Australia's Defence Future.
- Thread starter DEFENCEMASTER05
- Start date
A bunch but the main one i remember without searching again was airforce-technoloy.com or something like that. But its also on a bunch of other sites i cant remember and even Wiki.
Combat range some said others just said range and all said thats only with internal fuel tanks, i know what ferry range is and none specifically said that.
You need to surf over to a Pakistan forum. They feel threatened by India being a neighbor next door. But even in their forums you notice India's defence force have problems building military equipment too. A string of missile failures leading the way... New technology hick-ups aren't one sided by any means...
Ask Hollywood how difficult it is to film in India. India's notorious customs gives Hollywood producers head aches bringing camera equipment into India, much less bringing a film's staff in.... I suggest watching the Indiana Jones DVD and listening to its director's remarks... Do the same with the Passage to India's DVD as well...
India's customs are so notorious, that even Star Cruises decided to give up on its attempt to home port a cruise ship there...
Ask Hollywood how difficult it is to film in India. India's notorious customs gives Hollywood producers head aches bringing camera equipment into India, much less bringing a film's staff in.... I suggest watching the Indiana Jones DVD and listening to its director's remarks... Do the same with the Passage to India's DVD as well...
India's customs are so notorious, that even Star Cruises decided to give up on its attempt to home port a cruise ship there...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not quite true. If countries are active trading partners with each other, engage in economic, diplomatic, military and social exchanges, there is a fair amount of interaction between the various countries. This can provide insight into the relationships between various nations, and the attitudes differing nations have towards one another. Given the interconnected nation of global trade, plus the sheer scope of resources needed to launch a successful strike (nevermind invasion) upon Australia, there is almost certainly going to be warning signs ahead preceding the action.
As AD has gone through, there are significant resources that would be required for any strike force to reach Australia, again ignoring an invasion force. Given that such a force would need to pass through/by various allied nations, the force would constitute a threat to the allied nations and would be subject to attacks. Given the example AD gave of El Dorado Canyon, how well would and IAF or PLAAF aerial tanker flight fare if engaged by RSAF fighters? IMO not well at all, and without those tankers, any airstrike would fail. This means that any such airstrike would need either sufficient fighter escorts to ensure that enough strike and tanker aircraft made it through for the attack to succeed. This in turn further increases the need for more tanker aircraft, both to provide a margin for any air combat losses, as well as to provide tanking for the fighter escort. I could be mistaken, but the only air force which currently operates tankers in such numbers happens to be the USAF.
You still have not seemed to grasp the scope of what you are suggesting, the resources required to achieve it, or the time required to build up those resources and acquire proficiency with them. Short of an industrialized nation moving to a wartime economic footing (think the Arsenal of Democracy in the US during WWII), such forces could not be built up within 10 years. And, if a nation did for some reason start emphasizing such construction and conducting a buildup like this, other nations would notice and either comment on it or take action.
Yes, you are wrong. The Su-30 does not have a basic range of 5k km, it has a radius of action of ~810 n miles/1.5k km. A listed range of 5k km for a fighter aircraft might be possible if it is a ferry flight. That basically means that the fighter is conducting a 1-way flight from Point A to Point B, without weapons and fitted with the maximum number of droptanks and fuel loadout, while flying at the most economical altitude and speed. The inclusion of any ordnance would have a negative impact on this range due to the increase drag, increased weight, and possibly due to a decrease in the number of droptanks carried. A radius of action is more informative, as that lists the general distance that a fighter can travel on a mission and return to base.
If one looks at how the US operates CBGs, that would require a force structure of 3 CVs, 18 escort ships of which 9 would be equipped for area air defence, 6 attack subs, and three replenishment ships. If one looks at the Indian Navy currently, except for carriers they have sufficient vessels to achieve this sort of structure. However, to do so essentially would gut their navy. Ignoring whether or not current designs would be particularly suited to such a venture, it would require ~37% of the sub force, the entire destroyer and frigate force, as well as 30% of the replenishment vessels. This would leave Indian maritime interests defended only by the corvettes and patrol vessels. This also ignores whether or not 3 battlegroups of vessels could be constituted at one time. With some exceptions, the general rule is that for every three units/platforms/systems, only one always available for deployment or operations, and at times that can be surged to two simultaneous deployments. In effect, if the Indian Navy had a total of 3 CBGs, a maximum of two could be deployed at the same time. And there would still be the issue of leaving Indian home waters and maritime interests vulnerable to other parties or nations.
Alright, now that we have it narrowed down to 2 Indian CBG's being deployed for a strike upon Australia (again, not even considering an invasion since that makes the logistical requirement that much greater), could the ADF detect and respond to 2 incoming CBG's? With current assets, yes. With what is planned for the future, even more so. While Australia's exact capabilities are not really discussed, IMO has either the greatest, or 2nd greatest detection footprint within the ASEAN/Oceania region. The other candidate being the US. With that sort of advantage, the ADF will know where attacking assets are, the greatest difficulty might be in determining if they are going to attack prior to a strike being launched. That sort of difficulty is where intel assets come into play more than military/defence assets. Once an attacker is determined to be hostile, the ADF can respond with a surge of their own. This would lead to attacks upon the CBG's by ~ 4 Collins subs, 5-6 Anzacs (fitted with Harpoons) and likely 1-2 Adelaide's, much of the AP-3C Orion force, as well as ~60 Hornets/SHornets. Given that there would only be two critical targets to hit to stop the strike, namely the carriers, would the CBG's be sufficient to stop a pre-emptive or counterstrike on such a scale? USN equipment and training is geared towards such a capability, but the Indian Navy with smaller carriers and significantly smaller air groups, a smaller sensor footprint, and lacking Aegis-level area air defence systems IMO could not. And then there are also the Collins subs, which even the USN has trouble engaging during exercises.
In short, yes, either or both India and China could develop the sort of capabilities which could allow them to conduct strikes against Australia. However, to do so would require them to develop power projection capabilities on a scale which currently only the US operates at. Given the level of resources required to get there, neither country could hide the buildup, and IMO the time required to both develop the systems and doctrine to support such an endeavor would likely require more than just two decades.
-Cheers
You seem to forget the past. I agree being connected or allied with the country helps alot but it gives no guarantee's. France was one of Germany's biggest trading partners that didnt stop Germany invading.
Again your just assuming Singapore would help, its just as likely they would try to stay out of it rather then fight an upcoming superpower, and India doesnt even need to go near Singapore. Its just a easy cruise straight here through open ocean.
Again im not an expert so sorry to sound rude but i think you seem to think taking us over would be alot harder then it is. You cant seriously compare the US operations all over Europe and the Pacific fighting both the Germans and Japanese with fighting us in Australia. It is nothing the same and we would be nothing in comparison.
Where is that information from? As i said i looked at a good 10-15 sites that all say around 5000km for the MK1 and the basic Su-30 about 3000km combat range. I also read numerous quotes about that was one of the best things about the Su-30, its large range.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Er, you mean besides a lack of long range exercising, lack of sustained investment in force structures intended to project power half way around the world, lack of REASON why they would want to do this and good economic, cultural, diplomatic and military ties between our nations?
Yeah, besides all that is it quite obvious that could be attacked...
Over run by what? Even Carlo Kopp admits, if you look hard enough, that China only has the capability to deploy a Regiment (3x fighter squadrons) into the South East asian region. Such a deployment would be worthy of notice and response, but it is hardly the end of us as a sovereign nation...
I assume you've heard of the Five Power Defence Agreement? Any move by Chinese, Indian or any other forces (Indonesian perhaps) along the lines you are describing would be confronted by a coalition effort in the SEA region.
Do you think Countries in the path of a hostile invasion force are simply going to allow it by without challenge?
As to the assistance of the United States, show me one example of the USA failing to assist Australia when we have required it and if you try to use Timor as an example, prepare for a slapping, because you have not done your homework and are in for a surprise...
Enough for what? A suicidal attack on Australia's mainland? In 10 years, Australia will have more capability.
Suddenly India or China would have to confront a defence force equipped with Super Hornet and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, Wedgetail AEW&C, KC-30A air to air refuellers, JASSM and Tomahawk standoff cruise missiles, JORN P-8A Multi-Mission maritime aircraft, F-105 Air Warfare Destroyers, an advanced and fully upgraded Collins Class fleet (BYG-1 and Mk 48 Mod 7/8 torpedo upgrades will be complete by then), plus upgraded ANZAC frigate capabilities AND this force will be networked AND equipped with CEC (Co-Operative Engagement Capability).
This force would be defending it's own territory possesses the ability to engage a force at significant range in of itself AND we are unlikely to be left to fend ourselves.
If you look at the capabilities we ARE acquiring as to the capabilities those Countries you've mentioned might acquire, there is absolutely no contest in qualitative terms.
The MiG-29K's whilst individually better aircraft, won't make an Indian taskforce vastly more survivable overall, particularly if it has to fight something like the ADF at extended distances from it's own support base.
No, but we do have long ranged strike capability inherent in land based aircraft and surface and sub-surface combatants, we have the very long range and broad area maritime and air surveillance capability, we have a superior force in networking terms, in 10 years we will have a massive advantage in very low observable strike capability and WE are the ones on home soil, not the Indians or the Chinese and thus range is not such an issue for us...
According to Sukhoi, the SU-30MK has a 5200k range with one in-flight refuelling, carring an external fuel load of 2x R-27 BVR air to air missiles and 2x R-73 air to air missiles.
Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-30ÌÊ - Aircraft performance
However this is range, not combat radius, the aircraft have to get to Australia and conduct a strike mission AND have a reserve of fuel for loiter/ACM time AND get back to India AND if they are actually going to do anything to Australia, they will need to carry strike weapons, which will reduce range significantly.
On top of which, I find it interesting that Sukhoi lists a range of 3000k's from takeoff with 1500kgs of fuel remaining, only an additionaly 2200k's with presumably full internal fuel after one in-flight refuelling despite presumably being at an optimal fuel efficient cruise speed for the duration of this flight (and no specified remaining on-board fuel) and then 2800k's with a 2nd refuelling and again un-specified reserve of fuel remaining. It is just a tad inconsistent wouldn't you say?
Given the SU-30 has no capability (at the present time) to carry external fuel and a fuel fraction smaller than other fighters which are considerably smaller and yet claim range figures considerably smaller than that of the SU-30, I'd argue that the range figures might be a bit on the generous side and relying on them to support your argument is a bit of a "fools" argument.
In any case, IAF only has 6x IL-78 refuellers. Each IL-78 MIDAS can only carry 100 tons of off-loadable fuel.
Even if you accept the range given by Sukhoi, discount the range penalties inherent in external ordnance carriage for strike operations and external sensors, fly solely in a HI, HI,HI flight profile, fly the full range of the aircraft, without worrying about the fuel reserves AND have the tankers fly the full distance, then India is short by a large number of IL-78 MIDAS refuellers for even a reasonable strike package of say, 24x aircraft, conducting a strike right on the Western coast of Northern Australia...
Given the ratio of refuellings of F-111 aircraft in El Dorado Canyon raids, (and the F-111 has an un-refuelled ferry range of 6760k's, more than double the SU-30), the USAF required 28x tankers of roughly the same size and offload capability as the IL-78 MIDAS, to support a strike package of 24x aircraft, with 4x refuellings per aircraft to cover a 4100nm round trip.
You are talking about a round trip of double that...
Because ferry ranges listed by manufacturers are maximum ranges an aircraft can achieve under ideal flight conditions carrying the maximum amount of fuel they can carry whilst flying at the most fuel efficient speed and altitude.
You are talking about a combat mission, against a modern air force equipped with 4th and (in 10 years) 5th generation fighter aircraft that are themselves well supported by AEW&C, air to air refuelling and long range early warning ground and naval based radar and space based surveillance systems.
Combat aircraft don't fly fuel efficient speeds and altitudes during combat missions, they get shot down that way. They fly a mix of high level cruise flight profiles and lower level "penetration" profiles and various speeds or they are "whacked"...
Flying straight, level and at efficient subsonic cruise speeds (ala a civilian airliner) is an excellent way to ensure you maximise the range of your aircraft. It is also an excellent way of ensuring you suffer a mission failure if you happen to be a combat aircraft...
The lower and faster you go, the more fuel you use and the more your range drops...
And as I keep having to repeat, ADF are hardly doing "nothing" about the capability enhancements within our "region". Are you un-aware that we are or intend to acquire in the very same timeframe:
1. F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.
2. P-8A MMA.
3. Wedgetail AEW&C.
4. KC-30A air to air refuellers.
5. F/A-18F Super Hornets.
6. The AGM-158 JASSM, with maritime and moving target attack modes.
7. The AGM-154C/C1 JSOW with maritime and moving target attack modes.
8. A brand new air to surface anti-ship missile to replace our current Harpoon Block II ASM's and equip the JSF and perhaps the Super Hornet.
9. New air launched torpedoes.
10. An upgraded submarine fleet with new torpedoes and other enhancements.
11. A new Air Warfare Destroyer fleet.
12. Tomahawk long ranged cruise missiles.
13. CEC - Co-operative engagement capability for our networked defence force.
14. A new ground based air defence system, comprising over-lapping short and medium/long ranged weapon systems.
15. A new anti-submarine / anti-surface helicopter fleet equipped with ASW torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.
16. A space based ground and maritime surveillance capability.
17. Upgraded Jindalee OTH radar capability.
The list goes on and on. Australia's Defence Capability Plan has planning in place to spend $240 Billion on new capability up until 2030. The list of acquisitions ADF WILL be getting is simply staggering.
Super Hornets are here. Wedgetails are here, KC-30A's exist and are under-going final testing in Spain right now and will be in Australia before the end of the year. JASSM is here. JSOW is here.
The list goes on and on. Where is India's first of 3 carriers? In pieces in Russia is where it is and has been since 2004, whilst the IN hopes that it will be ready by 2012.
I won't hold my breath...
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Didn't india claim to lay down carrier #2 in 2005 or so and then it came out a couple of years back that they'd basically done nothing since then because they couldn't indigenously source the correct grade of steel and all overseas steel plants capable were busy on their own nations output or something?
So basically, IAC #2 and #3 could be 5 or 10 years away quite easily, possibly more. Don't think the Indian's have built any warhips larger then 10,000t before either.....
So basically, IAC #2 and #3 could be 5 or 10 years away quite easily, possibly more. Don't think the Indian's have built any warhips larger then 10,000t before either.....
A side note, invaisions arent cheap.
A 1986 estimate, based on a 3-1 ivaision ratio to the invaders vs ADF (eg, at that time Australia had 6 understreangth infantry battalions) enemy would require 18 understreangth bns to defeat us. the cost of supporting 18 bns in australia from india/indonesia/china or the then USSR was estimated at roughly the cost of the entire Falklands campaign .....PER DAY. Support includes everything, navy airforce etc etc.....
day one , invaders land in North west australia/northern territory.....then what? its a long way to move from there to anywhere....your choice of MSR,s are the Stuart high way, or the stuart highway. now what?
A 1986 estimate, based on a 3-1 ivaision ratio to the invaders vs ADF (eg, at that time Australia had 6 understreangth infantry battalions) enemy would require 18 understreangth bns to defeat us. the cost of supporting 18 bns in australia from india/indonesia/china or the then USSR was estimated at roughly the cost of the entire Falklands campaign .....PER DAY. Support includes everything, navy airforce etc etc.....
day one , invaders land in North west australia/northern territory.....then what? its a long way to move from there to anywhere....your choice of MSR,s are the Stuart high way, or the stuart highway. now what?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That is the other problem. All those rubbish figures being thrown around reaches the West coast of Australia. Somewhere, where there is ABSOLUTELY nothing of military value worth attacking.
Maybe they could turn south once hitting the coastline and fly another 1500 kays each way and hit Perth. Or fly another 6000k's each way and hit something on the East coast? Why stop there though? Why not keep flying east if they've got that much tanker support and hit continental USA on their west coast?
Oh yeah, the old missile strike on the North West shelf. That'd teach us. Guess what China, no natural gas for you and less than 1% of our GDP at risk....
What a terrible strategic blow. Even if India wanted to do that and could actually pull it off, China would probably attack THEM in retaliation, not us...
China herself wouldn't, why kill the goose laying the golden egg?
Some awesome posting going on in here from Aussie Digger. Brilliant.
I think we are certainly in the process of turning Indonesia into a firm ally. It might not ever be 'rock solid' for a number of reasons (under developed institutional integrity, 'loose' military command structures, religious differences) but I think we can become real friends across broad social and military spectrum (and its has been going for a while and well documented in other threads on this forum).
The only threat I really perceive (and its a long shot) is for Indonesia to shut up shop against Australia and allow China to pump money into their economy (buying friendship) and allow significant Chinese military basing in their sovereignty. Leading to overt build up of force projection capability.
From there the only real invasion threat is to our north west region. No one will ever be interested in usurping our sovereignty in its entirety. Its not economically feasible. They could however lock up our north west corner and build a perimeter around economically valuable regions.
This is complete pie in the sky nonsense really and I defer to AD's quality posting.
***small off topic note*****
My real concern for India and China is against each other in their own region. History tells us sovereignties can behave remarkably like human individuals.
Teenage men with high testosterone levels, unwarranted levels of self confidence/self belief and under developed intellects make poor impulsive and ill thought out decisions that generally lead to actions which end in tears....
China and India as future super powers are going to go through puberty (economically burgeoning and openly nationalistic middle class) at some point in this millennium and its important we are there to calm them the hell down.
****end off topic rambling*****
India will never invade the country that created Shane Warne. Seriously.
I think we are certainly in the process of turning Indonesia into a firm ally. It might not ever be 'rock solid' for a number of reasons (under developed institutional integrity, 'loose' military command structures, religious differences) but I think we can become real friends across broad social and military spectrum (and its has been going for a while and well documented in other threads on this forum).
The only threat I really perceive (and its a long shot) is for Indonesia to shut up shop against Australia and allow China to pump money into their economy (buying friendship) and allow significant Chinese military basing in their sovereignty. Leading to overt build up of force projection capability.
From there the only real invasion threat is to our north west region. No one will ever be interested in usurping our sovereignty in its entirety. Its not economically feasible. They could however lock up our north west corner and build a perimeter around economically valuable regions.
This is complete pie in the sky nonsense really and I defer to AD's quality posting.
***small off topic note*****
My real concern for India and China is against each other in their own region. History tells us sovereignties can behave remarkably like human individuals.
Teenage men with high testosterone levels, unwarranted levels of self confidence/self belief and under developed intellects make poor impulsive and ill thought out decisions that generally lead to actions which end in tears....
China and India as future super powers are going to go through puberty (economically burgeoning and openly nationalistic middle class) at some point in this millennium and its important we are there to calm them the hell down.
****end off topic rambling*****
India will never invade the country that created Shane Warne. Seriously.
You keep making out like i mean in the next few weeks, where i mean in years, 10-20 even. Alot of that stuff could change in 1 year let alone 10-20.
And the reasons to do could be lot's of thing's from there population growth, Climate change issues, wanting our large amount of natural resources ect
Yes i have heard of that agreement and maybe over the years as we have become more connected it has changed but as far as i know technically its only about the defence of Singapore and Malaysia, not Australia.
And yes if that hostile force is going to sail/fly straight past i think alot of countries would let it happen rather then pick a fight with what could be a superpower. It happens all the time with the US.
I do agree if China was going to attack us taking all the Island countries above us would be the logical way to do it though.
??Ah the big one, WW2, we where at war (along with the UK and other allies) 2 years before the US came to help, and that was only because they where attacked themselves at Pearl Harbour, or they may have stayed out much longer.
The Indians would basically be able to fly straight and level most of the way here, its all over international waters, and if it was the first strike like i said we wouldnt be rushing out to meet them till they where close to Australia (well close in relative terms).
But in saying that as you said its a pointless argument as ide prefer to believe the manafacturer's spec's then random sites of the net.
I didnt actually mean nothing but as you pointed out yourself in post #78 i think it was, we have a history of many problems with military equipment
And while i didnt actually know about some of that stuff and its good to hear have you seen some of the stuff India is ment to be getting?
Things like there Sagarika missile (700km range from a sub), basically alot of what we are getting they are ment getting a version of too. I did say ment though as it does seem like they have problems actually getting things in service or whatever the wording is where the Navy actually has them ready for use.
Gotta say too im not trying to argue for the sake of it, i do believe what you guys are telling me, im just interested in all the possibilities.
On a side note, after reading up on JORN do we have a version down south or in the Antartic? While travelling down there maybe not that easy to do, could anyone sneak in close down that way? Im not expecting to be attacked by a country from South America or anything, just interested.
I really don't see China attacking Australia, or another nation unless it was attacked first. From most of the history China hasn't invaded nations that didn't consider their own sovereignty. Tawain is an island of China, which the CCP see it as part of the greater China. Tibet was lost from the invasion of China, but took it back. And since China is reliant on Australia natural resources, I can see China actually assisting Australia if India tries to invade and fledge war on Australia.
Considering that China if they for some crazy unlikely reason of invading China they cannot get their in large numbers. And Aussie Digger China ain't gonna send in bombers alone for a turkey shoot for the RAAF. But those bombers ain't the ones that need to be ontop of their targets for effectiveness, since most of them are and as of now being converted to be stand off missle platform. They'll be escorted by the Russian built or License produced Flankers and the pilots for those fighters aren't the ill trained pilots of the 80-90s anymore like most people still think. But still as of now China cannot "invade" or fledge war to another nation outside of Asia, due to its restraints in its inventory.
Food for thought would US really launch a nuclear war with China, just cause China launched ICBM to Australia? Would they risk having ICBM launched on themselves? As much as I see the US helping us in conventional warefare, personally I would think they would sit still if it was ICBM.
For China force anaylsis, Ground Force is formidable, Airforce is semi to full formidable, Navy only for defence with no power project capability of significance. Indeed Australia forces are modern, but thats due to its large budget and small force distrubtion. You can have say 50 F-15 for nation A, and 1 F-22 for nation B. People say its small force but modern, well its easier to get a modern force if its small you have more money to distrubute to each, compared to larger force. Indded nation B is more modern then A but its quantity is too small to ratio to make and significance. Their must be balance between quality and quantity. Though repeating again China from all points accounted for won't attack Australia if it ain't seriously military prevoked to its own nation.
Not all about numbers but lets see for the sake of it, im only counting modern platforms:
RAAF: 71 Fighter (F-18)
PLAAF: 460-488 Fighter (J-10, Flankers)
IAF: 234 Fighter (Mig-29, Su-30, Mirage 2000)
In fighter jets alone PLAAF and IAF overwhelm the RAAF, but once again thats just numbers.
Considering that China if they for some crazy unlikely reason of invading China they cannot get their in large numbers. And Aussie Digger China ain't gonna send in bombers alone for a turkey shoot for the RAAF. But those bombers ain't the ones that need to be ontop of their targets for effectiveness, since most of them are and as of now being converted to be stand off missle platform. They'll be escorted by the Russian built or License produced Flankers and the pilots for those fighters aren't the ill trained pilots of the 80-90s anymore like most people still think. But still as of now China cannot "invade" or fledge war to another nation outside of Asia, due to its restraints in its inventory.
Food for thought would US really launch a nuclear war with China, just cause China launched ICBM to Australia? Would they risk having ICBM launched on themselves? As much as I see the US helping us in conventional warefare, personally I would think they would sit still if it was ICBM.
For China force anaylsis, Ground Force is formidable, Airforce is semi to full formidable, Navy only for defence with no power project capability of significance. Indeed Australia forces are modern, but thats due to its large budget and small force distrubtion. You can have say 50 F-15 for nation A, and 1 F-22 for nation B. People say its small force but modern, well its easier to get a modern force if its small you have more money to distrubute to each, compared to larger force. Indded nation B is more modern then A but its quantity is too small to ratio to make and significance. Their must be balance between quality and quantity. Though repeating again China from all points accounted for won't attack Australia if it ain't seriously military prevoked to its own nation.
Not all about numbers but lets see for the sake of it, im only counting modern platforms:
RAAF: 71 Fighter (F-18)
PLAAF: 460-488 Fighter (J-10, Flankers)
IAF: 234 Fighter (Mig-29, Su-30, Mirage 2000)
In fighter jets alone PLAAF and IAF overwhelm the RAAF, but once again thats just numbers.
I would not get to concerned of the scenario of China merging with Indonesia to invade Australia.
For a start Indonesia would be hard pressed to provide the military infrastructure to support the massive Chinese equipment and logistics network needed.
Plus I don't wish to play the 'race card', but the moslem Indonesians sometimes don't take kindly to Chinese people, if you remember back at the end of the Indonesian Confrontation, after Sokarno got disposed of, the Indonesians turn on the 'Chinese' residents in a very brutal and lethal manner.
Actually even at present if India and China ( convential forces only) combined to invade Australia, they would not win.
The only country that COULD invade Australia is the USA, last time I looked we were best buddies, so we are safe there.
To win a war you must control the skies, even India and China together could not suceed to take control of Australian airspace, even when they get their carriers.
Plus we still have Mr K & G's F-111's to smash them with. ( alright I only joking.):daz
For a start Indonesia would be hard pressed to provide the military infrastructure to support the massive Chinese equipment and logistics network needed.
Plus I don't wish to play the 'race card', but the moslem Indonesians sometimes don't take kindly to Chinese people, if you remember back at the end of the Indonesian Confrontation, after Sokarno got disposed of, the Indonesians turn on the 'Chinese' residents in a very brutal and lethal manner.
Actually even at present if India and China ( convential forces only) combined to invade Australia, they would not win.
The only country that COULD invade Australia is the USA, last time I looked we were best buddies, so we are safe there.
To win a war you must control the skies, even India and China together could not suceed to take control of Australian airspace, even when they get their carriers.
Plus we still have Mr K & G's F-111's to smash them with. ( alright I only joking.):daz
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Agreed. But the case is the same for India. Australia has excellent relations with India and it is extremely unlikely that either would attack Australia.
For "land grabbing" purposes is all but unthinkable.
But unless they maintain bases closer to Australia, their tactical fighter escorts will not be able to escort the bombers even on standoff missile attack type missions due to the very same range constraints that Indian fighters face.
JORN covering 3500k's North of Australia will make such attacks a non-viable option...
I don't think it would get to that. The US would no doubt threaten retaliation first if someone began threatening to launch such weapons.
If some madmen just fired them without warning, then the US most definitely would launch in response and the reason has nothing to do with Australia. With ICBM's, because of their flight profiles, it is very difficult to tell where they are actually being launched at. If USA observed China begin to launch un-announced, ICBM warshots, then it would probably have no choice but to launch in retaliation itself in the expectation that it had been fired upon first.
That is the reason why despite talk and the un-doubted effectiveness of a conventionally armed ICBM, at the great speeds they travel at and the responsiveness that comes from that, that it will be very difficult for USA to convince others, that they are only launching conventionally armed ICBM's. There's no known way for others to "confirm" that what the USA is saying is true and with no way to detect for the crucial part of the flight (ie: whilst you still have a chance to fight back) where the missile is headed, most Countries aren't willing to "take the word" of others when it comes to ICBM's...
Add to which the USA is required by Treaty to come to our aid, if we are attacked...
Article IV - ANZUS Treaty
You are forgetting the Super Hornets. We have 5 now and 7 coming in July and IOC will be declared in December 2010 for the Supers, however platform numbers don't tell the full story.
IAF and PLAAF obviously are much bigger air arms than the RAAF. However they do not possess the ability to deploy these numbers against Australia and won't for some time.
Australia's armed forces are designed against a credible force that could be employed against us, in a defence of Australia scenario, plus some capability to deploy force packages overseas, not some imaginary future threat that is vastly more capable of doing us harm than exists today or is even projected to exist in 10 or 20 years hence. Now things can change, obviously, but they can't change so that our national sovereignty would be severely threatened without us knowing about it, and without lead up time to enable us to expand our capability to match this significantly increased threat.
Our current military forces are provided for utilising only 2% of our GDP. Many Countries, including the USA, India and China spend far more. If we absolutely needed to, so could we and in fact several years ago, John Howard during an interview, admitted this very thing.
The strategic imperative to do so, simply isn't there however and people tossing up red-herrings and what if's doesn't change this fact...
firstly, sorry for the cost of the falklands thing, the figures are very "rubbery" to say the least, but lets face it, no one is going to invade Australia ever, its not worth it, no gain. What we could face is raids on infrastucture. that would be damageing (very) cheap for the baddies and send us into a huge defence spend.
terrorisim or organised military raids are real threats that would be far more damageing than any thing less than a nuke strike against us.
so there will be no SU30,s ,indian,chinese or indo flying in to bomb darwin, man i live here, bomb the joint for all I care!, buit its not gunna happen.
an invaision/occupying force is NEVER going to happen here. costs are prohibitive, and we are to easily defended, plus its just to hard for anyone to consider.
keep the great posts coming AD, and can you shed some light on the rapier replacements?
terrorisim or organised military raids are real threats that would be far more damageing than any thing less than a nuke strike against us.
so there will be no SU30,s ,indian,chinese or indo flying in to bomb darwin, man i live here, bomb the joint for all I care!, buit its not gunna happen.
an invaision/occupying force is NEVER going to happen here. costs are prohibitive, and we are to easily defended, plus its just to hard for anyone to consider.
keep the great posts coming AD, and can you shed some light on the rapier replacements?
I couldn't comment about India cause I havent studied Indian economy, culture and history. But I have for China so thats why I focused on one. What one thing that annoys me on our nation is comparatively high budget for much smaller force. Though the population isn't that large either. I knew that Supers have delivered just didn't know how many. I sure am gonna miss viewing the F-111 dump and burn though
I just had to reply to the thread question. Though the real problem is not invasion, financial its the people in Xmas island and immigrants flooding in from boats after Ruds legislation easing the restrictions.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Can't help there.
We pay more for better equipment and our servicemen and women are paid much higher wages then their Indian and Chinese counterparts.
Olympic closing ceremony and 2000 new years in sydney were classics.Though the population isn't that large either. I knew that Supers have delivered just didn't know how many. I sure am gonna miss viewing the F-111 dump and burn though
Send them back where they came from. They are queue jumpers if nothing else. Plus to get here they go through at least half a dozen countries where they could and *should* apply for asylum.
Every asylum seeker means one less person who went through the entire *legal* application process that can be let in.
I dont get that why do you think we would face military raids but not invasion (other then the obvious that its alot harder). I dont see the point in any country starting a limited war where they just attack infastructure without any clear military objective, what would be the point of that?
They are going to spend a fortune and get themselves kicked out of any western agreements they are in for absolutely no reason other then the pleasure of attacking us?
Thats seems stupider then invading to me, atleast there is a point to that.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Raids could potentially be conducted as part of an economic warfare campaign. As an example, attacks could be launched at offshore oil platforms, to reduce domestic production capacity. In a similar vein, attacks could also be launched at shore-based petroleum storage facilities to reduce domestic petroleum stocks. Alternatively, attacks could be made upon LNG facilities (not sure if there are any in Oz) with the intention of inflicting massive damage, as a large LNG facility could be made to explode to achieve an effect similar to a small nuclear device detonating.
It is also possible that raids could be launched just to harrass and/or occupy the ADF so that Australia does not become involved in other conflicts elsewhere.
Something important to remember though, is that any such raids would likely be asymetric in nature, largely due to the already illustrated difficulties which any conventional military force $would encounter.
-Cheers