Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8724 times:

There is a discussion on another thread about Australia acquiring Super Hornets & Growlers, but this news IMO warrants a new thread and seems to confirm that the F-35 is in the cards for the RAAF in the future.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-f-35s-in-defence-white-paper.html

Quote:
Australia plans to buy up to 100 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (below) as part of a comprehensive plan to revamp its defence force capabilities and prepare for a changing security environment in the Asia Pacific over the next 20 years.

This announcement was part of the country’s long-awaited defence white paper, which spells out its military strategy until 2030. It projects that the defence budget of A$22.7 billion ($16.6 billion) will increase by 3% annually until 2017-2018 and then by 2.2% annually until 2030 to rectify the current “shortfalls and underinvestment”, says defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon.

The Royal Australian Air Force, he adds, will be “far more versatile and far more capable” with a “wider range of advanced surveillance, transport and air combat options” as a result. Much of this hinges on the acquisition of the F-35s, which have been confirmed as the backbone of the RAAF’s air strike capability in the future.

Of course, some here will be disappointed at the news. I take it the F-35 is the odds-on favorite going forward? The White Paper also outlines plans for 12 "long range" submarines and 8 frigates. The commitment to Wedgetail has been (re)affirmed and there are some interesting comments regarding China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8030292.stm

[Edited 2009-05-02 16:02:22]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSASD209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8640 times:

I would think that F-18's would be good for now as a stop-gap, but the F-35 would add a whole new capability to the RAAF....We're talking about 2 different generations of aircraft here.
I also take some interest in the replacement of the Collins class SSK's so soon. They have had a troubled entry into service, it seems as if they will have a short in-service life. Also the FFG's....I assume the Perrys will be retired and the ANZAC class retained, even though I understand the Perrys have had recent upgrades to the missile systems and powerplants.


User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8576 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
12 "long range" submarines

What Id really like to see is the Governments plan to get enough crews to sail in submarines, given that there is a chronic shortage of submariners at the moment.

Barring any major schedule delays, the Government seems set on F-35's, and will probably stick with them even if there is a major slip in the timeframe, as evidenced with the continued support of Wedgetail. Once the Wedgetails, F-35's, the maritime patrol aircraft (P-8s?), KC-30's and UAV's are all up and flying, coupled with some good networking and C3, the RAAF will be a pretty potent force, albeit one that cant project a massive amount of power.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8532 times:



Quoting Legs (Reply 2):
Barring any major schedule delays, the Government seems set on F-35's, and will probably stick with them even if there is a major slip in the timeframe, as evidenced with the continued support of Wedgetail.

Recall too how long it took for the Australians to get the F-111C. They used F-4Es for a spell until the F-111s could be delivered. But they remained committed to the F-111 and apparently it was well worth the wait.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
They used F-4Es for a spell until the F-111s could be delivered.

The difference between the F-4E and F-18F situation is the Phantoms were a fixed term lease to cover the delay, the Super Hornets are being purchased, albeit on the pretext that they would be returned when the F-35s arrive.
The white paper talks of having 3 JSF squadrons(+ spares, support. training A/C etc) and a S/Hornet squadron which seems to back up the line of thought that once the RAAF got hold of the F-18F they would not let go of them until they were worn out!
Keeping some or all of the F-18F seems more credible as it appears increasingly likely some of them will become Growlers.
The White paper then talks about a 4th squadron of F-35, has anyone noticed that almost every graphic or "artists impression" of the 2 "Canberra Class" LHD currently on order depicts what appears to be a "Ski Jump"?
Is there a chance that a number of the later delivery Lightnings for the RAAF(or dare I say it the RAN) may be B models?

Cheers

[Edited 2009-05-03 07:16:49]


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7109 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8497 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
The White paper then talks about a 4th squadron of F-35, has anyone noticed that almost every graphic or "artists impression" of the 2 "Canberra Class" LHD currently on order depicts what appears to be a "Ski Jump"?
Is there a chance that a number of the later delivery Lightnings for the RAAF(or dare I say it the RAN) may be B models?

Since the Canberra Class is a Spanish Juan Carlos which has the ski jump already fitted the Aussies decided to keep it as modifying the design to remove it would cost a lot of money and probably delay the construction. Somehow I can't see the Aussies ever using the Canberra's as a carrier, so I wouldn't bet on them getting the B model.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8390 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Of course, some here will be disappointed at the news. I take it the F-35 is the odds-on favorite going forward? The White Paper also outlines plans for 12 "long range" submarines and 8 frigates. The commitment to Wedgetail has been (re)affirmed and there are some interesting comments regarding China.

Very interesting, Lumberton. Tx.

w.r.t. the new "long-range' attack subs, any chance these will be nukes ? Or will they have air independent propulsion (AIP) ?

w.r.t. the F-35s, looks like firm orders are firming up, so to speak. I expect RAF/RN order some time this year.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineSASD209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8338 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 6):
w.r.t. the new "long-range' attack subs, any chance these will be nukes ? Or will they have air independent propulsion (AIP) ?

I'm not sure the added benefits (endurance, performance) outweigh the massive outlay of money needed to train, equip, and sustain a SSN fleet. I thought the RAN sub fleet was intended for continental defense as opposed to say, the US or UK SSN fleet which patrols all over the world? I'd wager that a nice AIP equipped SSK with Harpoon or MM.40 capability would fit the bill quite nicely.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8232 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 6):
w.r.t. the new "long-range' attack subs, any chance these will be nukes ? Or will they have air independent propulsion (AIP) ?

Just an opinion, but I would definitely rule out nuclear propulsion due to cost and anti-nuke sentiment--unless there is a dramatic public opinion shift. AIP? Can't answer that one.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1512 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8224 times:

Well, the news wasnt unexpected but is definitely good news for Australia. Having such a small population and a huge area, Australia would be very easy to invade. Therefore by having such a large defence force, Australia can help reduce the likelihood of this happening. Australia also needs to be able to defend for itself, if for some reason, America doesnt come to our rescue. I think that Australia needs to look at expanding further than they already have, maybe things like Aircraft carriers or a purchase of more A330 Tankers. In regards to the Super Hornets, I would be suprised to see them leave the fleat when the F-35's arrive, and maybe take more of a role as an airshow, performance jet (like the F-111 at the moment), but also be used properly when needed.

User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8217 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 8):
anti-nuke sentimen

Given that every proposal for a nuclear power station in Australia gets shouted down, the odds of getting some SSN's is incredibly slim, sadly.

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 9):
Super Hornets, I would be suprised to see them leave the fleat when the F-35's arrive

I agree, why spend so much on such a short term project. The RAAF will just have all the operating procedures and such worked out, then they give them all back and transition to another type. IMHO, the -18F's will stay on and work in conjunction with the F-35's (hopefully).

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 9):
airshow, performance jet (like the F-111 at the moment

Hmmm, would it be possible to rig up a fuel dump mast between the engines of a Super Hornet?  Smile


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8208 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
I take it the F-35 is the odds-on favorite going forward?

Never in doubt really. There isn't another credible option.

Quoting SASD209 (Reply 1):
I also take some interest in the replacement of the Collins class SSK's so soon. They have had a troubled entry into service, it seems as if they will have a short in-service life. Also the FFG's....I assume the Perrys will be retired and the ANZAC class retained, even though I understand the Perrys have had recent upgrades to the missile systems and powerplants.

The Collins will remain likely until at least 6 new subs are built. Considering the lead time for this submarine is about 10-15 years until entry into service they will be around for a considerable time yet. The Perrys were upgraded to bridge the capability until the new Air Warfare Destroyer arrived. So these will be retired when the AWD arrives. The ANZACs will get an upgraded anti-air capability (or in reality an anti-missile capability) with a new AESA system co-designed by AUS/US.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
The white paper talks of having 3 JSF squadrons(+ spares, support. training A/C etc) and a S/Hornet squadron which seems to back up the line of thought that once the RAAF got hold of the F-18F they would not let go of them until they were worn out!

This is the same as the current fleet of F/A-18s though, three squadrons and the conversion unit so no increase but also no decrease.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
Keeping some or all of the F-18F seems more credible as it appears increasingly likely some of them will become Growlers.

Perhaps but the RAAF is really seeking the cost savings of a single fast jet type. The Growlers are there to future proof the fleet, so the 30 million odd spent was worth it.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
The White paper then talks about a 4th squadron of F-35, has anyone noticed that almost every graphic or "artists impression" of the 2 "Canberra Class" LHD currently on order depicts what appears to be a "Ski Jump"?
Is there a chance that a number of the later delivery Lightnings for the RAAF(or dare I say it the RAN) may be B models?

It would be a great idea and really enhance the capability of the RAAF and RAN to support operations in SE Asia. It would be relatively easy to piggyback on UK and US training programs for the jet. Saying that I don't think it will happen, it would be a very political issue between the services.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 6):
w.r.t. the new "long-range' attack subs, any chance these will be nukes ? Or will they have air independent propulsion (AIP) ?

The White paper states they will not be nukes. While AIP is an option there is a lot of great work going on with fuel cells at the moment that are very promising for long range submarine operations.

Quoting SASD209 (Reply 7):
I thought the RAN sub fleet was intended for continental defense as opposed to say, the US or UK SSN fleet which patrols all over the world? I'd wager that a nice AIP equipped SSK with Harpoon or MM.40 capability would fit the bill quite nicely.

Considering where the RAN Oberon class operated during the Cold War Australian submarines are more flexible than simply continental defence. The Collins already have Harpoon and I expect the RAN is looking for the next generations of submarine weapons systems. The white paper spoke of unmanned submersible vehicles etc so it will be interesting to see where they go with this.

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 9):
Having such a small population and a huge area, Australia would be very easy to invade.

On the contrary, this works in our favour. Unless you go right for the east coast where all the people are (and where most of the fighter aircraft are based) just about every military in the world would grind to a halt attempting to negotiate and resupply through the north of Australia.

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 9):
or a purchase of more A330 Tankers

Now this is a good idea. An extra 5 airframes would significantly increase the capability of the RAAF fighter fleet. I expect though that any increase may come through civil conversions and not new build aircraft.

I'd like to know what type of refuelling probe the RAAF is expecting on the F-35s? The aircraft should have a boom or hose and drogue option. Both have their positives and negatives so will be interesting to see which way they go.

Other interesting insights from the White paper...A rationalised helicopter fleet likely based on the MRH90, land attack cruise missiles for the RAN (probably tomahawk), a new littorial combat vessel to replace the patrol boats that will likely have more of a role within the pacific region and potentially a SAR satellite.

Interesting times ahead for the ADF!!!


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8175 times:

More on the 2009 White Paper here.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...cations-of-aussie-white-paper.html

[Edited 2009-05-04 06:37:48]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineSASD209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8128 times:



Quoting Ozair (Reply 11):
Considering where the RAN Oberon class operated during the Cold War Australian submarines are more flexible than simply continental defence. The Collins already have Harpoon and I expect the RAN is looking for the next generations of submarine weapons systems. The white paper spoke of unmanned submersible vehicles etc so it will be interesting to see where they go with this.

I am aware that various navies operated differently during the cold war than they do today....I was commenting on how the RAN currently and in the future will operate their sub force, which I was under the impression was for local patrolling and sea control.
As for AIP, it's interesting to note that "...backfitting of AIP to the Collins class had been dropped due to the excellent submerged endurance and low indescretion rates experienced with the Collins". Taken from Combat Fleets 2005-06. The same source also supposed that Tomahawk "may be added later". I'd expect the new class to have this capability at the outset.


User currently offlineSASD209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8053 times:

I wanted to edit my previous post, but couldn't..

In addition, Aviation Week ( Australia To Double Sub Force; Endorses F-35 ) had this interesting little snippet in their article online today:
"There is a strong hint that the Navy also has won a campaign to place a quick order for the Sikorsky SH-60R antisub helo, instead of waiting a few years for Eurocopter NFH90s. The government says it will buy at least 24 naval rotorcraft “as a matter of urgency.”

I thought SIK was full-up with US Navy production, where could they "sneak-in" 24 quick production slots for this?


User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8039 times:



Quoting SASD209 (Reply 14):
where could they "sneak-in" 24 quick production slots for this?

They could always do something similar to what they did with the C-17 procurement, and buy some of the existing slots, with the USN accepting new slots tacked onto the end of production


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7962 times:



Quoting SASD209 (Reply 13):
I am aware that various navies operated differently during the cold war than they do today....I was commenting on how the RAN currently and in the future will operate their sub force, which I was under the impression was for local patrolling and sea control.

Your right, they probably don't go quite as far as they used to. I think SAS insertion and intelligence collection would probably be the two primary roles with a switch to sea control or more likely sea denial if hostilities ever occurred.

The Collins were built larger than the Oberons and I think the next sub may also see a corresponding increase in tonnage. The key will be reducing the manning levels. Less guys on board means more to spread around the fleet so expect a much higher level of automation.

Quoting SASD209 (Reply 13):
The same source also supposed that Tomahawk "may be added later". I'd expect the new class to have this capability at the outset.

I'm hoping for the weapon that will replace Tomahawk. I have no idea what form or shape that will come in but in 15 years when the boats reach IOC I expect a Tomahawk replacement to be pretty close.... (puts on pure speculation hat) Perhaps something hypersonic?

Quoting Legs (Reply 15):
They could always do something similar to what they did with the C-17 procurement, and buy some of the existing slots, with the USN accepting new slots tacked onto the end of production

That worked for the C-17s and the Super Hornets only because we bought to the same US standard with no local changes or modifications. While the Romeos would be attractive surely a few years wait is worth it to rationalise the helo fleet. Plus the MRH90 is assembled in Australia, a great PR win for the government in an economic depression.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7919 times:



Quoting Legs (Reply 2):
What Id really like to see is the Governments plan to get enough crews to sail in submarines, given that there is a chronic shortage of submariners at the moment.

It makes you wonder that a part of the plan not disclosed is that they will be remotely operated because they sure are going to have difficulty getting crews. Not even the current rise in unemployment seems to be having any effect on that issue.  bitelip 

Quoting SASD209 (Reply 7):

I'm not sure the added benefits (endurance, performance) outweigh the massive outlay of money needed to train, equip, and sustain a SSN fleet. I thought the RAN sub fleet was intended for continental defense as opposed to say, the US or UK SSN fleet which patrols all over the world? I'd wager that a nice AIP equipped SSK with Harpoon or MM.40 capability would fit the bill quite nicely.

They are being justified to protect Australian exports in ships, presumably bound for ports foreign.

I had a bit of a rant about this in the other thread. I will repeat it, since there do not seem to be many answers to questions about the basic logic of some aspects of these plans.
Reply 28
Hmmm. I wonder when or if the purposes of these projected forces will be looked at sensibly.

Moving away from what seems to be the more emotive issue of fighters, we learn that the larger fleet of submarines is to protect ships carrying our exports. Now most of those exports go to (anticlockwise and not by value) Japan, S Korea, China, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore (also India and Europe and LNG to the US if the CAians ever work out if they actually want it). It occurs to me first that the ships with those exports do not happen to be owned by Australia, and second those buying the content must be just about as keen for their safety as we are. So exactly how does Aus having a fleet of offensive subs make these ships any more safe. And why should we be any more concerned about that than the ship owners or the customers. Talk about a straw man!!!

And just to add to this argument, at present the main danger to shipping is pirates and in the fascinating threads on these "interesting" folk, I have not heard torpedoing them suggested as a major fix!! And deck guns are a thing of the past. (Come on Astuteman, a modern sub design especially to fix pirates, now there is a challenge!)

So aside from the supposed danger being rather a manufactured one, exactly how would subs help??

I could mount a whole set of similar arguments in relation to the increase in the air force.

So far this century, Aus seems to have mainly been engaged in fighting reactions to poor government - I would put Iraq, Afghanistan, Timor, and Solomons all in that basket. It is far from clear how the most expensive elements - the subs and the fighters would be any help at all in those wars. We know that while a bomb in a village disturbs the baddies, in general they seem to kill more of what are always described as innocents (matters little whether they are or not of course).

OK, there is the argument "don't get ready to fight the last war", but exactly which war would these new "assets" be suited to fighting? Seems awfully like the cold war all over again. And that is possible too, as a number of folk around the world keep acting as if they cannot wait to have the "good old days" back again!

End of rant! But I don't feel any better for it.


Add to this that David Kilkullen suggests Australia has been fighting the wrong wars the wrong way for quite some time.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ums/non_aviation/read.main/2069104

David Kilcullen argues in his book "The accidental guerilla" that most of the guerillas the west has been fighting are not guerillas by conviction but by accident of circumstance. The so-called war is best fought by the communities where the terrorists are located, and that interventions tend to be counterproductive.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...olitics/?view=usa&ci=9780195368345
The Accidental Guerrilla iFighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One David Kilcullen
David Kilcullen is one of the world's most influential experts on counterinsurgency and modern warfare. A Senior Counterinsurgency Advisor to General David Petraeus in Iraq, his vision of war dramatically influenced America's decision to rethink its military strategy in Iraq and implement "the surge."
Now, in The Accidental Guerrilla , Kilcullen provides a remarkably fresh perspective on the War on Terror. Kilcullen takes us "on the ground" to uncover the face of modern warfare,

http://kotare.typepad.com/thestrateg...t/2009/03/kilcullen-interview.html
Has a short synopsis of his main point.

Kilcullen: It was field observation over ten years or so, but the name came to me one afternoon near the Khyber Pass... My local escort commander pointed out to me that he and his guys were the real foreigners on the Frontier, whereas the al-Qaeda guys had been embedded there for a generation. He said no outsider could tell the locals apart from the terrorists except by accident. And when outsiders intervene to deal with the global terrorists hiding out in areas like the FATA, it turns out people get upset, and the local community coalesces around rejecting outside interference, and closes ranks to support the terrorists....

This has happened in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, Europe - basically everywhere I've worked since 9/11, I have observed some variation on this pattern. I call the local fighters "accidental guerrillas," because they end up fighting on behalf of extremists, not because they hate the west but because we just turned up in their valley with a Brigade, looking for AQ. And I calculate 90 to 95 percent of the people we've been fighting since 9/11 are accidentals, not radicals."


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7865 times:

The Australian Dept of Defense issued notice that they intend to join in on the P-8 maritime patrol program.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...lopment-program%3B-will-buy-8.html

How many they intend to buy is not stated here.

Is this new, or a restatement of intent?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineSASD209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7844 times:

It says "will buy 8" in the title...

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7710 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
OK, there is the argument "don't get ready to fight the last war", but exactly which war would these new "assets" be suited to fighting? Seems awfully like the cold war all over again. And that is possible too, as a number of folk around the world keep acting as if they cannot wait to have the "good old days" back again!

The same question applies for those who could not be contented wih the JSF, and were moving heaven and earth to get the F-22. Too bad its impending halt in production would also likely write finis to whatever outside clamor there is for it, save for a bone being thrown the industry's way --- courtesy of some powerful lobby --- which would ultimately have the air force as beneficiary.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jan Jorgensen


Ditto for the P-8. Although that is being actively marketed abroad, and would likely see a comparatively bigger number exported.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew W. Sieber


http://www.boeing.com//defense-space...-8SizedForPerformanceAndGrowth.pdf



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7667 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 20):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
OK, there is the argument "don't get ready to fight the last war", but exactly which war would these new "assets" be suited to fighting? Seems awfully like the cold war all over again. And that is possible too, as a number of folk around the world keep acting as if they cannot wait to have the "good old days" back again!

The same question applies for those who could not be contented wih the JSF, and were moving heaven and earth to get the F-22. Too bad its impending halt in production would also likely write finis to whatever outside clamor there is for it, save for a bone being thrown the industry's way --- courtesy of some powerful lobby --- which would ultimately have the air force as beneficiary.

There is THE problem, exactly which war would Australia NEED to fight?

It might be interesting if we could get the Davids, Kilkullen and Petraeus to tell what they think it will be. I think the big mistake about understanding Petraeus is to think that he has been talking about tactics. He has but I suspect he also means that the strategy should be determined by the tactics he and Kilkullen have been talking about. David K is now free to talk and write, but David P not so.

I think they might tell us that there is less need for force at the level of F35s and the conventional subs and more for soft power, with some foot soldiers if that fails. After that, we may well skip the F35 level to go to you know what!

By and large, the Aus White Paper looks to me to be designed more to keep current players in the Mil Ind complex happy than to look at what Australia actually needs.

Maybe when the size of the new Aus deficit is seen in next weeks budget, the white paper will get a closer examination. For those not used to such things, when this deficit is declared it will mark a swing from a budget surplus of about 2% of GDP last year - yes SURPLUS!


User currently offlineMig21umd From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 267 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7453 times:

Its nice to talk about this current defence white paper and is also interesting to read (no so much on this web site) all the objections to this increased in spending by people who believe peace is 100% assured but what I find interesting is what we do not know. What intelligence is out there that only so few in Australia and maybe even the Prime Minister and the minister of defence may only be entitled to some of the information about China and her growing intentions in the region and resourceful rich Australia?


Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you long to return
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7410 times:



Quoting Mig21umd (Reply 22):
may only be entitled to some of the information about China and her growing intentions in the region and resourceful rich Australia?

Not an enormous secret if you read the financial pages. One assumes that China has already figured out that the Japanese strategy in the 70s was rather more effective than the one they had in the early 40s! So which dark secrets do we not know about the Manchurian connection?


User currently offlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1512 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7331 times:



Quoting Mig21umd (Reply 22):
about China and her growing intentions in the region and resourceful rich Australia?

A good point, not meaning to demonise China, but a country of such size could easily over power most of the world. With the population of armed personell larger than the population of Australia, there is something to worry about. Although Australia would be unable to withstand an attack from China, this increase in Defence Spending could hold them off until back up from the US and/or Britian arrives. WA would be relatively easy to invade if they were interested in resources, although as said before the east coast would be harder to invade. Australia needs to seriously think about its position in the world power struggle. If China invades Australia, will the USA back us up? Or will they be to scared? Having the Chinese against the Americans would be one of the biggest battles of all time, one that America could lose.

On a side note, and one that will surely cause mixed opinions, should the ADF combine with the NZDF? This could allow for a much more formidable force, and an option NZ would likely benefit from as they would recieve increasing protection. Obviously there would be alot of issues surrounding it but it is just a note for thought.


25 Lumberton : How would any invader do that except by sea? Sea lines of communication are vulnerable to interdiction. 12 subs & 75-100 F-35s would make any such at
26 Baroque : Not to mention that the Perth district is quite a long way down the continent and if you settle for the NW you end up sharing it with a fair few croc
27 Post contains links Baroque : Not long after the deficit loomed, here we go. Got any F34s? Defence plans 'unaffordable' http://www.smh.com.au/national/defen...ns-unaffordable-20090
28 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : No, but Oz might be interested in these..... Surely, they'd be ecstatic to sell you this..... View Large View MediumPhoto © YU Ming Or if that's
29 Bennett123 : What route will this Chinese invasion fleet take?
30 Post contains links Baroque : ?In through the front door of http://www.hsbc.com.hk/1/2/home Which should allow you to exit from Level 32, 580 George Street Sydney NSW 2000, Austra
31 VHECA : A bit of irrelevance, but, I did not think this was such a bad idea....... I thought a long-range fighter-bomber like the large Russian Sukhoi 27 or t
32 QFMel : The F/A-18/E/F route was clearly continued by the current Government as cost in both treasure and goodwill would have been considerable had the acquis
33 Baroque : And talking of which we will soon have a brand new shiny Minister. Wonder if it will be Greg Combet? You did have me worried for a bit about lethal s
34 QFMel : Fitzgibbon was a comparably solid defence minister, I think that's fair to say. I wouldn't accuse Nelson of same. SLOC is about freedom of communicat
35 Baroque : Agree with both propositions. Now we will see how Faulkner goes. His influence will be sadly missed keeping the rest of the government in order. I do
36 QFMel : Which is why he is in one sense the first, best choice, and in another the last and worst. A fine SMOS/Cab Sec, but will continue to serve the Parlia
37 Baroque : Whoa there. I happened to be in Indonesia at the time of the Tim Tim "invasion". The Aus media might have like to think it was an verge issue, but I
38 QFMel : I take your point but note the double qualifier in the way I described the situation- tends to suggest that I'm not comfortable with the description
39 Baroque : Not much or my sources are wrong! And Kalla is not that popular either. Now you have me confused. West Papua was well and truly sunk by the time Whit
40 QFMel : Come what may, I find Indonesian politics fascinating, and for all it's faults, it has a remarkably mature democratic process considering the context
41 Mandala499 : Wiranto was quite popular with the reformers within the army, but they all agreed he lost control of the army during the last pre-independent TimTim,
42 Baroque : Yes well they present two problems. One being 30,000 we would have to take our socks off the count and then some. And second being wood they do not s
43 QFMel : JCC at RAAF Edinburgh becomes 'the place to be'. A towering intellect.
44 Mandala499 : Well, it's likely to be 300,000 wodden boats and a frigate or two... LOL! Enough so for some parts of Megawati's party to defect to splinter groups e
45 Post contains links Lumberton : Confirmation of the intent to purchase "at least" 72 F-35s. IOC slips. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ST071309-1.xml&headline=Australian Plan
46 Post contains links Lumberton : Link doesn't work in preceeding post. Here's one that does. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s%20F-35%20Details&channel=defense
47 Post contains links DEVILFISH : A bit OT - although they're said to be "keen" on converting the second half of their SH order to the Growler standard, the long lead time before that
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
The T-50 For The USN posted Thu Mar 26 2009 15:48:36 by 747400sp
Would A Nimitz Class CV Work For The Indian Navy? posted Mon Feb 23 2009 14:32:26 by Lumberton
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
Finding A Name For The KC-45 posted Thu Mar 13 2008 11:44:32 by CFMitch56
More Cash Problems For The Restored Vulcan posted Tue Feb 19 2008 12:22:28 by GDB
Stealth Corporate Jets For The Govt posted Sat Nov 3 2007 20:17:06 by DL767captain
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Confirms Further Delays For The 737 AEW&C posted Fri May 25 2007 14:00:21 by WINGS
Last Roar For The RAF Jaguars posted Tue May 1 2007 20:22:11 by GDB
"new" C130 For The Belgium Airforce posted Tue Apr 10 2007 19:47:35 by HeliflyerPDC

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format