Fluffy-huggy gone crazy

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Page 3 of Monday's "The Australian": big notice of "Invitation for Public Comment - Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the flying operation of F-35A (Joint Strike Fighter) aircraft."

Bureaucratic BS.

[500N]

That is gold, and I agree. utter madness.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

You would not believe the internal turf war in Defence over the EIS - nobody wants it!

This jet is LOUD! The F-111 to Super Hornet transition went relatively smoothly largely because of community engagement in Ipswich and surrounding areas, and because of the unwavering support by the local Mayor.

I'm not sure the process at Willytown will go as smoothly

[Whenurhappy]

Why is this Fluffy Bunny stuff? I live in a national park where we have all sorts of aircraft transitting through at low level (I love to see them) but there are strict limits on times, numbers etc to ensure that noise levels are managed. Why should DoD be exempt from environmental laws such as these?

[Al R]

We can have freedom from tyranny and decent quality of life, surely? Getting the balance right is the trick. I don't imagine that national security would ever be compromised because someone's need to have a barbie somewhere in solitude is solely deemed more important.

But likewise, I don't think that it's unreasonable to consult thoughtfully, with those who are paying for the service. Info: Community comments invited for F-35A Environmental Impact Statement : Department of Defence (http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/07/21/community-comments-invited-for-f-35a-environmental-impact-statement/)

Me, I like the sound of jets but that's because I've been around them for 30 years or so. If I hadn't, if I had moved to a sleepy retirement area in the reasonable expectation that I was going to fade away into a quiet gin induced tupor, and if the noisiest jets in existence simply moved in and hovered in the circuit all day, and didn't give a damn about the impact on their adopted community, I'd probably be a bit miffed too.

Give and take works, on both sides. Maybe it's age catching up with me! Currently sat in garden with a coffee. Surrounded by birdsong and the distant rumble of an F-15 to the east. Perfect.

[500N]

DoD is exempt from quite a few things in this country.

Re this, the Greens take things too far and tie everyone in knots.


Re the National Park, why does the noise need to be managed ?
For the people or the animals ?????? (Genuine question).

[500N]

RAAF Darwin is going to be an interesting one !

[Whenurhappy]

Tourism, inter alia, and compliance with Legislation. The Lake District is a wonderful area and there is a reasonable expectation of both residents and visitors that there will be a degree of peace and solitude there. It's about getting a balance that meets the needs of defence and of other users.

[500N]

No worries, have been there many times myself so yes.

I thought you were talking about animals, sorry !

[Whenurhappy]

Well, to be fair, some of the locals (and visitors) are animal-like in their behaviour!

[500N]

Great memories of the Lake District, big snows, off we went to wherever it was, walked up the hill
and spent the night tobogganing under the moonlight :ok:

Great times.


I can imagine re animal like behavior !

Reason I thought that was I love Greenies who seem to think that aircraft and
bombing etc disturbs the birds - like on the Wash at Wainfleet !

[big v]

I'm a nice person and I live in a nice place. I like having electricity, cars, foreign holidays, rubbish collection and all the mod cons but nothing can be allowed to intrude on the nice place where I live with other nice people. It's because of the nice-ness - nice villages, nice hills, nice lakes, nice views etc. Noise, nuclear power stations, oil refineries, waste disposal facilities, airports, wind farms etc can be tolerated only where poor people live. ie not in my back yard.

I wonder whether Barnes Wallis' bouncing bomb would have survived an EIA?

Makes you laugh.

V

[Finningley Boy]

What strikes me is how the Australian Government can afford 75 F-35As to our 48 F-35Bs? I appreciate they are replacing their F/A-18 A and B aircraft with them. But then again we're replacing all of our Tornados and Harriers with ours, the fact that our Harriers are now the U.S. Marine Corps' and most of the Tornado GRs are gone doesn't ameliorate the fact that they at least seem to be better at husbanding their resources than we are. After all, Australia has a population of around 15 million to our 63 million. Not to forget that we have the fourth largest defence budget in the world, beat into 1st place only by U.S.A. Russia and China leaves an awkward question or two for our Government to answer!

FB:)

[Climebear]

I wonder whether Barnes Wallis' bouncing bomb would have survived an EIA?

Possibly; but, in might not have survived the Laws of Armed Conflict.

1. Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.

2. The special protection against attack provided for in paragraph 1 shall cease:

(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

(c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.

3. In all cases, the civilian population and individual civilians shall remain entitled to all the protection accorded them by international law, including the protection of the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. If the protection ceases and any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 is attacked, all practical precautions shall be taken to avoid the release of the dangerous forces.




https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49005/JSP381_aide_memoire_law_armed_conflict.pdf

[Piltdown Man]

What strikes me is how the Australian Government can afford 75 F-35As to our 48 F-35Bs?

Because Australia is a wealthy country that doesn't fritter away vast dollops of cash on sacred cows like the NHS and social security. They also have a flatter hierarchy within their armed services. If we lost 75% of our upper ranks, apart from being more efficient and saving a great deal of cash, we wouldn't notice the difference. As for Australia, its biggest enemy are the loony left and tree huggers followed by the "illegals" - their handling of which is entirely appropriate.

PM

[WAC]

You really don't know a lot about Australia and our health or welfare systems do you?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The greenies don't give a rat's a^#e if humans are affected by having their day in the bush disturbed by noise. The millions of dollars gifted to pony-tailed consultants for the draft EIS reveal the bombshell result that some Australian painted snipe and a couple of bitterns may be mildly inconvenienced, occasionally.

Money well spent I reckon.

[At ease]

After all, Australia has a population of around 15 million to our 63 million.

22 million.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

What strikes me is how the Australian Government can afford 75 F-35As to our 48 F-35Bs?

Well, we can't. But why should that stop us? And don't forget, we have the snipe AND the bitterns to annoy.

[500N]

Traffic

Except the "Australian painted snipe and a couple of bitterns may be mildly inconvenienced, occasionally." are unlikely to be inconvenienced at all.


Re our 75, we can't afford them but it was signed a long time ago.

Don't forget we also purchased Super Hornets and Growlers as an interim for our F/A-18 A and B aircraft, although they will stay around a bit longer.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Sorry := but the EIS is quite clear on this... they will be slightly inconvenienced. It is only Gould's Petrel that will not be inconvenienced. This is an official Government document after all, and therefore contains only the truth (albeit in draft form).

[rh200]

22 million.

He wasn't including the naturalized Poms living in Mandurah and Rockingham:E

[Red Line Entry]

If we lost 75% of our upper ranks, apart from being more efficient and saving a great deal of cash, we wouldn't notice the difference.

This is a hoary old chestnut that often comes up. OK then, Piltdown Man, we've got (not counting specialist docs, dentists, padres and lawyers) just over 100 air rank positions. Forget 75%, how about you name just 10 posts that we could remove, and explain what we would do (or not) about the tasks that those 10 people do?

(BTW, I ain't in one of them!)

[Courtney Mil]

Here in the South of France we have regular visits from L'Armée de l'Air and mighty fine they are. But then, of course we don't have to live with burning, noisy, over-priced, non-op, Harrier replacements. Theirs are all very smart, sleek jets!

[GreenKnight121]

Don't forget that the UK also had to pay for its share of the development of Typhoon, and purchase of a varying number (at least 150, perhaps as many as 225 if I remember aright).

Which cost the UK MORE than either the UK share of the F-35B program or the building of the RN's two floating bird farms (and possibly as much as both combined).

[Tankertrashnav]

I frequently complain about the use of the very silly term "huggy-fluffy" on this forum.

Simply reversing the order of the words does not make it any more excusable :=

Have to go and finish my muesli now - I have a lot of yoghurt to knit tonight!

[Finningley Boy]

I was looking at a short advertising video which ranked the 5 largest Defence spenders on the planet by nation, the 5 top countries are, in reverse order;

5. France

4. Saudi Arabia

3. Russia

2. China

1. United States of America

FB:)