Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
RAAF Nuclear Capability (Read 2118 times)
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
RAAF Nuclear Capability
Jul 10th, 2017 at 1:05pm
 

For a  very small period of time we had the will and we had the way, but it was not be.

From 1973 to about 1986 the RAAF F111 was capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, the systems were maintained up until the Pave Tack upgrade needed the room in the aircraft for our new weapons.

I have no feelings one way or another as I spent a good couple of years maintaining those systems and another couple of years removing them.


LAST week’s successful test of a North Korean missile raised fresh fears Australia is now potentially within range of one of the rogue nation’s nukes.
Yet despite being the world’s third largest producer of uranium — the key ingredient in a nuclear bomb — Australia has no similar weapon to chuck back should Kim Jong-un press the big red button.
But, were it not for the rolling of Australian Prime Minister John Gorton in 1971, in a Liberal Party coup, Australia could easily have developed its own true blue, and massively deadly, nuke.
A military expert has told news.com.au, that top secret plans were so advanced Australia was considered “top of the pile” of countries expected to acquire its own nuclear arsenal.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/australias-secret-plans-to-have-its-ow...


An interesting read.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #1 - Jul 10th, 2017 at 1:32pm
 
Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 1:27pm:
Australia doesn't need nuclear weapons.

Imagine somebody like BigHole64 having access to nuclear weapons. BigHole64 makes Homer Simpson look like an intellectual.



So that is the sum total of your input on this subject.


Well done.  Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


Nukes are bad, mmmkay


Bigol is bad mmmkay
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #2 - Jul 10th, 2017 at 6:51pm
 
Australia signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 IIRC.   We abandoned all efforts to gain nuclear weapons at that point.   We have relied on the US "Nuclear Umbrella" ever since, to deter any potential aggressor armed with WMDs.

The F-111 was purchase in 1964 to deter the remote possibility of Indonesia under Sukarno using it's Tu-16 Badger bombers to attack any Australian (read Darwin/Brisbane) cities.   We have never had nuclear weapons.   The closest we came was in 1950 when the British induced the Australian Government to allow them to test nuclear weapons on our soil.  As part of the Imperial Defence plans of the day, the exchange was that we were to develop nuclear industries and Britain was to provide the knowledge to build bombs.   We created the ANU (to provide nuclear scientists and engineers), the Snowy Mountain River Scheme (to provide sufficient electricity for Uranium enrichement).   However, the USA, fearful of the possibility of nuclear knowledge leaking to the fUSSR prevented the UK from transferring the necessary know-how, how to build a bomb.

We do not need nuclear weapons to deter the DPRK.  The DPRK will not possess the ability to attack Australia - even if they ever wanted to - for about another four to six years.   There is no difference to living under the supposed threat of the DPRK possessing ICBMs than living under the threat of the fUSSR having ICBMs.    In reality, Australia is a long, long way down the possible targets that the DPRK will want to strike.  The USA/Europe/Russia/PRC/ROK/Japan are much more likely before their shopping list reaches the entry marked, "Australia".

What we need to do is stop panicking and start looking at this problem rationally.   Our RAN ships, in particular the Hobart class have the means to be easily upgraded to intercept ICBMs.  If the Government feels it is necessary, they should consider investing in them to defend Australian cities against the handful of ICBMs the DPRK will likely have.
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95522
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #3 - Jul 10th, 2017 at 7:53pm
 
Brian - it's almost impossible to stop a nuke:

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #4 - Jul 10th, 2017 at 9:18pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 7:53pm:
Brian - it's almost impossible to stop a nuke:


Almost does not equate to completely, Bobby.

The first step is having a radar and a combat system which can discriminate between the re-entry vehicle and any decoys.  The next step is developing a missile which can intercept the re-entry vehicle the further from it's target as possible.  Then you just pre-position the launcher and it's radars and combat system and it will do it's job.

Best way yet is to deter your enemy from firing his missiles at you.

The DPRK is not led by an idiot.  He knows how far he can go.  These are weapons of last, not first resort.  Kim Jung Un is determined to prevent his regime being changed by Washington (and to a lesser extent, Beijing).   This is one way of ensuring that doesn't occur.  His priorities for targets will be for quite a long time to come, the US, ROK, Japan, PRC, Russia and then any other hanger ons like Australia.   His regime has tested one missile.   He still has to demonstrate that it has the range and accuracy requited to be a threat.


Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95522
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #5 - Jul 10th, 2017 at 9:24pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 9:18pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 7:53pm:
Brian - it's almost impossible to stop a nuke:


Almost does not equate to completely, Bobby.

The first step is having a radar and a combat system which can discriminate between the re-entry vehicle and any decoys.  The next step is developing a missile which can intercept the re-entry vehicle the further from it's target as possible.  Then you just pre-position the launcher and it's radars and combat system and it will do it's job.

Best way yet is to deter your enemy from firing his missiles at you.

The DPRK is not led by an idiot.  He knows how far he can go.  These are weapons of last, not first resort.  Kim Jung Un is determined to prevent his regime being changed by Washington (and to a lesser extent, Beijing).   This is one way of ensuring that doesn't occur.  His priorities for targets will be for quite a long time to come, the US, ROK, Japan, PRC, Russia and then any other hanger ons like Australia.   His regime has tested one missile.   He still has to demonstrate that it has the range and accuracy requited to be a threat.





Kim Jong-Un could use a midget submarine to deliver a nuclear
weapon into any port in the world.

He is dangerous to the whole world.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #6 - Jul 10th, 2017 at 11:53pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 9:24pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 9:18pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 7:53pm:
Brian - it's almost impossible to stop a nuke:


Almost does not equate to completely, Bobby.

The first step is having a radar and a combat system which can discriminate between the re-entry vehicle and any decoys.  The next step is developing a missile which can intercept the re-entry vehicle the further from it's target as possible.  Then you just pre-position the launcher and it's radars and combat system and it will do it's job.

Best way yet is to deter your enemy from firing his missiles at you.

The DPRK is not led by an idiot.  He knows how far he can go.  These are weapons of last, not first resort.  Kim Jung Un is determined to prevent his regime being changed by Washington (and to a lesser extent, Beijing).   This is one way of ensuring that doesn't occur.  His priorities for targets will be for quite a long time to come, the US, ROK, Japan, PRC, Russia and then any other hanger ons like Australia.   His regime has tested one missile.   He still has to demonstrate that it has the range and accuracy requited to be a threat.


Kim Jong-Un could use a midget submarine to deliver a nuclear
weapon into any port in the world.

He is dangerous to the whole world.


Whether he is or not, at the present moment he is no danger to Australia.   As Australia has banned all DPRK ships from it's coastal limits and the range of a midget submarine is limited, I don't think we have to fear his midget submarine fleet at the present moment, Bobby.   As always you are being alarmist unnecessarily.   Why do you work on your hangman's noose?  You need practice.    Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95522
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #7 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 12:06am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
Whether he is or not, at the present moment he is no danger to Australia.   As Australia has banned all DPRK ships from it's coastal limits and the range of a midget submarine is limited, I don't think we have to fear his midget submarine fleet at the present moment, Bobby.   As always you are being alarmist unnecessarily.   Why don't you work on your hangman's noose?  You need practice.    Roll Eyes



I merely sayeth unto thee that
an ICBM is not necessary to make a threat -
a nuclear weapon is enough -
especially one in the hands of a madman.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #8 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 5:18am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 6:51pm:
Australia signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 IIRC.   We abandoned all efforts to gain nuclear weapons at that point.   We have relied on the US "Nuclear Umbrella" ever since, to deter any potential aggressor armed with WMDs.

The F-111 was purchase in 1964 to deter the remote possibility of Indonesia under Sukarno using it's Tu-16 Badger bombers to attack any Australian (read Darwin/Brisbane) cities.   We have never had nuclear weapons.   The closest we came was in 1950 when the British induced the Australian Government to allow them to test nuclear weapons on our soil.  As part of the Imperial Defence plans of the day, the exchange was that we were to develop nuclear industries and Britain was to provide the knowledge to build bombs.   We created the ANU (to provide nuclear scientists and engineers), the Snowy Mountain River Scheme (to provide sufficient electricity for Uranium enrichement).   However, the USA, fearful of the possibility of nuclear knowledge leaking to the fUSSR prevented the UK from transferring the necessary know-how, how to build a bomb.

We do not need nuclear weapons to deter the DPRK.  The DPRK will not possess the ability to attack Australia - even if they ever wanted to - for about another four to six years.   There is no difference to living under the supposed threat of the DPRK possessing ICBMs than living under the threat of the fUSSR having ICBMs.    In reality, Australia is a long, long way down the possible targets that the DPRK will want to strike.  The USA/Europe/Russia/PRC/ROK/Japan are much more likely before their shopping list reaches the entry marked, "Australia".

What we need to do is stop panicking and start looking at this problem rationally.   Our RAN ships, in particular the Hobart class have the means to be easily upgraded to intercept ICBMs.  If the Government feels it is necessary, they should consider investing in them to defend Australian cities against the handful of ICBMs the DPRK will likely have.



The Pig was purchased for its delivery capability, like a lot of equipment we buy to purchase 'for not with' and like the story said we toyed with the idea for some time before the actual delivery date.


I can tell we maintained the system to fully operational. as we do for all aircraft systems right up until Pave Tack was modded into the aircraft.

Were we aver serious about the capability, probably not, but should that have changed from 1973 to 1986, the upgrade would have been fairly quick and easy, from a technical perspective.


Politically, well we have been weak as p1ss since witlam, so it was never going to happen regardless of need,


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #9 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:34pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 12:06am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
Whether he is or not, at the present moment he is no danger to Australia.   As Australia has banned all DPRK ships from it's coastal limits and the range of a midget submarine is limited, I don't think we have to fear his midget submarine fleet at the present moment, Bobby.   As always you are being alarmist unnecessarily.   Why don't you work on your hangman's noose?  You need practice.    Roll Eyes



I merely sayeth unto thee that
an ICBM is not necessary to make a threat -
a nuclear weapon is enough -
especially one in the hands of a madman.


...

I am surprised, Bobby.  No youtube video to make your argument with?  Tsk, tsk, you do appear to be letting the alarmist side down.   Run along now, I'm sure there are some videos you can watch...    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95522
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #10 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:37pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:34pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 12:06am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
Whether he is or not, at the present moment he is no danger to Australia.   As Australia has banned all DPRK ships from it's coastal limits and the range of a midget submarine is limited, I don't think we have to fear his midget submarine fleet at the present moment, Bobby.   As always you are being alarmist unnecessarily.   Why don't you work on your hangman's noose?  You need practice.    Roll Eyes



I merely sayeth unto thee that
an ICBM is not necessary to make a threat -
a nuclear weapon is enough -
especially one in the hands of a madman.


http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

I am surprised, Bobby.  No youtube video to make your argument with?  Tsk, tsk, you do appear to be letting the alarmist side down.   Run along now, I'm sure there are some videos you can watch...    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



There is a video somewhere of Kim watching a sub launched missile.

I'll let you find it.

The real war is going on underneath the waves.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #11 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:41pm
 
BigOl64 wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 5:18am:
The Pig was purchased for its delivery capability, like a lot of equipment we buy to purchase 'for not with' and like the story said we toyed with the idea for some time before the actual delivery date.

I can tell we maintained the system to fully operational. as we do for all aircraft systems right up until Pave Tack was modded into the aircraft.

Were we aver serious about the capability, probably not, but should that have changed from 1973 to 1986, the upgrade would have been fairly quick and easy, from a technical perspective.

Politically, well we have been weak as p1ss since witlam, so it was never going to happen regardless of need,


Whitlam attempted to introduce some rationality into our foreign and defence policies.   Under Fraser were reverted to the normal Liberal Party themes.  Under Hawke and Keating we became much more realistic in our defence policies.   Under Howard, we started to revert to the "Yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full, sir," thinking about what Washington was doing.    I am still unsure how he managed to "activate the A**US Treaty" which only discusses the Pacific region over a Terrorist attack on New York and Washington...    Trumble has followed suit, as did Rudd and Gilliard.    What we need is more thinking along the lines of Professor Dibb who issued his seminal report in 1986.   We don't need to be the US's Ghurkas.   We are the 12th richest economy in the world.   We should have our own foreign and defence policies dedicated to defend Australia - rationally.    Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #12 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:47pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:37pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:34pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 12:06am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
Whether he is or not, at the present moment he is no danger to Australia.   As Australia has banned all DPRK ships from it's coastal limits and the range of a midget submarine is limited, I don't think we have to fear his midget submarine fleet at the present moment, Bobby.   As always you are being alarmist unnecessarily.   Why don't you work on your hangman's noose?  You need practice.    Roll Eyes



I merely sayeth unto thee that
an ICBM is not necessary to make a threat -
a nuclear weapon is enough -
especially one in the hands of a madman.


http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

I am surprised, Bobby.  No youtube video to make your argument with?  Tsk, tsk, you do appear to be letting the alarmist side down.   Run along now, I'm sure there are some videos you can watch...    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



There is a video somewhere of Kim watching a sub launched missile.

I'll let you find it.

The real war is going on underneath the waves.



When we have a DPRK submarine in Sydney Harbour, I'll be worried, Bobby.   As their maximum range is approximately 1,500 km, I think our Collins class subs are bit bigger and a quite a bit better than the best the DPRK can muster.

Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #13 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 6:50pm
 
My, how interesting.  Appears everybody has been panicking over nothing, really.  The DPRK may be able to launch missiles but it appears it cannot make them re-enter the atmosphere...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95522
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #14 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 7:34pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:47pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:37pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:34pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 12:06am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
Whether he is or not, at the present moment he is no danger to Australia.   As Australia has banned all DPRK ships from it's coastal limits and the range of a midget submarine is limited, I don't think we have to fear his midget submarine fleet at the present moment, Bobby.   As always you are being alarmist unnecessarily.   Why don't you work on your hangman's noose?  You need practice.    Roll Eyes



I merely sayeth unto thee that
an ICBM is not necessary to make a threat -
a nuclear weapon is enough -
especially one in the hands of a madman.


http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

I am surprised, Bobby.  No youtube video to make your argument with?  Tsk, tsk, you do appear to be letting the alarmist side down.   Run along now, I'm sure there are some videos you can watch...    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



There is a video somewhere of Kim watching a sub launched missile.

I'll let you find it.

The real war is going on underneath the waves.



When we have a DPRK submarine in Sydney Harbour, I'll be worried, Bobby.   As their maximum range is approximately 1,500 km, I think our Collins class subs are bit bigger and a quite a bit better than the best the DPRK can muster.




North Korea has a lot more subs than us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_North_Korean_ships


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #15 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 7:51pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 7:34pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:47pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:37pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:34pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 12:06am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
Whether he is or not, at the present moment he is no danger to Australia.   As Australia has banned all DPRK ships from it's coastal limits and the range of a midget submarine is limited, I don't think we have to fear his midget submarine fleet at the present moment, Bobby.   As always you are being alarmist unnecessarily.   Why don't you work on your hangman's noose?  You need practice.    Roll Eyes



I merely sayeth unto thee that
an ICBM is not necessary to make a threat -
a nuclear weapon is enough -
especially one in the hands of a madman.


http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

I am surprised, Bobby.  No youtube video to make your argument with?  Tsk, tsk, you do appear to be letting the alarmist side down.   Run along now, I'm sure there are some videos you can watch...    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



There is a video somewhere of Kim watching a sub launched missile.

I'll let you find it.

The real war is going on underneath the waves.



When we have a DPRK submarine in Sydney Harbour, I'll be worried, Bobby.   As their maximum range is approximately 1,500 km, I think our Collins class subs are bit bigger and a quite a bit better than the best the DPRK can muster.




North Korea has a lot more subs than us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_North_Korean_ships


All are substantially smaller and less ranged than the Collins Class, Bobby.   Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #16 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 9:20am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:41pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 5:18am:
The Pig was purchased for its delivery capability, like a lot of equipment we buy to purchase 'for not with' and like the story said we toyed with the idea for some time before the actual delivery date.

I can tell we maintained the system to fully operational. as we do for all aircraft systems right up until Pave Tack was modded into the aircraft.

Were we aver serious about the capability, probably not, but should that have changed from 1973 to 1986, the upgrade would have been fairly quick and easy, from a technical perspective.

Politically, well we have been weak as p1ss since witlam, so it was never going to happen regardless of need,


Whitlam attempted to introduce some rationality into our foreign and defence policies.   Under Fraser were reverted to the normal Liberal Party themes.  Under Hawke and Keating we became much more realistic in our defence policies.   Under Howard, we started to revert to the "Yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full, sir," thinking about what Washington was doing.    I am still unsure how he managed to "activate the A**US Treaty" which only discusses the Pacific region over a Terrorist attack on New York and Washington...    Trumble has followed suit, as did Rudd and Gilliard.    What we need is more thinking along the lines of Professor Dibb who issued his seminal report in 1986.   We don't need to be the US's Ghurkas.   We are the 12th richest economy in the world.   We should have our own foreign and defence policies dedicated to defend Australia - rationally.    Roll Eyes



Under hawke keating being more realistic consisted of doing fkk all.


If we want to 'defend ourselves' then we need to be able to manufacture our own munitons on a larges scale, put a lot more people in uniform, and when we buy weapons we need to make sure they is minimal lag between buying something and it becoming effective, eg the F111 & Collins and probably the F35.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #17 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 5:24pm
 
BigOl64 wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 9:20am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:41pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 5:18am:
The Pig was purchased for its delivery capability, like a lot of equipment we buy to purchase 'for not with' and like the story said we toyed with the idea for some time before the actual delivery date.

I can tell we maintained the system to fully operational. as we do for all aircraft systems right up until Pave Tack was modded into the aircraft.

Were we aver serious about the capability, probably not, but should that have changed from 1973 to 1986, the upgrade would have been fairly quick and easy, from a technical perspective.

Politically, well we have been weak as p1ss since witlam, so it was never going to happen regardless of need,


Whitlam attempted to introduce some rationality into our foreign and defence policies.   Under Fraser were reverted to the normal Liberal Party themes.  Under Hawke and Keating we became much more realistic in our defence policies.   Under Howard, we started to revert to the "Yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full, sir," thinking about what Washington was doing.    I am still unsure how he managed to "activate the A**US Treaty" which only discusses the Pacific region over a Terrorist attack on New York and Washington...    Trumble has followed suit, as did Rudd and Gilliard.    What we need is more thinking along the lines of Professor Dibb who issued his seminal report in 1986.   We don't need to be the US's Ghurkas.   We are the 12th richest economy in the world.   We should have our own foreign and defence policies dedicated to defend Australia - rationally.    Roll Eyes



Under hawke keating being more realistic consisted of doing fkk all.


Hawke/Keating introduced the Dibb Report and a White Paper.   From that period we saw the adoption of the F/A-18, the COLLINS class, the LAV-25, the OH Perry Class, the F88 Steyr, the L7 GPMG, the Minimi, the Unimog and Mack trucks.   All substantial equipment purchases.

Quote:
If we want to 'defend ourselves' then we need to be able to manufacture our own munitons on a larges scale, put a lot more people in uniform, and when we buy weapons we need to make sure they is minimal lag between buying something and it becoming effective, eg the F111 & Collins and probably the F35.


We do manufacture our own munitions.  The F-35 is coming into service on schedule.  The F-111 was a problem, I admit but it was solved and soldiered on for an appreciably long time.  As to the numbers of people in uniform, when faced with a mining boom, a reluctance to deploy large numbers and other factors, unless you introduce conscription it will never happen in peacetime.   As for conscription, forget about it.  Unless we are facing an existential threat, no Government will be willing to attempt it in face of the likely public opposition.   Australians serve out of choice, not out of Government fiat.   Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #18 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 6:07pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 5:24pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 9:20am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:41pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 5:18am:
The Pig was purchased for its delivery capability, like a lot of equipment we buy to purchase 'for not with' and like the story said we toyed with the idea for some time before the actual delivery date.

I can tell we maintained the system to fully operational. as we do for all aircraft systems right up until Pave Tack was modded into the aircraft.

Were we aver serious about the capability, probably not, but should that have changed from 1973 to 1986, the upgrade would have been fairly quick and easy, from a technical perspective.

Politically, well we have been weak as p1ss since witlam, so it was never going to happen regardless of need,


Whitlam attempted to introduce some rationality into our foreign and defence policies.   Under Fraser were reverted to the normal Liberal Party themes.  Under Hawke and Keating we became much more realistic in our defence policies.   Under Howard, we started to revert to the "Yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full, sir," thinking about what Washington was doing.    I am still unsure how he managed to "activate the A**US Treaty" which only discusses the Pacific region over a Terrorist attack on New York and Washington...    Trumble has followed suit, as did Rudd and Gilliard.    What we need is more thinking along the lines of Professor Dibb who issued his seminal report in 1986.   We don't need to be the US's Ghurkas.   We are the 12th richest economy in the world.   We should have our own foreign and defence policies dedicated to defend Australia - rationally.    Roll Eyes



Under hawke keating being more realistic consisted of doing fkk all.


Hawke/Keating introduced the Dibb Report and a White Paper.   From that period we saw the adoption of the F/A-18, the COLLINS class, the LAV-25, the OH Perry Class, the F88 Steyr, the L7 GPMG, the Minimi, the Unimog and Mack trucks.   All substantial equipment purchases.

Quote:
If we want to 'defend ourselves' then we need to be able to manufacture our own munitons on a larges scale, put a lot more people in uniform, and when we buy weapons we need to make sure they is minimal lag between buying something and it becoming effective, eg the F111 & Collins and probably the F35.


We do manufacture our own munitions.  The F-35 is coming into service on schedule.  The F-111 was a problem, I admit but it was solved and soldiered on for an appreciably long time.  As to the numbers of people in uniform, when faced with a mining boom, a reluctance to deploy large numbers and other factors, unless you introduce conscription it will never happen in peacetime.   As for conscription, forget about it.  Unless we are facing an existential threat, no Government will be willing to attempt it in face of the likely public opposition.   Australians serve out of choice, not out of Government fiat.   Roll Eyes



Pretty plane doing airshow while our nearest neighbours were being slaughtered in their 10s of 1000s is doing fkk all, a sure sign of a coward is what they do or don't do when a neighbour or friend is under attack. And under hawke keating we did what cowards do, but we did have cool stuff to play with will people were being killed.


And by munitions I am talking about the likes of Harpoon and AMRAAM Missiles, not a few thousand rounds of 7.62. As for the F35 if it is anything like the Pig we have a few decades of work before it comes good.


I would hate to see this country adopt conscription, if you want to hide with the women and children there you should stay.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39593
Re: RAAF Nuclear Capability
Reply #19 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 7:12pm
 
BigOl64 wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 6:07pm:
Pretty plane doing airshow while our nearest neighbours were being slaughtered in their 10s of 1000s is doing fkk all, a sure sign of a coward is what they do or don't do when a neighbour or friend is under attack. And under hawke keating we did what cowards do, but we did have cool stuff to play with will people were being killed.


If you're referring to East Timor, we did what was what we considered appropriate at the time.  Don't forget, we were not in a position to resist the Indonesian invasion in 1975.  We had just finished the Vietnam War, a war which had divided the nation.   We were ill prepared to consider our adequate defence forces being required to undertake an offensive counter-invasion.   Also, we would have been protecting and supporting a hard-line Marxist regime which the US had OK'ed as being ripe for the picking by Suharto and Co.  One does not blunder in war, one plans one's way (although it appears President Trump hasn't never learnt that).

We actually trained the Indonesian Armed Forces to teach them how to properly fight counter-revolutionary warfare.   It reduced the numbers of East Timorese which were killed substantially.   Suharto was a tough bugger, for sure but he like all dictators was eventually deposed and then we intervened to stop the East Timorese being slaughtered under the auspices of the UN Security Council.   

Quote:
And by munitions I am talking about the likes of Harpoon and AMRAAM Missiles, not a few thousand rounds of 7.62. As for the F35 if it is anything like the Pig we have a few decades of work before it comes good.


Munitions covers all armaments, BigOl64.  You're betraying your limited knowledge and understanding.   We might not manufacture Harpoons or AMRAAM but we have access to the US military's stocks of those weapons.   It is one of the few good things to come out of the A**US Treaty.    7.62x51mm ammunition is no longer the standard round fired.  You're a generation behind, nearly two in fact.

Quote:
I would hate to see this country adopt conscription, if you want to hide with the women and children there you should stay.


Look back at the previous times it was attempted to and was introduced.  In WWI they fought three bitter conscription referendums and lost them all.  In WWII, the Japanese were knocking on the door and it was accepted grudgingly.  In 1965, it was introduced and gradually rejected.   Australians don't like being told what to do, unless there is an emergency evident to them.   No Australian Government unless faced by an existential threat is going to even think about trying to introduce it again.     Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print