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.