Australia orders $3.7 Billion in U.S. Military Aid.

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


i have known all your points to be true, for a long time now.

my point is, if my memory is correct, and they chose china they should be turning to them. you can't have your cake and eat it to.




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Perhaps
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



... in U.S. Military Aid


...oh and by the way, I don't believe this to be military aid as such... this is a fully remunerated transaction for goods and services provided.

It so happens that the term military aid has certain connotations attached to it.

Cheers
edit on 8-3-2013 by Perhaps because: meh


That was what confused me about the headline. Australia doesn't need "aid".

That makes it sound like they're asking for a freebie.
That's not "aid".
That's a purchase.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LeLeu
 


They arent old, only 14 years in service. The f-15/16 are still quite formidable and have been in service since the 1970's.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit

Originally posted by Perhaps
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



... in U.S. Military Aid


...oh and by the way, I don't believe this to be military aid as such... this is a fully remunerated transaction for goods and services provided.

It so happens that the term military aid has certain connotations attached to it.

Cheers
edit on 8-3-2013 by Perhaps because: meh


That was what confused me about the headline. Australia doesn't need "aid".

That makes it sound like they're asking for a freebie.
That's not "aid".
That's a purchase.


Sorry for the confusion. I have always heard the delivery of highly classified or just highly sensitive military hardware and technology as 'Aid', since it's not a purchase in the sense that anyone can order some up. Only a precious handful in the world could even ask about getting Super Hornets for their national arsenal and most of them would be laughed at and told no.

That's why I consider it aid. Are they really paying for it? Is it coming in trade of equal value for service or goods? It's hard to say at the Nation-State level. I don't imagine you ever see two guys meet and exchange a billion dollar check ...or even the digital equivalent.

Anyway, again, sorry for the confusion. Bought, Gifted, Lend/Lease'ed or just taken as a surplus hand me down ..it's all been 'Aid' in the context I've heard it termed.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zonetripper2065
 


No, no they really aren't. Over 25% of the total US F-16 fleet has either had to be grounded, or is currently limited due to bulkhead and wing cracks. Something like 18% of the early blocks have wing cracks, and the older blocks have aft bulkhead cracks.

The F-15 is in worse shape. They're planning to use them until 2025 or so, but they're currently limited in top speed, limited in the number of Gs they can pull, and have other issues with them.

That's without getting into kinematic performance. A British think tank did a simulation involving the Su-35, against the F-15C, Rafale, Typhoon, and F-22. The Rafale managed to achieve a 1:1 kill rate, the Typhoon a 4.5:1 kill rate, the Raptor 10:1, and the F-15C was at a dismal 1:1.3 (they lost 1.3 F-15s for every Su-35 they killed).

The Super Hornet isn't exactly a stellar performer in the A2A theater, but it's better than that, and doesn't have the issues that the F-15 and F-16 are going to encounter. The most effective F-16 on the market currently is Dubai's Block 60 Desert Falcon (more advanced than even the USAF). Even though those are amazingly advanced and impressive as hell, the design itself is old, and you can only do so much with an old design against newer aircraft.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It's under the Foreign Military Sales envelope. Australia is paying for them, we're building them and flying them down to them (although they may bring their own pilots and tankers to ferry them). Some countries fall under the "We'll pay for them you can have them" folder of Foreign Military Sales, but Australia isn't one of them.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


I haven't found anything where they did make a choice. They've worked a little with China's military, but the US has told them several times they don't have to make a choice, but a number of people in Australia want both. They like the security and access to the high tech "toys" the US brings to the table, but they recognize China as a growing power.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


i have known all your points to be true, for a long time now.

my point is, if my memory is correct, and they chose china they should be turning to them. you can't have your cake and eat it to.



I have always had a problem with anyone that tries to tell me who I should have as a friend. Why does the US think they can tell another country who they can have as friends. When someone does that I tell them to POQ.

China is a major trading partner with us and for this reason alone is not someone we want to annoy.

What the US is afraid of is a new alliance of Pacific rim nations. China / Australia / New Zealand / South America as a block is a powerful alliance should it ever unfold. The US needs to be careful that they don't push others away and by their actions cause such an alliance to come to fruition.

Personally, I wish Australia did have 50 or so tactile Nukes. It is really easy to protect an Island Nation with these weapons.

P



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Knowledge is Power / Power is Freedom

That's at the bottom of your posts.

It applies to Australia too. Aussie knows what it can buy and where. Having that power those weapons provide gives it freedom if you know what defense is supposed to be (just in case you don't know = deterant. Which is why Americans have guns and countries that don't have nuclear weapons want them.

So what was your point again?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


The US actually told Australia they don't have to choose. China is the one saying that Australia will have to choose soon. As they said they can have either the US as their Godfather, or China, but if they don't want to be a power in and of themselves, they will have to choose soon between the two.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by pheonix358
 


The US actually told Australia they don't have to choose. China is the one saying that Australia will have to choose soon. As they said they can have either the US as their Godfather, or China, but if they don't want to be a power in and of themselves, they will have to choose soon between the two.


The choice will be made for us by events. The US will collapse financially and sooner rather than later. It is a difficult path for Australia to try and keep both happy. It is like the teenage child during the parent's divorce.

What your leaders say with smiles plastered on their faces with TV cameras running is utterly different to what they say in private!

P



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
wen't they here 3 months ago bragging how they were going to side with china because the dollar was doomed or whatever ?

lol



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


China is going to take a huge hit to their economy before much longer as well. I've been reading and hearing somethings saying that they've held off so far, but they've done it by means that are going to make them ripe for a huge economic collapse before long. So that'll make things really interesting.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Any government is going to ensure they have land to lead.
As someone said earlier, Australia stays connected to the UK for protection.

If our government is selling the Super Hornets its because we plan on replacing them eventually.
Why wouldn't we keep the best toys for ourselves... wouldn't you?
I know I usually give my old new toys to my brothers and my old, old toys to my friends... and my broken toys to the less fortunate.

But then again we are talking about a Business run government currently, so the US is probably just looking to make a few bucks before the fortune 500 jump ship and laugh while we Americans pay for their debts.

Crap, where's my medicine, the voices are coming back...



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bmmark
 


We don't keep all the best toys for us. The F-16 Block 60 Desert Falcon flown by Dubai is the most advanced F-16 on the market. It's comparable to the Su-35 in most ways, and is one of the most electronically advanced 4th gen fighter in the world. It leaves our Block 50/52s in the dust.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by pheonix358
 


China is going to take a huge hit to their economy before much longer as well. I've been reading and hearing somethings saying that they've held off so far, but they've done it by means that are going to make them ripe for a huge economic collapse before long. So that'll make things really interesting.


I understand where you get this from, I have read much the same material.

I think certain elements within China will take a hit and it may be just what the Chinese Government want to have happen. They have given the upper middle class a taste of unfettered Capitalism just in time for the great chasm to open up and swallow them.

Then the Government will just shrug and say 'serves you right, we tried to tell you, you had to fail to learn the lesson. Now we all go back to the way it is supposed to be. STFU and go sit in the corner.'

The people will cheer and China will quickly recover, stronger than before. It will be many, many years before the Government is challenged on the economy.

The greedy will fall and the common people will rejoice!

P



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
We're broke and only getting broker, we're supposedly putting ourselves on a budget, then we send 60 million to Syria, now Australia is wanting 3.7 billion?

No offense to the Aussies, but screw it. We honestly shouldn't give anybody anything until we start sorting out our atrocious financial situation.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
 


It's a purchase

Australia is buying this stuff.
It's not a freebie.
America is manufacturing this stuff, or selling something already made (?)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I have always thought that what us aussies don't have in military might, we make up the numbers with the training our special forces receive and weapon technologies that are designed and manufactured at metal storm.

There have been some pretty awesome prototypes of fully automatic grenade launchers and mounted machine guns firing a million rounds a minute. Just youtube some of it. Quite impressive.

The last time australia was invaded was in ww2 by the japs. They landed a contingent of soldiers, tanks and artillery in far north queensland. They ended up ditching their gear and retreating because of the horrid terrain.

Aussies have the ability to adapt to anything and use anything. Hell we still use APCs that the US gave us after vietman. We only just scrapped F1-11s (which is a shame, the dump and burn was awesome)
edit on 9-3-2013 by tbarmain because: Forgot stuff



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Ah. That's different then. I thought we were just passing out a few billion dollars.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join