It's a possibility that we would be involved, nothing more, just as it is only a possibility that such a conflict will even occur. Speaking of historical examples, I can not think of one occasion where we have been faced with a scenario where 2 of our allies (one, our best) have fought a war against each other.
When did we decide PROC was an ally? Have any meaningfull defence treaties been signed between AUS and PROC? Do we participate on any military exersises with them? Don't their submarines constantly attempt to survail our naval exersizes with our real allies? What basis if any would you claim we are allies, a trade relaitionship? Please... If so then we were allies with imperial Japan in the 1930's, and the USA and PROC are closer allies than we are, considering the amount of exports and investment flowing from one side to the other. Current trade ties are NO deturence whatsoever and they do not lead to a military and political alliance alone. Cultural and ethnic ties, political and idealogical systems and strategic objectives are much moe improtant and we share none of those with china.
I'd suggest it's a not such an unreasonable proposition that we WOULD remain neutral. Other US allies have remained neutral during her wars and not suffered diplomatically for it afterwards.
Maybe, unless we were pressured by the US. A US defeat in the pacific and its withdrawl from the area as a major military influence (as unlikely as that is) would be unacceptable to Australia i would think (hope), the US is a massive stabilizeing influence in the area. Thats a much better reason than mineing contracts to get involved in a regional conflict.
The real question IMHO is does the F-22 actually bring a sufficient level of capability to the table above other options, to justify the exhorbitant cost? Even USAF's "end of production run" F-22's are costing USD$159m a piece... Factoring in the support costs, and the effect that such an expensive aircraft will have on the budget for the remainder of ADF, I suggest no.
That is the vital question, and i would think that untill a final price was decided upon (or atleast a realistic estimate) that it can not be definitively answered. Remember the initial aquisition cost of the platform is actually a much lower % of the through life cost, which is clearly evident in the F/A-18F purchase. If we bought the F/A-18F's at twice the price we would not have paid $12bn for them but ~$7.6bn (I'm not sure how much we exactly paid for the platforms and how much for the spares, IIRC $2.9bn was the figure for platforms and spares which is $120m a pop, so i'm guessing the platforms were $80~90m). Therefore even if we payed 100m more per unit for the F-22A over the F-35A, we would only incur a furthe $2.4bn increase in cost, makeing it $18.4bn instead of $16bn. Spread over 5 years $2.4bn equates to less ~2% of the defence budget. Its alot of money, but somehow I dont think it will break the bank.
An excellent air to air fighter it might be. However RAAF requires more than that these days and even the USAF budget is being distorted by acquiring this aircraft. To the tune of USD$63.5b for 184x aircraft...
Agreed if it was the only platform we were intending to buy or the primary one. However as part of an 3:1 hi low mix, its unparraleled air-superiority/air-defence capability and decent strike capability, combined with the very handy F-35A and all of the RAAF's force multipliers will give us a formidable force structure.
I don't think that is overly likely anyway as I've already mentioned. A high intensity war involving NK is a more likely scenario in my opinion, particularly from an Australian involvement perspective and due to our lack of armoured forces, I'd suggest a small fighter contingent, some maritime forces (and patrol aircraft) and special forces would probably be the limit. In outer years, perhaps Global Hawk, Wedgetail and KC-30B could make valuable contributions as well. I'd suggest that due to the size of our forces, that our level of involvement wouldn't exceed this greatly.
Having F-22's in any case are not going to exceed the "value" these force multipliers will make to Coalition operations...
Thats probably more likely, but i did say South East Asia not North Asia, i.e. one in our local vacinity were the Australian mainland could conceavible be under conventional threat.;-) .
I noticed you overlooked the fact that the Japanese required 4x aircraft carriers and a massive escort force to do it, too...
Indeed. However it was still worth all of that effort, and the objective would still be the same, pressure us to withdraw from the conflict.
However Darwin was being used as a major naval staging base and the attacks were largely intended to destroy the ability to do this.
Should an invasion of the entire South East Asian region by a major power be launched and conducted successfully as far as PNG, then I grant you, Australia may be at risk from air strikes...
I would think that with decent strategic air power and the cooperation of oone or two nations PLAAF could conceavibly hit northen australia from bases north of signapore, in the 10~20 year timeframe. I dont think they need to base assets in PNG to make it out this far.
Given USA hegemony at present and in the forseeable future, I seriously doubt a foreign power could penetrate that far, before it was "handsomely" stopped...
Thinking that the only way northen australia could conceavibly be under threat of air strike is in such a scenario is conflict wiith the capabilities of current strategic air power and stand off missiles, not to mention what will be possible in the mid term.
On the people forced to endure, yes I agree. RAAF Tindal being a further 320k's south of Darwin, is going to be difficult for most opponents to hit...
Some of our military infrastructure is in the North of Australia. 75 Sqn at RAAF Tindal, 1 Brigade and a patrol boat base. I hardly expect 1 Brigade will remain in baracks in any likely confrontation...
But in the event of a conflict in SEA there would be a whole lot more up there than 75 sq and 1 brigade. Tindal and Darwin would be the primary ADF bases in the area and vital to the ADF's ability to operate in the north.
The majority of the Darwin population was evacuated in WW2. I don't see that being an issue again...
"North West Shelf" attacks I think I addressed already. I don't see it being a "critical issue" in this debate.
Greater Darwin has a population in excess of 100 000 peaple. Thats not going to be easy to evacuate. Anyway distruction of property will still have a significant impact on support for the war.
I personally believe providing one extremely remote possibility as the basis for a "strategic threat" is the disingenous act in this "debate". It presupposes that we are at war with China already, that the current force structure as planned or our allies capability is incapable of protecting us anyway and that our enemy has the capability in the face of US attacks to conduct a "revenge mission".
Its a scenario that needs to be considered. Lableing it irrelevent becasue of allied capabilities, economic ties or lack of intent is not consistent with the current strategic environment in SEA IMHO. Does it need to be the basis of all of our force structure and platform aquisitions? Of cource not, but the "threat" and what will be most able to combat it needs to be considered when making such desisions. As stated earlier such a conflict is probably the most likely for a large scale, high intencity conflict in south east aisia, thereofore the ramifications of such a conflict should definatly be considered and planned for.
China's capability will be significantly increased in the mid term and the possibility them giveing the yanks a run for their money in a regional conflict is reasonable IMO. Will they win? Well probably not before 2050,
IF ever, but we can not assume that they will be so desimated by the US that we will be of no matter to them. Useing conventional force to pressure SEA powers to stay out of a regional conflict is definatly a smat move and a reasonable one IMO, but somehow raw material exports will grant us a blanket of immunity? I dont think so.
And if not at war, such an attack would however surely "force our hand" and make us declare war against China, whilst simultaneously hurting China itself. No war lasts forever. Are we so likely to deal with China again in the short term after such an unprecedented incident?
I wasnt aware there were declarations of war anymore, when was the last one made by a great power? 1942 perhaps? During a significant regional conflict between the US and PROC i doubt the US would be very happy with us for supplying them with NG. I have a funny feeling all exports would be halted for the duration of the conflict wether we were directly involved or not. If PROC acted agressively in SEA and made a (hypothetical of cource) dash toward the malaka & we were envolved then strike son NA would not be out of the unlikely.
Yes, however we had formally declared war against Japan and had fought a large number of engagements against them, before those attacks occurred.
If we declare war on China and start fighting them , we can hardly cry foul at that point if we are attacked by them.
Declaration of war is irrelevent, did we declare war on china in Korea? if we participated in a coalition in a regional conflict it would not require a declaration of war so in reality this is a moot point.
I'd suggest also that Government would be developing a significantly greater capability than is presently the case before any such action was contemplated.
The government may not have the luxury of time to build the force structure needed, such a war would be fought on china's terms i would dare say, because they are the growing power who is challangeing (or will challange) the status quo. Even if the US struck first it would be pre emptive and on china's timeframe, threforewe will not have the time to develope the needed capability "later" or sufficiently before such a conflict arose.
However once again your reasoning assumes the current plans won't be sufficient to deal with any of these threats.
No it does not, and that is clearly evident in my previous post. Al i have stated is that a hi/lo mix of F-22's and F-35's will be a more potent mix than one that only consists of the F-35A, and will be more capable in the air defence role in such a scenario. My reasoning is that such a threat must be CONSIDERED and planned for rather than labled irelevent for the reasons you have stated above.
I see the APA line of thinking however that only the F-22 will be capable of intercepting cruise missiles and Russian bombers.
Yet I read recently that even F-16's are conducting ballistic missile interceptions, using IIR missiles...
Assuming F-35 won't be capable in this role, assumes like they do, (as it suits their arguments) that it won't be a capable air to air fighter...
Then you selectively read my post and missed its point entirely. Its not that the current planned orbat will not be able to defend us from such a threat, however the inclusion of the F-22A will allow us to do so in a more effective maner. That is my whole contention. Now is the extra cost (whatever that may be) worth it? Well thats a personal value judgement and not something I should comment on.
I don't believe the F-22 would provide a more flexible force, capable is arguable when you consider that budget is a very real factor. If F-35 comes in at it's current estimated prices, than F-22's will cost in the vicinity of 2.5x the F-35 per platform...
Platform aquisition cost has little to do with capability, but everything to do with affordability.
Even a squadron of F-22's at that price is going to distort the RAAF Air Combat force and some fleet of 70x plus or other ridiculous figure will likely distort ADF as a whole.
I'm not convinced a squadron sized purchase would distort the RAAF in the way you depict. The additional $2.5~$3bn spend on the aquisition cost is no more than the RAAF spent on the F/A-18F (which was never budgeted or planned for), which has not had the effect you outline. Personally i think an additional $3bn is well within our economic capability to fund, the only real question is is the additional cost worth it?
I think that such a view misrepresents the multitude of factors for a conflict of such magnitude. Such a conflict in my view would push EACH nuclear armed party to the brink of "madness" particularly if it evolves to a war of "national survival" in which case only 1 outcome is likely, given the US nuclear advantage.
On top of which a conflict of such size hasn't occurred since WW2. I believe both sides would be more than cautious about "kicking it off"...
Why does asmall regional conflict automatically turn into a contest for national survival? thats why its called a regional conflict, its confied, mainly to a single theater in a single region. To asssume that the only type of conflict were PLAAF would launch offenceive, conventional strategic air strikes is one of national survival isnt reasonable to me.
Agreed. It is my contention that it doesn't.
Fair enough, (this is the real crux of the matter). But why not?
And yet, that is exactly what Government's of both persuasion has done since we've been a Country. To defend our Country against a threat such as China, if it were actually capable of striking us conventionally, to a significant degree, would see our force planning change. Perhaps once their conventional strike power DOES begin to increase, and this will include carriers, escort forces capable of protecting them, TU-160 long ranged bombers in numbers and other improvements, our defence capability will too...
We have allways planned with partners in mind, but we CAN NOT rely on them to defend us in such a conflict. Will we be alone against the might of a great power? No, but it would be foolhardy to assume that our allies can redeploy assets in our defence when they are allready heavilly involved. We relied on GB in the 30's and look were that got us, bent over with our pants around our ankles in '42, with half of our army on the other side of the plannet.
All of those platforms are in development (apart from Tu 160 which is a possibility) and will be viable in the mid term. Our current plans will be operational in the mid term. Any increase in capability willtake annother 5-10 years. Simple waiting for the threat to become operational before you deal with it is not the smartest way of dealing with the threat IMO. now i'm not saying that we NEED the F-22A to meet the threat, but haveing it as part of the mix would allow us to deal with such a threat in a more efficient and effective manner tha our current planes.
F-22 doesn't provide us the capability to fight China. It will provide an increased capability in one operational role and that at a hideous cost. My arguments are that the strategic "threat" we do face is negligible and the cost effectiveness of the F-22 simply doesn't allow it's "pros" to outweigh it's "cons" in my opinion...
We dont need the capability to "fight china". It will grant increased capability in a very significant role, air defence, Air superiority and interception. Is the increase capability worth the money, well the jurys still out for me on that one. But considering the real additional cost of the F-22A, even worst case scenario's, dont make the platform unobtainable or unafordable IMO. The question is it worth it?
