Australia's aquisition of cruise missiles

"zalzon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:17:01 -0400, Kevin Brooks wrote:

Why do you identify only the US?

For the simple reason Australia does not buy very much from France or
Europe for that matter. The only expection for big ticket purchase items
I can think of are those Colins subs which weren't from Germany or France.

Would australia buy a eurofighter? Or a rafale plane?

Australia is firmly in the orbit of the US.

There's no offence intended, only pointing out the obvious.


Aust just bought the NH-90 Helo over the upgraded Blackhawk.

what do you mean by u.s. wanting to start an arms race in the region,
they've been doing it for a long time.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"zalzon" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:54:41 +1000, The Raven wrote:


snip

Which brings me back to my original theory of US wanting to start an arms
race in the region. It would boost exports of armaments (particularly
long range airpower) now that demand from the middle east countries has
dried up.


Why do you identify only the US? The French and the Eurofighter consortium
countries are also madly marketing their weapons worldwide, to include the
Singapore fighter competition. The RAAF has bought European before, and IIRC
they just recently chose Airbus for their future tanker needs?

Your "theory" is apparently subject to some significant prejudice you have,
along with a healthy dose of paranoia.

Brooks

"d" wrote in message ...
what do you mean by u.s. wanting to start an arms race in the region,
they've been doing it for a long time.

Holy crap, has JGG/Aerophotos reemerged with another new moniker?

Brooks


Kevin Brooks wrote:
"zalzon" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:54:41 +1000, The Raven wrote:


snip

Which brings me back to my original theory of US wanting to start an
arms
race in the region. It would boost exports of armaments (particularly
long range airpower) now that demand from the middle east countries has
dried up.


Why do you identify only the US? The French and the Eurofighter
consortium
countries are also madly marketing their weapons worldwide, to include
the
Singapore fighter competition. The RAAF has bought European before, and
IIRC
they just recently chose Airbus for their future tanker needs?

Your "theory" is apparently subject to some significant prejudice you
have,
along with a healthy dose of paranoia.

Brooks

IIRC China has enough conventional missiles to flatten Australia. Nukes not
needed. But then why should they?

"zalzon" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:54:41 +1000, The Raven wrote:

Perhaps, although China could probably flatten Australia with missiles
long
before anything came into intercept range.

You mean with a nuke?

I doubt if nukes will be used in a conventional war with China by either
side (US + allies or China). US will just 'hold the line' on Taiwan and
China will throw everything it has in its conventional arsenal at the US.
If that don't work, settle in for a long attrition of firing missiles till
Taipei caves in.

Since Indonesia is not likely to field anything close to a credible
military threat to australia, its puzzling why they would want to
introduce these missiles into the region. It seems more likely that it
would negatively impact their security if other SE Asian countries
introduced air-to-surface standoff missiles of that range.

Which brings me back to my original theory of US wanting to start an arms
race in the region. It would boost exports of armaments (particularly
long range airpower) now that demand from the middle east countries has
dried up.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:25:41 +0800, Alfred Loo wrote:

IIRC China has enough conventional missiles to flatten Australia. Nukes not
needed. But then why should they?


They would need IRBMs of 4000+kms range to hit australia's major cities
and many of them. Nobody uses conventional warheads with missiles of that
range since its not cost effective, not accurate enough to cause any
pinpoint damage and not destructive enough to flatten anything.

A conventional explosive on an IRBM would have the destructive power of
about one or two bomb ladened fighter planes (with the bombs dropped
innacurately).

Short range ballistic missiles however are a different story.

"zalzon" wrote in message
news
Considering that indonesia can barely field a capable military and the
rest in SE asia have small militaries, who are these cruise missiles
directed against

Australia has required (and held) a capabilty to bomb Indonesia for decades,
it is considered a vital part of Australias defence capacity (the F-111 spec
was for an a/c that could reach Jakarta carrying nukes) given Indonesia
instability.

The F-111 is going to be phased out around 2010, the cruise missiles are
going to replace that capability.


China perhaps? Could it be in response to countries in the region buying
Su-27/30 long range strike planes?


Nope, Indonesia as above.

My guess is that US arms merchants are looking to do brisk business in SE
Asia but not finding any opportunities. So get australia to start an arms
race in the region (?)

Conspirowhacko nonsense. see above.

Also, what would be in it for Aust? we don't want an arms race in our back
yard, we just need an ability to keep the Indon military from trying to make
Aust their external distraction next time they try to take over their Govt.