By: danrh
- 20th November 2005 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-111's are useless hunks of junk that only serve to make the Australians feel like they're a super power. They have been grounded often and are useless in coalition style ops due to their extremely unique systems (no-one other than the RAAF uses it).
Australians are still paranoid about Asia. Remember that the reason why the country was federated was to provide a unified strength against the "Asian Hordes"/"Yellow Peril." Australian foreign policy has up to the 1970's been based on defending Australia from Asia by maintaining a relatively modern military and maintaining alliances with like minded Anglo-Saxon countries such as the UK, the USA and New Zealand.
Even while at Uni, I saw young students talk about the threat Indonesia, China and even Japan pose to Australia.
It doesn't help that Australians are almost as insular as Americans when it comes to the world.
And we love you too. Why don't you have a beer and a lie down dear.
By: Palerider
- 21st November 2005 at 00:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Australian Air Force is screwed up... ;) Moving from a combined F-18/F-111 force to a F-35 standardized one is pointless and risky, the JSF is still years away in terms of actual squadrons using it, and there are still very lingering doubts about what eventually will the "export cleared" aircraft be like...
The unforseen Iraq War expenses could (should?!) wreak havok with the R&D dollars in the Pentagon Budget, and almost anything could happens from delays to an outright cancellation of the whole thing..
To me the Su-35/Su-30 Super Flanker would be the ideal aircraft to substitute both curerrent fighters, but since Australians are way too conservative for such a novel approach maybe a stop-gap order of some 30-40 F-15 Strike Eagles would be a nice hedge against possible F-35 risks...
Comments?
Hammer
Maybe not screwed up, lets say misguided....i agree with you on the Strike Eagle purchase, something like the South Korean order would be perfect, although highly unlikely due to monetary constraints. As for the RAAF being too conservative (some would say smart) to consider a Flanker purchase, Brazil didnt get too daring with their Mirage III repalcement did they? :p
By: Tribal
- 21st November 2005 at 07:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Australians are still paranoid about Asia. Remember that the reason why the country was federated was to provide a unified strength against the "Asian Hordes"/"Yellow Peril." Australian foreign policy has up to the 1970's been based on defending Australia from Asia by maintaining a relatively modern military and maintaining alliances with like minded Anglo-Saxon countries such as the UK, the USA and New Zealand.
Have you forgotten that the only time Australia has been directly threatened, it was by an Asian power? (Japan during WWII)
By: pilatus
- 21st November 2005 at 12:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
but would the likes of china really attack australia?i say china because they would be the only country that could match(maybe outmatch) the australians!indonesia would hardly try and if they did it would only end in failure!oh and one more question why would they want to attack australia anyway?!whats the story on a possible raptor buy for australia?that would be sweet!
By: ink
- 21st November 2005 at 13:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just to play around with potential scenarios: Assuming Indonesia wanted to invade Australia (and that nobody came to Australia's aid) they would certainly have the upper hand. Sure they lack a lot in technology and training but they can make up for it in sheer numbers. Indonesia's population is massive compared to Australia's and this could, under the right circumstances, mean a much larger army. Now if they could successfully ferry troops onto the Aussie mainland they would have little to stand in their way even if their army remained relatively poorly equipped.
A lot of 'ifs' and theorising I know (and maybe even I don't agree with what I just said) but I'm just having a bit of fun with imaginary scenarios - seeing as thats the way the thread is going anyway.
By: danrh
- 26th November 2005 at 10:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just how are these thousands of Indonesian troops going to be supported? There are only a few major infrastructure cnetres in northern Australia, very little of the sort of industry that could be co-opted to support an invasion force and a lot of evry inhospitible ground from the landing area to most areas worth having. Sure you could sieze the argricultural area in the North West around the Ord river but still you need fuel, water, ammunition, hospitals etc. And this is pretending that you have somehow managed to bypass the the really hard part of getting across the moat.
By: Canpark
- 26th November 2005 at 11:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most of Australia's large cities are located to the South-East so if TNI want to beat Australia then the South-East is the way to go. But crossing the vast desert is hazardous and Indonesia DOES NOT have the capability to do this without sufficient air and naval superiority.
So when you think about it Australia actually has a massive advantage over any potential invading forces.
By: Canpark
- 26th November 2005 at 11:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-111's are useless hunks of junk that only serve to make the Australians feel like they're a super power. They have been grounded often and are useless in coalition style ops due to their extremely unique systems (no-one other than the RAAF uses it).
Australians are still paranoid about Asia. Remember that the reason why the country was federated was to provide a unified strength against the "Asian Hordes"/"Yellow Peril." Australian foreign policy has up to the 1970's been based on defending Australia from Asia by maintaining a relatively modern military and maintaining alliances with like minded Anglo-Saxon countries such as the UK, the USA and New Zealand.
Even while at Uni, I saw young students talk about the threat Indonesia, China and even Japan pose to Australia.
It doesn't help that Australians are almost as insular as Americans when it comes to the world.
What exactly do you expect? Australia is probably the only country in the world to be founded by British convicts, so its no surprise that for most part of its history Australia's foreign policy is based largely on anti-Asianism.
By: Tribal
- 26th November 2005 at 11:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What exactly do you expect? Australia is probably the only country in the world to be founded by British convicts, so its no surprise that for most part of its history Australia's foreign policy is based largely on anti-Asianism.
Get real....
Australia is geographically located on the edge of Asia, so ANY credible threat to Australia must originate in, transit though, or pass thought an Asian country.....
Not only that, for much of the 20th century Asia has been in conflict...the Japanese invasions of Korea, China, Papua New Guinea, etc, etc, etc, including attacks on Australia, the Chinese civil war and stand off with Taiwan ever since, the confrontation between Indonesia and Malaysia, the Communist insurgency in Malaysia, the barbaric Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, the French colonial wars in IndoChina, the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, Singapore's troubled beginnings, China's "cultural revolution", civil war in Laos, the military regime in Burma, the Korean war, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam of 78(79?)......shall I continue....
So Australia was supposed to embrace all this with open arms?
By: Tribal
- 26th November 2005 at 12:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, but doesn't mean it has to be paranoid about it.
So many question Austalia's need for a defence force. Why not question why Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, France, Russia, or India, etc, etc, etc need defence forces that are larger than Australia's. Why are they not considered "paranoid"?
By: danrh
- 28th November 2005 at 22:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
getting back onto the topic of Indonesia
Indonesia to Buy C-130 Hercules Planes
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Mon, 28 Nov 2005, 04:24
RSS
Printer Friendly
E-Mail This Page
Discussions
Indonesia said Nov. 25 it wanted to buy more U.S.-made Hercules planes to boost its capacity to provide disaster relief, days after Washington said it was lifting a ban on military sales here.
About 70 percent of next year’s armed forces budget will be allocated to buy more of the C-130 transport planes to bolster six other planes now used for military transport and relief efforts, said Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono.
”In the next five to 10 years, what we need to prioritize is buying more Hercules planes ... which can also be used for relief efforts,” Sudarsono said after holding talks with U.S. ambassador Lynn Pascoe.
Washington on Wednesday lifted its foreign military financing ban on Indonesia, a move described by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as a “new chapter” in strategic relations between the two countries.
The lifting of the ban followed the resumption of U.S. international military education and training and foreign military sales for Indonesia in February and in May this year.
US military dealings with Indonesia have been restricted since 1991 when Jakarta’s forces launched a bloody crackdown on pro-independence protesters in East Timor. Sanctions were tightened after a new wave of violence there in 1999.
Sudarsono said Indonesia needed to buy “as many (Hercules) as possible” since now only six out of 24 planes purchased in the past are in operation.
Three of the six planes were heavily used for relief efforts during last December’s earthquake-triggered tsunami in Aceh province that left at least 131,000 people dead in Aceh, and a major quake which hit Nias island off Sumatra in March.
The other three were put back into operation after May’s lifting of the foreign military sales ban following purchases of spare parts.
Sudarsono also hinted that Indonesia could buy more F-5 and F-16 jet fighters from Washington but the program “will have to be adjusted with our main defense system program and our budget.”
By: Canpark
- 28th November 2005 at 23:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gee....the Indonesians love wasting money.
New
Posts: 644
By: Dubya
- 28th November 2005 at 23:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-5's from the USA? Wasn't the US buying F-5E's from the Swiss AF to maintain Aggressor numbers. I s'pose they could purchase F-5's from Taiwan or Saudi Arabia via Washington (much like their acquisition of ex-Israeli A-4's).
Why don't the Indonesians simply return to service some of those old C-130's? Surely some of the airframes are recoverable. And then they should acquire a C-130 maintenance and overhaul capability. They could even get that white elephant, IPTN or whatever its called, to do the work. So everyone wins - AF has servicable Hercs, IPTN has more work, people have jobs, and the nationalist/fundamentalists remain happy cause the work is staying in country and not going to the US or one of her cronies (e.g. Australia :D ).
New
Posts: 644
By: Dubya
- 28th November 2005 at 23:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So many question Austalia's need for a defence force. Why not question why Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, France, Russia, or India, etc, etc, etc need defence forces that are larger than Australia's. Why are they not considered "paranoid"?
It's necessary to have a defence force. But the F-111 is to Australia what the F-16 is to Pakistan - this great wonder weapon that will obliterate the enemy (or in early 20th Century Aussie parlance: "the Yellow Peril"). In reality it's a hunk of junk that spends a lot of time either crashing or being grounded. Not to mention it's useless in Coalition style ops that are all the rave today, because it needs its own separate logistic system and because as a bomber/strike aircraft it causes too many political diifculties. That's why the RAAF sent F/A-18's to Iraq. True they were used as bomb trucks but they are still primarily an air defence fighter in the eyes of the public.
I for one support the acquisition of JSF's and new tankers by the RAAF. They give the RAAF an excellent capability over regional players but are still short legged enoguh to be considered defensive. The F-35 also fits right in with US forces. And lil Johnny and his minions like interoperability with the yanks so they can send Aussies to get killed in American Wars with maximum efficiency in supply and logisitics (down to a point that when Australia bought the M1 Abrams there were proposals to base them in the USA).
By: Canpark
- 28th November 2005 at 23:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-5's from the USA? Wasn't the US buying F-5E's from the Swiss AF to maintain Aggressor numbers. I s'pose they could purchase F-5's from Taiwan or Saudi Arabia via Washington (much like their acquisition of ex-Israeli A-4's).
Why stop there? the Indonesians probably want to do something about the A-4 as well, let say...expand the fleet?
New
Posts: 644
By: Dubya
- 28th November 2005 at 23:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why stop there? the Indonesians probably want to do something about the A-4 as well, let say...expand the fleet?
I think the A-4's were finally retired a few months ago.
Indonesia isn't as bad as some other countries in their military procurements. Look at Japan and the debacle that is the F-2, Australia and the useless Collins class submarine or the USA with the MV-22 White Elephant.
Jan 03 23:11
Air Force Chief: F-16, Sukhoi Programs Jointly Implemented
Bandung (ANTARA News) - Air Force Chief of Staff Marshal Djoko Suyanto confirmed that the implementation of the program on Sukhoi jet fighers will be continued in tandem with the program on the replacement and procurement of arms for F-16 aircraft in the wake of the lifting of the US military embargo on Indonesia.
"There is no a ban on both, as the state has given its approval we have the money for that purpose. We will as least need another six Sukhoi jet fighters to bring the total number to 10 completed with their arms", he told Antara here on Tuesday.
With regard to the arms supply program of the airforce until 2009, his side has received an additional fund already approved by the government and the House of Representatives (DPR) amounting to USD1.3 billion, which will be mainly spent on the procurement of the jet fighters complete with their arms imported from the West or the East, he said.
"There is a choice to replace our Hercules cargo aircraft by Russian-made wide-bodied aircraft such as Antonov 12 and Ilyusin 76. But it has to be done, although it would cost a great deal. It would not be easy to realize, as it also involves the necessary human resources, support system and funds," he said.
Of the two squadrons of Hercules aircraft in Indonesia, readines of the planes had been improved after the US lifted its military embargo on Indonesia and there would no longer be any problem in the purchase of their engines and support materials.
As to the purchase of arms and military equipment from other countries especially involving third parties, he said the rules of the game will remain the same. The only improvements had been effectiveness and efficiencyin the use of fund sprovided by the state.
"While every time in the past we wanted to buy aircraft, we could not demand this or that brands from the suppliers, as everything had been arranged by them. Now the condition is different," he said, adding that "We can now consider many aspects ranging from price, type, terms of payment and other provisions before making our choice on type and brand."(*)
Posts: 661
By: danrh - 20th November 2005 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And we love you too. Why don't you have a beer and a lie down dear.
Daniel
Posts: 147
By: Palerider - 21st November 2005 at 00:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe not screwed up, lets say misguided....i agree with you on the Strike Eagle purchase, something like the South Korean order would be perfect, although highly unlikely due to monetary constraints. As for the RAAF being too conservative (some would say smart) to consider a Flanker purchase, Brazil didnt get too daring with their Mirage III repalcement did they? :p
Posts: 113
By: Tribal - 21st November 2005 at 07:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Have you forgotten that the only time Australia has been directly threatened, it was by an Asian power? (Japan during WWII)
Posts: 697
By: pilatus - 21st November 2005 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
but would the likes of china really attack australia?i say china because they would be the only country that could match(maybe outmatch) the australians!indonesia would hardly try and if they did it would only end in failure!oh and one more question why would they want to attack australia anyway?!whats the story on a possible raptor buy for australia?that would be sweet!
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 21st November 2005 at 13:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just to play around with potential scenarios: Assuming Indonesia wanted to invade Australia (and that nobody came to Australia's aid) they would certainly have the upper hand. Sure they lack a lot in technology and training but they can make up for it in sheer numbers. Indonesia's population is massive compared to Australia's and this could, under the right circumstances, mean a much larger army. Now if they could successfully ferry troops onto the Aussie mainland they would have little to stand in their way even if their army remained relatively poorly equipped.
A lot of 'ifs' and theorising I know (and maybe even I don't agree with what I just said) but I'm just having a bit of fun with imaginary scenarios - seeing as thats the way the thread is going anyway.
Posts: 697
By: pilatus - 21st November 2005 at 19:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
with or without help australia could hold!their military would be up to the task at hand!
Posts: 113
By: Tribal - 25th November 2005 at 22:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Except thousands of crocodile infested rivers, creeks and water holes stretching all the way from the central Qld coast to WA............
Posts: 661
By: danrh - 26th November 2005 at 10:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just how are these thousands of Indonesian troops going to be supported? There are only a few major infrastructure cnetres in northern Australia, very little of the sort of industry that could be co-opted to support an invasion force and a lot of evry inhospitible ground from the landing area to most areas worth having. Sure you could sieze the argricultural area in the North West around the Ord river but still you need fuel, water, ammunition, hospitals etc. And this is pretending that you have somehow managed to bypass the the really hard part of getting across the moat.
Daniel
Posts: 2,991
By: Canpark - 26th November 2005 at 11:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most of Australia's large cities are located to the South-East so if TNI want to beat Australia then the South-East is the way to go. But crossing the vast desert is hazardous and Indonesia DOES NOT have the capability to do this without sufficient air and naval superiority.
So when you think about it Australia actually has a massive advantage over any potential invading forces.
Posts: 2,991
By: Canpark - 26th November 2005 at 11:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What exactly do you expect? Australia is probably the only country in the world to be founded by British convicts, so its no surprise that for most part of its history Australia's foreign policy is based largely on anti-Asianism.
Posts: 113
By: Tribal - 26th November 2005 at 11:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Get real....
Australia is geographically located on the edge of Asia, so ANY credible threat to Australia must originate in, transit though, or pass thought an Asian country.....
Not only that, for much of the 20th century Asia has been in conflict...the Japanese invasions of Korea, China, Papua New Guinea, etc, etc, etc, including attacks on Australia, the Chinese civil war and stand off with Taiwan ever since, the confrontation between Indonesia and Malaysia, the Communist insurgency in Malaysia, the barbaric Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, the French colonial wars in IndoChina, the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, Singapore's troubled beginnings, China's "cultural revolution", civil war in Laos, the military regime in Burma, the Korean war, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam of 78(79?)......shall I continue....
So Australia was supposed to embrace all this with open arms?
Posts: 2,991
By: Canpark - 26th November 2005 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, but doesn't mean it has to be paranoid about it.
Posts: 113
By: Tribal - 26th November 2005 at 12:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So many question Austalia's need for a defence force. Why not question why Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, France, Russia, or India, etc, etc, etc need defence forces that are larger than Australia's. Why are they not considered "paranoid"?
Posts: 661
By: danrh - 28th November 2005 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
getting back onto the topic of Indonesia
Indonesia to Buy C-130 Hercules Planes
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Mon, 28 Nov 2005, 04:24
RSS
Printer Friendly
E-Mail This Page
Discussions
Indonesia said Nov. 25 it wanted to buy more U.S.-made Hercules planes to boost its capacity to provide disaster relief, days after Washington said it was lifting a ban on military sales here.
About 70 percent of next year’s armed forces budget will be allocated to buy more of the C-130 transport planes to bolster six other planes now used for military transport and relief efforts, said Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono.
”In the next five to 10 years, what we need to prioritize is buying more Hercules planes ... which can also be used for relief efforts,” Sudarsono said after holding talks with U.S. ambassador Lynn Pascoe.
Washington on Wednesday lifted its foreign military financing ban on Indonesia, a move described by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as a “new chapter” in strategic relations between the two countries.
The lifting of the ban followed the resumption of U.S. international military education and training and foreign military sales for Indonesia in February and in May this year.
US military dealings with Indonesia have been restricted since 1991 when Jakarta’s forces launched a bloody crackdown on pro-independence protesters in East Timor. Sanctions were tightened after a new wave of violence there in 1999.
Sudarsono said Indonesia needed to buy “as many (Hercules) as possible” since now only six out of 24 planes purchased in the past are in operation.
Three of the six planes were heavily used for relief efforts during last December’s earthquake-triggered tsunami in Aceh province that left at least 131,000 people dead in Aceh, and a major quake which hit Nias island off Sumatra in March.
The other three were put back into operation after May’s lifting of the foreign military sales ban following purchases of spare parts.
Sudarsono also hinted that Indonesia could buy more F-5 and F-16 jet fighters from Washington but the program “will have to be adjusted with our main defense system program and our budget.”
Posts: 2,991
By: Canpark - 28th November 2005 at 23:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gee....the Indonesians love wasting money.
Posts: 644
By: Dubya - 28th November 2005 at 23:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-5's from the USA? Wasn't the US buying F-5E's from the Swiss AF to maintain Aggressor numbers. I s'pose they could purchase F-5's from Taiwan or Saudi Arabia via Washington (much like their acquisition of ex-Israeli A-4's).
Why don't the Indonesians simply return to service some of those old C-130's? Surely some of the airframes are recoverable. And then they should acquire a C-130 maintenance and overhaul capability. They could even get that white elephant, IPTN or whatever its called, to do the work. So everyone wins - AF has servicable Hercs, IPTN has more work, people have jobs, and the nationalist/fundamentalists remain happy cause the work is staying in country and not going to the US or one of her cronies (e.g. Australia :D ).
Posts: 644
By: Dubya - 28th November 2005 at 23:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's necessary to have a defence force. But the F-111 is to Australia what the F-16 is to Pakistan - this great wonder weapon that will obliterate the enemy (or in early 20th Century Aussie parlance: "the Yellow Peril"). In reality it's a hunk of junk that spends a lot of time either crashing or being grounded. Not to mention it's useless in Coalition style ops that are all the rave today, because it needs its own separate logistic system and because as a bomber/strike aircraft it causes too many political diifculties. That's why the RAAF sent F/A-18's to Iraq. True they were used as bomb trucks but they are still primarily an air defence fighter in the eyes of the public.
I for one support the acquisition of JSF's and new tankers by the RAAF. They give the RAAF an excellent capability over regional players but are still short legged enoguh to be considered defensive. The F-35 also fits right in with US forces. And lil Johnny and his minions like interoperability with the yanks so they can send Aussies to get killed in American Wars with maximum efficiency in supply and logisitics (down to a point that when Australia bought the M1 Abrams there were proposals to base them in the USA).
Posts: 2,991
By: Canpark - 28th November 2005 at 23:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why stop there? the Indonesians probably want to do something about the A-4 as well, let say...expand the fleet?
Posts: 644
By: Dubya - 28th November 2005 at 23:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the A-4's were finally retired a few months ago.
Indonesia isn't as bad as some other countries in their military procurements. Look at Japan and the debacle that is the F-2, Australia and the useless Collins class submarine or the USA with the MV-22 White Elephant.
Posts: 661
By: danrh - 4th January 2006 at 22:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.antara.co.id/en/seenws/?id=8047