Austin Powerless: I suggest you have a read of this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html re JSF vs Flankers or other. As noted previously APA favours the F-22, but unfortunately they are not for sale to Australia.

Su-27 has been around since the 80's. Su-35 <> Su-27.

Pericles: We are not philosophically opposed to PHI we just want maximum 'bang per buck' for health spending. For now we will stick with the Treasury advise on this matter, plus analysis such as this: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/welfare-for-the-rich-makes-for-a-sick-system-20090429-and1.html.

Cheers,
Alan.

NewAustralia,the Sukhoi 35 is a development of the 27 and equates to a refit.
Besides that, you haven't been able to address the spare parts issue.

Youe wrote 'APA favours the F-22, but unfortunately they are not for sale to Australia.' so what makes you think that dealing with the Russkies would be easier?

hey Austin, the musicians have changed but the song doesn't change much; and with respect, that's probably because they think the same way you do.
Every one wants superior fire power, because as you say it would be stupid to trust anyone else to do the right thing.
So everyone is locked into spiralling 'defence' costs, all trying to have 'superior fire power' because if everyone else spends money, we have to, too.
Imagine if we had a shore based, short range missile defence shield. Such a major investment in infrastructure could not be overturned by a change of government, so it would be obvious we would not be a threat to anyone, even if we wanted to be, IF we gave up all long range ships and planes at the same time.
The big stumbling block is that Australia would have to lead, instead of follow. We would have to be pro active, instead of reactive.
We'd have to try thinking for ourselves, instead of letting the US do all our thinking for us.

Pericles: I read this on the train yesterday morning and thought of you!

Rich Profit from a sick system: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/rich-profit-from-a-sick-system-20090616-cghz.html.

Austin Powerless: I will stick with the APA analysis on the late model flankers. The basic aerodynamics are tried and tested (and way better than the JSF) and the avionics are all cutting edge. And we could fit different 'Western' avionics if we wanted. As I said before Sukhoi licenses HAL in India and the Chinese to manufacture whole planes so I would not have thought making some parts here would be an issue. Would they sell it to us? Obviously I don't know but they do sell to everyone else, including China which you would think could be a major threat to Russia militarily. I note the USA bought to Su-27 from Russia in 1995.

Grim: You are on the money here with your 'defensive only' defence force. It turns out that offensive systems (Assault Ships, Destroyers, Long Range subs, Tank battalions, heavy lift aircraft, etc) are much more expensive than defensive systems. So for the same money you can be BETTER defended with 'defensive only' systems than if you had a mix of offensive and defensive. Note that current estimates for the life of a US destroyer in a 'hot' war with China are around 20 minutes. Australia's proposed destroyers won't be around long enough to defend Australia in a serious war.

I would use medium range subs and aircraft to deliver the missiles as they can do this as hostile forces approach the coast rather than after they get here. without a blue-water surface navy this is not a threat to anyone else. (see: http://www.newaustralia.net/defence_peace.html)

Cheers,
Alan.