Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sat May 02, 2009 10:59 pm

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".
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun May 03, 2009 4:03 am

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.
 
Legs
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun May 03, 2009 8:24 am



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.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun May 03, 2009 12:46 pm



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!
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun May 03, 2009 1:51 pm

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!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10023
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun May 03, 2009 2:34 pm



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.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun May 03, 2009 8:11 pm



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.
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 04, 2009 12:16 am



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.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 04, 2009 9:58 am



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".
 
TruemanQLD
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:09 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 04, 2009 10:28 am

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.
 
Legs
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 04, 2009 10:59 am



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
 
Ozair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 04, 2009 11:35 am



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!!!
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 04, 2009 1:32 pm

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".
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 04, 2009 5:06 pm



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.
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Tue May 05, 2009 12:12 am

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?
 
Legs
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Tue May 05, 2009 1:14 am



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
 
Ozair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Tue May 05, 2009 10:10 am



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.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Tue May 05, 2009 2:36 pm



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."
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Tue May 05, 2009 8:19 pm

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".
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Tue May 05, 2009 9:13 pm

It says "will buy 8" in the title...
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Wed May 06, 2009 3:12 am



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
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Wed May 06, 2009 10:30 am



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!
 
mig21umd
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:30 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun May 10, 2009 8:19 am

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
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun May 10, 2009 12:59 pm



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?
 
TruemanQLD
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:09 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 11, 2009 9:11 am



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.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 11, 2009 9:27 am



Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 24):
WA would be relatively easy to invade if they were interested in resources,

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 attempt very, very risky.

Any putative Chinese invasion of WA would likely be preceded by a "dress rehearsal" across the Taiwan straights. Even if not, the quantities of shipping required to pull something like this off would be staggering.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon May 11, 2009 3:07 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 25):
Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 24):
WA would be relatively easy to invade if they were interested in resources,

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 attempt very, very risky.

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 crocodiles, extreme tides and not a few deserts. You would pick up the odd LNG plant, but if you were Chinese you might have to be a tad careful not to interrupt supplies or the customers, back in where is it, Oh yes, China would complain.

I am still a bit snarky at the price in the contract that Howard encouraged Woodside to sell a huge amount of LNG for over some incredibly long period with little or nothing in the way of escalation clauses, but probably that contract was a better security measure against China than 30 submarines and 300 strike fighters combined!  thumbsup 

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 24):
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.

The answer to the question of would the US defend Aus against China, seems to be largely in the negative, unless of course commercial interests (eg Chevron) got excited about it - as they would. And since Chinese companies are increasingly involved, does it not seem likely that the Chinese are going to be a bit cautious about messing around with their investments. Want me to make a list?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri May 22, 2009 6:06 am

Not long after the deficit loomed, here we go. Got any F34s?

Defence plans 'unaffordable'
http://www.smh.com.au/national/defen...ns-unaffordable-20090521-bh70.html

THE Federal Government's 20-year defence white paper has been criticised by a security analyst, Alan Dupont, who says the plans are unaffordable and purchases of big-ticket items such as submarines and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will probably have to be cut back.

Professor Dupont, the director of Sydney University's Centre for International Security Studies, said the costings were based on "some really dubious assumptions".

"Can we afford it? I have serious doubts," he said.


In summary, 9 not 12 subs and 80 not 100 fighters. Unless of course we get the Chinese to take a 20% interest in our defence forces, after all if it would be good enough for Rio Tinto, should be OK for defence??  angel 
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri May 22, 2009 8:53 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 27):
Got any F34s?

No, but Oz might be interested in these.....  wink 

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Max Bryansky - Russian AviaPhoto Team
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitriy Pichugin - Russian AviaPhoto Team



Quoting Baroque (Reply 27):
Unless of course we get the Chinese to take a 20% interest in our defence forces

Surely, they'd be ecstatic to sell you this.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © YU Ming


Or if that's still unaffordable, they might sell you this Chinese knockoff at bargain basement price.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Weimeng


.....and on layaway, at that!  cheerful 


And maybe more than 12 subs.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Song_Class_submarine_324.jpg
 duck 
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri May 22, 2009 11:33 am

What route will this Chinese invasion fleet take?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sat May 23, 2009 2:47 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 29):
What route will this Chinese invasion fleet take?

?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, Australia
Telephone: +61 2 9006 5888
Facsimile: +61 2 9006 5440
 
vheca
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri May 29, 2009 4:52 am

A bit of irrelevance, but,

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 28):

I did not think this was such a bad idea.......

I thought a long-range fighter-bomber like the large Russian Sukhoi 27 or thereabouts would be an ideal F111 replacement but of course have the avionics suite and power-plants upgraded.

I saw this as a great chassis, at a great price, with the remainder saved on better power-plants/avionics suite. But then, maybe this is because I like the looks of the big Russian beasties!

Cheers

Pete
PAX on-312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,739,742,743,74C,752,753,762,789,AB4,CR7,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
 
QFMel
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:55 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:46 am

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 acquisition not been made. There were widespread reports of pressure exerted in order to effect this purchase, and, unusually, many reports made mention not so much of Boeing or the US DOD but even of the US Navy. Don't know what to make of them, really.

The argument that the Superhornets are required as a stop-gap is a compelling one, but only up to a point. Yes, the F-111Gs are long in the tooth; no, Australia has no immediate threats that require a lethal strike aircraft. But then, the Superhornet is neither a lethal strike aircraft nor a superlative interceptor; so essentially what is being acquired here is a fighter-bomber package with improved avionics and weapons systems at a significantly higher per unit cost than would ordinarily be the case. The absence of a direct threat argument, which is more often than not a line that arises when you're talking about the need for a large subsurface fleet or a large and modern defence force more broadly, is a furphy- defence acquisition and planning is about dealing with unforseen threats, unforseen circumstances, contingencies that can in fact be decades away. Having effective and deployable capabilities isn't a flight of fancy, it's the hallmark of effective and conscientous Government. As Lumberton has said above, this is about being able to protect Australia's SLOC effectively, making it prohibitively expensive to, for whatever unlikely or unforseeable reason might underpin it, even attempt to limit the freedom of action of Australian trade or forces.

Regarding the F-35, for a long time the F-22 was clearly the more attractive option for the RAAF, notwithstanding their preference for reducing the number of aircraft types operated. The F-22 is on spec the superlative fighter and is a proven platform. Even if the production line weren't being shut down, the F-22 would still have to compete with the RAAF's clear desire for a dedicated or more proficient surface attack aircraft, which is not a role that the F-22 can perform to the same degree without forfeiting many of its advantages, negating the point of acquiring it in the first place. A moot point- but the RAAF would've been best placed buying a mixture of the two, which was feasible until only a few months ago, and continued to become more and more realistic as the price of the F-35 continued to draw closer to that of the F-22. To my mind, a 70-30 split Raptor-Lightning would've been, for lack of a better word, awesome.

As for the issue of S/VTOL variants, there is no firm indication at this stage that defence planners will want to utilise remote, makeshift airfields or mothballed airbases, or navy assets for that matter. Given the increasing preference for single variants even within aircraft types, I wouldn't be surprised if it stays that way.

Regarding the Collins SSK- since they were conceived it was rumoured that the TASM or TLAM-C were 'just around the corner', or at the very least ad interim, the UGM-84. The RAN has like the RAAF not done as well out of major acquisitions as it could have- the RAAF should've waited for the F-15E instead of acquiring Hornets, the RAN became enmeshed in a boutique, convoluted conception, production and procurement of a conventional submarine that, despite being described as the best conventional submarine in the world, has been sorely lacking in deployability, not simply on account of shortage of labour within the RAN. Then there's wonderful purchases like the ANZAC FFHs- great, except for the fact that they only recently acquired an SSM capability after over a decade since the class first saw service, have in so many instances not been deployed with a helo (let's not start on that old Seasprite chestnut) and should've had a better SAM capability from the outset. Coming bcak to the SSN issue with them though- Harpoons are effective and hardly unique in RAN service, so why did it take that long to fit them? Suffice it to say buying the next round of subs should not be allowed to happen like so many of the other purchases have been- where Ministers are presented with a fait accompli and/or told that 'this is the only option we're prepared to take'.

A proven off-the-shelf design with limited modifications so as to lower production costs is what is required, with the required capabilities there from day 1, avoiding enormously expensive retrofitting later on. Here's hoping.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:43 pm



Quoting QFMel (Reply 32):
by the current Government



Quoting QFMel (Reply 32):
have been- where Ministers are presented with a fait accompli and/or told that 'this is the only option we're prepared to take'.

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 strike aircraft, but then you went on to demolish the idea.

I do have to laugh about Fitzy being accused of incompetence when he followed the late unlamented Nelson. Between wrecking University student unions and buying S Hornets was there no limit to the Nelson's (in)abilities?

(Ironically those two faults might be coming together a bit if India gets really stroppy over its students as one can argue that if there were better student facilities on campus, there might be fewer overseas students being attacked.)

Quoting QFMel (Reply 32):
procurement of a conventional submarine that, despite being described as the best conventional submarine in the world, has been sorely lacking in deployability, not simply on account of shortage of labour within the RAN.

I am still curious about the concept that we need to protect shipping that contains our exports, most of which go to China, Korea and Japan and most in ships owned by those countries and definitely NOT by us. What I would like is to know how we managed to chose trading parties who are not in the least worried about the safety of THEIR ships, while we have to be immensely concerned with the same. Is this a new type of asymmetrical warfare that has yet to get into the textbooks?
 
QFMel
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:55 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:37 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):

I do have to laugh about Fitzy being accused of incompetence when he followed the late unlamented Nelson. Between wrecking University student unions and buying S Hornets was there no limit to the Nelson's (in)abilities?

Fitzgibbon was a comparably solid defence minister, I think that's fair to say. I wouldn't accuse Nelson of same.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
I am still curious about the concept that we need to protect shipping that contains our exports, most of which go to China, Korea and Japan and most in ships owned by those countries and definitely NOT by us. What I would like is to know how we managed to chose trading parties who are not in the least worried about the safety of THEIR ships, while we have to be immensely concerned with the same. Is this a new type of asymmetrical warfare that has yet to get into the textbooks?

SLOC is about freedom of communication in the abstract, not solely about protecting merchant shipping 24/7. It's for much the same reason (or is it justification?) that those trading partners of ours are expanding their maritime capabilities, in some cases exponentially. Take China as an example- SSBNs are hardly required to protect merchant shipping, and in India's case (notwithstanding the far smaller 'modernisation' program), I sincerely doubt that the acquisition of new aircraft carrier(s), widespread modernisation of the surface and subsurface fleets, is aimed at either protecting hydrocarbon imports from the Gulf or keeping Pakistan at bay.

You acquire such capabilities to ensure that should a threat to your national interests emerge through interdiction of trade and the like, you could deter that threat in the first instance, or very quickly eliminate it.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:52 am



Quoting QFMel (Reply 34):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):

I do have to laugh about Fitzy being accused of incompetence when he followed the late unlamented Nelson. Between wrecking University student unions and buying S Hornets was there no limit to the Nelson's (in)abilities?

Fitzgibbon was a comparably solid defence minister, I think that's fair to say. I wouldn't accuse Nelson of same.

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 don't see a successor to Faulkner in his current role.

Quoting QFMel (Reply 34):
You acquire such capabilities to ensure that should a threat to your national interests emerge through interdiction of trade and the like, you could deter that threat in the first instance, or very quickly eliminate it.

Well yes, but in reality, it is not all that practical. Especially if the ships you are protecting are not your own!!

There is this strange belief that imports of Australian mineral commodities are somehow struggling up a steep hill. They are bought because the purchasers cannot find similar quality as cheaply. Once they are FOB, it is really in the interests of the customer not Aus.

I cannot remember hearing about clauses in coal contracts that allowed an extra 50c a tonne due to the level of protection that our Navy will give the shipment. It is a fantasy construct from the military supported by the related industrial complex.

And Faulkner has a rather keen analytical brain. He just might notice!!
 
QFMel
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:55 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:41 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 35):



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 don't see a successor to Faulkner in his current role.

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 Parliament and the country well. Less likely than any Defence Minister in recent memory to let the tail wag the dog.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 35):
Well yes, but in reality, it is not all that practical. Especially if the ships you are protecting are not your own!!

There is this strange belief that imports of Australian mineral commodities are somehow struggling up a steep hill. They are bought because the purchasers cannot find similar quality as cheaply. Once they are FOB, it is really in the interests of the customer not Aus.

I cannot remember hearing about clauses in coal contracts that allowed an extra 50c a tonne due to the level of protection that our Navy will give the shipment. It is a fantasy construct from the military supported by the related industrial complex.

Yes but again, it's not 'defence' or 'protection' in a day to day sense. You're not presented with policy problems because you're condoning or protecting cabotage or outbound trade in foreign-flagged ships (for the longest time this has been the case anyway as, like most Western nations, we've seen a pronounced move towards flags of convenience). For a 'trade-dependent maritime nation', who owns the ship is neither here nor there. China in particular is not a direct threat at the present time, not least because of the confluence of interest that is derived from the very exports we're speaking of, and the practical limits that China has in being able to project its force sustainably at present.

That being said, it is far from a fantastic exercise to invest in being able to do what we like with our SLOC in the medium to long term. Dozens more nation states exist in 2008 than did in 1998. Eleven years ago, we were on the verge of a possible war with Indonesia arising from tensions in what was then a de facto (if not de jure) province of Indonesia, and is now Timor-Leste. Who knows what 2019 or 2029 hold in store for us. But the absence of a direct threat issue isn't doesnt mean we're thus propping up some tentacular, sinister, all-encompassing creature Eisenhower famoulsy bemoaned (people have always made money out of war or a war footing- weapons do have a tendency to cost money). This is all about denying access to the Continent to all comers, not merely our trading partners. It's about deterring or preventing unauthorised or unwanted access by any military in any circumstance should we so choose.

Protecting SLOC is something that is as I said driving China's strategic thinking- while in the medium to long term they want to be able to projet force in the Indian Ocean and Eastern Pacific, their short to medium term goal is to be able to gaurantee freedom of action in the Straits- not just defeating the ROC at sea, but either deterring a US battle group or defeating it. Both of those things will take a lot of doing for the PLAN. But it's far from quaint or unusual or even overly militaristic to be able to mount an effective defence of your interests in your own backyard should the need arise. And to project force (up to a point) if necessary.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:59 pm



Quoting QFMel (Reply 36):
Dozens more nation states exist in 2008 than did in 1998. Eleven years ago, we were on the verge of a possible war with Indonesia arising from tensions in what was then a de facto (if not de jure) province of Indonesia, and is now Timor-Leste. Who knows what 2019 or 2029 hold in store for us.

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 was effectively in the middle of the major military barracks and you would think they might know if THEY at least were on the verge as it were. That happens to be where I live when in Indonesia. Just see how well Wiranto does in the upcoming Pres elections. His troops did not much like him then and they don't much like him now - hope I don't get a nasty surprise.

As for denying the continent of Aus to all comers, I think it would be easier to talk to my neighbours (in Indonesia) than try to sink 30,000 boats which is about what they would launch were they so minded.

It is also the case that most Indonesians think that JI was mad to even think of Mantiki 4 taking over Australia. Indonesia has one of the lowest overstay rate for visas for the simple reason that most Indonesians think Indonesia is the best country. "Australia is nice to visit, but you would not want to live there".

And by and large Indonesia is slap bang in the way of anyone else wanting to descend on Aus.

Alas, it will probably be another 15 to 20 years before we finally work out that Indonesia does not want to invade. Just a pity that Gough (and the US) encouraged them to invade Tim Tim and don't get me started on West Papua!!!!!!
 
QFMel
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:55 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:40 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
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 was effectively in the middle of the major military barracks and you would think they might know if THEY at least were on the verge as it were

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 of the situation myself.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
Just see how well Wiranto does in the upcoming Pres elections.

The real question there is how well Jusuf Kalla does. I'm not sure quite how much Wiranto adds to that ticket.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
As for denying the continent of Aus to all comers, I think it would be easier to talk to my neighbours (in Indonesia) than try to sink 30,000 boats which is about what they would launch were they so minded.

I think you're confusing my analysis of strategic fluidity- in this case an erstwhile period of tension with Indonesia- with actually seeing them as a threat. They're not a threat for a number of reaosns and one of them is the lack of an effective Navy or Air Force. But more to the point, they're not seeking to project force, they're not seeking to protect their SLOC, or to do that in depth to the extent that it's more about developing a more expeditonary capability than a solely defensive one.

Quoting QFMel (Reply 36):
Alas, it will probably be another 15 to 20 years before we finally work out that Indonesia does not want to invade. Just a pity that Gough (and the US) encouraged them to invade Tim Tim and don't get me started on West Papua!!!!!!

Interchangeable or not your reference to Tim Tim followed by West Papua is interesting! That said I'm glad you don't call it Irian Jaya. Not a happy chapter in our history. I disagree with your characterisation of what Whitlam did with West Papua, I think he may to an extent have been presented with a fait accompli. The fact remains that as with Timor he did nothing to countermand that decision- with West Papua he should've held out for a referendum come what may. Easy to say that of course in hindsight, especially since the consequences would've played out a whole decade or more prior to my being born.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:33 pm

Quoting QFMel (Reply 38):

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
Just see how well Wiranto does in the upcoming Pres elections.

The real question there is how well Jusuf Kalla does. I'm not sure quite how much Wiranto adds to that ticket.

Not much or my sources are wrong! And Kalla is not that popular either.

Quoting QFMel (Reply 38):
I disagree with your characterisation of what Whitlam did with West Papua, I think he may to an extent have been presented with a fait accompli.

Now you have me confused. West Papua was well and truly sunk by the time Whitlam had anything to do with Indonesia, even the "act of free choice" had come and gone. IIRC that can best be describer as a Menzian moment giving way to US refusal to oppose Indonesia at that time.

But Whitlam seems to have given Suharto a nod or possibly a nod and a wink but re Tim Tim.

One thing you need to remember is that the war between Indonesia and the Dutch was extremely bloody and counting West Papua went on into the 60s. So you might think the Dutch would not be welcome, but last time I looked they chaired the International committee organizing aid to Indonesia and their role is much appreciated. Indonesia is a complex place, but by and large not at all hostile.

I still think we are trying to protect sea lanes because some of us remember WWII and all of us have read at least one book about how wonderful navies are. Well before piracy got going in the Indian Ocean, the seas around Indonesia were a major hot spot and not only could we not do much about it, but the Indonesia navy would have seen us off had we tried.

I think we are trying to maintain a presence just out of habit and not really for any good reason.

In other news, it seems Combet will have a role in defence after all, though not the Min for Defence. Remember that Honi Soit referred to them years ago as the Ministry for Defriends? No wonder Nelson wanted to see off the Student Unions, although that was long before he was at University.

[Edited 2009-06-06 11:34:00]
 
QFMel
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:55 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:56 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 39):

Not much or my sources are wrong! And Kalla is not that popular either.

Come what may, I find Indonesian politics fascinating, and for all it's faults, it has a remarkably mature democratic process considering the context. Will be reading the Jakarta Post with great interest.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 39):


I think we are trying to maintain a presence just out of habit and not really for any good reason.

We do it so we don't have to have a standing army of 500,000 to deter even the most unlikely of invaders. We can't assume that everyone will always be friendly to us in any given circumstance in the coming decades. That's why you spend money on defence. It's....very expensive insurance. But that's not to say it's completely a waste of money.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 39):


In other news, it seems Combet will have a role in defence after all, though not the Min for Defence

Combines Snowdon's old role with his Parl Sec to Wong position upgraded to 'Minister Assisting'. He'll have to knuckle down and do the work because neither Wong and Faulkner are in an entirely different league to Fitzgibbon- he'll be found out really quickly if he doesn't do the hard yards.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:41 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
That happens to be where I live when in Indonesia. Just see how well Wiranto does in the upcoming Pres elections. His troops did not much like him then and they don't much like him now - hope I don't get a nasty surprise.

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, I thank him for only 2 things... 1 proving that you can loose control of your forces. 2, proving that reform of the mindset is a huge challenge. SBY almost found out the hard way during the Megawati presidency, but, his direct election into the presidency has given reforms in the military a much bigger boost although the task is even much bigger.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
I think it would be easier to talk to my neighbours (in Indonesia) than try to sink 30,000 boats which is about what they would launch were they so minded.

30,000 wodden boats? LOL...

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
And by and large Indonesia is slap bang in the way of anyone else wanting to descend on Aus.

Nice to see your F18s transitting DPS on its way to Paya Lebar regularly  Smile

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
Alas, it will probably be another 15 to 20 years before we finally work out that Indonesia does not want to invade.

Don't bother, we don't even know that ourselves let alone for you to figure it out! Thankfully, Australia is quick to arrive on the "not to invade" list. However Australia is wise in keeping an expeditionary capability because, sometimes we can't even trust our neighbours, so you guys shouldn't take a risk on that.

Quoting QFMel (Reply 38):
The real question there is how well Jusuf Kalla does. I'm not sure quite how much Wiranto adds to that ticket.

The opinion polls seems to dispute his chances of winning. Megawati and JK ranked bottom of the "electability" poll of all 6 presidential and vice-presidential candidates. SBY's electability appears to have reduced slightly by choosing Boediono as his VP candidate, and Megawati got boosted by Prabowo's acceptance to proceed as her VP candidate, and JK got boosted by Wiranto's acceptance as his VP candidate.

SBY/Boediono is the allrounder...
Mega is popular amongst her party's cadre, but I'm hearing that a lot of PDIP's cadre's don't trust her as president despite their loyalty to the party... businesses are scared of her, and the mid to low class don't trust her... Prabowo isn't popular in business but has a larger support than Megawati on the lower end.
JK is loved by the "old guard" with many Golkar leaders viewing him as a party leader but not an ideal presidential candidate, they'd rather vote for SBY or Wiranto as president.... However, despite this, Golkar has good support from businesses and Wiranto has the support of the mid to lower classes.

Interesting? Indeed, but I'm not placing bets yet!

Quoting QFMel (Reply 38):
That said I'm glad you don't call it Irian Jaya.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 39):
One thing you need to remember is that the war between Indonesia and the Dutch was extremely bloody and counting West Papua went on into the 60s. So you might think the Dutch would not be welcome, but last time I looked they chaired the International committee organizing aid to Indonesia and their role is much appreciated. Indonesia is a complex place, but by and large not at all hostile.

The Dutch since Suharto has been welcomed back, thanks to no anti-neo-colonialism rhetoric by Suharto. In recent years, the acceptance of the Dutch and Indonesian for the 17th August as "the day of the declaration of independence" instead of "the day of independence" went a loooong way...

Quoting QFMel (Reply 40):
Come what may, I find Indonesian politics fascinating, and for all it's faults, it has a remarkably mature democratic process considering the context. Will be reading the Jakarta Post with great interest.

Careful, it's democratic on the surface... beneath it, it's democrazy! We have a Presidential system where the The parliament has no one in majority and is out of control! It's like having your prime minister as your head of state... *sigh*.

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:04 am



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 41):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
I think it would be easier to talk to my neighbours (in Indonesia) than try to sink 30,000 boats which is about what they would launch were they so minded.

30,000 wooden boats? LOL...

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 sink really easily!

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 41):
Prabowo isn't popular in business but has a larger support than Megawati on the lower end.

Probably Prabowo is the only one to generate close to hate from parts of the electorate??

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 41):
Boediono

He seems to add a puzzle factor. Which might not be so bad for SBY because most of the folk who are known also have a fair few of their sins known too.

Meanwhile back at Defence, it seems that the Howard Gov was very "kind" about binding contracts. So the scope for revision might be alarmingly limited. Perhaps Malcolm should spend more time wondering about that compared with the finances of car dealers which probably involve rather less money??? But then he wanted to solve an oil crisis by taking 5 c off taxes. Wonderful contribution.
 
QFMel
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:55 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:18 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 42):


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 sink really easily!

JCC at RAAF Edinburgh becomes 'the place to be'.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 42):
But then he wanted to solve an oil crisis by taking 5 c off taxes. Wonderful contribution.

A towering intellect.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:45 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 42):
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 sink really easily!

Well, it's likely to be 300,000 wodden boats and a frigate or two... LOL!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 42):
Probably Prabowo is the only one to generate close to hate from parts of the electorate??

Enough so for some parts of Megawati's party to defect to splinter groups etc... No prizes for guessing why.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:11 pm

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 Relates F-35 Details&channel=defense

Quote:
Australia’s latest defense capability plan (DCP), which sets out expenditures expected over the next four years, confirms its intent to buy at least 72 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters but slips initial operational capability (IOC) by up to five years, to 2017-19.

. . .

Australia, meanwhile, still plans to buy a total of 100 F-35s, acquiring a fourth squadron in conjunction with the withdrawal of its Boeing F/A-18E/Fs — which enter service late this year — but those aircraft, and a maritime strike weapon for the F-35, are expected to be programmed in later DCPs, it says..

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:04 pm

Link doesn't work in preceeding post. Here's one that does.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s%20F-35%20Details&channel=defense
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Australian White Paper: F-35s For The R A A F

Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:43 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 45):
acquiring a fourth squadron in conjunction with the withdrawal of its Boeing F/A-18E/Fs which enter service late this year

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 happens could put the plan in jeopardy.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-1st-fa-18f-but-says-no-more.html

Quote:
"But the RAAF is keen to expand the capability of the F/A-18Fs currently under order. The last 12 of its 24 aircraft will be pre-wired for conversion to the US Navy's EA-18G Growler jammer mission, although a decision on whether to order the electronic warfare equipment is years away.

Binskin supports the idea of converting the aircraft, noting: 'It's the final part of the air combat capability that we [currently] rely on our coalition partners'."


http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=29917
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests