PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

rh200 20th Jun 2014 04:00


Another doubtful defence purchase by Australia?
Nope, and as discussed on that thread, it was, and is the only beer in the fridge of that generation.

bosnich71 20th Jun 2014 04:41

Chuboy ....
The problem that I, and maybe others, have with you is that I don't recall you being quite so scathing about the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd administration as you appear to be of the present government, something that began practically from the moment that the Labour party lost the last election. To me,there does seem to be a link between the majority of your comments and the negativity displayed by some in the M.S.M. towards the Liberal government and Tony Abbott in particular so I don't think my questioning of whether you are a union member or someone connected with the Labour party is out of order. However, if it is so be it but, in the meantime my question to you with reference to the Royal Commission into union matters still stands. The evidence being given... on oath .... into the way the labour party conducts itself should ,as I've previously stated, upset anyone interested in a democratic future for Australia.
I'm not particularly interested in whether the Liberals are a bad lot etc. As a one time Labour voter and union member of many years I'd like to think that the Labour party was about to rid itself of the union bullying/vote rigging/branch stacking/vilification of decent people etc. etc. with which it has indulged itself for so long and give some of us an alternative party to vote for.At the moment it isn't the labour party.

Andu 20th Jun 2014 06:51

rh200, did you watch the video clip? The beer is a seriously bad brew.

chuboy 20th Jun 2014 07:26

Well bosnich... chalk it up to my only taking an interest in politics recently. It may or may not be obvious but I'm not as old as the majority (the rest? :\) of the posters who frequent this thread. I've not had the pleasure of voting in as many elections as you have.

I would ask you to point out when I have ever defended the Labor Party for their "misgivings" in relation to the unions. Do I need to repeat myself when I say the corruption, bullying tactics and general sleaziness is inexcusable? Let those involved incur the full wrath of our justice system.

As for my supposed relationship with the Labor party, perhaps you have noticed a link between the views I raise in this thread and those shared in the MSM because I read the MSM from time to time. Unlike you, I am interested in whether the Liberals are a bad lot, because they are currently governing this country and will have a lot of influence on what my quality of life is likely to be over the next 10 years or so.

I do however share your wish for a Labor party (or a political party, even) that is free from the tendrils of meddling lobbyists (or whatever name you might have for them).

porch monkey 20th Jun 2014 09:39

Andu, by his definition, the F-16 is now also a turkey, since it now does A/S, CAS, and A/G. So is the F-15, except it's proven to be one of the best combat aircraft ever built.........:confused:

7x7 20th Jun 2014 09:47

Porch monkey, do yourself a huge favour. Read the Boyd book, as Andu suggested above.

SOPS 20th Jun 2014 09:56

This whole article is scary, especially the last paragraph.


Fear and loathing as Aussies join fight - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

rh200 20th Jun 2014 10:39


rh200, did you watch the video clip? The beer is a seriously bad brew.
That is one opinion, amongst many who share his, and those who don't. As stated before, personally I don't like the thing, but neither did I like the F18. Frankely I would have liked the F15, but it wasn't considered and we got the 18.

I say this again. Whether you like it or not, we are inevitably linked to the US and integration with their forces. That means for any foreseeable foe into the future that may be a real challenge, it won't be with out uncle Sam. That means anything as important as a long term fighter bomber is only going to be with this integration in mind.

SOPS 20th Jun 2014 15:15

I'm in the UK at the moment, Sky News is showing video of an Australian "person" encouraging other people to come to the Middle East to fight. According to Sky, he was killed in battle, shortly after the video was taken.

500N 20th Jun 2014 15:19

Wasn't he the suicide bomber ?

BenThere 20th Jun 2014 19:23


we are inevitably linked to the US and integration with their forces
I'd love to see Australia design and build a fighter/bomber tailored to Australia's strategic and tactical map. Sweden did it.

Many nations have air defense challenges facing them that are similar to Australia's. They need to defend territory, intercept intruders, and have the capacity to carry bombs and/or cruise missiles and other stand-off munitions. They don't have trillions to spend so they need a cost-effective, multi-role platform, like the F-18.

If Australia builds it, other nations will buy it.

500N 20th Jun 2014 20:11

BenThere

Other Fish to fry IMHO.

For the low numbers we buy, better off buying what someone else builds, especially with integration and Link16 etc etc.

Plus the way our defense forces work - especially DMO, we would be stuffed trying to do it as we can't even buy gear without stuffing it up.

BenThere 20th Jun 2014 21:41

I always thought the Australian F-111 buy was wise. It had the range and capabilities Australia needed and at low cost. You should have bought the FB-111s too when we were in the mood to give them away.

Indonesia was quite concerned about F-111 refueling. I learned that first hand when I was on a USAF trip to Darwin (when I met my wife) back in the early 90s. Some Amberley F-111 guys contacted me who wanted to do an air refueling with us. I sent a message home for approval and got an 'absolutely not' answer. Then two State Department reps showed up in Darwin to make sure I got the message. They were the ones who told me it would not go over well in Jakarta.

500N 20th Jun 2014 21:45

"Then two State Department reps showed up in Darwin to make sure I got the message. They were the ones who told me it would not go over well in Jakarta."

Wow :rolleyes:

Must have flown up from Canberra.

But yes, Indo did not like the fact we had F-111's.


In one of the books I read from an Aussie MG, he mentioned about flying an F-111 down the main street of Jakarta.

bosnich71 20th Jun 2014 23:06

Chuboy .... well you got one thing wrong.
I am interested in whether the Liberal party is a bad lot. However at the moment they are, in my opinion, a whole lot better than the dysfunctional mob that purports to be for the "workers".

bosnich71 20th Jun 2014 23:10

Ben There ... I'm sorry but,in the past, we Aussies couldn't even design a 2 seat training aircraft for the RAAF successfully so I don't see us getting into the fighter/bomber industry.
Then again... we don't have an "Industry" nowadays anyway.


P.s. With regard to Air re-fuelling.... when the RAAF B.707s' were converted to Tankers,in the early nineties, they were not only not given any extra fuel capacity but also didn't get the system necessary to air re-fuel F.1-11s'. Perhaps America had a hand in the decision.

dat581 20th Jun 2014 23:41

Ben There. When the USAF put the FB-111s out to pasture Australia did buy a few of them and re designated them F-111Gs.

Andu 20th Jun 2014 23:42

One of the main advantages of the F111 in keeping Indonesia's regional aspirations in some sort of line was that it could, if it was called upon to do so, fly down the main street of Jakarta without the need of air to air refuelling.

And the Indonesians knew it.

The F18, (and the F35) cannot.

And the Indonesians know it.

BenThere. One point of disagreement re your post re the wisdom of the F111 buy. Cheap, at least in Australian terms, it was not.

As for building our own fighter bomber... We tried building our own light utility transport aircraft back in the 60s. It was called the Nomad. Nomads usually have no home and no one wants them to be anywhere near them.

A very aptly named aircraft was the Nomad.

I shudder to think what the resulting fighter bomber would look like if DMO had a hand in drawing up its specs (to say nothing of its construction). Top of the specifications list would be the absolute top priority requirement that it have no capability in regards to range or payload that might offend our northern neighbours. My guess is that a most apt name for it would be 'The Camel' - "Camel', as in 'a horse designed by a committee', but even that might not be right, as camels have some capabilities.

rh200 20th Jun 2014 23:43


I'd love to see Australia design and build a fighter/bomber tailored to Australia's strategic and tactical map. Sweden did it.

Many nations have air defense challenges facing them that are similar to Australia's. They need to defend territory, intercept intruders,
BenThere

You've touched on a valid point and also a pet hate of mind, and that is "if they can do it why can't we" syndrome.:p

The fact is every nation is different, and their culture change with time, and the ability to do things with it. From a strategic view point, why things happen on a international scale comes down to several reasons, greed, divide and conquer, short term strategy and long strategy.

If we look at world war two, there where numerous countries that declared neutrality, some got invaded any way, others didn't. There where various reasons for this, but simply cost versus gain would be the simplest explanation.

Sweden has got where it has, due to a series of events that combines its sociological evolution and geographical location. Australia on the the other hand is a very different county, and geographically it is one huge acquisition target if the circumstances permit.

So even though technically, we could probably design and build our own aircraft, the amount it would cost versus quality, would be prohibitive.

Combine that with the fact that we could never muster the resources to defend ourselves against a well equipped large adversary, that is if one should arise, means we are inevitably linked to the Yanks.

If we had gone down the US nation building route a hundred years or so ago, and had mass immagration, then we may well have had a large population who actually identified themselves as Australians. That path is gone now, and we have what we have.

500N 20th Jun 2014 23:52

"we could never muster the resources to defend ourselves against a well equipped large adversary,"

The country alone would defeat a lot of Armies.

You could hold Newcastle to Melbourne and the strip a few hundred kms inland. Maybe up to Brisbane. But you'd need a huge army to hold and control much more than that, especially if opposed.

After all, "seize and hold ground from the enemy" ????


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:53.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.