The Australian Government is planning on spending around $20 billion dollars on 100 new Joint Strike Fighter planes. Let's see, there would be about 15 million tax payers in Australia, so that's about $1300 for each of us.

Do we need 100 new fighter planes? Who are we going to use them against? What nation is likely to want to invade Australia in the next 20 years? Or is it that the Government want them in case there is another country like Iraq that they might want to help the US invade?

Doesn't the term 'defense spending' in the way it is usually used, really mean 'offence spending'? Would Indonesia see us spending $20b on war planes as defensive or offensive? I suggest the latter; they would want to increase their 'defense' spending to try to maintain some sort of balance.

What could Australia do with $20b if it was spent on reducing our greenhouse impact, on education, on health, or on fixing our water problems? That's twice as much as PM Howard is talking about spending on fixing the problems of the Murray Darling. Howard is keen on talking about tax cuts; what about no new war planes and $1300 less tax for each tax payer?

yep, all true.

for me, the only significant question is: when will ozzies figure out that pollie rule is nothing like democracy, that leaving the nation in the hands of pollies is less survival oriented than leaving our children in the hands of pedophiles, and that the looming ecological crisis can best be dealt with by the electorate through democracy?

previous experience suggests that ozzies will go on whingeing about the quality of politician leadership, never imagining the problem is in their own character.

but we are a nation of sheep, raised as sheep, educated as sheep, and incapable off hoping for no more than a kind grazier. this is as sensible as wildebeest hoping for a kind hyena. but life doesn't have a happy ending, and mass stupidity has ended whole societies before.

sometimes i'm quite glad i'm not young, and don't have children.

Dave,

Indonesia I suspect would see the F-35 as offensive in more ways than one, because it would loose its existing air superiority over the F-18. Moreover, a fighter-bomber replacing the F-111 would be seen as Australia extending its power. But, this positioning is long established going back to "Confrontation" and Indonesia/Malay in 1960s.

If we are to purchase the aircraft be certain of three things a cost blow-out, descoping of functionalities and delivery delays. Yet, in the end eventually a good aircraft will built.

In the days of the F-16 and F-18, I had some input [commercial aspects] to Jim Killen, herein, relately, today, what is important for Australia, is we leverge a better deal with defence offsets with the F-35. I would try for 20% defence related and 10% non-defence related. We would receive a $6 billion rebate and major technology push

The best means of defending a country this big is by using sophisticated fighter planes and transport planes that can carry our soldiers to trouble spots quickly.

Its a very unstable world and we could face co-ordinated attacks from enemies within relaying information to enemies without and also setting up co-ordinated bombings in major cities to prepare the way for the enemies from without.

Personally I'd rather be minus a mere $1.300 dollars and have an adequate defence capabality. There hasnt been a time in the history of the whole world when there havent been wars and invasions why would you think the next twenty years will be any different.

The trouble is that the F-35 is the wrong aircraft.

Limited range.
Limited stealth.
Not effective against regionaly deployed Su series aircraft.
Single engine.
Horribly expensive and getting more so.
No guarantee of full technology sharing to enable local maintenance and repair.

Australia has limited in flight refueling capability. Current F/A18 in combat mode cannot fly from Sydney to Brisbane Airport without refueling . The proposed Super Hornets are little better and certainly not a F-111 replacement.

F-35 aircraft are defence toys purchased in support of another. They do not survive even the simplest scrutiny as a suitable defence aircraft for Australia.

It gets better.

Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) that are very sinkable in a threat situation (at least $2 billion a copy). Amphibious landing ships (AMPHIB project) that are thinly disguised aircraft carriers and require large naval escorts when used in high military threat scenerio's.

Army attack helicopters that may never meet specification. Naval helicopter projects (Seasprite) that the Federal Govt is not game to cancel due to court cases that will show how wastefull and incompetent the defence purchase system is.

But...We send troops to Afghanistan without Australian helicopter support because the chinooks need maintenance and we have nothing to replace them with.

Defence is a sad state of affairs.....ADF fighters at risk and the ADF Admin and Govt purchase defence toys in support of another.

PaulJP,

The air solution is posited as the F-22, but the US wont sell these aircraft. Surface crafte are too vulnerable too. In the Kangaroo II, we [technocally] sunk the USS Enterprise using subs.

We should have the capacity to leap frog Indonesia in need.

To the North given the swamps and desserts, one course is an evacuation and en mass destruction policy. Evacuate our population let them land and use massive ordinance [if not ERWs]against the invaders.

If I were in a position to spend money on defence, I would recall a lesson from nature. When a lone bird of prey is sighted by a flock of its prey. The flock dozens of birds will attact the predator. Given a suitable power source, hundreds of pieces intelligence shapnel could be controlled to act attack/swarm enemy aircraft. Science fiction? But, it is better than Winston Church buring ditch diggers [old technology] to fight in WWII, because of lessons learned in WWI.

Would you recommend long distance heavy bombers?