Australia’s First F-35 on the Go

[Dash_XR]

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

So you'd rather not have a stick and be friends with the kid in the playground who has a big stick but has always been a little sketchy and you've never really gotten along and at one stage hit each other with sticks for a few years at a time but because that was in the past he is suddenly okay to be friends with when he still has that stick and you've thrown yours away.

Pretty ****** analogy but that's what it sounds like you prefer.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

Yep we can go with that,, we can even change China, North Korea to country X (so as not to offend anyone) Country X is looking to invade, first question is why? (chances are they after our resources, feel free to add another reason if you want) Anyway our resources are not unique and to successfully occupy and control Australia they need to bring material and troops by sea (you can do a little bit by air but not much) Australia does possess early warning indicators (JORN, radar system that can pick up objects in the South China sea, I beleive) So we will have a little bit of warning. Australia's military strategy (I believe) is based on hitting them whilst at sea. Now country X is aware of our capability they know we have a small but very capable force and they know they can bet us through attrition, but at what costs. To me this is the deterrent, its not that we can fight off an invasion on our own, its to try to make us an unattractive target. If country X does want resources, they are better off looking somewhere else (another country with less defences)

Nukes are a different story, if country X invades and uses nukes, then you can expect our allies to respond with nukes. However if country X invades with conventional forces, will our allies respond with nukes? I dont think they would, why because they wont want to risk a nuclear war. Remember as good as our allies are, they will look after themselves and their own citizens.

I dont work for Defence, nor do I have any knowledge apart from the stuff that is already out there, this is just my thoughts.

Our land mass is too big and our population is too small, to be able to successfully defend ourselves BUT, our troops are excellent and we have great equipment, so if you do mess with us, we will inflict pain, so you are better messing with someone else

[tweeked]

The US would respond with not buying China's plastic trinkets that they make. That is worth a lot more to the China than what is in the ground here. Without US dollars going in China would grind to a halt.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

We've done this thread before. I can't be arsed digging up my old posts on it but basically it is along the lines of political and economic risk for China and the global backlash against China that would be translated into grinding to a halt because the flow of foreign capital into China for consumer goods etc would cease.

[SantoAU]

Originally Posted by tweeked

The US would respond with not buying China's plastic trinkets that they make. That is worth a lot more to the China than what is in the ground here. Without US dollars going in China would grind to a halt.

Sounds like the plot line to Tom Clancy's book "The Bear and the Dragon". And accurate too.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by SantoAU

Sounds like the plot line to Tom Clancy's book "The Bear and the Dragon". And accurate too.

Is that the one where China invades Russia? Which I think is a whole lot more plausible than them wanting this big hot sweaty rock....

[SantoAU]

Yes it is. Decent read - typical Clancy which is high on tech whiz-bang and low on actual character development.

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by SantoAU

Yes it is. Decent read - typical Clancy which is high on tech whiz-bang and low on actual character development.

Who the **** reads a clancy book for character development lol

[SantoAU]

Originally Posted by Kable72

Who the **** reads a clancy book for character development lol

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by SantoAU

image

Bad luck Brian, wants character development


Tom Clancy book

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by SB076

Agreed and war is changing these days, its becoming more about how "systems" (aircraft, ships vehicles) integrate with each other and allied "systems" passing information, identifying treats

Anyone else notice the funny typo here.

Would be funny if that was a military mission.

[Spurious]

What the hell do we need one of those for?

I guess you could send it to Bondi next time there's a riot!

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

Not even the same thing, the world was at war then. I believe North Korea was the one legitimately threatened with nukes too, not the other way round. I bet Obamas glad he didn't pull the trigger now.

What?

[NickyN]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

Not even the same thing, the world was at war then. I believe North Korea was the one legitimately threatened with nukes too, not the other way round. I bet Obamas glad he didn't pull the trigger now.

Never heard that one before.........wasn't it the other way around? N Korea threatening the US and S Korea with nukes repeatedly? The only time the US mentioned nukes was in response to their threats, to do what is necessary to keep the US and their allies safe from their attack. Their leader has a need to show how big of a man he is. Which actually, there's a term for that. "Little man syndrome" or properly said, Napoleon Syndrome.

imo that is.

[NickyN]

Originally Posted by SB076

Nukes are a different story, if country X invades and uses nukes, then you can expect our allies to respond with nukes. However if country X invades with conventional forces, will our allies respond with nukes? I dont think they would, why because they wont want to risk a nuclear war. Remember as good as our allies are, they will look after themselves and their own citizens.

You're right, if country X invaded with conventional forces, why go nuclear? Conventional forces would be sent in.

Re: your last sentence here.........I'm quite sure your country would do the same too. AU would look after themselves and their own citizens. That's not unique to any country.

[wrongwaynorris]

Originally Posted by NickyN

Never heard that one before.........wasn't it the other way around? N Korea threatening the US and S Korea with nukes repeatedly? The only time the US mentioned nukes was in response to their threats, to do what is necessary to keep the US and their allies safe from their attack. Their leader has a need to show how big of a man he is. Which actually, there's a term for that. "Little man syndrome" or properly said, Napoleon Syndrome.

imo that is.

No its BNSD syndrome , Big Nuke Small Dick

[NickyN]

Couldn't help but LOL...........
Thank you for starting off my Sat afternoon with a laugh!

[SB076]

Originally Posted by NickyN

You're right, if country X invaded with conventional forces, why go nuclear? Conventional forces would be sent in.

Re: your last sentence here.........I'm quite sure your country would do the same too. AU would look after themselves and their own citizens. That's not unique to any country.

Correct, all countries will do the same, Alliances are extremely important and all help with the deterrent and hopefully prevent war from occurring in the first place

I wouldn't expect any country to start a nuclear war, if Australia was attacked with conventional forces, as that would start something no one wants to think about.

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

The Tiger I & II tanks were formidable, I'd put my money on a Tiger over a Sherman & even a T-34 anyday.

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

I remember reading a story about a Tiger II coming over a ridge one time and finding a dozen T34s staring back at it.
After about 10 mins all the T34s were destroyed with the Tiger just needing some paint touched up.

Biggest drawback of the Tiger/II was its reliability and range, otherwise no other tank could come close.

And the only reason why the Sherman tank prevailed was because they out-produced the Tiger tank. By around 36 to 1.

[George1861]

Originally Posted by SantoAU

Technically, they're supposed to exceed both the F-111 and the Hornet. All the performance indicators so far point to something slower, less maneuverable and less capable for more $$.

Unfortunately, it's the way things roll in the military

Originally Posted by Moby Vic

Maybe you should load up on F-22s, also, just to be safe.

Originally Posted by DJR-351

You buggers won't sell them

Besides that, we couldn't afford them

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I think the public wonders why...the old F111 was faster, could fly higher, had a higher bomb payload, has terrain following capability, and other goodies that the new F18's just didn't have. It's like selling your old Ferrari for a new Prius...yes it's full of more high tech, but really?

In the US Navy the F-18 replaced the F-14, A-6 and A-7, it was an improvement over the A-7 only, and that was only a faster exit speed after dropping its load. F-111 retirement was a loss of capability for the USAF also. From what I've read the F-22 was blocked from foriegn sale by a single Democrat US Senator who was trying to blackmail Bush into funding a Project he wanted. Out of production now.

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yeah the Sherman was always going to be the biggest loser against a Tiger. By the time the US Army planners stopped their infighting about tanks, got their collective **** together and allowed tanks like the M-26 Pershing to be deployed, the war was basically over.

Originally Posted by wrongwaynorris

The Germans used to refer to Shermans s Tommy Cookers .

WWII was a time of rapid development of tanks and aircraft. From what I've read the Germans were impressed with the Sherman when it first showed up in the Egyptian-Libyan desert, but was badly outdated by '44.

[George1861]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Are any of these planes in active service any where in the world yet?

:

In service in training squadrons, not front line yet.

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by George1861

In service in training squadrons, not front line yet.

I would be surprised if there were many air superiority conflicts going on around the world with us involved in them.

[George1861]

Originally Posted by Kable72

I would be surprised if there were many air superiority conflicts going on around the world with us involved in them.

Actually just saying all of the F-35s are in training squadrons, not combat designated squadrons.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by mik

This very statement worries me, yes it is good to have US as mates and Allies, but there may come a time when they are busy with their own problems and can't bail us out if **** hits the fan.
whether the F35 is good or not, they are so expensive, if we can afford only a small amount them and we where to get invaded by a larger population with shed loads of slightly inferior but still competent military jets, i'm thinking we would be up the creek without a paddle.

Our ability to handle Indonesia on our own was always predicated on overwhelming technological and strategic superiority. Back in the day when they had no blue-water navy and no air-defence to speak off, our subs could blockade them and our F111’s hit their important targets at will. Whilst on land, our tactics and training were more than a match for them in limited engagements, as we showed in the 60’s during the “Konfrontasi.”

That concept would still hold true for any of the little ****ant nations around, but Indonesia is now well and truly large and powerful enough to give us a major headache.

Australia’s protection against any major military threat has always been our alliances.
We have been accused of brownnosing to the USA, and that is precisely correct. Our entire defensive strategy is based on getting so far up their ____, that nobody can touch us without involving them.
Put simply, our defensive strategy, in the event of a major conflict, IS the ANZUS treaty.
To be very cynical about this, we have to ensure that a failure to honour the treaty would be politically untenable for a US President.
That's why we send troops & **** to the middle-east and wherever else the USA needs “allies” to make itself look better.
We sent hornets to Iraq, and in the future we will send our F35’s wherever the US wants them. That's the price we pay to be able to bully Indonesia.

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

That's why we send troops & **** to the middle-east and wherever else the USA needs “allies” to make itself look better.
We sent hornets to Iraq, and in the future we will send our F35’s wherever the US wants them. That's the price we pay to be able to bully Indonesia.

That's what makes it an alliance.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Our ability to handle Indonesia on our own was always predicated on overwhelming technological and strategic superiority. Back in the day when they had no blue-water navy and no air-defence to speak off, our subs could blockade them and our F111’s hit their important targets at will. Whilst on land, our tactics and training were more than a match for them in limited engagements, as we showed in the 60’s during the “Konfrontasi.”

That concept would still hold true for any of the little ****ant nations around, but Indonesia is now well and truly large and powerful enough to give us a major headache.

Australia's Air and Navy are superior to the Indonesians (I wouldn't say massively superior, because that would be lying) but we lack the shear manpower that the Indonesians posses, and conscription is part of their constitution should they need it, and they could raise an enormous army if they needed to and it would be a relentless flow, that is why they would need to be stopped at sea and in the air, once they would get a foothold on Australian soil, it's all over.

War with Indonesia (or China) wouldn't just happen overnight for no reason, and China would face economic death if it did invade Australia (and China has no logical reason to invade Australia to begin with). A major conflict would always be triggered by one of these so called "rogue" nations such as North Korea or Iran, they are the firestarters to watch for.
Indonesia haven't got the real capabilities to launch an invasion of Australia, China does, I have always imagined an Indonesia/China alliance, where if there was a war, China would provide the means for Indonesia to invade as well as providing troops and manpower.

[NickyN]

@ Crazy Dazz: Uhh..... being in an alliance goes 2 ways.

[George1861]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people .

With out going nuclear, can China even invade Taiwan at this point? A matter of if the Nationalists run out of bombs, shells, missles and bullets before the Reds run out of a large number of ships/boats & troops to just cross the Formosa Strait muchless anyplace furthur away. Something they are working for though.

[mik]

Interesting article about tensions hotting with the main protagonist being china.

http://mobile.news.com.au/world/the-...-1226771012656