state that 5.9% of the population is Asian, many more are from South Europe, the Middle East, Africa etc).

5.6% is nothing Australia is protected by the US and England simply because the other European and british descendants want close links to Europe and the US and want to keep the demographic and ethnic composition basicly European, Australia large land mass is quit important for all resources it has.

China and India are not super powers and hardly can achieve that without giving high standards of living to 2.5 billion people at least to achieve the living standards of middle income nations is quit hard.

But since China and India are huge economies they can pull smaller economies around them and because they represent close to 25% of the world`s population they are too important to be forgotten.

Both China and India posses high rates of Growth becuase they were underdeveloped, but both China and India posses 1st class air Forces and armed forces in the military sector they can be call great powers and China could become a military super power but in the living standards well both are poor and developing nations .

China has an impressive aerospace industry and India is also achieveing the same feat but in science, Technology and living standards well still is a long way they will achieve living stadards for all of their population as a nation like New Zealand.

The Australian Air Force`s few dozens F-111 and the less than eighty F-18 are no match for the large fleet PLAAF`s Fighters that have inflight refuelling capability and AWACS, only the J-8II fleet makes the Australain F-18 too busy and the less than fifty F-111 are not match to the Chinese FBC-1 and Su-30MKK fleet, if we include the comming J-10 fleet and the current J-11/Su-27 armed with AA-11, SD-10 and AA-10 Alamo fighter fleet and the still obsolete fleet of J-7s and A-5/Q-5 Fantam if the Chinese get Tu-22M3 well a 20 million nation is not match for China`s armed forces

I wonder just what is the basis for this recurring theory of an upcoming US economic collapse? Here in the US we have not heard of this, except for the small number of mostly religious (or socialist) fanatics that either A: believe that Judgement Day is coming, and God has ordained a global economic collapse before then, or B: Capitalism is doomed (because Marx said so) and therefore it MUST collapse. On second thought, Socialism is much like a religion, with its followers believing the message (and the prophets Karl Marx and Engels) regardless of what reality throws at them.

Could anyone tell me why the US economy is supposed to collapse?? This theory has appeared several times since the early 1970s, and every time we were supposed to “fall down & go boom” we just fixed the minor recession and started another growth cycle!

While I am VERY concerned about China’s military build-up, and worried about its immediate neighbors, in my view Australia has very little to worry about in terms of military attacks on their soil. They do, however, face the possibility of economic isolation if most of the East/Southeast Asian mainland (and possibly close-in island nations) are under the control of China.

The main need for Australia to have a strong military is to allow it to help its neighbors to protect themselves from attack.

There is an old story (fictional, but it has a strong basis in history) of the man who didn’t mind when they took the Jews, because he wasn’t one; didn’t mind when they took the foreigners, because they didn’t belong here; didn’t mind when they took the old and infirm, because they were a drain on society; etc.; etc; until the day they came for him, and there was no one left to help him!

The best counter to the very real threat posed by a growing Chinese military is for many countries to each buy what they can, and then USE THEM TOGETHER, to help each other! This is why Australia needs to pull its head out of its behind, sign a non-aggression treaty with its neighbors (as long as the only promise is not to attack anyone), and insist on a mutual defense clause against aggression (including defense against internal aggression). Then the Chinese will have a much harder time gaining control of the area.

This policy does, however require some longer-range capability to protect (not attack) the new allies. Does this sound like the old “forward defense” policy? Darned right it does, but it now includes co-operative defense of your neighbors as well.

As Benjamin Franklin (I think, it might be another of the founders) said at the start of the American Revolution: “We Must All Hang Together, or We Will Assuredly be Hung Separately!”.

The answer lies in the fact nothing is forever and no Empire last all eternity, the US in 1945 was the only nuclear power by 2005 nuclear proliferation and missile proliferation is spreading around the world, the US can not invade each in every country which has a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program because the US to keep a wealthy economy can not spend in military programs while it is endebting each in every american further more The US has decreased it share of the World`s GDP from 50% fifty years ago after the WWII to less than 25% in 2005 that trend will continue and thanks to communications technology usage and technological development is spreading all over the world and out sourcing proves that. The Global economy means no nation can lead the world as in the past and therefore the multipolar world is assured

The Australians know that a powerful China means a bully in the making so they need to be armed to prevent to be push overs in Asia

I disagree with you Flogger , just because Pakistan has some nukes its more safe than invading Brazil ? Sure we have weak armed forces for our size and is nothing compared with the main european contries or USA but imagine invading a country lagert than ocidental europe , that has an industry among the 10 biggests in the world spread in an area larger than most european contries ( inless you spend 100 tatical nukes…) , which makes frontier with almost every SA country ( very good for smugling weapons for resistence) , that dominates nuclear technologic , whose territory has 30 % of jungle , whose coast despite large has few points able to allow ship disembark which has a powerful and well spread agricultural and so on .

Malandro, Brazil is a great country but we need to face a reality no nation in Latin America can defeat the US, repel an invasion niether invade the US, China and Russia can target Sau paulo and hit any Brazilian city, Europe has Aircraft carriers and submarine lauched balistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads and can defeat us easily.

The US has ony in two aircraft carrier battle groups the ability to defeat Brazil in the airwar.
From Mexico to Argentina no Latin American nation would last a war with China, Russia, Europe and the US, at the most Brazil can fight it`s smaller neighbours in Latin America we live under the US nuclear umbrella and unless Brazil gets nuclear weapons and balistic missiles armed with nukes we are going to be bullied and invaded with ease, besides we have no powerful economic performance is true we have large economies but we have the worst income distribution in the world so there is no way we can fight an economic war and a military war at the moment succesfully.

We need fight the poverty in our countries and develop our science and unless we are succesful in these war we are doom to be bullied by wealthier and better armed nations.

Pakistan and India can not be invaded simply because iit would mean a nuclear war.
We can be invaded because we lack a credible defensive force and retaliatory response to an invader.

Pakistan is not an economic power but is a nuclear power.
China has hundred of million of poor but is an economic power and a military super Power same is India.

We are wealthier countires than China, India or Pakistan but we are not military powers and as the former asian nations we are not economic super powers like Japan, th EU and the US

The F-20 blueprints were stolen and it was determined that the Tigershark sucked to high heavens 😀

Come on Golden Dragon the F-20 did not suck, in fact the FC-1 is a modern F-20 with a different air inlet though but it has had better luck, the FC-1 is in the PLAAF an equivalent of the F-20 and the J-10 the F-16 equivalent.

The DSI is an American design that was developed by Lockheed, the Chinese have been quit innovative in applying that US technology on the FC-1.
The F-20 was unlucky due to the fact it was competing with the F-16 and the F-18 but China has followed a better strategy than Northrop by involving Pakistan and assuring buyers from the start of the program, and contrary to the F-20 that was a private venture and was uncaple of assuring a buyer the FC-1 was well supported by the Pakistani Government.

we need to understand China has already adquiered all the technologies necesary to develop many weapons indigenously, in Aircraft design very likely China will be capable of design aircraft without foreign assistance from the engine to the airframe and by 2025 is likely China will have some sort of F-22 aircraft

I believe that Australia is way to far away from the Chinese Mainland to be directly threatened by the Chinese…. Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, all would be in the way of a Chinese move against the Australians.

During WWII the Japanese never got as south as Australia before the Americans intervened pushing the main front to the northeast of Australia… Things would be VERY different if the PLAN was operating som 5-6 Kuznetzov sized Aircraft-carriers with Su-33s as their main weapon.

What woud be the “valuable resources” that could convince the Chinese to invade Australia? Oil for instance could easily be found elsewhere for a much lesser strategic cost… Just the effort involved in transporting the commodities all the way to Chinese ports would be daunting in my opinion…

Comments?

Regards,

Hammer

China has plans to adquiere Aircraft carriers, in a planned invasion to Taiwan needs amphibious forces, is very likely that in 2025 China will have at least one aircraft carrier, it`s Air Force will be at the level of the US and Europe (now already is as capable as the Russian despite still has many weaknesses but the Russians have not deployed new equipment but definitivily slightly ahead of India, Pakistan and far ahead of Brazil ).

As far a nuclear bomber force well if China adquire Tu-22M3s by 2010 these are not going to be top notch against the US or Russia but a serious threat in east Asia and Oceania.

Even though the PRC does need resources, I think it’s highly unlikely (almost impossible) that China would go on some mass world conquest to get the resources it needs.

In this day and age, soft power such as economic might and subtle political machinations are more effective than brute military force.

China’s quest for resources will lead it to supporting various friendly regimes and trying to acquire the support of others who have what China needs.

This is in effect what the Western world (and even the old Soviet Union) do nowadays.

Chinese foreign policy since the 1980’s has been based on soft power anyway. It has actively pursued links with ASEAN and integration into the global economy via the WTO etc. The CCP and PLA hardliners have effectively been sidelined or integrated into the modern Chinese economic system. China also sees the USA as a necessary evil – it is a big market for Chinese exports, a valuable source of FDI and an important balancer in the region. For example the US-Japanese security pact is prized as a method of containing Japanese military expansion (a big fear among many Asian countries).

And furthermore should the Chinese decide to conquer the whole of Asia including Australia (a highly unlikely and ill-informed opinion), what are a few RAAF F/A-22’s going to do, other than be obliterated by Chinese long range missiles?

I think we need to look to some history to understand the Future, during the cold war a NATO air strike provoked by an internal political affairs or a civil war in the communist block in Eastern Europe such as the war in Yugoslavia would not had happened, the Hungarian and Czechoslavakian Soviet invasion showed that, the desintegration of the Soviet Union meant eastern Europe became NATO`s backyard.

Is probable thet in the peak of the Soviet Union`s power the US would not had invaded Iraq as it did in 1991 or in 2003.

Today`s US has enough power to assure that China can not invade Australia and keep China releasing limited and retoric empty threats to Taiwan, however noone can assure the US will have the same military power in 2025 or 2030, and the Chinese military power is increasing it`s power projection and economically already has become a power to reckon with, even hundreds of millions of Chinese still do not enjoy the benefits China could well increase it`s military or political influence in the Middle east due to the chinese need for oil through Pakistan and in it`s backyard that logically will include Vietnam. Laos, Malasia, Indonesia and Australia for markets and narural resources, China could rule if a weaken US can not deploy more military adventures due to problems in Latin America, deep economic crisis and political unwillingness to intervine as England lost power to keep it`s colonies in the 1950s and 1960s.

Actually I do live in Australia, and in particular Tazmania – home of the Tassie Devil, tree hugging hippies and good beer. 😀

The Flanker purchase by the TNI/AU was debated in parliament and recieved coverage by the media. The main gist of the debate was that Australia’s security is threatened by 4 Flankers. I admit I over-emphasised the scope of coverage by claiming it was extensive. But it did get coverage on even regional media who usually even struggle to report national affairs unless they are related to the budget or Kylie Minogue.

The TNI/AU is planning more Flankers. The last I heard was that a plan to acquire 12 more to create a full squadron was scrapped in favour of Aceh relief funding. However even 16 Flankers is not a considerable threat to Australia by any standard.

This is because the original F-111’s were brought only to counter Indonesia during the Konfrontasi period prior to 1965. The F-111’s only serve to deter Asian countries. They have never been deployed in coalition actions and just about every analyst or politician always raves about how it is necessary to maintain Australia’s long range strike capabilities, despite Australia’s increasing emphasis on coalition warfare where mulit-role aircraft like the Hornet are much more useful.

But the long range strike capabilities are needed, mainly because Australian strategic policy requires some sort of deterence against Asian aggression (this is tacitly implied and not stated out in the open as it was in past years).

On another note, about 15 years ago, I think Paul Dibbs wrote a report stating that the only country with the capability to invade Australia was the U.S. So why keep the F-111’s?

But many ordinary Australians do fear Asian countries. The reason why Pauline Hanson was popular in the mid to late 1990’s was because of this fear. Even though Pauline Hanson is long gone as a political force, both sides of the Government still maintain that Asia is the most likely source of an invasion of Australia. Hence the extensive American a$$ kissing that has been a cornerstone of Australian foreign policy since the 1940’s. Australians die for the USA so that the USA will come and save Australia’s butt once the Asians come flowing into Australia. Fearing Asian hordes is one of the main reasons the country was federated. Australia pi$$ed the Japanese off after WWI for not allowing a racial equality clause in the League of Nations charter.

The recent refusal by the Howard government to sign a non-aggression pact with Asian countries is proof that a racist streak still exists in Australian foreign policy (BTW New Zealand signed the charter).

Go to any University political science class and if the topic of national security comes up, most people will maintain that the Asians are out to get us and that is why we need the US alliance, why Aussies need to die for America and why we need F-111’s.

I think the guy is not as crazy as many would say, there are some reason to fear China very justifyable let`s list them.

A)By 2025 China will be a really huge economy which will be in need of resources this fact is usually forgotten, China, India, Russia and Brazil will replace many European Economies as the largest economies in the world only the US or an united Europe can face the chinese rise, already the US has encircled China by invading Iraq and Afghanistan and is trying to control the middle east oil while Japan is struggling with China for the Russian Oil.

The Chinese in order to grow need the South american grains and the south American and Australian Beef, the middle east oil and the Taiwanese know how in many technological arenas.

The Chinese military power is changing from a local power to an offensive force

B)China has increased military spending has 1200 nuclear weapon according to Japanese estimates, China has more than the 400-600 nuclear heads if we consider the US estimates but China might have even 1200 nuclear heads China has perhaps the third nuclear arsenal if the Japanese estimates are correct but only 400-500 nuclear heads if the americans estimates are correct.
An all war in the Pacific betwen the US and China means control of Taiwan and all the shipping lines, sinking all the US carriers and particularly take control of the largest US carrier where the US can launch an attack to mainland China in the Pacific and those are Australia and Japan .

C)A Chinese invasion to Taiwan could have several outcomes first well China wins the battle, takes over Taiwan and as Hitker did in the Past when he invaded Czechoslovakia and England and France allowed Hitler to keep his new adquiered Czechoslovakian territory under the German LEBENS RAUM, well China keeps Taiwan under the same circunstances and as Chamberlain did well the US does these time and in order to keep peace there is no war between the US and China.

Another outcome is a Koren war of 1950 style where neither side wins and China can not keep Taiwan.

And the third is an all war where Australia faces an eminent Attack from China as the Japanese did in order to keep away the allies from Asia and 30 million Australains can not do anything against a military power likes is China.

but to be honest i doubt an all war will develop between China and the US but we need to understand the Is probable that China could invade Australia in the Future what ever the unlikeliness of that fact is.
An all war between the US and China means a nuclear exchange in the worst case and a limited use of tactical nukes in the battlefield and a lesser terrible outcome but both nations would not risk so much Even for Taiwan.

The F414 is interchangeable to F404/R-12 and delivers a similar thrust to EJ-200.
But the gains from a stronger engine are less than the setbacks by that. Thanks to its excellent aerodynamics and FBW-system the Gripen has less drag than the F-16 for example. Using more thrust for a better peak-performances will eat into your limited full load too or you have to add external fuel with surplus drag and performance reduction by that.
At least in times when most of the “flying” capabilities come from the AAMs at all.
For the same reason the French Rafale will stay with its M88-2 engines in French service for some time.
In modern aircombat the surplus thrust is used to keep energy-level high, when depleted through an evasive manouver as quick as possible. A heavy loaden F-16 is no longer in need to drop its expensive high-tech ordenance and loose the mission by that, when the higher dash reduces vulnerability when passing through danger zones = envelopes of threat. We still speak of T-W-ratio, because none gives away the real T-drag-ratio. As I quoted before, in times of advanced FBW-technology the old thumb-rule becomes misleading, which even in former times did to give away the real ratios to all parts of the flight envelope. Please see the T-W-ratios of MiG-25/31 and its real speed, climb and height-performances about that. The similar designed Lavi have had achived similar or slightly better performances compared to the F-16, despite its weaker PW1120 and resulting weaker “T-W-ratio. Fixed inlet fighters can reach Mach 2 by sheer power only, when its inlet becomes blocked at speeds above Mach 1,5 like the F-16. To force a F-16 to Mach 2 is a senseless behavior and will deplete your fuel-load at an alarming rate. Around Mach 1,5 it works at best.
When someone asks for more power, he has to give the very reasons for that. Stealth fighters can fly high despite the SAM-threat and here the extra thrust counts most.
But even a F-22 did not reach unity related to old “T-W-ratio” above 40k in all load conditions.

The Gripen small size and weight give some advantages to the JAS-39 light weight fighter thanks to it`s 6622kg/14599lb operating weight and 8000kg/17637lb normal take off it will asure a decent TWR due to it`s RM12 thrust of 8210kg/18,100lb; coupled with the AESA-NORA radar, advanced air to air missiles such as the Meteor, Darter, IRIS-T, and Helmet monted display by 2010 the only better single engine aircraft will be the F-35.
It is very likely that the J-10 will be also upgraded with an AESA radar and
thrust vectoring and the need for a Meteor kind missile will prompt the Chinese to develop one domesticaly or buy one from abroad.

RM12 engine