I was referring to the A-400M which I understood to be close to
deployment and with substantial orders in Europe. Anyone have any
accurate information on this?

As for the Labor Party - with regard to defence they are a joke and
should never be taken seriously. Like it or lump it only a Coalition
Government will give defence a reasonable deal. Just how reasonable is
the argument.

The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
infantry battalions.

We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare
bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we
need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.

That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
seems to be rare.

With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the
AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel
attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.

Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves,
we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the
F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters. The
F-111 is not a fighter. And we cannot afford a single role bomber in
this day and age and with our defence budget.