On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
[...] in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes)

An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

and anti-ship missiles.

Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation,
fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting
an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime
surveillance and that requires air superiority.

True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a
surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least
intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might
be able to supply from the air).

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the
choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better
strategy.

Indeed, if possible.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?