http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/axe-set-to-fall-on-fighter-jets/2007/12/30/1198949703043.html

Moreover, historical precedent tells us that projects like the JSF have a funny way of gaining weight and losing projected performance numbers as development rolls on, whilst all the while the zeroes pile on the end of the final expense account. The F-15 is ready, proven and available, and takes care of any perceived gap in our air defences.

Put it this way – South Korea paid US$100 million per plane last year for 40 F-15Ks, an upgrade of the Strike Eagle with the latest available avionics, weapons and engine upgrades. Not exactly cheap, admittedly, but let’s put it in context. The per-unit cost for each Super Hornet worked out by The Locum (or Peacock and co, more like) worked out at a whopping A$121 million, excluding training and support over the projected life of the aircraft (10 years). At the contemporaneous exchange rate of A$0.76c to the dollar, we paid over $US92 million per plane – work it out at the current rate and it’s an even more depressing figure.

Truly, we got royally shafted every possible way on this deal.

integrating the reconnaisance elements of Armoured Corps into SAS…

I’m reminded here of Field Marshal Slim once saying there’s nothing special forces should be able to pull off that a well trained regular infantry platoon shouldn’t.

“…establishing independent local defence platoons.”

So why not boil down the core of the Australian Army into an SAS standard cadre for bespoke expenditary work, with an evolving and rotating corp of short timers and reservists for peace keeping duties but with the inhererent logistical ability to ramp it all up very quickly. Remember the most tactically and strategically successful special weapons and tactics irregular engagement ever fought by the Australian Army was waged by a bunch of barely trained militia teenagers in the mountains of PNG 64 years ago. The tech may have changed since then but inhospitable landscapes and keen young blokes won’t.

Then we could discuss replacing the quaint archaic ranks with a system more suited to our real-world needs

Dunno about that. Yes, every armed forces can always do with less bullshit and blanco but being ordered to kill people or run the risk of being killed yourself is a pretty uncommon and unnatural state to be in. At that point a traditional combat-tested hierarchy, with all it’s built-in faults, does provide some kinda framework for going through all the crap going down. Or as I heard a USN CPO once say “Even if I’m dead, those dingleberries will still be looking over their shoulders for me.”

“Shouldn’t this also be an argument over an appropriate structure for the Aust military?”

My oath it should.

We could talk about abolishing infantry battalions, integrating the reconnaisance elements of Armoured Corps into SAS, establishing independent local defence platoons. Then we could discuss replacing the quaint archaic ranks with a system more suited to our real-world needs. We could …. but you you would have on your conscience all those inflexible ADF wallahs who had attacks of apoplexy at the very thought of slack&idle civvies talking about such matters.

AUSTRALIANS: The Americans are ripping us off! Why won’t the greatest air force in the world sell us its top-of-the-line equipment?
AMERICANS: Uh… maybe so we can keep having the greatest air force in the world?

I dunno, it just doesn’t seem like much of a puzzler, that’un.

Can’t we do the same with Predator drones (or the like), cruise missiles and coastal patrol boats?

Tony D, the major obstacle to abolishing pilots isn’t engineering, it’s the MCTR, to which Australia’s a signatory. If we want to start getting into cruise technology serioulsy as a deterrent, we’d actually have to start engaging with our neighbours on an equal basis, ’cause if we get them, they will too.
Look, Australian defence planning based on supremacy in the air over other South East Asian countries has gone the same way as cigarette sponsorship and moustaches in cricket. I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing.

They are simply emulating the Dowager Empress of China and her marble boat built on Kunming Lake in Beijing which was a substitute for a modernized fleet for the Imperial Chinese Navy.

You mean this little beauty?

As for the fuel used by fighter planes, it sounds a lot in absolute terms. It’s a piddle in the ocean compared to what the nation spends driving the kids to school in Toyota Prados each day.

More generally, it’s good to keep in mind that out total defence outlay is only a couple of percentage points of GDP. I wouldn’t advocate this in a fit, but upping our spending to 6% of GDP would give a budget not that far off the UK’s, and they run a couple of aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, a much bigger air force, and a large army. In terms of our living standards, it would be like sacrificing roughly a year’s economic growth. Clearly, we could maintain our current defence spending through a recession easily enough if we decide it’s worthwhile.

Now, there’s a perfectly good argument to suggest that we’re spending too much on defence, and spending it in the wrong areas. But having to shut it down because we’ll be spending all our dough on climate change and peak oil? I just don’t buy it.

Shouldn’t this also be an argument over an appropriate structure for the Aust military?

I mean, planes are cool. They go fast and carry big bombs. Very, very useful for hard power approaches. Best suited to stave-v-state conflicts though.

So… do we really need them at all?

Can’t we do the same with Predator drones (or the like), cruise missiles and coastal patrol boats? Spend the rest on a sizable infantry that’s trained for urban environments (police style). Add the SAS to be the scalpel.

Do we really want to get bogged down in the security dilemma? What about NTD approaches?

This may be pedantic but von C said something slightly different.

â??War is â?¦ a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other meansâ??

Which has very different connotations from the common phrasing.

It’s kinda like the truism that the best defense is a good offense – it’s damn 1960s American pro-football jargon. How it entered up in the political lexicon and then used as a basis for policy making is a bit confusing.

Can’t say that it is Jack – never climbed that particular bridge, can’t get excited about the idea.

Though I do remember climbing an old silo in melb at some point. Damn that dog really didn’t want to come down.