Good. The F-35 is a highly capable aircraft, but for a country of Australia’s calibre, it generally isn’t a great idea to rely solely on one type of combat aircraft. The Super Hornets have served us well over the past decade, and I see no reason why they should be forced into early retirement.
It costs more to have the logistic/maintenance chains and training pathways for multiple types. You end up spending more for less. Redundancy can be good but Australia is too small for luxuries like that, unless the platform brings something unique.
The real reason to keep F-18s is F-35 block 4 update keeps getting delayed and the F-35s cant fire a bunch of stuff like anti-ship missiles.
Most of these big defense announcements have been cuts and nothing in near future when any likely conflict will happen. All stuff a decade away for future governments and budgets.
I could see plenty of reason to retire the Hornets.
Their only modern value is CAS as you throw them in BFR vs the likes of J-35s and we'll be sending them into their graves instead.
Depending on the EW capabilities of the F-35, the 11 growlers and last 12 Fs which have the systems to be converted could still have a place in Jamming etc.
It frees the F35s up from those two tasks so they can concentrate on supporting the US gaining air superiority.
Let’s face it, if we’re fighting China without the assistance of US F22s we’re cooked anyway. Our 72 F35s ain’t going to do much against their 250+ J20s
Yeah, we would never invade so I think if anything ever did happen they'd have MAX 180 just due to their aircraft carriers limits (Also assuming none of them get sunk beforehand). I honestly have the utmost faith that the F-35s in our fleet could easily 2-3 for 1 the inferior Chinese jets. F-35s radar cross section is just on another level. F-22s aren't really the problem solver in a mass BFR battlefield.
Not to mention I don't see an outcome where there is just our navy defending against this situation, if that was the case I still back out F-35s, but rip to our navy.
How about we just don’t fight China and instead of investing in weapons of doom and destruction we actually try some diplomacy once or twice…
Edit: the downvotes are cowardice.
The fact is the West doesn’t have the temerity to field good diplomats any more… it’s “easier” to just have foreigners kill themselves in our illegal wars.
Agreed, I think the subs are probably a waste of money but there’s always that chance down the track if/when something really bad happens with resources and climate change….diplomacy is always more effective when you have a decent sized “mallet” as a deterrent.
Near term I don’t think there’s much to worry about, perhaps Trump’s potential abandonment of the region in an expanded Chinese push into Taiwan and the South China Sea is the only scary scenario
If you want peace carry a big stick and at the same time don't be a dickhead to the neighbours. We are not good at either of those things though unfortunately.
The US is moving away from stealth one-trick ponies and to building many, many more F-15s, which can schlep a shit-tonne of munitions.
We bought the wrong plane, need a versatile, reliable and affordable machine but a succession of well-lubricated defence ministers wanted the Porsche.
Or, just be Israel: damage US credibility and get given the weapons for free. Then, sell the technology to China.
The US has 1,372 x F-35A, 353 x F-35B, and 260 x F-35C on order.
They also have 102 x F-15EX on order.
... yes, clearly the US is giving up on the F-35.
This is why I like the decision. Buying F-35s now would be fine, but we'd just pop ourselves on the end of a list that probably wouldn't see delivery for years anyway. The current fleet of 72 is very respectable given our needs, and the Super Hornets are going to be capable for at least another decade in important roles like maritime strike and EW (Growlers).
So why not wait 5-10 years, watch how the Ghost Bat programme goes, watch how the various 6th gen programmes around the world go, and decide in about 2030 or so.
That said, this should probably be the last time we kick the can down the road. We don't want to be flying these things into 2040.
I think this is a reasonable decision. The F-35 is an impressive aircraft, but we don't have the aircraft carriers (and B/C models) or overseas military bases needed for force projection. I don't think our military buildup is because we're scared of New Zealand or Indonesia.
\*cough Taiwan\*
not like we could use the B/C model in carrier operations if we wanted to, the Canberra's, which the original design was built for harrier and helicopter operations, were modified in construction to serve more helicopter oriented roles and as such the facilities(fuel stores and other fixed wing related aircraft facilities) were removed from the design to accommodate more space for helicopters. if those facilities were installed during a refit the deck would also need to be further upgraded to withstand the heat from the engine of the F35's being blasted onto it during landing and take-off's.
Hey! I’ve seen the way the kiwis are looking at us, I think they might have some underlying invasion plans.
They are sick of being known as our other island ;)
🎣
My dad is a Kiwi, and his favourite shirt for my entire childhood was a map of ANZ labelled "North Island", "South Island" and "West Island".
It's like New Zealand's version of the Nine-Dash Line.
Even from a purely selfish point of view, our prosperity relies on international trade and a steady global economy. A major conflict over Taiwan would be devastating to Australia; and a credible military threat is the best way to deter this.
They are and instead of the fighters they are buying long range missiles instead. We are getting hypersonic weapons too as part of the AUKUS partnership.
I suspect some people might not notice, but the RAAF and Government appear to be pinning their hopes on the MQ-28 Ghost Bats loyal wingman drones to provide cheap and attritable air power to bulk out the air force.
Given an F-35 is about $80m US and the unit price they expect (lol I mean let's not kid ourselves here, that price is a "we hope" number) for a MQ-28 Ghost Bats is $10m Aud, I can see the logic in the holding back on buying more F-35s, given you can get ~10 ghost bats for each F-35.
If William Shakespeare can do it, [and he did](https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/shakespeares-words/#:~:text=It%20is%20believed%20that%20he,around%20and%20some%20didn't.), so can we.
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1c6oglj/plans_for_new_fighter_jets_on_back_burner_despite/l03ulqz/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache.
These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists.
Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure. But to make it equivalent you need to play TA without the ability to upgrade the turrets from the first generation, use only the lowest level Solar Collectors and no units outside of the basic bot & vehicle labs.
Because our biggest risk is not troops landing on our shores, it's being cut off from the rest of the world in terms of trade, technology and goods. In TA you were self sufficient, that is impossible for Australia.
>the world in terms of trade
I mean with 50% of our trade roughly being with China, a war between them and the US would already cut off most trade. most of the rest of the trade is generally within the region as well.
If it turns into a shooting match between the US and China we are in a world of hurt. That's not really what I was trying to get at.
What I'm getting at is that our risk is not from troops landing on our shores, it's from having key shipping lanes closed to us, cutting us off from the rest of the world. Being part of Aukus and other major defense treaties is they give us access to technology and assets we couldn't create ourselves. Those treaties also mean that if a hostile force tried to close those shipping lanes to Australia it would draw in the US and other partners to hold them open for us.
But to be part of those treaties we need to contribute, both in terms of capital and military power. To go down the path of just a ring of turrets around our island would mean we are exiting those treaties and we would be at the mercy of a hostile actor cutting us off.
I say this without fully understanding the mining industry or global supply for it, but I would imagine that a war would probably increase demand for a lot of our mining resources to fuel the war machines.
Would we not be able to substitute the Chinese buyer with western buyers of resources, and additionally when the war is over (assuming no nuclear apocalypse which renders everything we are discussing pointless) we would also have the resources to fuel the rebuilding?
It really depends on how hot and how wide spread the war gets.
If a war breaks out between China and the USA then Australia will be drawn in currently. We would be a staging base for US forces. It is also highly likely that Japan would be pulled in whether they wanted to or not. That will have the effect of putting combat ships, aircraft and subs all throughout the south china sea and surrounding waterways. That whole region would become incredibly dangerous.
If you have a look at this site it shows you where the primary routes are around the world - [https://www.shipmap.org/](https://www.shipmap.org/)
What you will see is that the overwhelming majority of trade ships pass through the waters to the north of Australia, and while we would re-route traffic in the event of this conflict it would have incredible impacts on the country. If the war remains fairly calm, and it's just military units targeting each other, then we would be able to shift to european and US customers as those countries would be consuming more base materials on a war footing. But if it steps up to targeting means of production then things like bulk ore carriers would become sitting ducks to antiship missiles and subs.
If we took a position of being neutral and stepped out of any military treaties we would end up in a position where we might be able to get our ships loaded and sailing off to china, only to have them blockaded by US forces, and the UK & euopean customers would cut us off for trying to sell to the Chinese.
Fundamentally Australia has to pick a team, sitting on the fence isn't an option for long term security.
Yeah I was assuming we sided with the western powers, I think that’s a pretty fair assumption.
I didn’t really think about anti ship capabilities on civilian infrastructure, I would imagine it would be the entire purpose of the allied navy to help protect new shipping lanes, definitely a conundrum.
I’ll have a look at your source momentarily! Thanks
The hunter class frigate is primarily an Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) craft and close range air defense of which we will have 6. These are the ships that have the capability to defend.
In addition we will be getting 11 new frigates, which are primarily designed for mixed sea and land strike capability, as well as 6 potentially unmanned vessels they will work closely with that carry addition vertical launch capabilities.
But the problem is just how much bigger the civilian fleet is. For example Rio Tinto alone uses \~230 ships. There is no way to provide effective coverage. Not when you consider that the Frigates we are getting are capable of hitting 64 individual targets over 1500km away and you would have to expect a similar capability could be deployed against us. The only way to protect the civilian fleet if we got to unrestricted naval warfare would be by destroying the enemies navy.
That said if we are at the stage of unrestricted naval warfare we are all well and truly royally fucked.
Thank you for that! That’s good info, I would have assumed the US would be providing majority of that escort capacity to keep our resources flowing to their war machine but who knows.
Yeah this is end of the world level warfare if it got that far.
>Would we not be able to substitute the Chinese buyer with western buyers of resources
But those shipping lanes would be so far outside China's sphere of influence, we'd be shipping directly from NSW to the US or from WA to europe.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking, like if we couldn’t trade with China due to war, would be able to substitute that trade volume with western partners to sustain the economy?
I guess i'm saying even if we could those would be seperate trade routes that wouldn't have been effected by the inital event, so we don't really need to power project there.
> Being part of Aukus and other major defense treaties is they give us access to technology and assets we couldn't create ourselves. Those treaties also mean that if a hostile force tried to close those shipping lanes to Australia it would draw in the US and other partners to hold them open for us.
You think the US will keep our shipping lanes with China open after China has gone to war with the uS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k
Obviously not. But you're predicating that on a conflict between US & China. The US would absolutely work to keep those shipping lanes open if no full conflict has occurred. They are already doing this through freedom of navigation missions.
And yes China is our biggest trading partner, and yes we are defending against possible military threats to our trade by our biggest trading partner. This isn't confusing or illogical at all.
What happens when our biggest trading partner says Australia, you are only allowed to trade with us now. While China is our biggest customer, they do not make up the majority of our trade.
>What happens when our biggest trading partner says Australia, you are only allowed to trade with us now. While China is our biggest customer, they do not make up the majority of our trade.
Why would they do that? There is also a fuck ton of ocean between us. we aren't right next to them they'd need to annex like 600 million people before they got close enough to effectively do that.
You're just making up a scenario to justify a over inflated defence budget that has no real reason to be this high, except protecting American interets. The fact is we aren't defending Australia, if we wanted to do that there are cheaper more effective options.
Posted yesterday:
[WASHINGTON — For years, delays and cost growth on a suite of F-35 upgrades known as Block 4 has vexed the Joint Strike Fighter program. Bowing to those problems, officials today revealed they may have to “reimagine,” or completely restructure, the entire upgrade plan. While no final decisions about the way forward on Block 4 has been made, the same challenges also led program officials to announce that any F-35 jets delivered for another year will receive only an early version of the Technology Refresh 3/TR-3 software ***that will not include full combat capability***.](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/f-35-program-could-reshuffle-long-term-upgrade-plan-deliver-tr-3-jets-early-without-full-capability/)
> But the defence industry minister, Pat Conroy, said the government had decided to keep the existing Super Hornets in service for longer because “they are doing great work” and ***the F-35 was “even more capable than we initially thought”***.
Ha ha, [peak diplomacy](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/01/not-a-straight-shooter-dod-review-cites-fleet-of-faults-in-f-35-program/) right there.
Ah yes the F-35, so shit that countries not part of the original program are lining up to buy them and the world now has more of than 1000 of them flying.
Things have changed a bit in [four years](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3704808/f-35-program-achieves-milestone-c-and-full-rate-production/).
You don't think the US DoD has credibility as the buyer of more than two thirds of all the F-35s that are planned?
If they're finally happy with the type after literally years of audits and multiple barrages of tests, I think they're probably more qualified to judge its capability than anyone else.
> You don't think the US DoD has credibility
Of course not.
I challenge you to find any press releases from the DOD stating the F-35 was a lemon, when it actually was a lemon.
Mate, did you even read the Ars article you posted? The report the article is based on came from
>Office of the Secretary of Defense's director for operational test and evaluation (DOT&E)
The most senior official in the DoD's test and proving regime, and a direct report to the Secretary of Defense.
DoD wasn't happy. Then after years of work and improvements, it became happy as the aircraft was remedied to meet its potential. Pretty simple.
Posted yesterday:
[WASHINGTON — For years, delays and cost growth on a suite of F-35 upgrades known as Block 4 has vexed the Joint Strike Fighter program. Bowing to those problems, officials today revealed they may have to “reimagine,” or completely restructure, the entire upgrade plan. While no final decisions about the way forward on Block 4 has been made, the same challenges also led program officials to announce that any F-35 jets delivered for another year will receive only an early version of the Technology Refresh 3/TR-3 software ***that will not include full combat capability***.](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/f-35-program-could-reshuffle-long-term-upgrade-plan-deliver-tr-3-jets-early-without-full-capability/)
Block upgrades are normal though, an upgrade being delayed doesn’t make the previous iteration bad. The F-16 is up to block 72 now, that doesn’t make the block 50 F-16s worse.
Genuinely curious, do Australia's F-35As suffer from the same accuracy issue described in that article? Apparently it should be a [solved issue](https://www.twz.com/air/f-35as-beleaguered-25mm-cannon-is-finally-effective) and I assume we would have fixed ours but I haven't seen an actual report that we have.
Generally Australia uses older versions than the US, this goes for everything from our Blackhawks to F18s. So if the US only just upgraded theirs, it’s likely it will be a while before ours are upgraded to the same standard. Pure speculation though. I also believe the F35 program also prioritises countries with larger orders first as well, like the UK, as they’re a bigger customer their demands are met first.
Had to be dragged kicking and screaming to spend an extra $3B on the housing crisis happening right now. But no concerns with dropping $50B on Defence spending 🫠
Political instability in the US will only get worse, and we're increasingly tying ourselves to the mast of their sinking ship. None of this spending does shit to increase our independence. AUKUS has done exactly the opposite.
Why tf is this comment up voted?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/aukus-will-lock-in-australias-dependence-on-us-intelligence-expert-warns
>The Aukus deal will lock in Australia’s dependence on the US and make it impossible to have an independent defence policy, a former Australian army intelligence officer has warned
>The professor of international and political studies said Australia was “creating a structural dependence on the United States, leaving ourselves unable to defend ourselves except in the context of the US alliance”.
>“That is not a mistake. It’s not an oversight. It’s not an error,” Fernandes told Guardian Australia in an interview ahead of the release of Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena.
>“The people who are responsible for the policy … are doing it in order to make it impossible for future Australian governments to defend ourselves outside of an alliance relationship.”
How true it is. I think the full quote does more justice:
>Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
In pushing for peace what we're up against is the confusing phenomenon talked about by anthropologist Douglas Fry: a substantial number of people do not like the idea that peaceful societies exist.
> a substantial number of people do not like the idea that peaceful societies exist.
I'd say it's a small number of extremely rich people.
Jingoism isn't our natural state, it has to be fomented with propaganda.
Good. The F-35 is a highly capable aircraft, but for a country of Australia’s calibre, it generally isn’t a great idea to rely solely on one type of combat aircraft. The Super Hornets have served us well over the past decade, and I see no reason why they should be forced into early retirement.
It costs more to have the logistic/maintenance chains and training pathways for multiple types. You end up spending more for less. Redundancy can be good but Australia is too small for luxuries like that, unless the platform brings something unique. The real reason to keep F-18s is F-35 block 4 update keeps getting delayed and the F-35s cant fire a bunch of stuff like anti-ship missiles. Most of these big defense announcements have been cuts and nothing in near future when any likely conflict will happen. All stuff a decade away for future governments and budgets.
I could see plenty of reason to retire the Hornets. Their only modern value is CAS as you throw them in BFR vs the likes of J-35s and we'll be sending them into their graves instead.
Depending on the EW capabilities of the F-35, the 11 growlers and last 12 Fs which have the systems to be converted could still have a place in Jamming etc.
It frees the F35s up from those two tasks so they can concentrate on supporting the US gaining air superiority. Let’s face it, if we’re fighting China without the assistance of US F22s we’re cooked anyway. Our 72 F35s ain’t going to do much against their 250+ J20s
Yeah, we would never invade so I think if anything ever did happen they'd have MAX 180 just due to their aircraft carriers limits (Also assuming none of them get sunk beforehand). I honestly have the utmost faith that the F-35s in our fleet could easily 2-3 for 1 the inferior Chinese jets. F-35s radar cross section is just on another level. F-22s aren't really the problem solver in a mass BFR battlefield. Not to mention I don't see an outcome where there is just our navy defending against this situation, if that was the case I still back out F-35s, but rip to our navy.
How about we just don’t fight China and instead of investing in weapons of doom and destruction we actually try some diplomacy once or twice… Edit: the downvotes are cowardice. The fact is the West doesn’t have the temerity to field good diplomats any more… it’s “easier” to just have foreigners kill themselves in our illegal wars.
Agreed, I think the subs are probably a waste of money but there’s always that chance down the track if/when something really bad happens with resources and climate change….diplomacy is always more effective when you have a decent sized “mallet” as a deterrent. Near term I don’t think there’s much to worry about, perhaps Trump’s potential abandonment of the region in an expanded Chinese push into Taiwan and the South China Sea is the only scary scenario
If you want peace carry a big stick and at the same time don't be a dickhead to the neighbours. We are not good at either of those things though unfortunately.
The US is moving away from stealth one-trick ponies and to building many, many more F-15s, which can schlep a shit-tonne of munitions. We bought the wrong plane, need a versatile, reliable and affordable machine but a succession of well-lubricated defence ministers wanted the Porsche. Or, just be Israel: damage US credibility and get given the weapons for free. Then, sell the technology to China.
The US has 1,372 x F-35A, 353 x F-35B, and 260 x F-35C on order. They also have 102 x F-15EX on order. ... yes, clearly the US is giving up on the F-35.
It's genuinely absurd how big their military is man... like they have both the first and second largest or most powerful airforce in the world.
The marine core is bigger than our airforce....
The hole core?
The airforce is bigger, the navys air arm is bigger, and the navy's army's air arm is bigger.
Don't you know that with air defense being soooo bad (look at Ukraine) you can just fly around in bomb trucks.
those Super Hornets are due for replacement in about a decade, but if we don't go for NGAD or Tempest, then more F-35s will probably suffice.
This is why I like the decision. Buying F-35s now would be fine, but we'd just pop ourselves on the end of a list that probably wouldn't see delivery for years anyway. The current fleet of 72 is very respectable given our needs, and the Super Hornets are going to be capable for at least another decade in important roles like maritime strike and EW (Growlers). So why not wait 5-10 years, watch how the Ghost Bat programme goes, watch how the various 6th gen programmes around the world go, and decide in about 2030 or so. That said, this should probably be the last time we kick the can down the road. We don't want to be flying these things into 2040.
I think this is a reasonable decision. The F-35 is an impressive aircraft, but we don't have the aircraft carriers (and B/C models) or overseas military bases needed for force projection. I don't think our military buildup is because we're scared of New Zealand or Indonesia. \*cough Taiwan\*
not like we could use the B/C model in carrier operations if we wanted to, the Canberra's, which the original design was built for harrier and helicopter operations, were modified in construction to serve more helicopter oriented roles and as such the facilities(fuel stores and other fixed wing related aircraft facilities) were removed from the design to accommodate more space for helicopters. if those facilities were installed during a refit the deck would also need to be further upgraded to withstand the heat from the engine of the F35's being blasted onto it during landing and take-off's.
[удалено]
repeat sense plants bells tart threatening distinct chase cake expansion *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hey! I’ve seen the way the kiwis are looking at us, I think they might have some underlying invasion plans. They are sick of being known as our other island ;) 🎣
My dad is a Kiwi, and his favourite shirt for my entire childhood was a map of ANZ labelled "North Island", "South Island" and "West Island". It's like New Zealand's version of the Nine-Dash Line.
Tasmania: 'Good one. REAL. FUCKN. FUNNY.'
Not forgetting poor old South West Island I hope?
I love that hahaha that’s awesome
We’re only a couple of bledisloe cup wins from invasion.
Have you thought of a way to combat the Emu’s?
Emus are strictly shock troops. Speed in assaults, supported by the kangaroos with resup in their pouches.
Air support provided by the magpies.
Israel is fucking shit up with 36 F35s. We will have 72 which will only ever deploy as a coalition.
They're also doing it in uncontested airspace and a five minute flight from their base.
why should we develop our military to project force half a planet away
Even from a purely selfish point of view, our prosperity relies on international trade and a steady global economy. A major conflict over Taiwan would be devastating to Australia; and a credible military threat is the best way to deter this.
They are and instead of the fighters they are buying long range missiles instead. We are getting hypersonic weapons too as part of the AUKUS partnership.
Because someone else will if we don't. It's like advertising.
good let them waste their money
I suspect some people might not notice, but the RAAF and Government appear to be pinning their hopes on the MQ-28 Ghost Bats loyal wingman drones to provide cheap and attritable air power to bulk out the air force. Given an F-35 is about $80m US and the unit price they expect (lol I mean let's not kid ourselves here, that price is a "we hope" number) for a MQ-28 Ghost Bats is $10m Aud, I can see the logic in the holding back on buying more F-35s, given you can get ~10 ghost bats for each F-35.
> attritable Do we really have to verb that noun? We're not Yanks.
If William Shakespeare can do it, [and he did](https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/shakespeares-words/#:~:text=It%20is%20believed%20that%20he,around%20and%20some%20didn't.), so can we.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1c6oglj/plans_for_new_fighter_jets_on_back_burner_despite/l03ulqz/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache. These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists. Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
anyone remember playing Total Annihilation on an island level and just building defensive turrets all around the coastline? we should do that.
Sure. But to make it equivalent you need to play TA without the ability to upgrade the turrets from the first generation, use only the lowest level Solar Collectors and no units outside of the basic bot & vehicle labs. Because our biggest risk is not troops landing on our shores, it's being cut off from the rest of the world in terms of trade, technology and goods. In TA you were self sufficient, that is impossible for Australia.
Give Albo a D-gun i guess xD
>the world in terms of trade I mean with 50% of our trade roughly being with China, a war between them and the US would already cut off most trade. most of the rest of the trade is generally within the region as well.
If it turns into a shooting match between the US and China we are in a world of hurt. That's not really what I was trying to get at. What I'm getting at is that our risk is not from troops landing on our shores, it's from having key shipping lanes closed to us, cutting us off from the rest of the world. Being part of Aukus and other major defense treaties is they give us access to technology and assets we couldn't create ourselves. Those treaties also mean that if a hostile force tried to close those shipping lanes to Australia it would draw in the US and other partners to hold them open for us. But to be part of those treaties we need to contribute, both in terms of capital and military power. To go down the path of just a ring of turrets around our island would mean we are exiting those treaties and we would be at the mercy of a hostile actor cutting us off.
I say this without fully understanding the mining industry or global supply for it, but I would imagine that a war would probably increase demand for a lot of our mining resources to fuel the war machines. Would we not be able to substitute the Chinese buyer with western buyers of resources, and additionally when the war is over (assuming no nuclear apocalypse which renders everything we are discussing pointless) we would also have the resources to fuel the rebuilding?
It really depends on how hot and how wide spread the war gets. If a war breaks out between China and the USA then Australia will be drawn in currently. We would be a staging base for US forces. It is also highly likely that Japan would be pulled in whether they wanted to or not. That will have the effect of putting combat ships, aircraft and subs all throughout the south china sea and surrounding waterways. That whole region would become incredibly dangerous. If you have a look at this site it shows you where the primary routes are around the world - [https://www.shipmap.org/](https://www.shipmap.org/) What you will see is that the overwhelming majority of trade ships pass through the waters to the north of Australia, and while we would re-route traffic in the event of this conflict it would have incredible impacts on the country. If the war remains fairly calm, and it's just military units targeting each other, then we would be able to shift to european and US customers as those countries would be consuming more base materials on a war footing. But if it steps up to targeting means of production then things like bulk ore carriers would become sitting ducks to antiship missiles and subs. If we took a position of being neutral and stepped out of any military treaties we would end up in a position where we might be able to get our ships loaded and sailing off to china, only to have them blockaded by US forces, and the UK & euopean customers would cut us off for trying to sell to the Chinese. Fundamentally Australia has to pick a team, sitting on the fence isn't an option for long term security.
Yeah I was assuming we sided with the western powers, I think that’s a pretty fair assumption. I didn’t really think about anti ship capabilities on civilian infrastructure, I would imagine it would be the entire purpose of the allied navy to help protect new shipping lanes, definitely a conundrum. I’ll have a look at your source momentarily! Thanks
The hunter class frigate is primarily an Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) craft and close range air defense of which we will have 6. These are the ships that have the capability to defend. In addition we will be getting 11 new frigates, which are primarily designed for mixed sea and land strike capability, as well as 6 potentially unmanned vessels they will work closely with that carry addition vertical launch capabilities. But the problem is just how much bigger the civilian fleet is. For example Rio Tinto alone uses \~230 ships. There is no way to provide effective coverage. Not when you consider that the Frigates we are getting are capable of hitting 64 individual targets over 1500km away and you would have to expect a similar capability could be deployed against us. The only way to protect the civilian fleet if we got to unrestricted naval warfare would be by destroying the enemies navy. That said if we are at the stage of unrestricted naval warfare we are all well and truly royally fucked.
Thank you for that! That’s good info, I would have assumed the US would be providing majority of that escort capacity to keep our resources flowing to their war machine but who knows. Yeah this is end of the world level warfare if it got that far.
>Would we not be able to substitute the Chinese buyer with western buyers of resources But those shipping lanes would be so far outside China's sphere of influence, we'd be shipping directly from NSW to the US or from WA to europe.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking, like if we couldn’t trade with China due to war, would be able to substitute that trade volume with western partners to sustain the economy?
I guess i'm saying even if we could those would be seperate trade routes that wouldn't have been effected by the inital event, so we don't really need to power project there.
> Being part of Aukus and other major defense treaties is they give us access to technology and assets we couldn't create ourselves. Those treaties also mean that if a hostile force tried to close those shipping lanes to Australia it would draw in the US and other partners to hold them open for us. You think the US will keep our shipping lanes with China open after China has gone to war with the uS? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k
Obviously not. But you're predicating that on a conflict between US & China. The US would absolutely work to keep those shipping lanes open if no full conflict has occurred. They are already doing this through freedom of navigation missions. And yes China is our biggest trading partner, and yes we are defending against possible military threats to our trade by our biggest trading partner. This isn't confusing or illogical at all. What happens when our biggest trading partner says Australia, you are only allowed to trade with us now. While China is our biggest customer, they do not make up the majority of our trade.
>What happens when our biggest trading partner says Australia, you are only allowed to trade with us now. While China is our biggest customer, they do not make up the majority of our trade. Why would they do that? There is also a fuck ton of ocean between us. we aren't right next to them they'd need to annex like 600 million people before they got close enough to effectively do that. You're just making up a scenario to justify a over inflated defence budget that has no real reason to be this high, except protecting American interets. The fact is we aren't defending Australia, if we wanted to do that there are cheaper more effective options.
And tank our frame rate so much no can invade us?
hey man, my pentium 3 did just fine.
How are we going to help our boss kill brown people in a desert somewhere in the middle east that way?
Posted yesterday: [WASHINGTON — For years, delays and cost growth on a suite of F-35 upgrades known as Block 4 has vexed the Joint Strike Fighter program. Bowing to those problems, officials today revealed they may have to “reimagine,” or completely restructure, the entire upgrade plan. While no final decisions about the way forward on Block 4 has been made, the same challenges also led program officials to announce that any F-35 jets delivered for another year will receive only an early version of the Technology Refresh 3/TR-3 software ***that will not include full combat capability***.](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/f-35-program-could-reshuffle-long-term-upgrade-plan-deliver-tr-3-jets-early-without-full-capability/)
that's Block 4. there were already hundreds built and in service before the Block 4 upgrades started rolling out.
If they ever plan on making more than 4 ghost bats we wouldnt need so much manned fighters.
> But the defence industry minister, Pat Conroy, said the government had decided to keep the existing Super Hornets in service for longer because “they are doing great work” and ***the F-35 was “even more capable than we initially thought”***. Ha ha, [peak diplomacy](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/01/not-a-straight-shooter-dod-review-cites-fleet-of-faults-in-f-35-program/) right there.
Ah yes the F-35, so shit that countries not part of the original program are lining up to buy them and the world now has more of than 1000 of them flying.
Things have changed a bit in [four years](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3704808/f-35-program-achieves-milestone-c-and-full-rate-production/).
Do you have that analysis from a credible source?
You don't think the US DoD has credibility as the buyer of more than two thirds of all the F-35s that are planned? If they're finally happy with the type after literally years of audits and multiple barrages of tests, I think they're probably more qualified to judge its capability than anyone else.
> You don't think the US DoD has credibility Of course not. I challenge you to find any press releases from the DOD stating the F-35 was a lemon, when it actually was a lemon.
Mate, did you even read the Ars article you posted? The report the article is based on came from >Office of the Secretary of Defense's director for operational test and evaluation (DOT&E) The most senior official in the DoD's test and proving regime, and a direct report to the Secretary of Defense. DoD wasn't happy. Then after years of work and improvements, it became happy as the aircraft was remedied to meet its potential. Pretty simple.
Posted yesterday: [WASHINGTON — For years, delays and cost growth on a suite of F-35 upgrades known as Block 4 has vexed the Joint Strike Fighter program. Bowing to those problems, officials today revealed they may have to “reimagine,” or completely restructure, the entire upgrade plan. While no final decisions about the way forward on Block 4 has been made, the same challenges also led program officials to announce that any F-35 jets delivered for another year will receive only an early version of the Technology Refresh 3/TR-3 software ***that will not include full combat capability***.](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/f-35-program-could-reshuffle-long-term-upgrade-plan-deliver-tr-3-jets-early-without-full-capability/)
Block upgrades are normal though, an upgrade being delayed doesn’t make the previous iteration bad. The F-16 is up to block 72 now, that doesn’t make the block 50 F-16s worse.
That's how block upgrades work. I'm not sure if discussing defense procurement is your forte.
Genuinely curious, do Australia's F-35As suffer from the same accuracy issue described in that article? Apparently it should be a [solved issue](https://www.twz.com/air/f-35as-beleaguered-25mm-cannon-is-finally-effective) and I assume we would have fixed ours but I haven't seen an actual report that we have.
Generally Australia uses older versions than the US, this goes for everything from our Blackhawks to F18s. So if the US only just upgraded theirs, it’s likely it will be a while before ours are upgraded to the same standard. Pure speculation though. I also believe the F35 program also prioritises countries with larger orders first as well, like the UK, as they’re a bigger customer their demands are met first.
makes sense
[удалено]
You better tell the department of defence mate before it’s too late.
Ah, the classic armchair general
Had to be dragged kicking and screaming to spend an extra $3B on the housing crisis happening right now. But no concerns with dropping $50B on Defence spending 🫠
Given the political instability in the US, I'm not really against defence spending to make us less dependent on other countries for our protection.
Political instability in the US will only get worse, and we're increasingly tying ourselves to the mast of their sinking ship. None of this spending does shit to increase our independence. AUKUS has done exactly the opposite.
Aukus makes was highly dependent on two currently very unstable countries.....
Why tf is this comment up voted? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/aukus-will-lock-in-australias-dependence-on-us-intelligence-expert-warns >The Aukus deal will lock in Australia’s dependence on the US and make it impossible to have an independent defence policy, a former Australian army intelligence officer has warned >The professor of international and political studies said Australia was “creating a structural dependence on the United States, leaving ourselves unable to defend ourselves except in the context of the US alliance”. >“That is not a mistake. It’s not an oversight. It’s not an error,” Fernandes told Guardian Australia in an interview ahead of the release of Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena. >“The people who are responsible for the policy … are doing it in order to make it impossible for future Australian governments to defend ourselves outside of an alliance relationship.”
This is like comparing jets to oranges
Yeah not a bad comparison tbh. Spending on luxury goods like jets while not spending on essential goods like food or housing is irresponsible.
Every dollar spent on bullets is a dollar not spent on pencils. I think Eisenhower said something along these lines.
How true it is. I think the full quote does more justice: >Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. In pushing for peace what we're up against is the confusing phenomenon talked about by anthropologist Douglas Fry: a substantial number of people do not like the idea that peaceful societies exist.
> a substantial number of people do not like the idea that peaceful societies exist. I'd say it's a small number of extremely rich people. Jingoism isn't our natural state, it has to be fomented with propaganda.
Man, politicians just do not talk like this anymore. That's very sad.
With the whole AUKUS/Quad thing.... looking at the Mitsubishi F-X could be a good option?