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?

Oliver.

Our current diesel electric submarines are the best in the world (when they are operational!). The Americans have great difficulty finding them in combat scenerio's. Recent war game sinkings include two x LA class nuclear subs.

We are world leaders in the design and construction of high speed multi hull ships. We introduced the worlds military to the capabilities of these ships (HMAS Jarvis Bay). The RAN still persists with large draft, slow mono hull ships when most RAN activity is and will continue to be in littoral waters and requires travel over large distances.

Australia must be able to defend and secure its borders, including the Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ) and protect its economic assets from attack (criminal, terrorist and military). There is no fear of the invasion of Australia just concerns about asset, EEZ and trade route protection.

The F-111 should be refurbished. Go here http://www.ausairpower.net/pig.html.

Alternatively we could purchase about 12-15 B1B's from the US (second hand but up to date USAF systems wise) enabling the operational use of at least 7 for the next 30 years. Up date them to make them capable of refueling other aircraft air to air (whilst still carrying a full weapons load) Purchase at least 100 F-15K models (new).

A single B1B should be able to refuel at least 4 F-15K over distances up to at least 5,000 kilometres. Then you have true air power that is deployable over large distances (A B1B has a range of around 14,000klm fully laden without being refueled). The loiter and weapons lift capabilities of a B1B are unmatched.

China and India are deploying Russian Backfire bombers which can reach large parts of Australia and launch cruise missiles. Suitably equipped B1B's, F-111's and F-15 can successfully attack/counter these weapons systems. F/A18 cannot and Super Hornets are marginal particularly when it comes to super sonic cruise missiles. Current F/A 18 cannot fly Darwin-Timor-Darwin without being refueled (combat mode). The Super Hornets are not much better.

I do not believe that Australia needs or can afford F-35 or F-22 type aircraft.

PaulJP,

What you say makes good sense to me. Bombers and revamped F-111s.

Nuclear subs were introduced because in the Polaris era batteries were far less sophisticated than today. I have heard that conventional subs can use the surrounding water temperature to hide; whereas, super heated water can be a giveaway to a satellite. Best not go far beyond this in a public forum.

We need to spend whatever amount it takes to defend Australia.

Leigh,

I think most here would agree with you. We also have treaties and alligences and to some extent need to keep other powers butting their way into the Pacific Islands contrary to Western and Oz interests. However, beyond this posit, we need to spend wisely.

Buying weapons too early on the learning curve is risky. Ever read Pentagon Wars; or, seen the movie, which used one example from the Book, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle?

How many nations have been invaded or attacked by other nations in the last 30 years? There was East Timor, and I think Morocco invaded one of its neighbours, and of course the USA has invaded and/or attacked a number, but the USA is not likely to invade Australia - is it? As far as I can remember, almost all of the - admittedly numerous - wars around the world are civil (what is civil about a war?, perhaps internal would be a better word.)

Glancing through the comments above it seems to me that our government has been very successful in convincing Australians that the threats are some form attack from outside, or from terrorists, while by far the greatest threat is climate change and Australians are, per capita, the worst greenhouse polluters on the planet. Of course our government doesn't want to do anything about greenhouse, coal is too profitable and the coal industry is one of the bigest supporters of the major parties' campagn funds; so they have convinced Australians that they need fear some external enemy. Machiavelli would approve.

The decline in effective democracy is also a great danger. Due to just such manipulations of the population by the government.

I'm not sure who Winston Church is but defence should have sophistication greater than these useless toys that the Government bought in a viagra of small men syndrome.

If you were referring to the British PM during Galipolli, one ChurcHILL, well it has been almost a century since this dreadful colonial abuser. Surely our troops are not using jam tins now. America still has some power now. Did George W Bush twist Australia's arm to buy these silly toys for 20 Billion dollars? Did the PM believe him, yet again? We are not the smartest country in the world. But we can be gullible.

These planes at that expense cost far too much money. This is controversial equipment and it only gives a limited outcome. The Government is a miser when it comes to the welfare of our poor, but wants Freudian objects to make big penis looking things, "dicks of death" I guess make them feel secure. I guess it is sexy if you are queer but it will not defend Australia.

Meanwhile, the disabled and the pensioners starve. Retirement villages full of war vets get gastro diseases, and the elderly are tired of kerosene baths.

Meanwhile the Federal Government cuts back allocations to schools and hospitals only blaming the states. When it comes to this aircraft, they spend like there is no tomorrow. Maybe with no intelligence, there will be no tomorrow. Maybe that is the point.

We need more homeland security to watch the borders with better radar, sonar, x-ray, or whatever equipment they use to track intruders. Leap-frogging over Indonesia should not be necessary. A nice gesture, but that is not defending Australia.

If we have a war on terror, what ever that is, then I doubt this aircraft will defend Australia. There is no country that has a motive or an agenda to invade Australia at this point of time. Later, if this is the case, then we could get a better deal than this expensive solution. By then, this aircraft will be out-of-date.

Winston "Churchill" wanted to dig ditches using machines because that would more efficient than using shoves. He assumed ditches would be dug.

If we were attacked by an enemy beyond Indonesia. The command centres, main bases, govenments and factories would be in the initiating country, not the landing force.

I have read White Papers on Japan and Australian WWII. Japan felt it could not invade and secure a position here.

Defence wise Australia has been conservative. In the 1950s, we decided against nuclear weapons. Remember, Sir Mark Oliphant was a key player at Los Alamos.

Ditto when we helped the English in the 1960s. The Amercians wouldn't. The Brits were in the US bad books over the earlier Suez Crisis.

Interesting thoughts on strategy Oliver. Now I have something to think about. I can see that this is a speciality of yours. No wonder our diplomacy with Indonesia is very careful. It should be.

Dave Clarke

Civil or internal wars are fought for exactly the same reasons as external wars . World War 1, World War 2, were precipitated by internal or civil wars. World War 3 may be precipitated by the present civil war in the middle east between the Arabs and the Jews.
The fact that there have been and still are so many civil wars raging across the world would indicate that war could erupt at any time. If the global warming is correct then it also will cause war to erupt across the globe as people struggle to take what they need to survive.
Why would the climate of the planet stay the same anyway,it probably has its own cycles that stretch across eons. Maybe we are headed for another water age where the planet floods and regenerates all life. It may just be a renewal cycle beyond the control of man. If global warming does precipitate war then we may need all the defence weapons we can get.

If as oliver says the new planes will end Indonesias superior aircraft supremecy over Australia then that is a good thing. One thing that is also true of being known to be armed and very dangerous is that it acts as a deterent to would be aggressors and so can actually prevent war. That fact doesnt seem to get mentioned much when people decry weapons.

It would indeed be great to be able to spend all of the money spent on weapons on more humanatarian causes but while mankind remains agressive and warlike by nature which is not going to change at any time in the forseeable future,then those who wish to survive must be ready to defend themselves.