Aussies

To increase the tax base, they'll have to allow more immigrants, besides keep selling the uranium to China, Japan & India!

BLUEJACKET said:

To increase the tax base, they'll have to allow more immigrants, besides keep selling the uranium to China, Japan & India!

Click to expand...

And allowing more immigrants per capita appears to be highly unlikely given public feelings in Australia against mass immigration.

Finn McCool said:

That would be interesting. The PLAN would have to face the USN coming from the East, right down the middle of the Pacific Ocean, while the RAN pressed the attack by transiting through Indonesia and into the South China Sea. In that situation it might be a good idea for the PLAN to focus its resources on attacking the RAN forces coming north-it doesn't have much of a chance to defeat a major USN foce anyway, but it could definately take out a large RAN force. That would be a major propaganda and political victory, but it would probably be a strategic mistake.

Click to expand...

Though I am from Australia I must say that our military forces suck compared to the Chinese. Honestly if the Chinese were taking over Taiwan and were up against the US from the east and the Aussies from the south more firepower and concentration will be put towards the US as the Aussies will be easily wiped out from the south by the Chinese forces. So China has no threat from an Aussie support to the US

The Aussie's have signed a pact agreeing on the JSF program. Besides money I wonder how much input the Aussiea and other nations truely have in the JSF??..The UK has been somewhat bickering with the US over this issue.

Washington, D.C. (Dec. 12, 2006) - Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England and Australian Minister for Defense Brendan Nelson sign the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Memorandum of Understanding as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer look on. The signing marks Australia’s commitment to participating in the JSF program and continuing the strong relationship with the United States in their partnership in the global war on terrorism. The JSF is the military's next generation, multi-role, strike aircraft designed to complement the Navy F/A-18 and the Air Force F-22 aircraft. Australia joins the U.S., United Kingdom, Canada and The Netherlands in signing Memorandums of Understanding. The other JSF partner nations, Italy, Denmark, Turkey and Norway are working toward final agreements to development of this highly capable and versatile strike aircraft.

Click to expand...

I personally reckon that the Aussies should get some more pilots and fighters in the air. As the JSF is going to cost alot for per unit, i personally think that they should just get some regiments up (small ones) and purchase the F-15E strike eagle from the US.

Another Scandal rock the Australian Army:

Police investigate rocket launchers sale:



Apparently not the first one, there were previous scandals, involving machine guns as well

They are now and to other platforms- can escort them if need be.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

shows every prospect of being exceptionally well suited to its primary design roles of battlefield strike and close air support of ground troops, but it is not designed to perform air superiority roles, unlike the larger F-22A, and is not well adapted to performing the long range strike role now filled by the F-111. There has been considerable adverse press associated with JSF cost overruns and project delays.

Click to expand...

Chengdu J-10 said:

personally think that they should just get some regiments up (small ones) and purchase the F-15E strike eagle from the US.

Click to expand...

The Strike Eagle is the best of the best, but could Australia purchase enough to make an impact? A larger number of advanced Sukhois with Israeli or French Avionics might be far more cost effective and yield more combat potential. Maybe the Sukhois could then be suplemented by the relatively low cost but effective Swedish Fighter plane.

Why would Australia go for Sukhoys? It would hurt its US relations and there is no need for Russian planes when you can have battle proven readily available Eagles that they trust. Plus, Sukhois don't fire AIM-9s.

Eagles can always fly alone and manuver well. Can't say the same with Aarkwarks and Fullbacks.

And Gripens are out of the question. They can't carry or fly far enough.

sumdud said:

Why would Australia go for Sukhoys? It would hurt its US relations and there is no need for Russian planes when you can have battle proven readily available Eagles that they trust.

Click to expand...

That is assuming that they can afford to purchase a sufficient number of the very capable, yet very, very expensive Eagles. The U.S. could help by subsidizing the purchase, but I think with the expense of the Iraq War, U.S. subsidies are going to be far less.

sumdud said:

Why would Australia go for Sukhoys? It would hurt its US relations

Click to expand...

Sure, but if Australia needs to choose between hurting the U.S. over an Eagle purchase and their own interests, (maybe modernizing the Australian health care system) I think they will choose to hurt the U.S. relationship

sumdud said:

Plus, Sukhois don't fire AIM-9s.
And Gripens are out of the question. They can't carry or fly far enough.

Click to expand...

But Advanced Sukhois with western avionics seem to be very lethal and a lot more cost effective. Also, Australia won't be facing enemies with Strike Eagles (or perhaps even opponents with Advanced Sukhois with western avionics). They may face opponents armed with Advanced MIG 29 variants though. Therefore, they dont need the absolute best weapons.

I am thinking Sukhois provide long range strike, Gripens provide local air defense and local air support if Australia finds itself in an area with poor runways etc.