It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AUS set to cancel Super Hornet order

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Not me personally


And I don't like Cricket, its for puffs


But, why would a CFT carrying Typhoon be inferior to the SH for Australia?

I'd be interested to see any reasons for that.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by waynos]




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
For Waynos,

As I said, my comments were based on the flying experiences of two peopl, as well as discussions I've had with various flight crew. While I can't go into specific details on here, my assessment (and again, mine alone) is that the Super Hornet capabilities would be better for Australia.

For Winged Wombat,

Who is actually very important. You say that Australia would struggle to maintain defensive measures against strikers, but I suggest that none of our regional neighbours have the ability (or will have the ability) to hit Australia with a conventional military attack any time soon (or even in the foreseeable future). For non-conventional, if we needed to do an airstrike, I'm sure we could get staging permission from sympathetic countries.

Overall, Threat = Capability + Intent. Intent can change quickly, I acknowledge that, but capability doesn't. So who has the capability to hit Australia?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 


Willard,

My point is that we cannot even reasonably predict who will be running Indonesia or PNG in 50 years time, perhaps neither Indonesians nor Papuans, nor what those rulers might have at their disposal. Now I concede that this sounds far fetched, but cite me any person, who in 1900 would have predicted the changes in the world by 1950! Two world wars, the League of Nations followed by the UN, the demise of British, German, French and Japanese Empires, the rise of America, the independence of so many SE Asian nations.......

And yet we are to believe that we can plan our forces and their acquisitions to last periods of from 40 to 50 years. I see two levels of force planning here. Firstly Geopolitical planning - who lives within striking range and their possible capabilities and intentions over perhaps 10-15 years, and secondly the purely geographic situation over the longer term - like in 500 years Australia, Indonesia and PNG are all still going to be (discounting continental drift) in the same place, independent of who rules what, or what their capabilities might be. Britain will still be an island and New Zealand will still be in the middle of lots of that blue, wet stuff.

Therefore, as with Britain needing a Navy, Australia would be stupid to give up the ability to strike the only areas from which a sustained attack on our mainland could originate. Remember that a little over 60 years ago Japan launched bombing attacks on the Australian mainland from Ambon, and had the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea been different, would have followed up with raids from southern PNG and then we enter the world of 'what if'.....(Churchill had already abandoned Australia, and America would most likely have done the same under pressure from Churchill). Remember also that even 10 years prior to those events (1932) it would have been unthinkable geopolitically to consider that such a situation could occur.

So if you are able to confidently predict the future over 40 to 50 years (the expected life of new military aviation assets - not to mention the time from drawing board to in-service date) and abandon a capability that stems from our geographic location, then you are 'a better (or braver) man than I am, Gunga Din'!

So my point, in essence is that the ability to strike at that range is a fundamental in the defense of a nation in our geographic situation (if you like, and to possibly coin a new term, a fundamental and unchanging Geophilosophical consideration).

I can think of future near term parallels to the 1942 situation quite easily - but I'm off to do some other stuff - I'll write out a possible scenario and post it later tonight.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 19/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   
AUS needs a strong navy - and im sorry but what they have is nothing like it - get a carrier for power projection please.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


It's a pipe dream Harlequin. I think we have addressed this point before. Based on population and GDP, compared to the USA and the number of carriers they can afford, we can afford about 0.6 of a carrier. A single carrier is less flexible in our situation than an airborne strike force that can be repositioned (or split into two smaller forces) rapidly.

I heard an interesting fact recently about taxes. Apparently the average American pays about 19 cents in the dollar in taxes - the average Australian pays more than 35 cents in each dollar in income tax and we have a consumption tax (called GST here, what the Brits call VAT) on top of that on just about everything we purchase including food! And petrol costs us around AU$1.45 per litre - that's about US$4.82 a (US) gallon, man (OK Brits calm down, I realize you pay the equivalent of US$7.65 a (US) gallon - but the yanks are bitchin' 'cos they have to pay about $3.50 a gallon). We can afford what we can afford and no more, believe me.

Oh, please dear Lord, can I only be taxed 19 cents in the dollar and only have to pay $3.50 a gallon for fuel (oh, and could you, in your wisdom, make beer free - I don't mind paying for a good wine!).

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 19/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Willard, try this for a foreseeable threat (don't be too critical, it's only an example and I only gave it about an hour's thought)……

McCain becomes US President and becomes even more Hawkish than Bush. The war on terror degenerates into a full blown religious crusade with nations openly taking sides according to their religious majorities.

Musharef is assassinated, and Pakistan leaves the coalition, siding with the Taliban and the other Islamic states. Iran openly enters the war in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan and the Central Asian / former Soviet Islamic states align themselves with Iran, stretching US and allied forces to the very limit, both tactically and economically. The US and NATO quickly abandon Afghanistan now virtually surrounded by radical Islamic regimes. The UN becomes totally irrelevant (if it isn't already) as Islamic nations walk out en mass.

Meanwhile the US economy falls into a serious recession (if it isn't there already) begun by the collapse of the subprime lending market, but is reluctant to move to full wartime economic policy (same as now - but probably the only thing that will reverse the trend) in spite of rapidly declining national fuel reserves and virtually no petrol at the pumps. The price of oil rises to $300 a barrel as little or no oil is getting through the Strait of Hormuz.

China sees the threat to itself both from the recession affecting it's biggest trading partner and from the (now militant) SE and Central Asian Islamic states. China therefore decides to join the fight (loosely) on the side of the US and its allies, and moves down the Malay peninsular, eliminating the Islamic states of Malaysia and Indonesia (ie:- any threat from their south - and everyone else who gets in the way - sorry, becomes their 'protector'). Taiwan (for its own continued existence) re-unites with China. Relations between the US and China are strained (something similar to the situation that existed between the US and Russia during WWII), but only results in rhetoric.

At the same time India / Pakistan relations worsen by the hour as India feels more and more threatened from their West, therefore preventing any Indian intervention in China's south-eastern push. China reassures India and promises co-operation against Pakistan et al. In spite of some mistrust India / China relations are now better than they have ever been.

No nukes are deployed as a nuclear balance still exists. Russia and Japan sit on the sidelines. Russia, in particular ramps up military production as it sees itself in much the same situation as the US before they entered WWII - anticipating a financial windfall (especially considering the US economic difficulties), supplying both sides in some cases.

China finds it difficult both economically and administratively to control the numerous breakaway factions that exist within Indonesia, while coveting Australia's (by now much needed) natural resources (shades of Japan v Korea / Mongolia pre-WWII).

China decides that it can depopulate Indonesia to an extent and defuse the factional problems by relocations to Australia, and at the same time gain access to Australia's raw materials. A nuclear assault is out of the question because of the balance of nuclear power between China and the US (and the pacts that we rely on in that respect).

The only question for China to answer is can they gain control of Australia before American conventional forces (hard pressed in the ME) can come to Australia's aid (or if indeed they will decide to come to our aid).

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 19/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I really doubt any of the central asiatic states will join iran, afganistan etc in such a case. Im also curious what turkey would do in such a situation seeing as it is a democratic very seculair state with a mostly islamic population.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
That is quite a scenario. So do we force structure on the extremely unlikely (but extremely dangerous), or do we concentrate on the more likely scenarios? Our capability development is based on scenario analysis that is regularly reviewed, it isn't just a bum pluck on what might possibly happen. And even if your scenario did happen, would a long range strike option really make a lick of difference? Or would we be better to have a strong defensive counter air posture that makes it unattractive for the adversary to come our way? To defend your scenario, and ensure our nation's survival, we would need billion (if not trillions) more in our defence budget than what we have now. And as for the F-111, it isn't going to survive a China threat. Their SAMs are just too good these days.

While the sea-air gap defence thinking hasn't been spoken of for a while, it is still something that is considered very important to our nation's defence. And there is absolutely no way that the US would allow Australia's uranium to fall into adversary hands, no matter how busy they are in the Sand Pit.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Certainly, Willard, I can but agree with you on most of what you say.

As I said, my scenario is the product of about an hours thought - simply to demonstrate how difficult it is to predict events that could occur within the projected life cycle of current military acquisitions. Within my scenario one could possibly substitute a combined, militant Malaysia / Indonesia as an aggressor - perhaps one that America (under extreme pressure) would be less likely to come to our aid against. Economically, we make acquisitions in the light of projected trends in our area. Unfortunately, as military equipment is expected to last longer and longer, it becomes more difficult to predict the scenarios in which it may have to be used.

However, there are unchanging 'geophilisophical' factors that have to be considered, and you no doubt understand as well as I do, that if you loose a capability over the short term, that you are unlikely to regain it in time to use it when you actually need it (not to mention the need to re-learn the skills involved).

When discussing Australia's ability to defend itself, one has to remember that no country with an economy of our size could possibly withstand an attack from a much larger country - and that is the very reason that we form alliances with more powerful allies. All that we can hope for under those circumstances is that we can hold the line until we are reinforced by those allies (the alternative here is to throw up our hands in surrender, and if that's the case then why have a defense force at all). Without doubt, had Curtin's appeal to Washington during WWII been unsuccessful, there would have been no way that a nation of our economic size could have resisted the advance of Japan. Likewise, we align ourselves with the US as our nuclear 'protector' in the event that we are threatened with those weapons. As political alignments change and indeed the internal economic or political climate changes for our 'protector' we have to periodically re-evaluate the willingness of that ally to come to our aid in time of need.

War is not simply a matter of deflecting incoming raids. Had not the Allies been able to materially harm Germany during WWII, then presumably Germany would still be pounding away at Britain until one side or the other ran out of money to pay for it all.

Even Japan, with their policy of 'Self Defense' forces, must rely upon the offensive forces of a 'protector'. They do not even pretend to believe that they can protect Japan without some ability to hit back, albeit with US assets.

Any defense based on counter air without the ability to hit back is merely an invitation to engage us in a war of attrition or to overwhelm or outflank that defense and that eventually leads to us attempting to repel an invasion force without air superiority. A policy of counter air as one's only defense is as flawed as the enduring delusion that strategic bombing alone can win a war.

IMHO, it only makes good sense to maintain an offensive capability in the direction from which any sustained attack must come and of the appropriate range (at least a more predictable situation than most countries enjoy). If one is to say that there is insufficient threat as to maintain that offensive capability - then frankly there is no reason to maintain any defensive capability at all, and we should therefore dissolve the RAAF entirely until a threat is foreseeable.

Clearly any such scenario is ridiculous.

On the matter of Australia's uranium assets - there is more than one way of making them unaccessible - thinking here scorched earth theory - a couple of well placed ICBMs would deny everyone those assets. So what it comes down to then is our 'protectors' own situation and their willingness not to sacrifice us.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 20/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I think a mor likely reason for the US to aid us in such a situation is one of investment. ie, if we don't spend the money to protect Australia, a long-time and faithful ally, why would anyone else expect us to spend the money to save them? And if they don't think we'll do that, why would they spend money to fight alongside us when they are not directly threatened and neither were we?

In limited and dumbed-down terms, a single CBG would more than double our airforce (until we bombed up those oh-so-threatening Hawks) if all it did was off-load its planes to RAAF runways. Aegis boats could then park one per major target city to give real AA defence. That's a fair increase in defensive capability for a low-risk (to the Nimitz) deployment. Sure, you will lose planes, but their a lot cheaper than carriers.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Certainly Howlrunner,

The various Military/Political alliances are always two way streets. It's not simply a matter of a nation randomly selecting a 'protector' or vice versa. There has to be something in it for everyone. What's that saying 'There's no such thing as a free lunch'.

Obviously the level of response on the part of the 'protector' has to be appropriate, and this too is a two way street. If, for instance Australia (or any other US ally) were to be threatened with nuclear weapons, then the US would be useless as an ally if they were not willing to threaten the aggressor with nuclear weapons. On the other hand in a more limited situation, they would be just as useless if they merely threaten a nuclear reaction.

A nation really has to 'make itself attractive' (a little powder and lipstick, perhaps) to those who will come to our aid when we don't (and due to various factors will never) have the resources to do a particular job. Indeed this is not just limited to the military world.

So in the case at hand it is a matter of whether we should pass our long range strike capability into the hands of our 'protector' on the basis of near term threats, or whether we need to keep that capability ourselves over the longer term, independent of our 'protector'.

The thing to remember is that there's perhaps only three nations that can afford to maintain a force structure to meet any threat unaided. The rest of us must be content with what we can afford do for ourselves, while waiting for the cavalry to come charging over the hill. The big question, in any such situation, is at what level of threat, and in spite of what pressure the 'protector' is under, does the cavalry charge begin.

That's a matter of negotiation with the 'protector' and subject to what pressure the 'protector' feels they can withstand and still render assistance to the ally (Usually expressed as 'No problem, cobber, we'll be there come Hell or High Water - but in reality somewhat less). The second situation obviously changes constantly with the 'protector's' internal and external political climate and economic health.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 


Right. And while we can use Collins to insert SAS troopers into regional carparks to make things go bang in the night, that is time-consuming and manpower-intensive and far more prone to exposure (Murphy plus guns) which is incredibly more embarrassing (soldiers on display), than sending one or two jets into the night sky to make a point.

However, the Collins/TLAM idea is more than viable in such a situation. If you're planning on small targets in small numbers, then you don't need multiple sorties.

If you also intend to be able to prosecute a no-#, for-real, shooting war, then you'd better be able to reload and re-shoot very quickly. Something Collins can't do. Plus, pollies love to say "X gives us the capability to do Y", while never saying "providing they are not also doing A through D at the same time."

Six subs could launch quite a number of TLAMs, enough to do real damage to the comms infrastructure of Indonesia (for example), but wouldn't a couple of them be a little busy looking for littoral threats, maybe?

But Pig has exactly one mission (not including taking pretty pictures): to drop small shiny toys on large shiny toys and ruin their whole day. Whether the shiny toys are in someone else's sandpit, the swimming pool or our sandpit.

Which leaves the black boats that don't float to go find the people who are messing about in grey boats in our secret fishing spot.

If we're not going to spend money on new strike platforms, why did we buy new MBTs? Armoured conflict has hardly been a major part of our armed history and we're unlikely to go back to Tobruk any time soon.

I guess I'm agreeing with "don't cancel what you don't know you won't need." But I'm not sure SH is what we do need.

Have they got the Lancer's landing difficulties worked out properly? Or does that still have issues?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Ah..
Now we're talking!
Australia's strategic capability is something that has always intrigued me; partly because of the geographical proximity.


Now WW said that Australia's defence budget only supports procuring 60% of a carrier; and by that I presume, a ~80000ton 70+ fixed wing a/c carrier.
My question is: What's stopping you from envisioning something in the 30-40000 ton class, with 15-25 a/c on board and a STOBAR capability?
Now I ain't going to scream Kusnetzov or Gorshkov, but what's stopping you from using your hornets(or F-35s?) on a smaller, lighter STOBAR carrier?


I think I will reply to your military doomsday SE-Asia scenario in another post!



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Sure we could buy one carrier, but we have to forgo something else.

We all know that we only need one weapon - you know the one, it cannot be destroyed but can destroy anything ever made, it can lay waste to large areas, and take out a matchbox with the precision of a laser. It can be everywhere at the same time, is invisible to the eye as well as all other detection systems and has infinite ammunition while using no power whatsoever and never needs replenishment. While I don't know what this weapon might be called, unfortunately I do know what it's made of - unobtainium! (or, for Americans unobtaininum - I think)

Until such a weapon does become available, the Navy will tell us that they can defend us in the best and most economical way, while the Air Force will be adamant that they can do a better job faster and with fewer troops. Meanwhile the Army couldn't care less about the others and doesn't mind whether they shoot the other guys in their place or ours as long as they get to crawl around in the mud.

The folks holding the purse have to figure out which toys to buy for which boys (supposedly being able to tell who's telling the truth and who's full of ... er... popcorn!) and then justify it to everyone else, 99.9% of whom couldn't give a rat's rectum as long as it doesn't interrupt the football (which of course is the only real reason to have defense forces - so that the football isn't interrupted - insert cricket if that way inclined). And to top that off, now that the girls are playing, consideration has to be given to possible interruptions to the damned netball!

Thank goodness that all possible or probable aggressors drink beer, even if it isn't as good as ..... (insert favourite brew). This is the excuse for having no defense, or when the purse holders give the wrong toys to the wrong boys, just in case it wasn't clear.

Of course, the outcome of the game (the defense game, not the football) depends on how well the team captains (I like to call them Admirals and Air Commodores - note the 'Air' part there so as not to be confused with the car) direct the use of the toys.

In addition, if the toys aren't big enough, you've got to have an umpire - and when it comes to whistles, then yes, size is important!

There's lots of different ways to skin a cat - but let's not get into the evil pleasures department, shall we.


The Winged Wombat



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
i do conccur a carrier won`t happen (sadly) unless it is very cheap and comes with a cheap as chips maintenance contract



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
i do conccur a carrier won`t happen (sadly) unless it is very cheap and comes with a cheap as chips maintenance contract


And, of course the Admirals can convince the purse holders that it is a better toy than what the Air Commodores have already, or want in the future to do the same job.

Even cheap is too expensive if the job is already being done better.

I suppose you could say, if a right-handed person loses their right hand but gains a second left hand, it's still difficult to wipe you're bum
(If that makes any sense at all)

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 22/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think I will reply to your military doomsday SE-Asia scenario in another post!


Doomsday?

Did you miss the bit about how your guys are on really good terms with China?



Seriously though, Indian must be pretty concerned about Pakistan going radical, and that could happen pretty quickly. I imagine that, even with Pakistan's current situation, it's a nicer feeling having them between India and Afghanistan.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by Harlequin
i do conccur a carrier won`t happen (sadly) unless it is very cheap and comes with a cheap as chips maintenance contract


And, of course the Admirals can convince the purse holders that it is a better toy than what the Air Commodores have already, or want in the future to do the same job.

Even cheap is too expensive if the job is already being done better.

I suppose you could say, if a right-handed person loses their right hand but gains a second left hand, it's still difficult to wipe you're bum
(If that makes any sense at all)

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 22/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]


Admirals = Air Marshals right?That equation there could create an inter-services PR nightmare


So what I get from your posts above is:

  1. Australian decision makers believe that a carrier is an unecessary overkill.
  2. Most roles of a carrier in the RAAN are already undertaken by operational RAAN assets.
  3. Any lacking roles will be filled in by the Americans so there is no need for Australian money to be spent there.
  4. Australian leadership isn't too keen on playing a 'maverick/pioneering' role in redefining the strategic situation in its region. They're happy with the way things are and foresee no drastic unmatch-able changes in capabilities of their foes or a drop in capabilities/intentions of their allies.


What's the sentiment of the Australian people? Their votes can shape government policies right? What's the Rudd Govt like?
I still believe(call me thick-headed) that Australia should strive for 'strategic independence' from the US that it currently does not have IMHO.
I believe a RAAN carrier force make a difference, in a pure military capability sense and a geo-political sense as well.

Is it just that the economy cannot support that initiative at this stage? I'm confused



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
The thing to remember is that there's perhaps only three nations that can afford to maintain a force structure to meet any threat unaided.
The Winged Wombat


Do tell, do tell!

I really do not get this 'protector' concept. What if your protector turns on you? Ok, I doubt protectors turn on their 'protectees' on the drop of a hat, but hey, what's stopping them from looking the other way, or intentionally delaying assistance etc.?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Well technically the UK doesn`t `need` carrier by teh assestment - they have bomber capabilitiy right up there with the `varks (up there does not equal to) and more advanced fighters


and yet teh RN is screaming for the new carriers



power projection is whats needed - and aa force of pressence.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join