Bobby. wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:31am:


Hasn't it already started? Should we come last? Sure we could take the Isreal path, deny we have them, while letting everybody know we have them. Then we could threaten to bomb the shyte out of any of our nearest trading partners with sopwith camels if they look like they want them too. Not NZ of course, they're a special case, mainly white.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 4:55pm:


I wasn't aware of any SEA countries which do...   

Quote:


Which is why we are major proponent of the non-proliferation treaty regime in the region.  It's cheaper than wasting squillions on nukes.   

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 6:30am:


Then stop arguing.  Agree to disagree.  Easy.

Quote:


What it means is, as I pointed out, your language was imprecise and implied something that was clearly wrong.  We have now cleared the issue up.  You are not wrong.  OK? Just unclear.

Quote:


Thank you for the compliment.  I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Grey wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:43am:


No, it hasn't started in our region.  Its actually slowing considerably at the global level.

Quote:


Stop being silly.   Nuclear blackmail is rather frowned upon by the international community.   Witness Iran, again as an example of what happens even if it's only perceived that a nation might attempt it (even when it hasn't got nuclear weapons yet).   

Emma wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:59pm:


What was announced about 18 months ago was that we would slow our purchase, not that we would stop it.

We have always been in a bit of a bad spot with the F-35.  Not because of anything necessarily to do with the aircraft itself but because we, perhaps of all the participating nations needed to buy it soonest, as our F/A-18s were extremely elderly (and are getting older as I type) had not been as drastically upgraded as the aircraft of other participating nations had been since they all adopted new ones in the mid-1980s. 

This meant we wanted them quickly and so we committed to an early part of the initial production run.  This meant they cost more than aircraft ordered later (its all about how aircraft manufacturers realise their R&D costs and economies of scale).

The ALP Government basically altered the contract to purchase fewer from the early batch and more from the later batch, in order to save money when they were undertaking drastic budget cuts at the time.

In reality, it's more about creative accounting than anything else and shuffling money from one pocket to another one in Treasury's trousers.

If we did not purchase the F-35, there isn't much out there that is actually as good.  We would have to purchase second-rate aircraft such as the European Typhoon or the French Rafale, which while fine aircraft in themselves are at least half a generation behind the F-35. 

Quote:


Didn't they?  Perhaps the question should be, why should they if they want to retain their technological lead in stealth matters (the F-117 had well and truly been superceded already, anyway).

Because we could have used them - better than burying them in the ground - that's shocking!

Quote:


We could have been rather hard pressed to afford even one...

We could have afforded one or two.

Quote:


Again, they wanted to retain their technological lead, so no one was allowed to buy F-22s.  Now, the last one rolled off the production line approximately two years ago and all the jigs have been broken up, so no more can be built.

They are supposed to be our friends.
True friends help you as much as they can.

Quote:


And we were heavily reliant on the Poms and could only defend ourselves if they wanted to be involved.  Nothing has changed.  Australia has long sought to utilise alliances to allow it to save money on defence.  Governments of all stripes have not paid full tote for the matter.

But our great Yanky ally deny us the tools to defend ourselves.

Quote:


Why?  The present one appears to be working OK.

No it's not - we're defenseless without the Yanks

Quote:


Why would China be a threat to us?  The Chinese do not have the means to project their military power into our region nor do they have the need to when they can simply buy our resources much more cheaply than it would to seize them, development and export them back to the PRC.   Nations do not "flex their muscles" without reason nor without the means to do so.   China is an aspiring super-power economically but still firmly remains a regional power militarily.  It has done so for the last ~3,000 years.   It won't change that mindset very quickly when its that entrenched.

I don't trust the Chinese or the Indonesians.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:40pm:




And you would have to defend them from air attack, so back to square one, buying fighter defence

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:34am:


Mmm, they were two decades out of production.  They were basically hand built and used old technology and were difficult to maintain.  Why should we want them?

We are American allies but that doesn't mean they want to give us technology which may leak to other countries nor be useful against them.

Quote:


And had no money left over for anything else.  Our entire economy would have been skewed, which is what happened when we bought the C-17s (which was IMO a mistake).  Buying B-2s would have been of little real value to us.  They'd have been hangar queens.

Quote:


We are allies and friends.  However never delude yourself that the United States does very much out of altruism.  In Washington there is apparently an old political saying, "don't remind me of what you've done in the past, remind me of what you've done for me lately..."

The US has seen it's technological lead over the last 30 years steadily decline.  They are a jealous nation at times.  They weren't going to hand them over to other nations just because of friendship.

Quote:


No, actually on that point you're completely wrong.  They are actually pretty generous when it comes to defence equipment.  They sell it too us, because of our status as close allies, at basically rock-bottom prices through their FMAP (Foreign Military Aid Program) system.  More importantly we also get a load of spares from them at pretty cheap prices as well, and the US military logistics system has very deep pockets and long lines of bits and pieces which go a long way back in time as well.  We would have been completely unable to afford to keep the F-111 flying as long as we did without that aspect of our alliance with them.

Quote:


In a single word bullshit.   We are quite able to defend ourselves against any probable threat which may eventuate in our region.  We are still very much the military superpower in Oceania and have been for over 50 years.

Quote:


Who ever said anything about trust?  There is a difference between trusting and being aware of the realities which surround us.

If any nation wanted to attack the Australian continent in any substantive way, it would need to make a very large investment in long-rang sea power and/or air power.  Neither the PRC or Indonesia has.

If any nation wanted to invade the Australian continent they would need to make an even larger substantial investment in the means to do so.  Neither the PRC or Indonesia has.

If either did, for either case, you would have substantial lead times to become aware of and take precautions against them.   It takes time and money to build a substantial military, naval and air force.  They do not spring out of the ground from nothing and instantaneously.

So, by all means don't trust the PRC or Indonesia but that doesn't mean we have to react with hostility to them, now does it?