Australia to participate in US missile defence program

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in
:



http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/



FAS has been against any kind of ballistic missile defense since it first
was discussed. Not my idea of a unbiased source.

ISTR the same guy,John Pike,was involved with the Union of Concerned
Scientists,too,another anti-missile defense group.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock

theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work

Except of course for the times that they have done it.


youre an ingnorant ******, you know that dont you
go out an read up on NMD
http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0706-01.htm

The "progressive newswire" yep I really believe that they lack bias,
their
webpage is a whingefest you ****ing goose.

cutting a long story shot lets actually read part of the article instead of
disregarding it because of who owns the webpage:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 6, 2000
8:18 AM
CONTACT: Federation of American Scientists
Henry Kelly or Charles Ferguson, 202-546-3300



Nobel Laureates Warn Against Missile Defense Deployment

WASHINGTON - July 6 - The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
today released a letter to the President signed by 50 American Nobel
laureates in the sciences stating that under current circumstances, "any
movement toward deployment" of a ballistic missile defense system would be
"premature, wasteful, and dangerous."





http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/


I see you've not read the FAS article.

i have most certainly read it. and others which i would paste here but cant
be arsed because of the likes of you.







besides

seems like its something you need to rely on much better
intelligence
to
see
know when/where a missile might actually be launched to get your
assets
in
place to shoot it down.

I see you've not heard of Radar.

******


Dickhead.

******




and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what
phase
you
intend to go for the kill in.

******

Dickhead.

******









the money wasted on this white elephant would be better spent on
either
something like a couple of airbus multirole tanker transports to
support
our
strategic strike force of f111s or a couple of recon sattelites to
get
some
independent sattelite capability


Yes, a great idea we can pour money into a force that has never had to
strike anything and is a money sponge, that, at best might bomb
missile
silos after the missiles have launched or a sattelite capability so we
can
watch the launch, but not stop it.

ignoramus ******
the F111 is, cheap.

Bwahhhh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

The F111 is getting the axe because it is too expensive to operate you pig
ignorant cocksucker.



what literature do you read besides the Beano?

do you read Defence Today by strike publications?
no i bet you dont

had a recent article entitled "How expensive is the F-111?"

the article starts:

"Perhaps the most pernicious of the carious commonly heard myths about the
F-111 is that it is an unusually expensive asset to maintain, or indeed that
it presents a particulary expensive way of delivering bombs to targets.
whilst such assertations might appear reasonable at first glance to the lay
observer, expert observers with exposure to overseas cost structuring models
tend to see such comments for what they really are - malicious and
unsubstantiated bunk"

the article then goes on to demolish point by point your beliefs that the
F111 is an expense, it even has an answer to the question:
"we might ask the question of how the myth of the expensive f111 came to
be?"


you dont believe me? I'll scan it and post it.






try to get any other aircraft to do the same thing and the RAAF would be
paying more than twice as much


I see you've not heard of cruise missiles you clown.

youre an absolute ****wit arent you.
the F111 can carry HALF the warload of a B-52 bomber.
more than twice the distance
and more than twice the speed of any cruise missile we might buy.

that said, i'm not against cruise missiles, i think we should equip our subs
with them.
It was proposed a number of years back that we get tommahawks - the proposed
launch vehicle??? - the F111.



I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a money
sponge out of the water.

Yet you chose not to and the DoD who have the actual figures to hand have
chosen the axe the white elephant and go with cruise missiles, why is it
that against that expertise you come out looking like a fool?

you want me to scan the article and post it? ill scan the article.
anyone who matters is against retirement of the F111, its purely a political
decision to free up funds for something else, instead of increasing defence
funds overall.



whod wait till after a launch to bomb a silo?
you?


So you are going to launch F-111s to preemptively strike silos? on what
basis and how will they both reach N Korea and why do you think they will
be
able to penetrate the NK air defence system given their age?

we dont waste money on NMD, funds would be much better invested in getting
the Airbus multirole tanker transport.
They would provide us with a primary strategic tanker for all the airforce
fleet.

i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be.
the countrys broke

like i said the F111 (our F111) flew up against some of the most
sophisticated air defence systems (and aggressor pilots) in the united
states recently and achieved a perfect record. UNMATCHED by any other
national participant.

Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down valleys
underneath radar.


whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds??

excuse me


******!


Lackwit!



I'm yet to be convinced that either approach is productive.


youre a ******

Not very good at arguing the point are you, you sad pathetic buffoon.



besides

we've got our own nuclear reactor, and soon to get a new one.

ANSTO, the australian nuclear science and technology organisation
employs
about 150 scientists. they dont build bombs, but they DO do research
into
the nuclear bomb designs of foriegn countries.

We have a network of seismic stations around australia that monitor
the
global test ban treaty.

Any bombs that go off anywhere around the world register on those
stations
equipment. - Our scientists at ANSTO learn a great deal about the
bombs
design, yeild etc from those signatures.

we could easily (from a technical/engineering) point of view go
nuclear
if
we so desired. - politically however we might find it difficult
internationally.

Lesson is if anyone drops a bomb on us, and we know who it is, we
could
sure
as hell drop a couple back - quite easily.

and im sure that we could "out produce" some of these threshold
states.

Unless it occurred to them to nuke Lucas Heights (with the added bonus
of
getting Holsworthy free)...

unless unless unless
unless they took out your proposed NMD system in our country with a 50
ton
fertiliser truck bomb

They don't work well agains silo mounted weapons, let alone dispersed
silos,
but then facts are not you gig are they.


So you have NMD ....

NK launches an attack on us. 5 missiles say.
lets say 3 get downed (for argument sake)


2 hit

ADF reported after Sept 11 that if a nuclear bomb went off in an australian
city, defence operations would effectively come to a complete stop whilst
defence tried to deal with the issue.

so in this scenario defence is stuck trying to deal with a binary nuclear
stike - not 1, but 2.

NMD is also a defensive system, you cant use it to hit back!

NMD is also not very "usable" in military terms .... in other words you cant
have it do much of ANYTHING other than have it just sit there and wait for
an attack that may never come (and in my opinion is unlikely ever to)










and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it.
the f111

Or Amberley.

or your house maybe
i'd support that

******!

Yawn, you don't seem to be able to keep up, do you?






point is however ....

you need the range
and intelligence

multirole tanker
(dont expect the yanks to lend us one if we we gonna use it on a
nuke
mission because someone exploded a bomb in sydney harbour)
sattelite imagery
(dont expect them or anyone else to provide us with up to date intel
either)



missile defence is an absolute waste of taxpayer monies imho



its a typically ammerhicun approach of trying to solve a problem,
without
bothering to remove the problem in the first intance.


Your "solution" gives us an ability to strike back 6 months to a year
after
we are struck, if our sattelite detected the launch, if they didn't
nuke
ANSTO, if they didn't nuke Amberley and if they are prepared to wait
until
we develop and test a nuke and if they don't have a moderately
effective
air
defence system that they can use to bring down a 40 year old design.

You're a ******
I don't think anyone in here would belive it'd take 6 months to plan an
airstrike.
and if you know it's coming, take it out first before a launch.


What a sad fool you are, where whould the nukes come from dickhead?

you seem to think north korea.




I'd even consider doing it deniably.

Since it would never get near the target and the ability to make the nukes
would get nuked on day one, it would certainly be deniable.


cost:
NMD = untold billions and debt for generations under current financial
arrangements
airstrike = paltry millions

An airstrike wouldn't make it to the target
wrong

and the F-111 is too costly to operate,
wrong

ask the DoD who have axed it on that basis.
wrong





your concept of intelligence collection is crap sats.

your 40 year old design F111 achieved a perfect record flying against
some
of the worlds most advanced air defences and combat pilots in recent
exercises in the united states.

In an exercise. I'm so impressed.

simpletons are easily awed


Did they launch unsupported strikes against an air defence system
simulating
N Korea? did they cover the distance between Darwin and North Korea alone,
carrying a bodged up nuke that we hope will work?

youre splitting hairs





******!


Dickhead.




Hmmmm. waiter on second thoughts, I'll have a double portion of that
BMD
thanks....

its coming out of your pocket, not mine

******!

Dickhead.

You aren't very bright, but you are entertaining - feel free to come back
and be made a fool of again.


firstly, the difference, between you an me is that i am ready to be
persuaded otherwise, on any issue, you however _arent_
secondly, i really really really cant be made a fool of my someone who hides
behind a pseudonym, expecially one called "L'acrobat"

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...



you want me to scan the article and post it? ill scan the article.
anyone who matters is against retirement of the F111, its purely a
political
decision to free up funds for something else, instead of increasing
defence
funds overall.





Trimming the invective out of that thread was hard work. Thanks Ian,
I'd love to read the article, a.b.p.a would do nicely

Thanks

--


Cheers


Dave Kearton

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...


The "progressive newswire" yep I really believe that they lack bias,
their
webpage is a whingefest you ****ing goose.

cutting a long story shot lets actually read part of the article instead
of
disregarding it because of who owns the webpage:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 6, 2000
8:18 AM
CONTACT: Federation of American Scientists
Henry Kelly or Charles Ferguson, 202-546-3300



Nobel Laureates Warn Against Missile Defense Deployment

WASHINGTON - July 6 - The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
today released a letter to the President signed by 50 American Nobel
laureates in the sciences stating that under current circumstances, "any
movement toward deployment" of a ballistic missile defense system would be
"premature, wasteful, and dangerous."



So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote a
letter?

Why not look for something a tad more recent?





http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/


I see you've not read the FAS article.

i have most certainly read it. and others which i would paste here but
cant
be arsed because of the likes of you.


and because of the humiliating fact that it is 3 years old and doesn't
support your 'argument'.







besides

seems like its something you need to rely on much better
intelligence
to
see
know when/where a missile might actually be launched to get your
assets
in
place to shoot it down.

I see you've not heard of Radar.

******


Dickhead.

******

dickhead





and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what
phase
you
intend to go for the kill in.

******

Dickhead.

******


dickhead










the money wasted on this white elephant would be better spent on
either
something like a couple of airbus multirole tanker transports to
support
our
strategic strike force of f111s or a couple of recon sattelites to
get
some
independent sattelite capability


Yes, a great idea we can pour money into a force that has never had
to
strike anything and is a money sponge, that, at best might bomb
missile
silos after the missiles have launched or a sattelite capability so
we
can
watch the launch, but not stop it.

ignoramus ******
the F111 is, cheap.

Bwahhhh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

The F111 is getting the axe because it is too expensive to operate you
pig
ignorant cocksucker.



what literature do you read besides the Beano?





(Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003)




"By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that
beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." He (CAF Air
Marshal Angus Houston) said the F-111 would not be withdrawn until Air Force
had fully upgraded the F/A-18s and its weapons systems, and the AEW&Cs and
tankers were in service.

"The F/A-18 will be capable of dropping not only laser-guided precision
munitions but also satellite-guided precision munitions and will also be
capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon, which will also be
fitted to the AP-3C," he said.





do you read Defence Today by strike publications?
no i bet you dont

had a recent article entitled "How expensive is the F-111?"

the article starts:

"Perhaps the most pernicious of the carious commonly heard myths about the
F-111 is that it is an unusually expensive asset to maintain, or indeed
that
it presents a particulary expensive way of delivering bombs to targets.
whilst such assertations might appear reasonable at first glance to the
lay
observer, expert observers with exposure to overseas cost structuring
models
tend to see such comments for what they really are - malicious and
unsubstantiated bunk"


BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAA, an article by Carlo "the F-111 is the ultimate
weapon in the world, can do everything and cannot be defeated" Kopp?

Carlo is in love with the F-111, he fails to factor in the point that an
old, clapped out, expensive to operate plane like the F-111 isn't coming
back from its missions - you will note Carlo doesn't ever speak of the
attrition rate (or factor in that cost).

Carlo also chooses not to compare the F-111 to cruise missiles, as that
would require that he accept that the attrition rate imposed on F-111s in a
modern air defence environment would be prohbitive.


the article then goes on to demolish point by point your beliefs that the
F111 is an expense, it even has an answer to the question:
"we might ask the question of how the myth of the expensive f111 came to
be?"


you dont believe me? I'll scan it and post it.

I've read it, only the most uncritical of reader would accept it as anything
more than the last dying gasp of an F-111 fan.

The RAAF are retiring it because it is getting to be too expensive to
operate, Carlo needs to get over that and so do you.

You see, the RAAF have the actual operating costs on file and have done the
long term studies on the a/c, Carlo hasn't.



try to get any other aircraft to do the same thing and the RAAF would
be
paying more than twice as much


I see you've not heard of cruise missiles you clown.

youre an absolute ****wit arent you.
the F111 can carry HALF the warload of a B-52 bomber.
more than twice the distance
and more than twice the speed of any cruise missile we might buy.

and the F-111 costs a fortune to operate, base, train with, and maintain you
sad lackwit, and the F-111 is not coming back from any mission against a
decent air defence system, jesus wept clownboy - we couldn't even send them
to Iraq where the AD system had been bombed for a decade!



that said, i'm not against cruise missiles, i think we should equip our
subs
with them.
It was proposed a number of years back that we get tommahawks - the
proposed
launch vehicle??? - the F111.


Given that we operated the F-111 it seems reasonable, now we won't operate
it, so we will hang Tomahawk off of Orions, F/A-18s and possibly JSFs later
on.



I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a
money
sponge out of the water.

Yet you chose not to and the DoD who have the actual figures to hand
have
chosen the axe the white elephant and go with cruise missiles, why is it
that against that expertise you come out looking like a fool?

you want me to scan the article and post it? ill scan the article.
anyone who matters is against retirement of the F111, its purely a
political
decision to free up funds for something else, instead of increasing
defence
funds overall.


I've read it, it's a joke - the fact that you rely on it simply shows what a
credulous buffoon you are.




whod wait till after a launch to bomb a silo?
you?


So you are going to launch F-111s to preemptively strike silos? on what
basis and how will they both reach N Korea and why do you think they
will
be
able to penetrate the NK air defence system given their age?

we dont waste money on NMD, funds would be much better invested in getting
the Airbus multirole tanker transport.
They would provide us with a primary strategic tanker for all the airforce
fleet.


yet our bomber would still cost a fortune to own, have no stealth features,
be 40 years old and have so little survivability that we couldn't send it to
hit targets in a country that had been bombed for 10 years.

i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be.
the countrys broke

and yet if they detect our approach they can launch nukes at us and its in
gods hands from there.



like i said the F111 (our F111) flew up against some of the most
sophisticated air defence systems (and aggressor pilots) in the united
states recently and achieved a perfect record. UNMATCHED by any other
national participant.

but not against N Korea, in N Korea when they can launch nukes at us if
there is one a/c detected - it is a unique a/c, so they'd know who to hit.

You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have us flying bombers
in and stirring up trouble in their backyard either, but then you don't do
reality do you?

Or how we would explain flying this armada over Indonesia and back, one
phone call from our well trusted friend in Indonesia and a few Aust cities
fountain skywards.


Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down
valleys
underneath radar.

and perfect profile to be downed by AAA, Manpads and Small arms.



whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds??

excuse me


You are certainly excused for being an idiot, thats your parents fault.

Personally, I'd be more concerned about NKs Mig 29s than the Mig 21s, but to
each their own.



So you have NMD ....

NK launches an attack on us. 5 missiles say.
lets say 3 get downed (for argument sake)


2 hit

ADF reported after Sept 11 that if a nuclear bomb went off in an
australian
city, defence operations would effectively come to a complete stop whilst
defence tried to deal with the issue.

so in this scenario defence is stuck trying to deal with a binary nuclear
stike - not 1, but 2.

NMD is also a defensive system, you cant use it to hit back!

NMD is also not very "usable" in military terms .... in other words you
cant
have it do much of ANYTHING other than have it just sit there and wait for
an attack that may never come (and in my opinion is unlikely ever to)


Hence the D for 'defence' in BMD, which funnily enough is pretty prominent
in both 'ADF' and the 'DoD', you see, you pathetic lackwit it is the PRIMARY
role of the ADF to DEFEND Australia, BMD fits EXACTLY into their job
description.

You also seem to have quite glibly ignored the fact that, in your own
example above, we have 3 more cities to support both the ongoing war effort
and the rescue and recovery efforts in the 2 nuked cities than we'd have had
if we didn't have BMD.

You might also want to explain what it is that Submarines would do to help
in rescue efforts that would prevent them sailing to retailiate? or why
AP-3Cs would be held back to help?

I'd even consider doing it deniably.

Since it would never get near the target and the ability to make the
nukes
would get nuked on day one, it would certainly be deniable.


cost:
NMD = untold billions and debt for generations under current financial
arrangements
airstrike = paltry millions

An airstrike wouldn't make it to the target
wrong


How did they go over Iraq, oh, we couldn't send them could we...


and the F-111 is too costly to operate,
wrong

(Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003)




"By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that
beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain."



ask the DoD who have axed it on that basis.
wrong

(Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003)




"By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that
beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain."



VERY HIGH-COST PLATFORM TO OPERATE, for the hard of understanding.


your concept of intelligence collection is crap sats.

your 40 year old design F111 achieved a perfect record flying against
some
of the worlds most advanced air defences and combat pilots in recent
exercises in the united states.

In an exercise. I'm so impressed.

simpletons are easily awed

Yes, you went with Carlos drivel like a shot.



Did they launch unsupported strikes against an air defence system
simulating
N Korea? did they cover the distance between Darwin and North Korea
alone,
carrying a bodged up nuke that we hope will work?

youre splitting hairs


No, you are drawing conclusions from false data.


******!

Dickhead.

You aren't very bright, but you are entertaining - feel free to come
back
and be made a fool of again.


firstly, the difference, between you an me is that i am ready to be
persuaded otherwise, on any issue, you however _arent_

The fact is that CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston says its too expensive to
operate, weighed against this we have Carlo, the ultimate F-111 fanboy. and
you, an idiot.

secondly, i really really really cant be made a fool of my someone who
hides
behind a pseudonym, expecially one called "L'acrobat"


You have been sweetheart, you have been.

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...


The "progressive newswire" yep I really believe that they lack bias,
their
webpage is a whingefest you ****ing goose.

cutting a long story shot lets actually read part of the article instead
of
disregarding it because of who owns the webpage:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 6, 2000
8:18 AM
CONTACT: Federation of American Scientists
Henry Kelly or Charles Ferguson, 202-546-3300



Nobel Laureates Warn Against Missile Defense Deployment

WASHINGTON - July 6 - The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
today released a letter to the President signed by 50 American Nobel
laureates in the sciences stating that under current circumstances, "any
movement toward deployment" of a ballistic missile defense system would
be
"premature, wasteful, and dangerous."



So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote a
letter?

50 nobel laureates one would assume have more understanding of this than you
or I.



Why not look for something a tad more recent?

to be honest, I couldn't be stuffed, I'm not paranoid about being nuked.
snips ****



what literature do you read besides the Beano?





(Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003)




"By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that
beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." He (CAF Air
Marshal Angus Houston) said the F-111 would not be withdrawn until Air
Force
had fully upgraded the F/A-18s and its weapons systems, and the AEW&Cs and
tankers were in service.

high cost after 2010, as opposed to ... what? B2? (which doesnt necessarily
need a strike package assembled with it hence the associated costs of other
aircraft)

Already our AWACS have been cut in number .... maybe if we werent getting
involved in NMD we could afford a "full" half a squadron.
And wheres these tankers? nothings going ahead (ie metal being cut) as far
as im aware - unlike our (albeit cropped) number of awacs.





"The F/A-18 will be capable of dropping not only laser-guided precision
munitions but also satellite-guided precision munitions and will also be
capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon, which will also be
fitted to the AP-3C," he said.


FA 18 is already capable of droping laser guided bombs. which is what were
used in iraq.

Typical australian defence policy ...
usually reminicent of the Navy

soon the airforce will be able to boast it....

"Equiped for, but not with."








do you read Defence Today by strike publications?
no i bet you dont

had a recent article entitled "How expensive is the F-111?"

the article starts:

"Perhaps the most pernicious of the carious commonly heard myths about
the
F-111 is that it is an unusually expensive asset to maintain, or indeed
that
it presents a particulary expensive way of delivering bombs to targets.
whilst such assertations might appear reasonable at first glance to the
lay
observer, expert observers with exposure to overseas cost structuring
models
tend to see such comments for what they really are - malicious and
unsubstantiated bunk"


BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAA, an article by Carlo "the F-111 is the ultimate
weapon in the world, can do everything and cannot be defeated" Kopp?

Carlo is in love with the F-111, he fails to factor in the point that an
old, clapped out, expensive to operate plane like the F-111 isn't coming
back from its missions - you will note Carlo doesn't ever speak of the
attrition rate (or factor in that cost).

Carlo also chooses not to compare the F-111 to cruise missiles, as that
would require that he accept that the attrition rate imposed on F-111s in
a
modern air defence environment would be prohbitive.

What ARE you going to launch these cruise missiles from? What is the cruise
missiles radius? What is the TRANSIT time of the launch platform to get
within strike distance? (especially if its a sub or ship)

Take the B-52 for example, its over 50 years old, and all B52s flying today
were built in the 60's, and they dont plan to retire it until sometime after
2020. by which time it will be over 75 years old. It is however mainly a
cruise missile launcher (although has done ground strike in the gulf and
kosovo).

If everything could be done cost effectively by cruise missile we could
probably get away with buying brand new civil aircraft 747's or 777's and
modify them to be massive cruise missile platforms (it has been proposed by
the yanks). Why hasnt it been done?

Cost
over a million dollars (US) a pop for a tomahawk. compared to 200,000 for a
laser guided bomb (or less for a GPS guided, concrete filled one) - yes
concrete.










the article then goes on to demolish point by point your beliefs that
the
F111 is an expense, it even has an answer to the question:
"we might ask the question of how the myth of the expensive f111 came to
be?"


you dont believe me? I'll scan it and post it.

I've read it, only the most uncritical of reader would accept it as
anything
more than the last dying gasp of an F-111 fan.

sure youve read it



The RAAF are retiring it because it is getting to be too expensive to
operate, Carlo needs to get over that and so do you.

RAAFs retiring it because government wont cough up the money defence needs.
and because of the enemies the F111 has in DFAT.


You see, the RAAF have the actual operating costs on file and have done
the
long term studies on the a/c, Carlo hasn't.


and you have


snips ****

and the F-111 costs a fortune to operate, base, train with, and maintain
you
sad lackwit, and the F-111 is not coming back from any mission against a
decent air defence system, jesus wept clownboy - we couldn't even send
them
to Iraq where the AD system had been bombed for a decade!


oh for ****s sake you do talk such ****
i bet everyone reading this is having a good laugh at you. I know I am.

it doesnt cost a fortune
the f111 can will and has come back against decent air defences - in
exercises - and is even more likely to considering the overwhelming ECM &
ECCM support we would get in any "coalition" we'd participate in.

the reason why they werent sent to iraq is because of their capabilities
they would have required to be tasked against heavily defended urban
targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk civillian casualties, and
wasnt prepared to foot the bill for the ammo expenditure (unless the yanks
supplied it).

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer






that said, i'm not against cruise missiles, i think we should equip our
subs
with them.
It was proposed a number of years back that we get tommahawks - the
proposed
launch vehicle??? - the F111.


Given that we operated the F-111 it seems reasonable, now we won't operate
it, so we will hang Tomahawk off of Orions, F/A-18s and possibly JSFs
later
on.


if at all





I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a
money
sponge out of the water.

Yet you chose not to and the DoD who have the actual figures to hand
have
chosen the axe the white elephant and go with cruise missiles, why is
it
that against that expertise you come out looking like a fool?

you want me to scan the article and post it? ill scan the article.
anyone who matters is against retirement of the F111, its purely a
political
decision to free up funds for something else, instead of increasing
defence
funds overall.


I've read it, it's a joke - the fact that you rely on it simply shows what
a
credulous buffoon you are.

i dont "rely" on it, merely using it as an example.
hands up anyone in here who supports defence monies being spent on NMD
instead of fixing holes in defence??


snips ****



yet our bomber would still cost a fortune to own, have no stealth
features,
be 40 years old and have so little survivability that we couldn't send it
to
hit targets in a country that had been bombed for 10 years.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer



i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be.
the countrys broke

and yet if they detect our approach they can launch nukes at us and its in
gods hands from there.

if if if but if but but
i dont think we're going to go to war with north korea anytime soon





like i said the F111 (our F111) flew up against some of the most
sophisticated air defence systems (and aggressor pilots) in the united
states recently and achieved a perfect record. UNMATCHED by any other
national participant.

but not against N Korea, in N Korea when they can launch nukes at us if
there is one a/c detected - it is a unique a/c, so they'd know who to hit.

i dont believe north korea can yet weaponise a ballistic missile with a
nuclear weapon - yet.
nor do i believe they have a ballistic missile capable of reaching
australia.
i dont believe they would nuke australia with a ballistic missile even if
they had one.
we're one of the few countries they have diplomatic relations with and they
wouldnt want to give that up.



You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have us flying
bombers
in and stirring up trouble in their backyard either, but then you don't do
reality do you?

You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have N Korea launching
ballistic missiles at Australia and stirring up trouble in OUR backyard
either, but then you don't do reality do you?

If they did do something like that, (which i dont believe they will) Im sure
S Korea and the United States AND China, would come down on N Korea like a
ton of bricks ..

I am firmly grouned in reality, which is why I think we wont be threatened
with ballistic missiles.

which .... is not to say however, that Im not worried about poliferation of
missile technology and nuclear weapons, and bio weapns - I am....







Or how we would explain flying this armada over Indonesia and back, one
phone call from our well trusted friend in Indonesia and a few Aust cities
fountain skywards.


We dont explain it. because it isnt going to happen.
Youre the one who says we're gonna be nuked.
Im saying we wont. - or at least the risk is so LOW that its not justified
spending money on NMD. which is an imperfect system.




Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down
valleys
underneath radar.

and perfect profile to be downed by AAA, Manpads and Small arms.


we wont be flying there anyway so forget about it.






whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds??

excuse me


You are certainly excused for being an idiot, thats your parents fault.

Personally, I'd be more concerned about NKs Mig 29s than the Mig 21s, but
to
each their own.



Aircraft and weapons alone, an Airforce do not make .....




snips ****



Hence the D for 'defence' in BMD, which funnily enough is pretty prominent
in both 'ADF' and the 'DoD', you see, you pathetic lackwit it is the
PRIMARY
role of the ADF to DEFEND Australia, BMD fits EXACTLY into their job
description.

WRONG

read the Defence Act ....

and you will find that there is NO DEFINITION of "defence"

and its one of the most contentious issues within Defence today, because the
role of the ADF is not readily defined, or, atleast defined poorly

Defence is the role of Government.
The role of the ADF is to provide the largest array of military OPTIONS for
the the SUPPORT OF (Governments) NATIONAL POLICY.

big difference.

http://www.ada.asn.au/policy1.htm





snips ****




How did they go over Iraq, oh, we couldn't send them could we...


http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer
and heres why


snip



Did they launch unsupported strikes against an air defence system
simulating
N Korea? did they cover the distance between Darwin and North Korea
alone,
carrying a bodged up nuke that we hope will work?

youre splitting hairs


No, you are drawing conclusions from false data.


no Im being realistic saying we wont be at war with North Korea.

snip


firstly, the difference, between you an me is that i am ready to be
persuaded otherwise, on any issue, you however _arent_

The fact is that CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston says its too expensive to
operate, weighed against this we have Carlo, the ultimate F-111 fanboy.
and
you, an idiot.

CAF doest what government tells him to do
Carlo, probably more aviation experience that you - and likewise myself
(which isnt much aviation experience - compared to others in this group)




secondly, i really really really cant be made a fool of my someone who
hides
behind a pseudonym, expecially one called "L'acrobat"


You have been sweetheart, you have been.


Lac-robat

pseudonym

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...


The "progressive newswire" yep I really believe that they lack
bias,
their
webpage is a whingefest you ****ing goose.

cutting a long story shot lets actually read part of the article
instead
of
disregarding it because of who owns the webpage:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 6, 2000
8:18 AM
CONTACT: Federation of American Scientists
Henry Kelly or Charles Ferguson, 202-546-3300



Nobel Laureates Warn Against Missile Defense Deployment

WASHINGTON - July 6 - The Federation of American Scientists
(FAS)
today released a letter to the President signed by 50 American Nobel
laureates in the sciences stating that under current circumstances,
"any
movement toward deployment" of a ballistic missile defense system
would
be
"premature, wasteful, and dangerous."



So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote
a
letter?

50 nobel laureates one would assume have more understanding of this than
you
or I.

That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume makes
an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an *opinion*
about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is
understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such opinions
merely because of who they are is not.

Brooks

snip

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...


The "progressive newswire" yep I really believe that they lack
bias,
their
webpage is a whingefest you ****ing goose.

cutting a long story shot lets actually read part of the article
instead
of
disregarding it because of who owns the webpage:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 6, 2000
8:18 AM
CONTACT: Federation of American Scientists
Henry Kelly or Charles Ferguson, 202-546-3300



Nobel Laureates Warn Against Missile Defense Deployment

WASHINGTON - July 6 - The Federation of American Scientists
(FAS)
today released a letter to the President signed by 50 American Nobel
laureates in the sciences stating that under current circumstances,
"any
movement toward deployment" of a ballistic missile defense system
would
be
"premature, wasteful, and dangerous."



So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote
a
letter?

50 nobel laureates one would assume have more understanding of this than
you
or I.



Why?, it was written 3 years ago from older data than that and they never
bothered updating it.



Why not look for something a tad more recent?

to be honest, I couldn't be stuffed, I'm not paranoid about being nuked.
snips ****


ie you are a bull****ter.



what literature do you read besides the Beano?





(Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003)




"By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that
beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." He (CAF
Air
Marshal Angus Houston) said the F-111 would not be withdrawn until Air
Force
had fully upgraded the F/A-18s and its weapons systems, and the AEW&Cs
and
tankers were in service.

high cost after 2010, as opposed to ... what? B2? (which doesnt
necessarily
need a strike package assembled with it hence the associated costs of
other
aircraft)


Cruise missiles, you know, the ones the RAAF are replacing the clapped out
F-111s with.


Already our AWACS have been cut in number .... maybe if we werent getting
involved in NMD we could afford a "full" half a squadron.
And wheres these tankers? nothings going ahead (ie metal being cut) as far
as im aware - unlike our (albeit cropped) number of awacs.


Or maybe not, the DoDs role is to defend us and you will note we are
participating in the program not fully funding it ourselves.






"The F/A-18 will be capable of dropping not only laser-guided precision
munitions but also satellite-guided precision munitions and will also be
capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon, which will also be
fitted to the AP-3C," he said.


FA 18 is already capable of droping laser guided bombs. which is what were
used in iraq.

Reading comprehension failure "but also satellite-guided precision munitions
and will also be
capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon"




Typical australian defence policy ...
usually reminicent of the Navy

soon the airforce will be able to boast it....

"Equiped for, but not with."

Above is crap. they are procuring cruise missiles.




do you read Defence Today by strike publications?
no i bet you dont

had a recent article entitled "How expensive is the F-111?"

the article starts:

"Perhaps the most pernicious of the carious commonly heard myths about
the
F-111 is that it is an unusually expensive asset to maintain, or
indeed
that
it presents a particulary expensive way of delivering bombs to
targets.
whilst such assertations might appear reasonable at first glance to
the
lay
observer, expert observers with exposure to overseas cost structuring
models
tend to see such comments for what they really are - malicious and
unsubstantiated bunk"


BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAA, an article by Carlo "the F-111 is the ultimate
weapon in the world, can do everything and cannot be defeated" Kopp?

Carlo is in love with the F-111, he fails to factor in the point that an
old, clapped out, expensive to operate plane like the F-111 isn't coming
back from its missions - you will note Carlo doesn't ever speak of the
attrition rate (or factor in that cost).

Carlo also chooses not to compare the F-111 to cruise missiles, as that
would require that he accept that the attrition rate imposed on F-111s
in
a
modern air defence environment would be prohbitive.

What ARE you going to launch these cruise missiles from? What is the
cruise
missiles radius? What is the TRANSIT time of the launch platform to get
within strike distance? (especially if its a sub or ship)

Can't you read? AP-3C and F/A-18 to start with.



Take the B-52 for example, its over 50 years old, and all B52s flying
today
were built in the 60's, and they dont plan to retire it until sometime
after
2020. by which time it will be over 75 years old. It is however mainly a
cruise missile launcher (although has done ground strike in the gulf and
kosovo).



Jesus wept! we can't affort to operate B-52s either, so who cares.


If everything could be done cost effectively by cruise missile we could
probably get away with buying brand new civil aircraft 747's or 777's and
modify them to be massive cruise missile platforms (it has been proposed
by
the yanks). Why hasnt it been done?

Cost
over a million dollars (US) a pop for a tomahawk. compared to 200,000 for
a
laser guided bomb (or less for a GPS guided, concrete filled one) - yes
concrete.


Yet you fail to factor in the system cost (as all the F-111 pundits do) of
the F-111, for the cost of operating the F-111s (using Carlos 3% of the
defence budget figure) we could buy around 470 cruise missiles a year and
launch them from existing platforms.

How many potential regional adveraries can take 1000 (3 years worth of F-111
operating budget with a bit shaved of for storage etc) precision guided
missile hits?




the article then goes on to demolish point by point your beliefs that
the
F111 is an expense, it even has an answer to the question:
"we might ask the question of how the myth of the expensive f111 came
to
be?"


you dont believe me? I'll scan it and post it.

I've read it, only the most uncritical of reader would accept it as
anything
more than the last dying gasp of an F-111 fan.

sure youve read it

Would you like me to quote it? it was a hoot!





The RAAF are retiring it because it is getting to be too expensive to
operate, Carlo needs to get over that and so do you.

RAAFs retiring it because government wont cough up the money defence
needs.
and because of the enemies the F111 has in DFAT.


No, its too expensive to operate, the Chief of the Air Force stated that.

Conspiracy theories too, just how desperate can you get!



You see, the RAAF have the actual operating costs on file and have done
the
long term studies on the a/c, Carlo hasn't.


and you have

No, its too expensive to operate, the Chief of the Air Force stated that - I
believe him over a loon like you and a fanboy like Carlo.



snips ****

and the F-111 costs a fortune to operate, base, train with, and maintain


you
sad lackwit, and the F-111 is not coming back from any mission against a
decent air defence system, jesus wept clownboy - we couldn't even send
them
to Iraq where the AD system had been bombed for a decade!


oh for ****s sake you do talk such ****
i bet everyone reading this is having a good laugh at you. I know I am.

Yes, but then you are a congenital moron.

How did our F-111s go in Iraq then?

Surely they'd have been just the thing for there or Afghanistan, yet they
couldn't go could they?


it doesnt cost a fortune

"By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that
beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain."

Yes it does.


the f111 can will and has come back against decent air defences - in
exercises -

But can't go out when the enemy is real, can it?

and is even more likely to considering the overwhelming ECM &
ECCM support we would get in any "coalition" we'd participate in.

But what if it isn't a coalition operation, then the F-111 is unable to
fight.

You might want to explain why it didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan too, you
know those well supported coalition ops that our F/A 18s attended?


the reason why they werent sent to iraq is because of their capabilities
they would have required to be tasked against heavily defended urban
targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk civillian casualties, and
wasnt prepared to foot the bill for the ammo expenditure (unless the yanks
supplied it).

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer

Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that
you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and
burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance
crew. "

Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to
go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to
operate?

However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is
because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against
heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk
civillian casualties"

Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that
F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that
the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target
was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk.

Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting
considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s?

Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision
guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not
cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear
sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload
that prevented the F-111 deployment.




that said, i'm not against cruise missiles, i think we should equip
our
subs
with them.
It was proposed a number of years back that we get tommahawks - the
proposed
launch vehicle??? - the F111.


Given that we operated the F-111 it seems reasonable, now we won't
operate
it, so we will hang Tomahawk off of Orions, F/A-18s and possibly JSFs
later
on.


if at all


..

Its in the defence plan, F-111 isn't.





I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a
money
sponge out of the water.

Yet you chose not to and the oD who have the actual figures to hand
have
chosen the axe the white elephant and go with cruise missiles, why
is
it
that against that expertise you come out looking like a fool?

you want me to scan the article and post it? ill scan the article.
anyone who matters is against retirement of the F111, its purely a
political
decision to free up funds for something else, instead of increasing
defence
funds overall.


I've read it, it's a joke - the fact that you rely on it simply shows
what
a
credulous buffoon you are.

i dont "rely" on it, merely using it as an example.
hands up anyone in here who supports defence monies being spent on NMD
instead of fixing holes in defence??


Hands up those who want to build a fortress without a roof, its been done
before and didn't go well.



yet our bomber would still cost a fortune to own, have no stealth
features,
be 40 years old and have so little survivability that we couldn't send
it
to
hit targets in a country that had been bombed for 10 years.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer


Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that
you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and
burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance
crew. "

Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to
go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to
operate?

However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is
because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against
heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk
civillian casualties"

Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that
F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that
the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target
was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk.

Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting
considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s?

Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision
guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not
cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear
sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload
that prevented the F-111 deployment.
..


i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be.
the countrys broke

and yet if they detect our approach they can launch nukes at us and its
in
gods hands from there.

if if if but if but but
i dont think we're going to go to war with north korea anytime soon


You raised the hypothetical and now are backing away from it because you
hadn't thought it through.

Nobody thought we were going to war with Japan either, yet we did.

Nor did we expect our last war with Korea,

Fortunately, the DoD don't care what you 'think', they plan on defending
Aust.

like i said the F111 (our F111) flew up against some of the most
sophisticated air defence systems (and aggressor pilots) in the united
states recently and achieved a perfect record. UNMATCHED by any other
national participant.

but not against N Korea, in N Korea when they can launch nukes at us if
there is one a/c detected - it is a unique a/c, so they'd know who to
hit.

i dont believe north korea can yet weaponise a ballistic missile with a
nuclear weapon - yet.

You don't believe, so we should wait until we know they can?


nor do i believe they have a ballistic missile capable of reaching
australia.

So we should wait until a specific country that has already built and tested
multi stage missiles actually demonstrates an ability to hit Aust before we
consider aquiring a defence against anyones missiles?

i dont believe they would nuke australia with a ballistic missile even if
they had one.


Fortunately, the DoD don't care what you 'think', they plan on defending
Aust.

we're one of the few countries they have diplomatic relations with and
they
wouldnt want to give that up.


Which would explain the shipments of reasonably priced Heroin to Aust, just
to help with diplomatic relations?



You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have us flying
bombers
in and stirring up trouble in their backyard either, but then you don't
do
reality do you?

You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have N Korea
launching
ballistic missiles at Australia and stirring up trouble in OUR backyard
either, but then you don't do reality do you?

I see you avoided the question, I'll answer yours - who cares how S Korea
reacts to outbound nukes?

If we don't have BMD by then its too late to care.

So now tell us why the S Koreans and/or the Japanese would let us nuke N
Korea in light of the fact that they would wear the fallout.


If they did do something like that, (which i dont believe they will) Im
sure
S Korea and the United States AND China, would come down on N Korea like a
ton of bricks ..

Oh yes, I can see every one of those countries being prepared to risk losing
a major city if Brisbane were nuked...


I am firmly grouned in reality, which is why I think we wont be threatened
with ballistic missiles.

If you leave an obvious capability gap, a potential enemy will exploit it -
N Korea (as the obvious example) has sacrificed a vast amount to develop
nukes and to develop ballistic missiles.

The odds are good that they will not go quietly.


which .... is not to say however, that Im not worried about poliferation
of
missile technology and nuclear weapons, and bio weapns - I am....


Then the obvious first step is to put in place BMD.




Or how we would explain flying this armada over Indonesia and back, one
phone call from our well trusted friend in Indonesia and a few Aust
cities
fountain skywards.


We dont explain it. because it isnt going to happen.
Youre the one who says we're gonna be nuked.
Im saying we wont. - or at least the risk is so LOW that its not justified
spending money on NMD. which is an imperfect system.


The odds may be low, but the consequences are so great that participating in
NMD is justified - you seem to think we will be funding the entire project
alone.





Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down
valleys
underneath radar.

and perfect profile to be downed by AAA, Manpads and Small arms.


we wont be flying there anyway so forget about it.

Oh I see, you put up your hypothetical, get shown the facts and then try to
back away from it as if it wasn't your justification. spineless.


whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds??

excuse me


You are certainly excused for being an idiot, thats your parents fault.

Personally, I'd be more concerned about NKs Mig 29s than the Mig 21s,
but
to
each their own.



Aircraft and weapons alone, an Airforce do not make .....


Avoiding the issue, the North Korean military is reasonably well funded and
have hi tech fighters, you proposed sending 40 year old death traps against
them.



Hence the D for 'defence' in BMD, which funnily enough is pretty
prominent
in both 'ADF' and the 'DoD', you see, you pathetic lackwit it is the
PRIMARY
role of the ADF to DEFEND Australia, BMD fits EXACTLY into their job
description.

WRONG

read the Defence Act ....

and you will find that there is NO DEFINITION of "defence"

and its one of the most contentious issues within Defence today, because
the
role of the ADF is not readily defined, or, atleast defined poorly

Defence is the role of Government.
The role of the ADF is to provide the largest array of military OPTIONS
for
the the SUPPORT OF (Governments) NATIONAL POLICY.

big difference.

http://www.ada.asn.au/policy1.htm


The same weaselling **** I've come to expect from you.

Defence does not need to be defined in the act you cretin.

The word 'from' is not defined in the act, nor is 'go' yet they can be used
in their common meanings as are all other 'common' terms in all acts.

BTW "The role of the ADF is to provide the largest array of military OPTIONS
for the the SUPPORT OF (Governments) NATIONAL POLICY." is NOT in the act,
its from The Australia Defence Association, organised as a public company
(ABN 16
083 007 390) limited by guarantee and established under the Corporations Act
2001



How did they go over Iraq, oh, we couldn't send them could we...


http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer
and heres why



Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that
you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and
burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance
crew. "

Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to
go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to
operate?

However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is
because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against
heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk
civillian casualties"

Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that
F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that
the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target
was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk.

Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting
considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s?

Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision
guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not
cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear
sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload
that prevented the F-111 deployment.




snip



Did they launch unsupported strikes against an air defence system
simulating
N Korea? did they cover the distance between Darwin and North Korea
alone,
carrying a bodged up nuke that we hope will work?

youre splitting hairs


No, you are drawing conclusions from false data.


no Im being realistic saying we wont be at war with North Korea.


North Korea is not the only potential threat, just a good current example.


snip


firstly, the difference, between you an me is that i am ready to be
persuaded otherwise, on any issue, you however _arent_

The fact is that CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston says its too expensive to
operate, weighed against this we have Carlo, the ultimate F-111 fanboy.
and
you, an idiot.

CAF doest what government tells him to do
Carlo, probably more aviation experience that you - and likewise myself
(which isnt much aviation experience - compared to others in this group)


So CAF lacks the integrity to stand up for his force or resign wheras Carlo,
the ultimate F-111 fanboy, who doesn't have access to the actual F-111
operating figures, knows more than all the expertise that CAF has on call.

Seek help.

That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume makes
an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an *opinion*
about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is
understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such opinions
merely because of who they are is not.

Brooks

well firstly we dont know what their areas of expertise are
but from my point of view, their expressed opinion is merely common sense

why spend money on a system which is at best technically difficult to
achieve at all, with any degree of reliability. And, more to the point of
this discussion, barely relevant to Australias Defence needs. Money would be
better spend going elsewhere.

September 11 showed that if/when an attack comes from a rogue state, I
seriously doubt it will come by way of a ballistic missile. Probably more by
way of a shipping container or small boat - or some other way yet imagined,
against which, NMD is going to just be nothing more than an expensive
paperweight.

On a seperate and different note, and at the risk of being called an anti
semite, israel and its supporters have a dirty little habit of using this
same sort of excuse, by attacking anyone who critisizes their policies as
being "unqualified" or "lacking the qualifications" to effect a critizism.

as if lacking a qualification automatically makes ones opinions incorrect,
regardless of the fact that they may be right ....
I'd wonder what the voting system would look like if votes were counted in
such a way, and how many people could be eligible to vote and those that
couldnt ...

Historys littered with people like that
Italian Philosopher Bruno for example - burnt at the stake - had NO
qualifications.

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume
makes
an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an
*opinion*
about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is
understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such opinions
merely because of who they are is not.

Brooks

well firstly we dont know what their areas of expertise are
but from my point of view, their expressed opinion is merely common sense

Mileage may differ.


why spend money on a system which is at best technically difficult to
achieve at all, with any degree of reliability. And, more to the point of
this discussion, barely relevant to Australias Defence needs. Money would
be
better spend going elsewhere.

I suspect that any money Australia spends will likely be spent in Australia.
As to Australian needs, you might want to reconsider that rather large and
sometimes prickly neighbor to your north.


September 11 showed that if/when an attack comes from a rogue state, I
seriously doubt it will come by way of a ballistic missile.

Huh? More accurately what 9-11 showed was that attacks could come by any
number of means, and not being prepared can be very dangerous indeed. The
world of military threat analysis is predicated upon two principles--the
most likely enemy course of action (COA), and the most *dangerous* enemy
COA. Smart commanders are prepared to deal with both. I'd posit that
incoming ballistic missiles ranks up there with the latter.

Probably more by
way of a shipping container or small boat - or some other way yet
imagined,
against which, NMD is going to just be nothing more than an expensive
paperweight.

Gee, then I guess your philosophy is, "Why bother with *any* defenses
against any form of attack whatsoever?" Because you can make the statement
that no matter where you dedicate your resources, another means of enemy
attack might circumvent that effort. Why bother with beefing up your customs
inspections procedures against your SCAS (Shipping Container Attack
System... ) if it means the bad guys may just lob a missile instead?Sorry,
but that kind of roll-over-and-just-give-up approach just does not make much
sense to me.


On a seperate and different note, and at the risk of being called an anti
semite, israel and its supporters have a dirty little habit of using this
same sort of excuse, by attacking anyone who critisizes their policies as
being "unqualified" or "lacking the qualifications" to effect a critizism.

Huh? Where in the hell did *that* come from?


as if lacking a qualification automatically makes ones opinions incorrect,
regardless of the fact that they may be right ....
I'd wonder what the voting system would look like if votes were counted in
such a way, and how many people could be eligible to vote and those that
couldnt ...

No, but neither do the opinions of Nobel laureate economists, medical
doctors, and the like merit any greater consideration than that of the
rank-and-file citizenry when it comes to issues outside their area of
specialization.


Historys littered with people like that
Italian Philosopher Bruno for example - burnt at the stake - had NO
qualifications.

I am "assuming" that the last was an example of sleep-deprived keyboard
rambling, 'cause your point, if there is one, is rather obscure.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume
makes
an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an
*opinion*
about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is
understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such
opinions
merely because of who they are is not.

Brooks

well firstly we dont know what their areas of expertise are
but from my point of view, their expressed opinion is merely common
sense

Mileage may differ.


why spend money on a system which is at best technically difficult to
achieve at all, with any degree of reliability. And, more to the point
of
this discussion, barely relevant to Australias Defence needs. Money
would
be
better spend going elsewhere.

I suspect that any money Australia spends will likely be spent in
Australia.
As to Australian needs, you might want to reconsider that rather large and
sometimes prickly neighbor to your north.

which one? theres plenty
part of the reason why we have F111's in the first place from what I
recall. - and state of the art subs.
I dont doubt that at the moment we could defeat an attack on our country by
any south east asian nation. .... in 25 years from now however?

Somehow I dont think that current defence policy (in terms of equipment and
money) looks that far ahead unfortunately.




September 11 showed that if/when an attack comes from a rogue state, I
seriously doubt it will come by way of a ballistic missile.

Huh? More accurately what 9-11 showed was that attacks could come by any
number of means, and not being prepared can be very dangerous indeed. The
world of military threat analysis is predicated upon two principles--the
most likely enemy course of action (COA), and the most *dangerous* enemy
COA. Smart commanders are prepared to deal with both. I'd posit that
incoming ballistic missiles ranks up there with the latter.

by any number of means, including probably your own - the anthrax terrorist
for example. Anyone notice how THATS died down.
Ballistic missiles are certainly one of the most dangerous - it is also the
most expensive, technically complex option that not everyone can afford, and
the most difficult to counter. And considering defence budgetary realities
smart commanders are rarely prepared to deal with both.

what 9-11 showed me is to be cautious of 2 things:

"manufactured" terrorist events (anthrax bomber), the objectives of which
are to shape certain events in the world.

and terrorism for the sake of terrorism, (9,11 - bali) using asymetric
methods, and increasingly sophisticated methods of operating to cause the
biggest amout of damage on the "puniest" of resources - (german intelligence
estimated that the 9-11 attacks probably cost less than 1 million to
conduct).


I have also become increasingly skeptical of the conduct of the war on
terror, and the motives of the individuals conducting it.

We need to be spending our money on combat capability in general - so called
hardening, increasing the size of the special forces, becoming less reliant
on allies, and geting some credible independent intelligence gathering
capability in place. Also need some ability to strategically deploy and
sustain forces, which means MRA and LST ships.

we should look seriously at merging ASIS, DSD, ONA, DIGO and DIO into one
all powerful, integrated national foriegn intelligence and cyptologic
organisation.

The same could be said for the following domestic agencies to be merged into
a single national federal policing and security agency: ASIO, Federal
Police, Customs/Coas****ch, Austrac, Crimtrac, Australian Protective
Service, Critical Infrastructure Protection Group, NMPU, and the National
Surveillence Centre.

It would constitute the biggest reform of Australias security apperatus in
decades, and would contribute major efficencies and savings that could be
ploughed back into operations.




Probably more by
way of a shipping container or small boat - or some other way yet
imagined,
against which, NMD is going to just be nothing more than an expensive
paperweight.

Gee, then I guess your philosophy is, "Why bother with *any* defenses
against any form of attack whatsoever?" Because you can make the statement
that no matter where you dedicate your resources, another means of enemy
attack might circumvent that effort. Why bother with beefing up your
customs
inspections procedures against your SCAS (Shipping Container Attack
System... ) if it means the bad guys may just lob a missile
instead?Sorry,
but that kind of roll-over-and-just-give-up approach just does not make
much
sense to me.

get real. I advocate a strong national defence, the core of which would be
reform of australias border protection agencies as described above.
Something that could contribute realworld security advantages here and now.

I've also probably alone in this newsgroup advocated the re-aquisition of an
aircraft carrier (or two) for the RAN. despite being shouted down at the
"expense" - short of a proper carrier I'd go for the MRA (multirole
Auxillery) or LSS (Littoral support ship) consepts the RAN has recently been
advocating.

The fact is, despite costing a billion or so dollars for an MRA, it is an
infinately more "usable" asset than any NMD scheme. - that is, more liable
to get more use, be more flexible and hence justify its cost.





On a seperate and different note, and at the risk of being called an
anti
semite, israel and its supporters have a dirty little habit of using
this
same sort of excuse, by attacking anyone who critisizes their policies
as
being "unqualified" or "lacking the qualifications" to effect a
critizism.

Huh? Where in the hell did *that* come from?

here we go ...
fact is i get annoyed by people who use the argument that youre not
qualified to make a contribution to a debate - PUBLIC debate at that!




as if lacking a qualification automatically makes ones opinions
incorrect,
regardless of the fact that they may be right ....
I'd wonder what the voting system would look like if votes were counted
in
such a way, and how many people could be eligible to vote and those that
couldnt ...

No, but neither do the opinions of Nobel laureate economists, medical
doctors, and the like merit any greater consideration than that of the
rank-and-file citizenry when it comes to issues outside their area of
specialization.

I suspect that they might be slightly more rational in forming an opinion.
Fact is i'd be more easily persuaded by a letter signed by 50 nobel
laureates, regardless of their area of specialisation, than 50 members of
the "rank and file" citizenry, regardless of their area of specialisation.
because you can be sure theres more people "qualified" to speak in the
former, than the latter..




Historys littered with people like that
Italian Philosopher Bruno for example - burnt at the stake - had NO
qualifications.

I am "assuming" that the last was an example of sleep-deprived keyboard
rambling, 'cause your point, if there is one, is rather obscure.

Brooks


not really, he was one of the most profound minds in human history. Taught
that everything is relative 400 years before einstein, said the stars were
other suns, just like our own, and that they had planets like ours.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno (not a partuculary good
article)

he had no formal education. was a genius, was burnt at the stake for his
beliefs. and only now looking back can people see how brilliant he was, in
an age of superstition - despite being "unqualified"