Aussie MRH-90
Thread Starter
So how are the deliveries etc of the fabled MRH90 going? All is quiet for months.
I heard the Navy was less than impressed with its role in replacing "Sir King"...
I heard the Navy was less than impressed with its role in replacing "Sir King"...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the announcements in the last 6 months of US troops, planes, ships
visiting and training here and now even possibly a new airbase in the Cocos islands, to me it just seems to be crazy that we buy other than US, off the shelf equipment.
What does our Military do that is so different from the huge US military
that we have to re invent the wheel all the time ?
Especially with the history of European countries not willing to supply
spare parts if they don't like the conflict / war you are involved in - or in the case of Libya, to not take part at all.
visiting and training here and now even possibly a new airbase in the Cocos islands, to me it just seems to be crazy that we buy other than US, off the shelf equipment.
What does our Military do that is so different from the huge US military
that we have to re invent the wheel all the time ?
Especially with the history of European countries not willing to supply
spare parts if they don't like the conflict / war you are involved in - or in the case of Libya, to not take part at all.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the announcements in the last 6 months of US troops, planes, ships
visiting and training here and now even possibly a new airbase in the Cocos islands, to me it just seems to be crazy that we buy other than US, off the shelf equipment.
visiting and training here and now even possibly a new airbase in the Cocos islands, to me it just seems to be crazy that we buy other than US, off the shelf equipment.
I read somewhere that they are planning to use and expand upon some existing Australian base in the Darwin area ?
Didn't know that the very little and habited cocos islands where also in the planning.
Especially with the history of European countries not willing to supply
spare parts if they don't like the conflict / war you are involved in - or in the case of Libya, to not take part at all.
spare parts if they don't like the conflict / war you are involved in - or in the case of Libya, to not take part at all.
US State Department - Policy - Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
Also I'm a bit baffled by your Libya remark ???
edit ps; Seems you're right about the Cocos plans, didn't know that:
US Eyes Cocos Islands As Spy Base
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman
I am sure the US would resort to an embargo, but some European countries
have a track record of it that relate to Aust. The fact we, Australia are a close friend of the US means we are likely to be in it with them, not by ourselves so less likely to cop an embargo.
Libya
Germany, Poland for a start.
re Cocos Islands - that will be interesting to see if it becomes the next Diego Garcia (for aircraft only) although apart from Political sensitivities of having US base here in Aust, I would have thought Exmouth would have been good - based in a stable country but well out of the way, plenty of space, ships could be located at least on that side of Australia as has been talked about already).
I am sure the US would resort to an embargo, but some European countries
have a track record of it that relate to Aust. The fact we, Australia are a close friend of the US means we are likely to be in it with them, not by ourselves so less likely to cop an embargo.
Libya
Germany, Poland for a start.
re Cocos Islands - that will be interesting to see if it becomes the next Diego Garcia (for aircraft only) although apart from Political sensitivities of having US base here in Aust, I would have thought Exmouth would have been good - based in a stable country but well out of the way, plenty of space, ships could be located at least on that side of Australia as has been talked about already).
Last edited by 500N; 28th Mar 2012 at 20:10.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure the US would resort to an embargo, but some European countries
have a track record of it that relate to Aust.
have a track record of it that relate to Aust.
I'm not really up to date in the complete history of Australian-European realtions when it comes to arms-sales, where there specific situations where you guys suffered from a European imposed arms embargo ?
Libya
Germany, Poland for a start.
Germany, Poland for a start.
As for Poland, well I cannot tell why they didn't join into the action, maybe for the same reason that many other former Warsaw pact countries didn't get engaged, no expertise, not the right equipment and no funding available, they are not really rich ,compared with the Western EU countries.
As for the rest of the EU countries, it looks like the Libya campaign might well be the first time a military campaign was ended succesfully without the US DoD in the overwhelmingly leading role (apart from the Falklands War).
Also I get the uneasy feeling that you somehow get the impression that the European countries and the US are not on the same side, maybe I'm reading too much into your comments (I probably am) but for most of the European countries that simply is not true, not even for France.
Sure there might be tensions and differences of opinion from time to time but the alliance still stands pretty firm.
Besides alll that when it comes to weapons suppliers, the only place to shop for the full spectrum of high tech weaponry outside the US is in Europe.
I fail to see why Australia should restrict themselves to buying only US made weapons, just as I fail to see why European countries should only shop in Europe and US/Canada etc.. should only look at the US suppliers, it just doesn't make any sense (budgetary wise) to do that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman
Re the european embargo, others on here are far more qualified to comment but it was during the Vietnam war and I THINK related to parts for one or more of our aircraft - it might have been the Pilatus Porter.
Understand re Germany / Poland. Why have a NATO pushed resolution if one of the major countries of NATO doesn't do anything major.
I am not anti European, (born in the UK). Maybe it's because the DoD in Australia has made a cock up of so many purchases / builds and for such a small military, where possible, why not just buy off the shelf from our major coalition partner ?
If we spend 90% of our time operating with the US, then doesn't it make sense to operate the same or very similar equipment ? Does that have ANY weighting at all in the buying criteria ?
Re the european embargo, others on here are far more qualified to comment but it was during the Vietnam war and I THINK related to parts for one or more of our aircraft - it might have been the Pilatus Porter.
Understand re Germany / Poland. Why have a NATO pushed resolution if one of the major countries of NATO doesn't do anything major.
I am not anti European, (born in the UK). Maybe it's because the DoD in Australia has made a cock up of so many purchases / builds and for such a small military, where possible, why not just buy off the shelf from our major coalition partner ?
If we spend 90% of our time operating with the US, then doesn't it make sense to operate the same or very similar equipment ? Does that have ANY weighting at all in the buying criteria ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the european embargo, others on here are far more qualified to comment but it was during the Vietnam war and I THINK related to parts for one or more of our aircraft - it might have been the Pilatus Porter.
The only real embargo that existed (and in reality only on paper) from 1 western counrty towards another was between France and Israel and that was mostly because of political problems between the 2 of them.
Understand re Germany / Poland. Why have a NATO pushed resolution if one of the major countries of NATO doesn't do anything major.
A quick action like the one in Libya is just out of the question for Germany.
It doesn't mean they are not comitted to NATO, same goes for POLAND.
I am not anti European, (born in the UK). Maybe it's because the DoD in Australia has made a cock up of so many purchases / builds and for such a small military, where possible, why not just buy off the shelf from our major coalition partner ?
If we spend 90% of our time operating with the US, then doesn't it make sense to operate the same or very similar equipment ? Does that have ANY weighting at all in the buying criteria ?
If we spend 90% of our time operating with the US, then doesn't it make sense to operate the same or very similar equipment ? Does that have ANY weighting at all in the buying criteria ?
Fact is that all our equipment is NATO-compatible and therefor US compatible.
Fact is also that even the US looks abroad if they consider buying new expensive weapon programs (LAKOTA, HARRIER, KC30 was a serious contender, GOSHAWK, Minimi, MaG, etc.... ) even if they directly compete with indigenous suppliers, same goes for most European countries.
I think it is in your nations best interest to look at all possible suppliers that can deliver what you need, I'm sure most of the time you'll automatically end up with US systems but opting for US weapons as a matter of policy is just an idiotic policy (pardon my french).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
European Arms Support Embargo on Australia during tje Vietnam War.
French - 30mm DEFA cannon ammunition
Sweden - Carl Gustav anti tank ammunition
Switzerland - Pilatus Porter support
and most galling of all
Britain - 1000lb bombs for Canberra bomber - Canberra was operational in Vietnam.
Maybe more I can't remember.
For Britain to refuse to supply (and France for that matter) after so many Australians served in the European campaign of WWII, and with Britain being in recent past one of our closest allies, was a despicable act by the UK Government (spivs, one and all). This is not to say that the people of the UK were part of the low act - I have nothing but the fondest respect for the people of the UK, but not their elected representatives.
We should always remember how the Europeans treated a loyal and close ally when we in the future contemplate arms purchases from a European supplier. To paraphrase, those who forget/ignore history are destined to repeat it.
US are much less likely to do the same low act.
John
French - 30mm DEFA cannon ammunition
Sweden - Carl Gustav anti tank ammunition
Switzerland - Pilatus Porter support
and most galling of all
Britain - 1000lb bombs for Canberra bomber - Canberra was operational in Vietnam.
Maybe more I can't remember.
For Britain to refuse to supply (and France for that matter) after so many Australians served in the European campaign of WWII, and with Britain being in recent past one of our closest allies, was a despicable act by the UK Government (spivs, one and all). This is not to say that the people of the UK were part of the low act - I have nothing but the fondest respect for the people of the UK, but not their elected representatives.
We should always remember how the Europeans treated a loyal and close ally when we in the future contemplate arms purchases from a European supplier. To paraphrase, those who forget/ignore history are destined to repeat it.
US are much less likely to do the same low act.
John
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rjtjrt
Thank you for that list.
The Carl Gustav was the one I was thinking of that I couldn't remember.
kbrockman
I think we are one of the least likely countries the US would put an embargo on.
In fact, I think Australia may end up with a heap of pre positioned US Equipment at some time in the future - in a nice, out of the way location like Exmouth, Darwin or up that way. Darwin would be good, good docks, US aircraft and US personnel close by.
Just my HO.
Thank you for that list.
The Carl Gustav was the one I was thinking of that I couldn't remember.
kbrockman
I think we are one of the least likely countries the US would put an embargo on.
In fact, I think Australia may end up with a heap of pre positioned US Equipment at some time in the future - in a nice, out of the way location like Exmouth, Darwin or up that way. Darwin would be good, good docks, US aircraft and US personnel close by.
Just my HO.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Carl Gustav was the one I was thinking of that I couldn't remember.
kbrockman
I think we are one of the least likely countries the US would put an embargo on.
kbrockman
I think we are one of the least likely countries the US would put an embargo on.
As far as France and the UK goes, you conveniently forget that the embargo was mainly the result of what happened in the Suez crisis, unfortunately you, as one of the sole partners in the Vietnam war , also got to suffer from the embargo.
If the Suez crisis showed one thing it is that, like all other countries, also the US first and foremost acts in its selfinterest, they basically betrayed their allies to fraternize with the new oilpower aka Saudi Arabia who firmly choose the side of the new Egyptian dictator, Nasser.
If I where you I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket, even a fairly safe one as the US, if you run into a political conflict with one of your neigbours, and lets be honest there is ample opportunity in that part of the world for that to happen, and your interests somehow clash with those of the US you can make a fair bet that you'll be made to comply with the US either through diplomatic pressure or even unofficial embargoes.
They've done it before , they'll do it again.
This is not a criticism on the US, but rather some kind of reality check.
There will be times your interests differ and if you decide to make yourself so dependant on them, then also be prepared to set aside your own interests from time to time to serve theirs.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrokman wrote
"First Sweden and Switzerland where non-NATO ,neutral, countries caught in the middle of the Cold war, what they did then hardly reflects on what would happen now."
YA RECKON!
"unfortunately you, as one of the sole partners in the Vietnam war , also got to suffer from the embargo."
That makes it OK then.
Imagine if this had happened to your troops in the Afghan war now - someone that you regarded as an ally and who you had served loyally in the past suddenly for reasons of "moral indignation", refused to supply AMMUNITION that you were using in Afghanistan currently, and you had no other source for, suddenly refused to support your troops.
It pissed me of, mainly as I had a close relative in Vietnam at the time.
Talk about self interest - the European embargo was done on so called moral grounds - not self interest.
As your country probably felt in the Suez Crisis (ie somewhat let down) we also felt.
As you still remember the Suez crisis abandonment, so do we re the abondonment we received from your government.
Unreliable doesn't do it justice. Disloyal, barstardry are 2 words that come to mind.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap!
We in Australia would be stupid to buy equipment from Europe in the future.
I assume we did so recently because our new generation of beuracrats were unaware of the above info. They need reminding. (Fortunately or unfortunately, our experience with the recent purchases has left a very bad reputation here for European suppliers.)
Once again this is not to imply that the people of Britain and Europe, as opposed to their government, are held in anything other than high regard in Australia and by me.
John
"First Sweden and Switzerland where non-NATO ,neutral, countries caught in the middle of the Cold war, what they did then hardly reflects on what would happen now."
YA RECKON!
"unfortunately you, as one of the sole partners in the Vietnam war , also got to suffer from the embargo."
That makes it OK then.
Imagine if this had happened to your troops in the Afghan war now - someone that you regarded as an ally and who you had served loyally in the past suddenly for reasons of "moral indignation", refused to supply AMMUNITION that you were using in Afghanistan currently, and you had no other source for, suddenly refused to support your troops.
It pissed me of, mainly as I had a close relative in Vietnam at the time.
Talk about self interest - the European embargo was done on so called moral grounds - not self interest.
As your country probably felt in the Suez Crisis (ie somewhat let down) we also felt.
As you still remember the Suez crisis abandonment, so do we re the abondonment we received from your government.
Unreliable doesn't do it justice. Disloyal, barstardry are 2 words that come to mind.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap!
We in Australia would be stupid to buy equipment from Europe in the future.
I assume we did so recently because our new generation of beuracrats were unaware of the above info. They need reminding. (Fortunately or unfortunately, our experience with the recent purchases has left a very bad reputation here for European suppliers.)
Once again this is not to imply that the people of Britain and Europe, as opposed to their government, are held in anything other than high regard in Australia and by me.
John
Last edited by rjtjrt; 29th Mar 2012 at 22:08.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kb
I don't doubt what you say re the US.
But I would much rather be in bed with the US than the Cluster eff of the EU
and having to deal with decisions by committee / vagaries of European Governements. "Oh no, sorry, you can't overfly our country on the way to bomb Libya"
And we have a hell of a lot more leverage with the US than the EU.
We do have one or more of their very important listening bases here in Aus,
which is kind of important to the US and cant exactly be moved in a hurry.
We also have our safe ports for ship visits and stable Gov't - and that goes without saying our reliable track record.
I think we are much more useful to the US, more so now below.
And with China / S East Asia coming even more into play,
then we have even more leverage.
Remember, we had the F111 so we could fly to Indonesia
to drop various things on them if need be, the US knew that.
And we, the insignificant country of Aust that kicks far above our weight
have very few restrictions on equipment from the US. I wonder why that is ?
.
I don't doubt what you say re the US.
But I would much rather be in bed with the US than the Cluster eff of the EU
and having to deal with decisions by committee / vagaries of European Governements. "Oh no, sorry, you can't overfly our country on the way to bomb Libya"
And we have a hell of a lot more leverage with the US than the EU.
We do have one or more of their very important listening bases here in Aus,
which is kind of important to the US and cant exactly be moved in a hurry.
We also have our safe ports for ship visits and stable Gov't - and that goes without saying our reliable track record.
I think we are much more useful to the US, more so now below.
And with China / S East Asia coming even more into play,
then we have even more leverage.
Remember, we had the F111 so we could fly to Indonesia
to drop various things on them if need be, the US knew that.
And we, the insignificant country of Aust that kicks far above our weight
have very few restrictions on equipment from the US. I wonder why that is ?
.
I think you will find that we don't always buy of the shelf because the politicians get involved and look for what can be built in their local area rather than what is best for the job. I can see the merit in that argument but obviously the end product may not be the best.
I think Airforce has got the idea now with its fighter and transport fleet. The tanker and AWAC fleet may not really fit into that but I think in the end they will both prove their worth and there wasn't any real point in buying old technology for those projects.
I think Navy is still under the influence and we are seeing the result with the AWD. Building here a European boat with an American system and we can't even get the 'blocks' right, hold on tight for that mess.
Hopefully the Amphibious boats will work out a little better.
It's a balancing act but in the end you need the best insurance policy for this stuff(within reason), not the cheapest.
I think Airforce has got the idea now with its fighter and transport fleet. The tanker and AWAC fleet may not really fit into that but I think in the end they will both prove their worth and there wasn't any real point in buying old technology for those projects.
I think Navy is still under the influence and we are seeing the result with the AWD. Building here a European boat with an American system and we can't even get the 'blocks' right, hold on tight for that mess.
Hopefully the Amphibious boats will work out a little better.
It's a balancing act but in the end you need the best insurance policy for this stuff(within reason), not the cheapest.
500N
While I agree with just about everything you have said, I don't think the above statement holds true anymore.
We are not punching above our weight because our people and equipment are being held back. Our soldiers are very good at what they do and are doing well wherever they are deployed, but our air assets remain largely unproven. No F-111s saw combat, No RAAF Hornets have deployed to support our soldiers and only a very small rotational deployment of AAvn has entered the MEAO. The RAAF is not in a position to conduct tactical airdrop in the AO and our ground forces are largely reliant on foreign support in order to conduct ops. Hopefully this will change, but we have been in Afghanistan for more than a decade now...how long does it take?
IMHO 50+ M/UH-60M/S would have been a zero risk replacement for the next 20 years. Right out of the box they would have been deployable, and that's what we want.
And we, the insignificant country of Aust that kicks far above our weight
have very few restrictions on equipment from the US. I wonder why that is ?
have very few restrictions on equipment from the US. I wonder why that is ?
We are not punching above our weight because our people and equipment are being held back. Our soldiers are very good at what they do and are doing well wherever they are deployed, but our air assets remain largely unproven. No F-111s saw combat, No RAAF Hornets have deployed to support our soldiers and only a very small rotational deployment of AAvn has entered the MEAO. The RAAF is not in a position to conduct tactical airdrop in the AO and our ground forces are largely reliant on foreign support in order to conduct ops. Hopefully this will change, but we have been in Afghanistan for more than a decade now...how long does it take?
IMHO 50+ M/UH-60M/S would have been a zero risk replacement for the next 20 years. Right out of the box they would have been deployable, and that's what we want.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trojan
Oooops, I meant a small population / economy / politically, NOT the ADF.
I know how well the ADF performs around the world and would totally agree they do a very very good job and are respected for it.
Agree re the RAAF not being deployed and soldiers held back, it is crazy to have an Air force and it not used. Agree re AAvn.
It must be so frustrating to train, train, train on some of the best equipment in the world and not get to use it for real.
Re RAAF not being used / Air drops and not doing them, does anyone know the REAL reason why not ?
Oooops, I meant a small population / economy / politically, NOT the ADF.
I know how well the ADF performs around the world and would totally agree they do a very very good job and are respected for it.
Agree re the RAAF not being deployed and soldiers held back, it is crazy to have an Air force and it not used. Agree re AAvn.
It must be so frustrating to train, train, train on some of the best equipment in the world and not get to use it for real.
Re RAAF not being used / Air drops and not doing them, does anyone know the REAL reason why not ?
Such a short memory.
FA18s did deploy to the MEAO and conducted numerous combat missions. One day you may hear more about them.
And obviously some people have forgotten about Timor already. Although no 'combat' missions were flown there were plenty of F18 and F111s on the ground at Tindal for a long time,ready for just such an event. Most know that event could have gone either way. Just maybe the deterrent value paid for itself just there. As Mr Cosgrove said "walk quite, but carry a big stick".
The FA18 was also ready to be used in the Sandline affair, and that threat was enough to achieve the required aim.
FA18s did deploy to the MEAO and conducted numerous combat missions. One day you may hear more about them.
And obviously some people have forgotten about Timor already. Although no 'combat' missions were flown there were plenty of F18 and F111s on the ground at Tindal for a long time,ready for just such an event. Most know that event could have gone either way. Just maybe the deterrent value paid for itself just there. As Mr Cosgrove said "walk quite, but carry a big stick".
The FA18 was also ready to be used in the Sandline affair, and that threat was enough to achieve the required aim.
Thread Starter
[quote]
Sweden ordered NH90's and has now purchased 15 or so MH-60M Blackhawks for combat operations in A/Stan and elsewhere. That's what they really think of the NH90 as a combat platform..
Australia should do the same. Interestingly there is zip coming out of Canberra on the continued MRH90 roll-out past a vague press release on the "delivery" of unit #15 by the OEM...
[/QUOTEMHO 50+ M/UH-60M/S would have been a zero risk replacement for the next 20 years. Right out of the box they would have been deployable, and that's what we want.
Sweden ordered NH90's and has now purchased 15 or so MH-60M Blackhawks for combat operations in A/Stan and elsewhere. That's what they really think of the NH90 as a combat platform..
Australia should do the same. Interestingly there is zip coming out of Canberra on the continued MRH90 roll-out past a vague press release on the "delivery" of unit #15 by the OEM...
Such a short memory.
FA18s did deploy to the MEAO and conducted numerous combat missions. One day you may hear more about them.
And obviously some people have forgotten about Timor already. Although no 'combat' missions were flown there were plenty of F18 and F111s on the ground at Tindal for a long time,ready for just such an event. Most know that event could have gone either way. Just maybe the deterrent value paid for itself just there. As Mr Cosgrove said "walk quite, but carry a big stick".
The FA18 was also ready to be used in the Sandline affair, and that threat was enough to achieve the required aim.
FA18s did deploy to the MEAO and conducted numerous combat missions. One day you may hear more about them.
And obviously some people have forgotten about Timor already. Although no 'combat' missions were flown there were plenty of F18 and F111s on the ground at Tindal for a long time,ready for just such an event. Most know that event could have gone either way. Just maybe the deterrent value paid for itself just there. As Mr Cosgrove said "walk quite, but carry a big stick".
The FA18 was also ready to be used in the Sandline affair, and that threat was enough to achieve the required aim.
ended up with the same medals as those actually being shot at, but no ADF platform was allowed anywhere near the AO until all substantial threats had been eliminated by US forces. This occurred for a number of reasons. I agree re: Timor (was in then too) But The fact remains they did not fire a shot in anger, although RF-111s were flying sorties in support of soldiers on the ground, and ALG came into their own.
RAAF combat aircraft, however, have not deployed on high intensity combat of any type since Vietnam, and not in air to air combat since Korea (intercepting Cessnas and talking about intercepting Antonovs doesn't count).
Look at Army deployments over the same period. Very few infantry soldiers in
the Army today could say they have never been shot at or employed operationally in their role.
I want to know why our primary battlefield helicopter has not been deployed to
our primary battlefield; and why the RAAF can repeatedly deploy jets to RED FLAG, but not to Afghanistan. Especially since Army has made repeated calls for CAS. I know individual pilots have deployed as part of US units (this is why Ill refrain from using the R-word) but I still don't understand why the ADF is addicted to buying multi-million dollar combat kit, only never to use it in combat, particularly the 95 fighters currently sitting on the Tarmac around this wide brown land. Where is the accountability?
TBM, you hit the nail on the head. Shows what they think of it.
500N. Apologies, I misunderstood you. What is the real reason wrt airdrop?
Last edited by Trojan1981; 29th Mar 2012 at 07:18.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rjtjrt wrote
For Britain to refuse to supply (and France for that matter) after so many Australians served in the European campaign of WWII, and with Britain being in recent past one of our closest allies, was a despicable act by the UK Government (spivs, one and all). This is not to say that the people of the UK were part of the low act - I have nothing but the fondest respect for the people of the UK, but not their elected representatives.
If you check the history books I think you will find that Britain and Russia were co- chairman of the peace agreement after the French/ Indo China war under the auspices of the UN so neither of them could really offer assistance to either side except surreptitiously. Australia became involved because of treaties between it and the US which did not involve any European countries. After their defeat in 1954 the French were never going to get involved.
For Britain to refuse to supply (and France for that matter) after so many Australians served in the European campaign of WWII, and with Britain being in recent past one of our closest allies, was a despicable act by the UK Government (spivs, one and all). This is not to say that the people of the UK were part of the low act - I have nothing but the fondest respect for the people of the UK, but not their elected representatives.
If you check the history books I think you will find that Britain and Russia were co- chairman of the peace agreement after the French/ Indo China war under the auspices of the UN so neither of them could really offer assistance to either side except surreptitiously. Australia became involved because of treaties between it and the US which did not involve any European countries. After their defeat in 1954 the French were never going to get involved.