Australia's aquisition of cruise missiles

[zalzon]

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

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

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 (?)

---

Australian cruise missile plan

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040826052722.z4dkcg5c.html

[Keith Willshaw]

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>

Indonesia has recently started ordering Su-27/30's from Russia

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

Yes like Indonesia

> 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 (?)
>

Your guess would be wrong, the Australians have legitimate
concerns. Indonesia has never been exactly stable and
that situation isnt improving.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[The Raven]

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> 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

They are aimed at keeping any hostiles at bay. In any case they are stand
off weapons.

> China perhaps?

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

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

Unlikely seeing as they have been around some time now.

> My guess is that US arms merchants are looking to do brisk business in SE
> Asia but not finding any opportunities.

At the moment Australia is ripe for the picking for US suppliers.

> So get australia to start an arms
> race in the region (?)

A race that Australia is already behind in some regards.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[zalzon]

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.

[Kevin Brooks]

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> 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

>

[Alfred Loo]

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

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>

[zalzon]

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]

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.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
zalzon > wrote:

> 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.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/mar-apr/bu
rt.html

"Three [RAAF] squadrons, Nos. 3, 75, and 77, are equipped with the
French Mirage fighter."

"...over 100 Mirages were built and assembled in Australia under
license."

http://www.scramble.nl/au.htm

RAAF equipment serial numbers list included references to:

- Dassault Mirage III
- Sud Aviation Alouette 3
- Aermacchi MB-326
- Dassault Falcon 20 and Falcon 900
- Pilatus PC-6 and PC-9
- Aerospatiale AS-350

Not counting British kit, it seems they buy European at times.

They've bought from the Frogs in the past, no reason why they might not
do it in future.

[zalzon]

Umm.. why are you quoting purchases made almost a 1/2 century ago in the
1960s?

Mirage III purchases are old hat.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
zalzon > wrote:

> Umm.. why are you quoting purchases made almost a 1/2 century ago in the
> 1960s?
>
> Mirage III purchases are old hat.

Doesn't help support of arguments that the Ozzies wouldn't buy from
Europe.

[The Raven]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> zalzon > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/mar-apr/bu
> rt.html
>
> "Three [RAAF] squadrons, Nos. 3, 75, and 77, are equipped with the
> French Mirage fighter."
>
> "...over 100 Mirages were built and assembled in Australia under
> license."
>
> http://www.scramble.nl/au.htm
>
> RAAF equipment serial numbers list included references to:
>
> - Dassault Mirage III
> - Sud Aviation Alouette 3
> - Aermacchi MB-326
> - Dassault Falcon 20 and Falcon 900
> - Pilatus PC-6 and PC-9
> - Aerospatiale AS-350
>
> Not counting British kit, it seems they buy European at times.
>
> They've bought from the Frogs in the past, no reason why they might not
> do it in future.

Such as the Eurocopter Tigre (Aussie Tiger) and perhaps the NH90.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:41:50 GMT,
zalzon attempted to say .....

> 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.
>

I guess you missed the Mirage III fighters that Austrailia used to operate.
Or the Leopard tanks they STILL operate...

I see a country that buys what they wish.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[L'acrobat]

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...

> 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.

[L'acrobat]

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> Umm.. why are you quoting purchases made almost a 1/2 century ago in the
> 1960s?
>
> Mirage III purchases are old hat.
>

The Centurion, Leopard 1, L1A1 SLR, F88 Austeyr, RBS70, Rapier, Land Rover,
Unimog, Mag 58, Minimi, Anzac Frigates, the new Amphibs (Spanish or French
are the short list IIRC), ASRAAM, Collins Class subs, Eurocopter Tiger, BAE
Hawk, ASLAV.

All non US products.

[Kevin Brooks]

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> Umm.. why are you quoting purchases made almost a 1/2 century ago in the
> 1960s?
>
> Mirage III purchases are old hat.

You snipped the earlier reference to the Airbus tanker, which last I knew
was a European product. ISTR the Australian Army also bought their latest
rifles from Europe, along with their new Tiger attack helicopters. What does
all of that add up to? Anything but some kind of US monopoly in terms of
Aussie defense procurement.

Brooks

>

[Kevin 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
> > ...
> >
> >>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
> >
> >
> >
> >

[demon]

Anzac class frigates based on German Meko 200 frigate design, and system
integrator is Saabtech

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[d]

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
> ...
>
>>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
>
>
>
>

[Matt Wiser]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>"zalzon" > wrote in
>message
...
>> 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
>>
>
>Indonesia has recently started ordering Su-27/30's
>from Russia
>
>> China perhaps? Could it be in response to
>countries in the region buying
>> Su-27/30 long range strike planes?
>>
>
>Yes like Indonesia
>
>> 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 (?)
>>
>
>Your guess would be wrong, the Australians have
>legitimate
>concerns. Indonesia has never been exactly stable
>and
>that situation isnt improving.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
>Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
>in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers
>- Total Privacy via Encryption =---
If Indonesia splits up-look out big time for trouble. Lots of it.
Terrorism, piracy, etc. The Aussies' concerns are not unfounded and any big-time
trouble brings in other powers-for Freedom of Navigation at least, and counterterrorism
as well.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[L'acrobat]

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
"L'acrobat" > wrote:

> "zalzon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
>

Bomblets from some cluster warheads on T-hawks are often described as
beer can sized. Wouldn't that make for easy integration with national
warheads?