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 > Don't buy in haste > Comments

Don't buy in haste : Comments

By Peter Coates, published 23/5/2008

There are plenty of Pentagon heavies with a Lockheed background who would like Australia to buy the F-35 in a hurry.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Not much point to a new plane if the old F111's get mothballed and the new planes cant do a Jakarta run as a deterent?
Ive been wondering for a few years what would happen if the USA got into big conflict and Indonesia decided to make a move south to claim the land north of Townsville as their much treasured SOUTH IRIAN. I reckon the way things are there would be a lot of good people out on the roads south back into southern states.
Defence makes me ill its that poor in respect to the great asian armies.
Posted by Gibo, Friday, 30 May 2008 10:08:58 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
Hi Pete,

World dynamics pose some interesting questions. Will China’s increasing political and economic influence in Australia become a form of ‘defacto’ security and not a military threat considering that China will ensure its investments and access to resources are protected? How might this impact the ANZUS alliance and what force structures will be appropriate for a non-nuclear military minnow like Australia?

Australia has very porous borders, is physically indefensible and the logistics of invasion are too formidable, as determined by Japanese military planners during WW2. However, there could be interference with our maritime trade routes, air corridors and littoral resources installations to exert political pressure so suitable capabilities for surveillance and deterring such interference should be paramount.

The envisaged primary functions of say F-111, Super Hornet, F-35, F-22 in the evolving strategic scenario would conceivably be maritime strike, electronic warfare and longish range air defence with upgraded F-111 and F-22 potentially having the superior capabilities for these roles. Intended premature F-111 retirement and Super Hornet acquisition were thus major planning blunders.

Acquisition of both Mirage IIIO and F/A-18A Hornet for the RAAF were poor choices with the latter being chosen over the F-16 principally because of the radar then fitted; but the F-16 had significant design growth potential as evidenced by its upgrading/redesign which is ongoing around the world. Not so the F/A-18A which has a pretty short remaining life span despite unwise very costly centre barrel replacement for 71 RAAF aircraft.

If born now, the F-35 might have a radar system superior to the F-22 which is in operational service and forming the vanguard of the USAF Global Strike Force; but F-22 radar software is already being upgraded and more advanced combat capabilities will undoubtedly be retro-fitted as they evolve, a la the F-15 and F-16. Needlessly rushing judgement between the F-35 and F-22 could just propagate Australia’s flawed decisions.

Optimization of existing military assets growth potential and thorough cost-benefit analysis seem deficient in defence capabilities planning in Australia.
Posted by Bushranger 71, Sunday, 1 June 2008 3:39:05 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
Bushranger 71

You’ve raised a wide range of good questions on strategic issues and aircraft uses.

I’m writing another article for OLO on Australia’s long term strategic choices. In that article I’ll inter alia air the issues you’ve raised in your first two paras – and will attempt some answers.

In the meantime I think submarine launched cruise missiles should cause a rethinking of assumptions about Australia defence. Our main cities – all of which are coastal, are vulnerable. Unlike SLBM’s cruise missiles need not be part of an unlikely “total war” scenario. They can be conventionally armed and be used to coerce Australia – if Australia no longer enjoys American protection.

The Indian and Chinese already field subs that are cruise missile capable. Meanwhile Indonesia’s Flankers may be modified to carry the BrahMos supersonic (in future hypersonic) cruise missile – see http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2008/05/brahmos-hypersonic-cruise-missile-for.html A sub launched version is also possible.

Hopefully the Government will reverse its decision to send the F-111 to the scrapheap. Acquiring the Super Hornet is contractually and politically locked in – and it may still be a useful replacement for our F/A-18A’s – until hopefully the F-22 comes on stream (or at least a mature F-35 arrives).

Re - Optimization of existing military assets growth potential and thorough cost-benefit analysis seem deficient in defence capabilities planning in Australia

Manipulations of the variables (ie bomb size that could be carried) used to assess systems (by DMO etc) seems to be the name of the game. By this process the F-22 was locked out early from consideration.

Regards

Peter Coates
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 1 June 2008 5:58:41 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
Paul. L

I agree with your Falklands comments and add that the upgraded sidewinder AA missiles that the US released to Britain for use in the Falklands also proved a majoy factor in victory.

It shows the value of having a reliable ally. However we cannot assume an ally will always be reliable. Alliance alignments always change.

Re Mr Habib and Torture

See new comment about it below George William’s article on Torture at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7430

Gibo

Other than Flankers and perhaps future BrahMos missiles (see my comment to Bushranger71 above) I don’t think Indonesia will have the offensive capability to threaten Australia much in the foreseeable future. Indonesia building 4 nuclear reactors in Java from 2010 may be cause for worry though.

India and China would be more potent threats. Seizing our mines, oil and gas rigs (then threats to destroy our cities) might be the name of the games rather than broad-front continental invasion.

Peter Coates
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 1 June 2008 6:18:22 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
Hi again Pete,

Network Centric Warfare (NCW) originated conceptually within the US Pentagon and embraces extensive transfer of data from multiple sensors via IT communication networks to create presumed advantages in military tactical information applications. This doctrine is termed Network Enabled Operations (NEO) in the ADF Force 2020 document which also envisages a ‘seamless’ (unified?) networked ADF of dubious workability.

Military minnow Australia relies on satellite sensors/communications provided by other nations with these resources being essential for conduct of NCW/NEO in its broadest sense. Continuous access to such capabilities in a rapidly changing regional strategic scenario is a very problematic aspect of this concept of operations which is naively based on a presumption that all aspects of data networking will remain secure. The data transmission mediums necessary for NCW/NEO are already being targeted by countermeasures development so the longer term merits of the concept are somewhat questionable.

Assuming limited future access to satellite resources, some degree of NCW/NEO would be achievable by networking of Global Hawk, Air Warfare Destroyer, AP-3C Orion, upgraded F-111 and F-22 capabilities; but long range data distribution might be constrained.

The manned Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft is apparently a key component in the ADF NEO doctrine but seems unlikely to meet its design specifications. AEW&C aircraft, aerial tankers and high flying intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft are also now quite vulnerable to advanced long range weaponry.

Universal aircrew flight time guidelines are about 100 hours per month or 1,000 hours per year; so maintaining 24/7/30 surveillance coverage by one Wedgetail aircraft would require about 7 crews (each of 10 aircrew). Apparently, only 9 or 10 crews total are intended for 6 aircraft but it seems doubtful that the RAAF will be able to man the Wedgetail squadron to that level.

Global Hawk - contemplated for Australia vide Project JP2062 - has comprehensive ISR and NCW/NEO capabilities with minimal aircrew involvement necessary for sustained operations. Introducing the technically deficient and arguably more vulnerable manned Wedgetail when it cannot provide the continuous ISR capability of the unmanned Global Hawk would be yet another monumental defence blunder
Posted by Bushranger 71, Monday, 2 June 2008 4:04:14 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
I dont think Indonesia, Plantagenet is a real threat at the moment but given a really sudden change in the world military climate they could very quickly be on our door.
The whole of the north of Australia is open. There is no backup to existing forces, the private guns have almost gone...whats left but concede land to them. My fervent belief is you cannot defend Australia unless there is a citizens army...far scattered from possible target cities, well equiped and with something written before hand to encourage preparation.
Why not use the gun clubbers?
Most are responsible men and women...why not do it now while China builds for her outward march (Revelation 9:16 and 16:12/ the kings of the east).
Posted by Gibo, Monday, 2 June 2008 8:07:50 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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