Australia to buy long-range missiles

[Buster Hyman]

August 26, 2004 - 9:23AM


Australia would spend between $350 million and $450 million on new long-range missiles, Defence Minister Robert Hill said today.

Senator Hill said the Australian Defence Force's F/A-18 and AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft would be equipped with missiles capable of destroying land and sea targets.

Senator Hill said the new weapons would be introduced into service between 2007 and 2009 with Defence to advise the government of its preferred weapon next year.

"The new weapon will significantly enhance the ADF's air strike capability, providing a long-range, accurate and lethal attack against a range of targets including fixed and re-locatable targets on land and sea," Senator Hill said in a statement.

"Combined with the new air-to-air missiles and upgraded precision-guided bombs, Australia's fighter jets will be the regions most lethal capacity for air combat and strike operations.

Senator Hill said the government would choose between three long-range air-to-surface missiles.

The three options include the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) manufactured by Lockheed Martin, a variant of the precision-attack cruise missile KEPD 350 manufactured by the European company Taurus Systems GmbH and the Stand-off Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) manufactured by American-based Boeing.


- AAP

Missiles won't spark arms race: Hill

August 26, 2004 - 7:20PM

Australia's air force will be equipped with advanced cruise missiles in a move Indonesia warns could spark a regional arms race.

Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today the government had approved a short list of three missiles with the winner to be announced next year and enter service between 2007 and 2009.

The Hornet fighter-bombers and Orion maritime patrol aircraft will be equipped with the missiles at a cost of up to $450 million.

The move is intended to maintain the Royal Australian Air Force's strike capability between the planned retirement of the F-111 strike bombers in 2010 and introduction to service of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter around mid-decade.

Senator Hill said the new weapons would enhance Australian Defence Force air strike capability, providing a long-range, accurate and lethal attack against a range of targets on land and sea.

"Combined with the new air-to-air missiles and upgraded precision-guided bombs, Australia's fighter jets will be the region's most lethal capacity for air combat and strike operations," he said.

The missile short list comprises the Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) with a range of 400 kilometres, the 250 kilometre range Boeing Stand-off Land Attack Missile - Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) and the European Taurus Systems KEPD 350 with a range of 350 kilometres.

But there are fears the move will upset Australia's regional neighbours, with Indonesia warning Australia risked sparking a regional arms race.

"You cannot arm yourselves to the teeth and expect that will lead of itself to a sense of security. You have to work with the region to share in a sense of security," Indonesia's chief foreign affairs spokesman Marty Natalegawa said.

"It's a qualitative advance for the region. We know Australia's government has until now been against the proliferation of advanced missile technologies in the region.

"There is a risk that raising the level of sophistication could lead to some kind of a counter response."

He said it would have been better if the government had explained the move in advance, providing more transparency on the reasons.

But the government rejected suggestions the missiles would fuel a regional arms race and said the move would not come as a surprise to Indonesia.

"They expect us to continue to evolve our capability as new opportunities in terms of science and technology present. The acquisition of stand-off missiles is a logical step in that direction," Senator Hill said.

"In the same way as Indonesia and all our regional neighbours continue to build their capabilities, they expect Australia to do so."

Senator Hill rejected suggestions that this would fuel a regional arms race. "No likelihood at all," he said.

Prime Minister John Howard said acquiring cruise missiles was a wise move given the F-111 phase out and Australia's neighbours would understand the decision.

"We have good relationships with our neighbours," he said. "Our regional neighbours will understand why we have done this."

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia was in the process of briefing its neighbours, particularly Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand.

"They are not likely to be too concerned about it because all countries in the region continually upgrade and improve the operation of their military equipment."

Opposition Leader Mark Latham said Labor did not object to the missiles, but urged the government to explain the defence move properly in the region.

The Australian Democrats accused the government of antagonising regional countries with leader Andrew Bartlett describing it as a diplomatic disaster.

- AAP

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if, say, Indonesia lets us know when & why they are buying SU-30's??

[Gnadenburg]

Buster

The SU30 is a defensive weapon. It's very long range expedient for Indonesian air force generals, who now have the ability to reach all the far flung corners of the Indonesian archipelago, in their new found chariot to serve personal business interests.

The small number, four I believe, a nominal training capability.

The F111 was a long range nuclear stike platform, bought by Menzies who was dabbling with an Australian nuclear weapons programme at the time, aswell as a stated capability to bomb Djakarta.

The disquiet about the additional F111 purchase in the 90's probably a slight carry over from the above, aswell as a deflection of heat from certain contemporary issues.

Cruise missiles in the region will excite the tiger mentality of the neighbours-Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore etc.

I think the government and the press better served labelling the missiles as a "stand off" capability as opposed to cruise missiles- with all the imperialist, colonialist connotations that will incense our tiger friends!

That said, long range missiles will be excellent for our next excursion with the USA- Tehran, Pyongpang? :E

[Obiwan]

The disquiet about the additional F111 purchase in the 90's probably a slight carry over from the above, aswell as a deflection of heat from certain contemporary issues.

How would these SE Asian countries react if we expressed concern over their military purchases?

[Gnadenburg]

Obiwan

Firstly, name a country in our region who has purchased a long range offensive weapons system.

Outside our immediate region- did we not question the North Korean long range weapons programme?

[alidad]

A question for the experts:

How far would these missiles go toward filling the "gap" when the F1-11 is retired?
Would it be a "ploy" to justify the earlier retirement of that fleet?(reported as costing in the order of $500million AUD per annum to operate).

[itchybum]

Alidad:

About 75% of the capability provided by the F-111 fleet, according to flight international.

I don't think it's a ploy, the decision has been made that the pigs have to go, due to age, cost and whatever else. This cruise missile capability will go some way toward plugging the gap when the F-111s are gone.

We need to have the latest toys if we are serious about our "deputy dawg" role in the region!! ;) :ok: :E

[Bula]

Its very true to say that our defence capabilities will be greatly deminished with the phase out of the F111. Even if the JSF is brought into service on time it still leaves a very large gap in our defence. An increase in tanker numbers (and pilots on speed) would act as a force multiplyer but he fact is we will still not have a long range weapons platform. Just remember the F111 strike capability can be weighed against the likes of the B52 so the introduction of a long range strike missle will fulfill the gap to only a point. (75% seems to be the number as above).

I have a feeling we will be letting the US onto our shores in the form of "training bases" in the not to near future. its begs the question: how much is a alliance with the US worth on a world scale.

It must be remembered that the cost per flight hour has been greatly decreased rather then increased in recent years especially with thimplementation of the cold storage facility etc. The ability to support and maintain the F111 into the future has become more reasonable however the FB-22 sounds like a firm contender for a replacement.

[fire wall]

I read with utter dismay Beazely's response........yeah , we should have got Megawati's approval and then all would have been OK.
When are you cheese d!cks going to stand up and be counted......when Darwin is under seige is too late to be harping that perhaps our defense procurement was in error.
The old diggers I know hold you in contempt, and for just reasons.
Gnadenburg, perhaps I mistake your intent, but who cares whether Malaysia or Singapore are incensed. Our role is to protect our shores, not to appease malcontents when they do not get their own way.

[Going Boeing]

Firewall

I totally agree with your contempt of Beasley for his absurd comments.

Bula

I also believe that these missiles only partially fill the huge void created by the departure of the PIGS and therefore do not constitute an increase in offensive capability. The comments made by politicians from our neighbouring countries are mainly aimed at their own domestic consumption so as to paint Oz as the "bad guy". I spoke recently to the most senior engineering officer (in charge of the F-111 fleet) at Amberley and he said that since the digital upgrade to the "C" model (& other modifications) the serviceability of the aircraft is higher that it has ever been in all the years that the F-111 has been in service. If the F-111 was to remain in service and became the delivery platform for these new missiles then our neighbours would have something to complain about as that would be a significant increase in capability.

[Bula]

true that.. its funny.. spend all this money to keep the PIGS going better then ever and they still want to retire them ahead of schedule.

:yuk:

[Obiwan]

Obiwan

Firstly, name a country in our region who has purchased a long range offensive weapons system.

Outside our immediate region- did we not question the North Korean long range weapons programme?

I didn't say long range weapons, but our neighbours are all grabbing the latest Flankers etc. We give foreign aid to countries like India and China who then have their own carrier groups etc. They should be looking after their own and not relying on our generosity.

To hear Beazley say we should ask Indonesia's approval on our defence purchases is ludicrous.

Why should they have any problems with our purchases? We'd only ever use them against those with hostile intent...

[Buster Hyman]

Gnadenburg.
I probably should have used the SU-27 as my example. But I think Fire wall has more eloquently made the point I was clumsily intending.

Obi wan.
Since you didn't use smilies, I don't quite know if your last sentence was one of irony, considering our recent military forays. Could that action & our recent acquisitions be twisted by the region to see us as a more aggressive neighbour?:confused: Just a thought, no political pot stirring intended.:cool:

[BCF Breath]

I remember in the mid '90s when the Yanks offered some KC-135s (tankers) to the RAAF.
The Indos went "nana" as it could enable Aussie Jets right into Indo territory.

Trying to think of the techy term, .... ah, it was a "Force Mulitplier".

Stuff em.

Get what ya can. Our PM (& I use that term lightly!) got rid of our security assets!

[swh]

And I thought they were just buying the missiles to protect Australia from New Zealand and Tasmania

:ouch:

[Obiwan]

Buster
Our recent forays in the region consisted of bringing law and order to East Timor after Indonesian backed militia went ballistic when the people voted independence from Indonesia, and doing the same for the Solomons.

Indonesia invaded and held East Timor for 25 years, and killed 1000s in their military campaign against Aceh. Hardly makes us the 'most aggressive' in the region.

As for Iraq, if our neighbours think the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam, well... :ugh:

[Gnadenburg]

Think outside of the square!

The xenophobia frightening.

An Australian government, liberal or labor, who did not use the fundamentals of diplomacy to avert a mini-arms race in the region, would be failing the Australian public.

So what if we send Downer to Jakarta or KL to explain our shift in defence policy regarding "cruise missiles". Swallow your xenophobic pride and realise this a soft kill in itself- probably preventing the purchase of long range French or Russian weapons by our tiger friends.

At the moment, any regional adventures have defence planners countering a short range fighter/bomber, surface and sub-surface threat. Long range missiles change the paradigm. The threat uncounterable with the ADF in it's present form.

Obiwan

Settle down. Firstly, there are only two navies in the world capable of invading Australia or laying siege to Darwin. The United States Navy and the Japanese navy of 1941.

Secondly, the Chinese do not have aircraft carriers; or for that matter, any capability ( barring ICBM's ) of projecting their influence beyond the Formosa straight or a Himalayan scrap with India.

The arms race between China-Taiwan and China-India is an example of an unwinnable arms race, the likes of which we should be avoiding through diplomacy!

[Obiwan]

Gnadenburg

Not a conventional navy but here's a hypothetical. How would you stop a thousand fishing boats full of soldiers headed to Darwin. The ADF couldn't hope to stop them all.

As for India and China, its not just their arms build up. Both are countries who aspire to things like a space program - in fact China was the third country to launch an astronaut into space. India is busy creating an IT and service industry to take outsourced jobs from western countries - and still both receive foreign aid from Australia.

[Gnadenburg]

Obiwan

What have your scenarios got to do with long range cruise missiles for Australia?

You sound like a red neck- firstly invaded by muslim hoardes in fishing boats and secondly an arms race between India and China that has nothing ( Mr Kopp may argue this ) to do with us.

The very limited aid, of which I know little about ( except Steve Waugh's support for Indian orphanages), may well be reciprocated by trade deals. I don't know frankly - but nothing is for nothing usually!

One thousand fishing boats? I am sure the ADF could sustain heavy attrition on such an unbalanced force.

Surely, they need to have big support ships for logistics such as the transportation and supply of heavy weapons . Which would fall prey to naval and air forces. Otherwise you are suggesting they land in Darwin with rations and light weapons, to engage with Australian armoured forces?

Please don't counter with another absurd scenario.

Enough said, but I reiterate. Swallow your xenophobic nationalistic pride and realise that diplomatic explainations of an ADF shift in policy, a great victory or soft kill if it prevents an arms race in OUR region.

[ozbiggles]

G to B
OK, try this on for size. It doesn't need to be a thousand fishing boats. It can be one guy with a bomb (dirty or not) acting on behalf of a country who didn't like what we were doing. (Did you guess we would be in Timor, Solomon Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq more than a few months before we did go in). How do we counter this? With the implied threat (ability) to go break his toys in there own country from long range. The thought that we have this ability helps keep us safe from this.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

My guess would be interoperability with our US allies. Much the same as buying into the Abrams tanks. The power of hindsight has probably proved it was a mistake to get rid of a carrier capability. Something like a modern harrier carrier or helicopter assault ship would have come in handy for supporting both civilian and military aid in our region.

[itchybum]

The Royal Australian Navy helicopter-carrying "amphibious assault ship." (http://www.navy.gov.au/ships/manoora/default.htm)

OZBUS is that what you had in mind? Nah.. how about something with hovercraft and MH-53s... :ok:

[prospector]

Gnadenburg,

It would appear that you would agree with the French policy of appeasement to the muslim fanatics.

That has not been of much help to their news reporters who are under the threat of execution.

You would also appear to be capable of throwing racist statements into the forum with very little encouragement. To call Obiwan a redneck is most insulting, and is racist.

For your edification the dictionary meaning of the word redneck

'noun' US derogatory, in the South Western States a poor white farm worker. adj.ignorant, intolerant, narrow minded and bigoted.

With that definition I would look closer to home to lable anyone as such.

Prospector

[air-hag]

Hey I looked up "redneck" in the dictionary, too. They had a picture of me...

Also, the words in the South Western States were in brackets. As I would wager Gnadenburglar is NOT in the SW US, I feel he is free to use the term redneck without anyone accusing him of being racist. I WOULD, however, happily accuse Gnadenburger of being colourist, a particularly nasty form of discrimination wouldn't you agree Puspector?

While in that section of the dictionary, I happened across the word "retard". Surprisingly, they do not have a definition referring to stupid people.

I wouldn't call banning headscarves and similar items "appeasement". Bit of a stretch there, Pus.



I just re-read and saw you're from Hobbiton. Now it all makes sense. If you see Helen, say "Hi" to him for me.

[prospector]

Air-Shag,
The appeasement actions were commenced long before the scarves were an item, perhaps if you could advise what the other similar items are??

I am glad that you feel that to use the term redneck has no connotation other than in the South Western States of the US. I am sure that would explain why it was used in the way it was, but why would Gnadenburg be concerned about the sunburn on Obiwans neck??

Prospector

[air-hag]

What appeasement? What are you talking about? I know the frogs like to sell guns and things to anyone with cash, is that what you mean??

Are you thinking of the appeasement of Hitler in the '30s? How long does it take news to filter down through the earth into your burrow?

Is it racist of me to refer to the hobbits in derogatory HAIRY-FOOTED terms? Does the hobbit race even exist?

All Gnardenburglar said was Obiwan sounds like a redneck.

By the way, Pusspector, deliberately mis-spelling my name is "insulting," :* as you put it and hurtful . :{

I think you're sorely jealous because Helen the White Orc threw away your air force. Did she enjoy her ride back to NZ after the famous Ansett-Tug-and-Loader blockade in the CT-4 the RNZ Air Corp sent to collect her??

You wish you had missiles too..... :}

[prospector]

Air-Shag,
Yes, I am sorely jealous, the only missiles we have are barbed words and sharp sticks.

No, I dont believe she enjoyed her ride, that is why we bought two nearly new jets for her, the fact that they are the only jets in our whole airforce is why the words have to be so effective.

The appeasement is because the rest of the gang did not support GW when he was just waving the big stick. Perhaps if they had all got in behind and all waved big sticks there would have been no need to send troops in and disrupt so many lives, on both sides. Perhaps it would not have shaken the resolve of the terrorist organisations but surely it would have been worth a try.

Oops, Ive managed an extra S again, must be finger trouble, perhaps if u managed your u's better????

:ok: Prospector

[air-hag]

Well anyway I think a double-whammy is in order. Buy the missiles and then keep the F-111s!! Put the missiles on the pigs for a real @r$e-kicking capability. The hornets already got a new toy... (ASRAAM)

And for cruise missile warheads......?? :E ... well if the Iranians can have one why shouldn't we???

And hold a caption competition for the punters to think up the most hilarious comments to chalk onto the noses of the things. That lets the mums and dads feel a part of it all, especially as they had to give up another public hospital or two to pay for it all!

Money well spent... :ok:

[Milt]

Right On Air Hag

What a potent air force we could continue to have allowing those of us with children to rest assured that the kids will have reasonable security whilst those to our north continue to beef up their capabilities.

The continued potency of our F111s is of too high a value to be foolishly pushed aside.

[Gnadenburg]

1- Australia needs a long range deterrent capability.

2- Stealth cruise missiles replace obsolete F111's.

To avoid regional paranoia and similar upgrades by regional forces, we use diplomacy to allay fears. This diplomacy, or explaination to our regional "allies", is a soft kill for Australia if we are the ONLY force in the region with cruise missiles.

If, as suggested by previous posts, we give the thumb to these countries and they see an immediate need for similar capabilities, we have missed an opportunity.

Australia can not defend itself against such capabilities. Whether at home ( unlikely ) or in regional operations without the Americans.

In having new generation cruise missiles EXCLUSIVELY, we effectively have our F111 1970's and 1980's advantage again.

To quote former US Secretary of State McNamara, the F111 was an all weather and first pass bomber. This capability made regional day fighters, early generation SAM's, anti-aircraft guns and ground based radar ineffective.

When regional air forces deployed next generation fighters and SAM's, the F111 was more vulnerable and lost it's previous advantage.

A stealth cruise missile swings the pendulum back in our favour. Especially with JSF and the flexibility of extremely long range Orions.

How we went down the track of appeasing muslims etc?

Ozbiggles

That's another absurd scenario. Sept 11 or the tragedy in Moscow this morning shows that despite the rocket forces of the Americans and Russians, you can not hit back rationally against small terrorist organisations.

Appeasing Muslim terrorists another pipped in. They want you to hit back , hard and without mercy. This creates a groundswell of fundamentalism amongst the uneducated impoverished masses ( West Bank etc ) and an unwinnable situation develops.

Don't pretend to have the answers for terrorism-as confused as the CIA, Mossad and the KGB!

[Swingwing]

Unfortunately this thread (and the debate more broadly) is replete with generalisations and misrepresentations. A couple of facts might help clarify some of the issues:

The cruise missile purchase is known as Project Air 5418. The project's year of decision, budget, and an explanation of the capabilities sought are outlined in the Defence Capability Plan 2004-14. This 10 year plan provides a level of transparency in Defence procurement not found anywhere else in the region. Our regional neighbours were briefed on the plan by our respective embassies (including the Jakarta post) at the time of its public release. There can be no suggestion that the purchase was sprung on our neighbours - they have a 10 year blueprint for every major piece of Defence equipment that we intend to acquire.

In any case, all that was announced was that a tender process would be conducted, during which the capabilities of the respective missiles would be evaluated. There is no decision yet on type (and therefore range / payload capabilities.)

Obviously the missiles can be used defensively or offensively - the same can be said of just about any piece of military equipment.

When commenting on the reaction by Indonesia, one should not lose sight of the domestic politics involved. Foreign Affairs spokesman Marty Natalagawa criticised the purchase - this plays to his particular core constituency where anti-Australianism is popular. The head of the TNI, General Sutarto, was much more measured - saying that Indonesia was comfortable with the purchase and that it was Australia's right to choose whatever weapons it liked. Long story short - just like here, politicians in Indonesia will choose their message to appeal to their audience!

In short, this is a normal step on the road to acquiring a capability that has been publicly foreshadowed for some time. It isn't about appeasement or anything of the sort. Our defence force is prudently acquiring new capabilities to replace those that are ageing or becoming obsolete- just like every other country with a modern defence force does.

It's that simple........

SW

[Zapatas Blood]

Can I just ask a few questions to the gung-ho folks here.

Who do you think will attack Australia.

Why would they attack Australia.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

itchybum Yep thinking more about the yank amphib assault ships with ACVs and Jolly Greens. They would have been a god-send for cyclone relief over the years. Like all tools ,you can use them for good or hostile purposes.

As for immeadiate or even long term threats. If you are a novelist.. India:} Realisticly there is no threat.

[itchybum]

I read the novel about India. I think it was called "An Act of War" ? Is that the one?

Why would anyone invade Australia? I don't think they would but I don't have trouble imagining a few people eyeing off the oil and gas resources lying underneath the Timor Sea, which Australia has claimed despite E. Timor's own claims of ownership. There are some big guns, greedy unprincipled people and stinging feelings of national pride in the area.

I read the RAN is getting 2 proper helicopter carriers but can't find anything about it through searches. Anybody got any info on that?

Gnadenburg, where've you been???

[Macchi]

Swingwing, Swingwing, Swingwing...

why must you persist with logical, coherent discussion in this forum? Take your well-informed rhetoric and nick off to leave the armchair experts to duke it out...!

:p

(aka grey haired dude working in your office)

[itchybum]

Armchair experts we may be but at least we're not living in the past, Messers "Macchi" and "Swingwing"... ;)

Yeah ok I'm just jealous that I never flew them, you're right.

Anyway no one wants to hear common sense, we just like to throw BS around the place and slag each other for off.

[air-hag]

In order to supplement the new cruise missile (which, by the way has been planned for bloody years, even the Collllins subs will get them eventually) I would like to see Australia develop our own Ballistic Missile. It doesn't have to be an ICBM, we don't need THAT MUCH range.

That will teach a few people to shut their word-holes around this area. :*

You wouldn't hear runty little noodles calling us racists anymore in case they got a MIRV from over the horizon.

Those rocket-scientists down Woomera-way should be employed to design it. There is a lot of talent and scientific know-how in the rocket field in Aust.

Keeee-rist even the pakis have got one... :uhoh: Although theirs do tend to blow up their own technicians on the launch pad now and then......:E

[Buster Hyman]

Now, this may be a dumb question,(you can blame it on my youthfull, athletic appearance!):rolleyes: but I'll ask it anyway.

How far off from being a Cruise Missile was the Jindivik? Granted it probably needed more range, a warhead and a better guidance system, but would continued research have yielded our very own cruise missile?:confused:

[ozbiggles]

Zapa, G-b
You are right. There is no scenario where Australia needs a credible defence force. I agree we should go back to those wonderful years of the 30s and let diplomacy keep us safe. A lot more money for the welfare state would then be available.
As for rockets and bombs being no good to deal with the bad guys, G-b you are right there too. We should just give them what they want (through diplomacy) and then they will go away and never ever want anything else (said in a Homer Simpson type voice).

[prospector]

ozbiggles,
With views like that you could command a super salary as a consultant to our (NZ) Minister of Defence, keep a good lookout, your head may be hunted.

Prospector:sad:

[Zapatas Blood]

Ozbiggles, thanks for the smart arse yet totally pointless answer. I am still keen to know. Who are you afraid of and why.

My concern is that the weapons to be purchased by Australia are of an offensive nature and will be used when we are strong armed into attacking Iran, Syria, North Korea or whatever country next threatens the economic hemegony of uncle sam.

Like our efforts in Iraq, this will only increase our chances of being the target of violence.

I am worried that our purchase of offensive weapons will become a self fullfilling prophecy.

[ozbiggles]

Zap, your welcome. However my answer was given in good faith. You suggest that Australia has no natural enemy (can I assume at the moment or you assume this forever?). Therefore we should not have 'offensive' weapons (Is there any other type?). Are you suggesting if we ever needed these weapons we could acquire them, fit them, practice with them and become expert in their use in less than 5 yrs. It might interest you to know our airforce can't even pay for/figure out how to fit aircraft in the fleet with TCAS that don't already have it.
You also seem miffed that we might go somewhere and use them to help the US financial state. I still can't believe that rational people think that the US went to war in Iraq to save money/ secure oil. It would have been far more simple to let saddam kill anyone he want, sell any nasty toy he had and turn a blind eye (as everyone did before) and just buy oil of him and let him be.
A question for you. The media reports that there has been little evidence of WMD. Do you consider a terrorist training camp a weapon of (potential) mass destruction?

[Zapatas Blood]

ozbiggles,

You don't have a very thorough understanding of what the war in Iraq was (IS) all about. Take a look at OPEC pricing policy, Petrodollars versus Euro, the difference between Gulf sweet crude and west Texas, the US current account deficit, the dependence on the US of maintaining the greenback as fiat currency and Saddams actions wrt the UN oil for food program, Iraqi Forex reserves - the list of factors goes on but to wrap it up with a simple "access to oil" argument is to let our politicians get away with far too much.

You say that the media reports that there are no WMD in Iraq. Are you aware that in early 2001, both Powell and Rice went on the record as saying that Iraq posed no military threat. I cant believe that rational people have fallen for the "we got our intelligence wrong" baloney being pedalled by Bush, Blair and Howard. There was so much to gain from invading Iraq.

You ask if I consider a terrorist training camp a WMD. I don't think there is a difference between weapons of destruction and weapons of MASS destruction. The most destructive military actions of our time have been committed with non WMD - the fire bombing of Japan killed hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS each night (both LeMay and McNamarra admitted they were war crimes), the bombing of Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia used conventional weapons and caused untold damage and suffering. Even the economic sanctions against countries such as Iraq and North Korea have killed more than WMD.

I assume you are suggesting that there are terrorist training camps in Iraq. I have seen no credible reporting to suggest this to be the case at all - even the Sep 11 investigation could not link the sovereign state of Iraq with the terrorist attacks in NYC/DC?

[oicur12]

Ozbiggles - What if that camp had trained terrorists that had gone on to murder thousands of innocent civillians. What if that camps host country had funded terrorist activities all over the world. Would you advocate sending in the B-52's. Invading the host country. Setting up a puppet government to be more compliant to trade deals of natural resources.

Afghanistan. Iraq.

What about Fort Benning.

[Gnadenburg]

SwingWing

Commendable of you to add to a thread that is off on the veritable tangent.

Is there not a considerable risk to the ADF, if regional forces add a similar capability?

Your post very diplomatic, but I consider a touch dismissive, as an Australian cruise missile capability understated somewhat. The capability significant regionally. An analogy being the Indonesians aquiring a Scud like capabiliy off North Korea say.

If all we are getting from cruise missiles, is the ability to replace the F111's range with a depleted force of fatigued Hornets and the Orion fleet, is it worth it?

If regional air forces acquire cruise missiles, there must be an enhanced defensive capability of the ADF to enable elemental offensive operations ( Timor etc ) around our near north. But we will be left hung out to dry with a small force of Hornets awaiting the introduction of JSF - and is this the right aircraft in a region with a proliferation of long range missiles?

Would an interim fighter, such as the F15, be more prudent? Far less contentious than cruise missiles. The cruise missile capability slapped on easlily if regional air arms aquired a more threatening posture.

Regional skirmishes aside, certainly a capability where the RAAF can participate with the Americans in the opening round of a future air war.

Macchi

As painful as it is, public interest in defence healthy. Unless you want to go down the road of the RNZAF!

Conversely, to see defence personnel and bueracrats continuously bungle tax funds painful too.

Staying with the long range missile issue, isn't there a hangar full of Israeli missiles at Amberley? First rule of business in the civilian world, try before you buy off the Israelis.:ok:


Zapatas Blood

The efficiency of reducing the Japanese war effort by dropping incendiary devices from hundreds of B29's at low level, only a war crime admission if we lost the war.

Another tangent, but I respect your belief that we do not need long range offensive weapons.

I believe we do. Firstly, in defence of our huge land mass with relatively small resources, such weapons the most efficient means of protection. Secondly, such weapons offer a stand off capability to keep our crews out of harms way in any future "adventure".

[air-hag]

I advocate the re-invigoration of the ADF through the purchase of F-15cs for ADef plus F-15Es for strike. In addition, several squadrons of FA-18E/Fs to fatten it all out a little.

Keep the pigs too because the more types, the better. We can afford it, look at how much cash is wasted on dole-bludgers. Make the hobbits who come over to sun themselves and their big hairy feet on Bondi beach pay a little back.

Also some C-17s. Who wants to ride around in a J-model??? Ten should do it although how I arrived at that round figure I have no idea...

The pussers should be given a new carrier full of harriers to play with. Make it two, not much good having one on its own. We almost had one until the rotten stinkin bleedin poms double-crossed us on that HMS Ark Royal deal. Or was it the Hermes?? Anyway just shows you can't trust a pom.

Throw them a few cruise missiles while they're at it, and some for the subs.

And for the Yarmy, the latest Gen3 NVGs and some of those micro-UAVs to fly ahead of the troops. Screw the steyrs, it's G3s all around and yippee "Mobile Infantry"-type suits for the grunts.

Yeah I hear you, how to pay for it all. Sell the steyrs to the bikie gangs to raise more dough, for starters.

Shut down a few hospitals and send all the hypochondriacs to the Yarmy medic training schools to kill (oops) two birds with one stone.

Also, introduce a "Bingo Tax" at the old folks homes.

We'll need some of those great big f.**.k off MOAB fuel-air bombs to roll out the back of the Hercs because they look like a lot of fun. I reckon they'd be good for quelling riots.

Kiiiiiiiiiick Ass!!

What else??




NUKES!!!


:E

[ozbiggles]

Zap, sorry for the delay in reply and thankyou for your response. Even though we disagree on a few things its always good for a debate. For the record I spent 4 months in the MEAO (not in Iraq but did visit) in a position that gave me a very good idea of what was going on. In addition (i'm not giving away anything here, it was reported in the Australian last year) I saw the removal of a terrorist camp in Iraq as it happened. If I told you how I knew it was, that would be giving stuff away.
Even before I went and probably much more now I know weapons are a horrible way to deal with things. However they are a neceesary evil. Appeasment doesn't work, diplomacy might, weapons won't but they will get you back to diplomacy one day when the other side doesn't want to listen.
Back to the topic. People seem to have forgotten or not realise that Australia was only one incident from major conflict in Timor. One shooting incident because of bad maps did happen and if it wasn't for the incredibly brave actions of a few soldiers who did negotiate it could have developed from that or any other incident. This would have seen Australian troops in a foreign land with limited air support (how many AAR assest did we have/will we have in the future). Diplomacy might have worked, the ability to strike back (with missiles/ F111)would have only helped that diplomacy to save lives.
As for the reasons for the Iraq war I'm still examining them myself. However in the meantime, Saddam is gone, at least one training camp is gone, the Iraq team can beat us at soccer and we love it, they can get beaten in the next game, but go home as heros and not get beaten by their 'president'. I feel better with that than buying cheap oil of a madman.

[wessex19]

Question for anyone in the know, with regards to the alleged capability of North Korea's intercontinental missiles, what (or who) do they use for their guidance systems??
I am aware that Pakistan had (and still does) have a big problem in this department regarding their "glow in the dark" bombs!!:confused:

[Buster Hyman]

This would have seen Australian troops in a foreign land with limited air support
Now, was it true that there was a US carrier group stationed to the North of PNG during the E. Timor excercise?
if it wasn't for the incredibly brave actions of a few soldiers who did negotiate
This is a small fact that should be highlighted by the ADF more often. How easy it would've been for this to "blow up" out of all proportions. Does this prove training can beat superior numbers & firepower on occasion? Does it not prove that having a capability & being trained to know when to use the capability are two very different matters?

[oicur12]

"Appeasement is a pejorative term for a strategic maneuver, based on either pragmatism, fear of war, or moral conviction, that leads to acceptance of imposed conditions in preference to defending against aggressors. Since World War II, the term has generally negative connotations of weakness and cowardice, and people rarely use it to describe policies they support and tend to use it to label policies that they oppose."

This is a spiffing definition of the word.

Biggles, we appease regimes all the time. To say it "doesn’t work" is nonsense. We let Saudi Arabia and Pakistan get away with - murder, literally considering the events of Sep 11. The cold war was a classic example of a "fear of war" that led to an acceptance of "imposed conditions". Had the Joint Chiefs been more influential during the Cuban missile crisis for example, we might not be sitting here today, conversing on pprune.

"People rarely use it to describe policies they support".

Washington’s cozy relationship with the "Butcher of Chechnya" is a fine example of this.

[ozbiggles]

Oicur, excellent point. In certain scenarios/reality appeasment is used. If appeasement isn't applicable (ie people who murder kids/blow up planes) then something that goes bang might be needed ie a standoff missile/SAS/F111. Its all about options.
If you appease a terrorist they will want more. If you don't appease someone who wants something they will then consider becoming a terrorist. The fact that places that terrorists considered safe and friendly keep getting invaded gives notice that even they have a price to pay now. I don't like it, I'm sure you don't like it but governments need options which include hardware when diplomacy fails.

[oicur12]

ozbiggles,

You say "If appeasement isn't applicable (ie people who murder kids/blow up planes) then something that goes bang might be needed."

Would you support using such a doctrine consistently? Against all nations that murder kids and blow up planes? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, Rwanda, China, Israel, Egypt, etc. Against the west's newest friend, Libya? Or against the US for downing an Iranian airliner?

Our "defence" forces would be awfully busy.

[ozbiggles]

Oicur, No I wouldn't. As far as I know Rwanda hasn't threatened Australia. The shootdown of the Iranian jet is a very poor taste example as well. That was not a delibrate shootdown of a civilian jet. It was a tragic case of mistaken identity. I didn't see anyone hanging explosives over innocent kids there.
In addition I'm not advocating invading Indonesia because of what has happened in the last half hour. I am advocating having a number of deterrent capabilities (that our neighbours will get regardless of what we do/say). These capabilities also ensure that our aircrew will live to fight another day if they are called upon.

[L J R]

Great thread!!!

Some dumb points though....


and some well informed ones too.




I really like those who look through rose coloured glasses.


Never forget, there are some pretty bad guys out there. And some of them are smart!!!

.

[Plas Teek]

Ay chance those missiles could face east and maybe reach Wellington? Possibly the Beehive... there's a couple of shady characters there who are not for regional secruity.....

[Pinky the pilot]

Very interesting thread with varied and interesting comments from most posters with only one somewhat OTT post. I suspect he was only stirring the pot 'though.
However, I keep thinking of a quote from Tacitus.....
"Let he who desires peace prepare for war"
Comments anyone?

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Buster Hyman]

My Mum, who lived in LPL during the blitz, used to always shake her head when car factories were shut down. She used to say how they were the factories that built your tanks & planes etc.

Sometimes, being prepared for war, as with Pinky's quote, doesn't necissarily mean having 40,000 troops amassed near our borders. It can also include your contingency planning and preparedness should the unthinkable happen.

A standoff platform, such as the cruise missiles, could buy us just enough time to be better prepared. It may, just as easily not. One can only hope that the "visionaries" who concocted this plan have taken such contingencies into account.