The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Does Australia have a bomber gap? > Comments

Does Australia have a bomber gap? : Comments

By Marko Beljac, published 3/4/2007

The purchase of a whole raft of military hardware could cause problems for Australia rather than provide solutions for our defence.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Pete,

look forward to seeing it!, I will reserve comment until then. I'll probably respond at my blog, that way we could get a debate going and add in others if interested
Posted by Markob, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:52:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Markob;
It is a good point , But Troop Air Mobility would be neither practical nor suited to Australian defense; Just the Geographic configuration and the fact of expansive cost line and Land area mass would seem to indicate intercepting enemy advancement by air and sea

We have some advantage of Isolation and Water barriers then terrain. But we do not have the manpower, Money or the population.
There needs to be a big shift in Ideology if anyone in this country is serious.
And embrase our American Brothers.

Sounds like someone visited Avalon air show just recently.
Great stuff.
Posted by All-, Friday, 6 April 2007 6:52:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
indicate intercepting enemy advancement by air and sea”, that might be the case for an actual invasion but no state is capable of invading Australia other than the United States. But the long coast line and that that you mention actually argues the other way; it would be hard for a small air force and a small navy to interdict a raiding strategy force without superior situational awareness; in which case what matters first is spending money on that. They probably would get through anyway in which case the task for a small army on a large land mass is to have the ability of manoeuvring decisive airmobile firepower. Instead we are wasting money on Abrams MBTs which are meant to fight wars someplace else.

Money spent on a regional bombing capability adds nothing to our defence. Even if you wanted a strike capability why not just get cruise missiles?

On Avalon, to paraphrase Sir Francis Urquhart, “you may very well think so, I could not possibly comment.”
Posted by Markob, Friday, 6 April 2007 10:42:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That may be true , in regards to Armor, but it should be known that it is the principle weapon the US uses, and country to popular belief, they are here already, as well as a great deal of ordinance and equipment , purchasing this equipment is only a token gesture.

But I would argue that China’s rise will be an immediate threat; its economy is meaningless to the hordes of Communist /Socialist elites who use its source for financing, thus the alliance with US_ Japan_ Australia and the new regional force;
Japans Navy is far more advanced in technology than America’s or Australian defense technologies.

Europe is stuffed ether way Politically and demographically, and is no longer viable allies- yet again.
You could confidentially say, that Indonesian vessels are already painted, so that is the least of our trouble.

If anyone has the capability and mass numbers and cares little for the value of life, and that is China- although land warfare is not a strategic attribute if the Korean war is any example; lambs to the slaughter there are so many of them that you would run out of ammunition. That’s why it would be important to target cluster formations.And secondly, why would you advocate the excesses of Air mobility if you agree that relevant Missile technology is used anyway;
We have ample air mobility for any task our troops need to engage.
We just have more welfare recipients than we do intelligence.

Non the less, you still have to detect them even the ones that got through, and again, manpower is limited.
No, our enemies are hard at work internally, and that must be obvious.
Political sciences and spineless idiots in Government mapping the course for our adversary’s future dominance.

How many weapons do you have in the closet? ; Non.
How many weapons do the Bad bastards have?
They can’t defend the Society the idiots created with all there Idiotic experiments; what hope in hell do you give them in defending us against a Foreign force?
Posted by All-, Friday, 6 April 2007 11:24:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read a novel by Tim Ferguson (Doug Anthony Allstars fame, Never mind your toothbrush,etc.) called Left, Right and Centre.

In it, he traces the rise of a master politician from obscurity, to a point where he becomes the dictator of Australia. Throughout, Ferguson manages to create this situation by making use of the legislation and so forth prevalent today in reality.

For example, in conjunction with a mining mogul, he arranges for the issuing of 1000,s of individual prospector licenses for the Pilbara region. A prospectors license is not subject to scrutiny with regards to native title and so forth. The mining mogul then invites all these prospectors to come and dig a giant underground mine utilising equipment leased from himself for which he will take a cut. That's one story.
Having depleted the mine this vast empty hole is taken over by the military and a 2kiloton nuclear device is placed at its base.

The reasoning is that the bomb will be detonated, with the understanding that the shock will be registered in Jakarta, Beijing and anywhere else who may be casting eyes over our vast openness. The incumbent government, PRIOR to being asked questions, would immediately "...deny the detonation of a 2 kiloton device suitable for destroying any seaborne or airborne expeditionary forces from a foreign country..." in the northern reaches of Australia.

That's got to be worth any number of bombers surely?

Looking forward to comments.
Posted by tRAKKA, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 2:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy