Australia F111 to be scrapped!!

[John Cook]

Hi all

I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
of F111's...

Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Dave Kearton]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all
>
> I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
> of F111's...
>
> Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.
>
> Cheers
> John Cook




There's currently a thread on Aus.aviation (ADF Upgrade plans) with more
details. Apparently the pigs will be put out to stud after 2010 - only
5-10 years earlier. The F/A 18s will be upgraded in the interim
until a replacement for both is found.




--


Cheers


Dave Kearton

[L'acrobat]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all
>
> I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
> of F111's...
>
> Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.
>




DEFENCE CAPABILITY REVIEW 2003



The Government has reviewed Australia's Defence capabilities and considered
the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) in light of changes in the strategic
environment (as evidenced by the Defence Update released in February),
recent operational experience and more mature costings.

The goal has been to ensure a balanced force able to achieve the objectives
of the Defence 2000 White Paper whilst recognising the extra complexity of
unconventional threats.

The review reaffirmed that the defence of Australia and regional
requirements should be the primary drivers of force structure. Tasks such as
the protection of Australia's borders remain as important as ever.

In relation to force structure, the review process identified an increased
requirement to strengthen the effectiveness and sustainability of the Army,
to provide air defence protection to deploying forces, to enhance the lift
requirement for deployments and to position the Australian Defence Force to
exploit current and emerging Network Centric Warfare advantages.

In undertaking the review, the Government has drawn heavily on the advice of
the Chief of the Defence Force and the Service Chiefs.

The Government has also been mindful to strike the right balance between
maintaining near term preparedness and longer term capability.

In consideration of the review, the Government has now taken a number of
decisions which lead to some rebalancing of the DCP.

Some of the more significant include:

Australian Army

The Government has accepted recommendations which will contribute to the
Army becoming more sustainable and lethal in close combat.

The government has in particular accepted the advice of the Chief of Army
that the combined arms approach - whereby infantry, armour, artillery,
aviation and engineers work together to support and protect each other -
remains the best way of achieving rapid success while minimising friendly
casualties.

The Government has decided that to provide our land forces with the combat
weight they need within combined arms will require the replacement of
Australia's ageing Leopard tanks.

A decision on which tank to purchase will be made by the Government in the
near future. The Government is considering Abrams and contemporary versions
of the Leopard and Challenger 2.

The Government has also agreed to move rapidly to acquire combat
identification for our forces, more capable communications and increased
provision of night vision equipment.

It is the view of the Army that with these additional capabilities, the
introduction of the Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (a project which
is on time) and additional troop lift helicopters for amphibious transport,
the force will be significantly hardened and better networked.

Royal Australian Navy

Both frigates and amphibious ships have been engaged constantly since
September 2001 across a full spectrum of operations. Additionally, the
importance to the Government of the ability to safely deploy, lodge and
sustain Australian forces offshore has been re-emphasised.

Whilst these deployments have been highly successful, lessons have been
learned and government has accepted advice from the Chief of Navy to further
improve capability.

Defence and warfare capability

The Government has accepted advice to strengthen the Navy' s defensive air
warfare capability. The anti-ship missile defence projects currently being
implemented will be complemented by:


1.. the introduction of SM2 missiles to four of the Navy's guided missile
frigates (FFGs).


2.. the acquisition of three air warfare destroyers.

The FFG will be improved in Australia and the Government's strong preference
is to build the air warfare destroyers in Australia, which will provide
significant work for Australia's shipbuilding industry. The core of the
combat system for the air warfare destroyers will be United States
designed - probably a variant of the Aegis air warfare system. This combat
system can track large numbers of aircraft at extended range and, in
combination with modern air warfare missiles, can simultaneously destroy
multiple aircraft at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres. This capability
will significantly increase the protection from air attack of troops being
transported and deployed.

To provide offsets, the two oldest FFGs will be laid off from 2006 when the
last of the new ANZAC frigates is delivered. Furthermore, the Government's
strategic guidance will enable it to lay up two mine hunter coastal vessels
which could be brought back into service should the need arise.

Sea lift

The Army and Navy have advised that the deployment requirements of the White
Paper would require greater lift capacity than that envisaged in the current
DCP.

As a result, the Government proposes to enhance Navy's amphibious capability
by replacing HMAS Tobruk with a larger amphibious vessel in 2010 and
successively replacing the two LPA's HMA Ships Manoora and Kanimbla with a
second larger amphibious ship and a sea lift ship.

To help offset the costs of larger amphibious ships, the fleet oiler HMAS
Westralia will be replaced through the acquisition of another operating but
environmentally sustainable oiler which will be refitted in Australia. The
substitute oiler, which is expected to be in service in 2006, is a less
ambitious replacement than that envisaged by the White Paper.

This is a significant and demanding program for the Navy but one the
Government thinks is warranted by the current and projected strategic
environment.

Royal Australian Air Force

The Government has accepted advice from the Chief of Air Force that future
strategic uncertainty demands continued emphasis on a balanced and flexible
Air Force comprising intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air
combat, strike aircraft and combat support elements. Furthermore, the Air
Force must be networked, flexible and adaptable with modern versatile,
multi-role capabilities that can contribute to joint and combined operations
across the spectrum of conflicts.

The Government is of the view that a sound pathway to the future has been
laid.

The Air Force already plans for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, new
Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft are in production and
air-to-air refuelling aircraft are out to tender.

The Air Force also has plans for the acquisition of Global Hawk unmanned
aerial vehicles and a replacement for the AP-3C under the further maritime
patrol and response capability.

In such circumstances, the Air Force has advised that by 2010 - with full
introduction of the AEW&C aircraft, the new air-to-air refuellers,
completion of the F/A-18 Hornet upgrade programs including the bombs
improvement program and the successful integration of a stand-off strike
weapon on the F/A-18s and AP-3C - the F-111 could be withdrawn from service.
In other words, by that time the Air Force will have a strong and effective
land and maritime strike capability. This will enable withdrawing the F111 a
few years earlier than envisaged in the White Paper.

[The Raven]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all
>
> I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
> of F111's...

In 2010.........

> Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.

Based on that logic, we'd scrap anything with jet engines.


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

[The Raven]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> "John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi all
> >
> > I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
> > of F111's...
> >
> > Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.
> >
> > Cheers
> > John Cook
>
>
>
>
> There's currently a thread on Aus.aviation (ADF Upgrade plans) with more
> details. Apparently the pigs will be put out to stud after 2010 - only
> 5-10 years earlier.

2-3 years in reality. No-one seriously expect them to last to 2015.

> The F/A 18s will be upgraded in the interim
> until a replacement for both is found.

Around 2010-2012 when the JSF becomes available and, Australia reaches the
top of the production queue.


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

[John Cook]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:27:57 +1100, "The Raven"
> wrote:

>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi all
>>
>> I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
>> of F111's...
>
>In 2010.........
>
>> Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.
>
>Based on that logic, we'd scrap anything with jet engines.

Hmmm. not really, the F18's are used on deployment occaisionally, the
F111 were hanger queens, Were they ever used??? anywhere!, it would
have been a perfect deployment to Iraq to test there capabilities
and provide real world combat training.

As a long range strike asset they would seem to have been a
perfect choice, Wonder why they were left at home.

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[The Raven]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:27:57 +1100, "The Raven"
> > wrote:
>
> >"John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
> >> of F111's...
> >
> >In 2010.........
> >
> >> Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.
> >
> >Based on that logic, we'd scrap anything with jet engines.
>
> Hmmm. not really, the F18's are used on deployment occaisionally, the
> F111 were hanger queens, Were they ever used???

Yes, F-111's have been used numerous times. Vietnam for starters. They have
also been used as a deterent and for other less public but equally important
activities.

>anywhere!, it would
> have been a perfect deployment to Iraq to test there capabilities
> and provide real world combat training.

Australia is conserving the airframe hours as they are admittedly getting
long in the tooth.

In any case, I doubt Iraq (GWII) would have been a perfect deployment. What
would you propose they have been doing?

> As a long range strike asset they would seem to have been a
> perfect choice, Wonder why they were left at home.

Long range strike and going to Iraq are two different things.

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

[David Bromage]

John Cook wrote:
> Hmmm. not really, the F18's are used on deployment occaisionally, the
> F111 were hanger queens, Were they ever used??? anywhere!, it would
> have been a perfect deployment to Iraq to test there capabilities
> and provide real world combat training.

They might be used in the war against North Korea.

Cheers
David

[Dave Kearton]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> John Cook wrote:
> > Hmmm. not really, the F18's are used on deployment occaisionally, the
> > F111 were hanger queens, Were they ever used??? anywhere!, it would
> > have been a perfect deployment to Iraq to test there capabilities
> > and provide real world combat training.
>
> They might be used in the war against North Korea.
>
> Cheers
> David




You have to pick your wars carefully. Whichever engagement uses our
F-111s will probably use all of the remaining airframe life.


Long hours, high speeds, dodging SAMs with a full load, will render the
pigs good for pole duty on their return.


Same thing happened to the Victor K2s after the Falklands.



--


Cheers


Dave Kearton








>

[David Bromage]

The Raven wrote:
> Yes, F-111's have been used numerous times. Vietnam for starters.

Not by RAAF. They came too late for Vietnam.

Cheers
David

[The Raven]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...
> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > John Cook wrote:
> > > Hmmm. not really, the F18's are used on deployment occaisionally,
the
> > > F111 were hanger queens, Were they ever used??? anywhere!, it would
> > > have been a perfect deployment to Iraq to test there capabilities
> > > and provide real world combat training.
> >
> > They might be used in the war against North Korea.
> >
> > Cheers
> > David
>
>
>
>
> You have to pick your wars carefully. Whichever engagement uses our
> F-111s will probably use all of the remaining airframe life.

Exactly, they are somewhat constrained in the flight profiles already.

Limiting airframe hours applies to many Australian aircraft (not to mention
most defence forces). Those helo's that went to E.Timpor did a combined
11000 AFHRS (media release). Now how many helos were actually there? Do the
calculations and that's still a lot of AFHRS, particular hours that weren't
planned for (but thats the nature of defence).

> Long hours, high speeds, dodging SAMs with a full load, will render
the
> pigs good for pole duty on their return.

I'll take one for the front yard.

> Same thing happened to the Victor K2s after the Falklands.

Yup, and they were juggling hours on those Vulcans as well.

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

[The Raven]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> The Raven wrote:
> > Yes, F-111's have been used numerous times. Vietnam for starters.
>
> Not by RAAF. They came too late for Vietnam.

Oops, you're probably right. I was thinking of the US trials with them.


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

[L'acrobat]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>
> > You have to pick your wars carefully. Whichever engagement uses
our
> > F-111s will probably use all of the remaining airframe life.
>
> I think the potential use the Aussies want to save the F-111 for is to
> sink an Indonesian invasion fleet by air launching Harpoon missles.
>
> Most Americans don't know this, but the Indos believe it is their
> manifest destiny to absorb Australia.

Its pretty unlikely that Indonesia could put together a credible invasion
force in the next 10 years or so.

Even if they could its faster and cheaper to buy/build cruise missiles/ASMs
than it is to buy/build an invasion fleet.

[John Cook]

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 17:29:07 -0800, Hobo > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>
>> You have to pick your wars carefully. Whichever engagement uses our
>> F-111s will probably use all of the remaining airframe life.
>
>I think the potential use the Aussies want to save the F-111 for is to
>sink an Indonesian invasion fleet by air launching Harpoon missles.
>
>Most Americans don't know this, but the Indos believe it is their
>manifest destiny to absorb Australia.

Its that you Carlo? :-)

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[L'acrobat]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 17:29:07 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
> >
> >> You have to pick your wars carefully. Whichever engagement uses
our
> >> F-111s will probably use all of the remaining airframe life.
> >
> >I think the potential use the Aussies want to save the F-111 for is to
> >sink an Indonesian invasion fleet by air launching Harpoon missles.
> >
> >Most Americans don't know this, but the Indos believe it is their
> >manifest destiny to absorb Australia.
>
> Its that you Carlo? :-)
>
> Cheers
> John Cook


Probably not, but if you listened very, very carefully to the original press
conference, that dull thud that you hear in the background was Carlo
gritting his teeth so hard that his scrotum exploded...

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:49:48 +1100, "L'acrobat" > wrote:

>
>"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>>
>> > You have to pick your wars carefully. Whichever engagement uses
>our
>> > F-111s will probably use all of the remaining airframe life.
>>
>> I think the potential use the Aussies want to save the F-111 for is to
>> sink an Indonesian invasion fleet by air launching Harpoon missles.
>>
>> Most Americans don't know this, but the Indos believe it is their
>> manifest destiny to absorb Australia.
>
>Its pretty unlikely that Indonesia could put together a credible invasion
>force in the next 10 years or so.
>
>Even if they could its faster and cheaper to buy/build cruise missiles/ASMs
>than it is to buy/build an invasion fleet.
>
>
You need boots on the ground. Cruise missiles, etc, can help, but the cannot
invade. Australia is (IMHO) counting on the US to come to the rescue. That
is not a bad assumption, as we would not let the Indos take Oz.

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 17:29:07 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
> >
> > >In article >,
> > > "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> You have to pick your wars carefully. Whichever engagement
uses our
> > >> F-111s will probably use all of the remaining airframe life.
> > >
> > >I think the potential use the Aussies want to save the F-111 for is to
> > >sink an Indonesian invasion fleet by air launching Harpoon missles.
> > >
> > >Most Americans don't know this, but the Indos believe it is their
> > >manifest destiny to absorb Australia.
> >
> > Its that you Carlo? :-)

> Probably not, but if you listened very, very carefully to the original
press
> conference, that dull thud that you hear in the background was Carlo
> gritting his teeth so hard that his scrotum exploded...

After trolling Janes on e-bombs, I have to wonder how Oz could afford Carlo
any credibility.

[L'acrobat]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...

> >Even if they could its faster and cheaper to buy/build cruise
missiles/ASMs
> >than it is to buy/build an invasion fleet.
> >
> >
> You need boots on the ground. Cruise missiles, etc, can help, but the
cannot
> invade. Australia is (IMHO) counting on the US to come to the rescue. That
> is not a bad assumption, as we would not let the Indos take Oz.

Australia has boots on the ground.

There is no credible invasion threat to Australia and an attempt to build
one would be easily detected.

It would require massive airpower (including AWACS and tankers), serious
amounts of AAW escorts and ASW escorts, a huge logistic support organisation
(land and sea) and then a large, deliverable Army and the means to deliver
it to Aust.

None of which Indonesia has.

In the case of invasion or attack Australia would call on its allies just
like the US did, but Australia already has the means to deal with any
credible invasion/raid of Aust and it seems likely that if Indonesia began
to scale up the sort of forces that would be needed to invade Aust, Aust
would start to scale up the forces needed to prevent it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > >Even if they could its faster and cheaper to buy/build cruise
> missiles/ASMs
> > >than it is to buy/build an invasion fleet.
> > >
> > >
> > You need boots on the ground. Cruise missiles, etc, can help, but the
> cannot
> > invade. Australia is (IMHO) counting on the US to come to the rescue.
That
> > is not a bad assumption, as we would not let the Indos take Oz.
>
> Australia has boots on the ground.
>
> There is no credible invasion threat to Australia and an attempt to build
> one would be easily detected.
>
> It would require massive airpower (including AWACS and tankers), serious
> amounts of AAW escorts and ASW escorts, a huge logistic support
organisation
> (land and sea) and then a large, deliverable Army and the means to deliver
> it to Aust.
>
> None of which Indonesia has.
>
> In the case of invasion or attack Australia would call on its allies just
> like the US did, but Australia already has the means to deal with any
> credible invasion/raid of Aust and it seems likely that if Indonesia began
> to scale up the sort of forces that would be needed to invade Aust, Aust
> would start to scale up the forces needed to prevent it.

I suspect India is the only credible threat to Oz and at the rate India's
economy is growing they could just buy as much desert as they want.

[Sunny]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> I suspect India is the only credible threat to Oz and at the rate India's
> economy is growing they could just buy as much desert as they want.

Careful, the answer will be (from L'xxxxx) They lack the ships (just like
Japan) :-)

[L'acrobat]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

>
> I suspect India is the only credible threat to Oz and at the rate India's
> economy is growing they could just buy as much desert as they want.

India lacks the ability to Invade, India lacks any wish to invade and India
has plenty of problems much closer to home, they don't need to go further
afield to find problems.

[Tarver Engineering]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > I suspect India is the only credible threat to Oz and at the rate
India's
> > economy is growing they could just buy as much desert as they want.
>
> India lacks the ability to Invade, India lacks any wish to invade and
India
> has plenty of problems much closer to home, they don't need to go further
> afield to find problems.

The Hindi must always be prepared for war with Islam.

[L'acrobat]

"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > I suspect India is the only credible threat to Oz and at the rate
India's
> > economy is growing they could just buy as much desert as they want.
>
> Careful, the answer will be (from L'xxxxx) They lack the ships (just like
> Japan) :-)

Welcome to reality you sad sycophantic idiot.

India does lack the shipping to invade Aust, just as Japan lacked it in WW2.

Feel free to try to argue your point here, do you have the balls?

[L'acrobat]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > I suspect India is the only credible threat to Oz and at the rate
> India's
> > > economy is growing they could just buy as much desert as they want.
> >
> > India lacks the ability to Invade, India lacks any wish to invade and
> India
> > has plenty of problems much closer to home, they don't need to go
further
> > afield to find problems.
>
> The Hindi must always be prepared for war with Islam.

They already have that with Pakistan and its clients.

[The Enlightenment]

John Cook > wrote in message >...
> Hi all
>
> I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
> of F111's...

By 2010


>
> Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.


Not really, the replacement will be JSF and it will require a very
large tanker fleet to give the same strike range and warload capacity.

F111s were superb aricraft but they became a political bun fight.
Unlike all other aircraft F111 could opperate alone: No Jamming
support, No AWACS, no fighter escort and no takers required.

Very good bang for the buck.


>
> Cheers
> John Cook

[Tarver Engineering]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I suspect India is the only credible threat to Oz and at the rate
> > India's
> > > > economy is growing they could just buy as much desert as they want.
> > >
> > > India lacks the ability to Invade, India lacks any wish to invade and
> > India
> > > has plenty of problems much closer to home, they don't need to go
> further
> > > afield to find problems.
> >
> > The Hindi must always be prepared for war with Islam.
>
> They already have that with Pakistan and its clients.

Have you looked into the mix of religions local to Oz? You know, those
islands north of you.

[L'acrobat]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

> > >
> > > The Hindi must always be prepared for war with Islam.
> >
> > They already have that with Pakistan and its clients.
>
> Have you looked into the mix of religions local to Oz? You know, those
> islands north of you.

They would be the islands thats population have no ability to project power
and are a mix of races and religious factions determined to fight each other
would they?

Why would India want to develop a force specifically to go attacking Muslims
that are not near India (when they have so many close to home) and how would
this lunatic goal be promoted by India attacking Australia?

[L'acrobat]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
om...
> John Cook > wrote in message
>...
> > Hi all
> >
> > I have just heard on the radio that Australia is to scrap its fleet
> > of F111's...
>
> By 2010
>
>
> >
> > Not surprising really they did cost quite a bit to run.
>
>
> Not really, the replacement will be JSF and it will require a very
> large tanker fleet to give the same strike range and warload capacity.
>
> F111s were superb aricraft but they became a political bun fight.
> Unlike all other aircraft F111 could opperate alone: No Jamming
> support, No AWACS, no fighter escort and no takers required.
>

Unless it is opposed, then it isn't coming home.

> Very good bang for the buck.

Until you compare it to cruise missiles.

That require no AWACS, no fighter escort, no tankers, no flight crew, little
operational training costs, far less infrastructure and might actually be
used in combat.

[Tarver Engineering]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > >
> > > > The Hindi must always be prepared for war with Islam.
> > >
> > > They already have that with Pakistan and its clients.
> >
> > Have you looked into the mix of religions local to Oz? You know, those
> > islands north of you.
>
> They would be the islands thats population have no ability to project
power
> and are a mix of races and religious factions determined to fight each
other
> would they?

Yes, those same island Islamists that murdered predominantly Hindis and
aussie citizens in bombings. The Hindi did not think the bombers were
trying to kill Americans, as the Aussies have somehow concluded

> Why would India want to develop a force specifically to go attacking
Muslims
> that are not near India (when they have so many close to home) and how
would
> this lunatic goal be promoted by India attacking Australia?

Perhaps Indian military planners play Risk. :)

Indians have attempted to have such a discussion here at ram before.

[L'acrobat]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Hindi must always be prepared for war with Islam.
> > > >
> > > > They already have that with Pakistan and its clients.
> > >
> > > Have you looked into the mix of religions local to Oz? You know,
those
> > > islands north of you.
> >
> > They would be the islands thats population have no ability to project
> power
> > and are a mix of races and religious factions determined to fight each
> other
> > would they?
>
> Yes, those same island Islamists that murdered predominantly Hindis and
> aussie citizens in bombings.

Hardly an ability to project power is it?

>The Hindi did not think the bombers were
> trying to kill Americans, as the Aussies have somehow concluded

Oh dear, we are off into Tarverland.

So, you believe that India will invade Australia in an effort to stop
Muslims killing Hindus in Indonesia?

Thats pretty credible.

>
> > Why would India want to develop a force specifically to go attacking
> Muslims
> > that are not near India (when they have so many close to home) and how
> would
> > this lunatic goal be promoted by India attacking Australia?
>
> Perhaps Indian military planners play Risk. :)
>
> Indians have attempted to have such a discussion here at ram before.

But not anyone from the Indian defence ministry.

BTW, could you provide a link to these Indians who felt that invading Aust
was the solution to their Islamic problems...

[Tarver Engineering]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Hindi must always be prepared for war with Islam.
> > > > >
> > > > > They already have that with Pakistan and its clients.
> > > >
> > > > Have you looked into the mix of religions local to Oz? You know,
> those
> > > > islands north of you.
> > >
> > > They would be the islands thats population have no ability to project
> > power
> > > and are a mix of races and religious factions determined to fight each
> > other
> > > would they?
> >
> > Yes, those same island Islamists that murdered predominantly Hindis and
> > aussie citizens in bombings.
>
> Hardly an ability to project power is it?
>
> >The Hindi did not think the bombers were
> > trying to kill Americans, as the Aussies have somehow concluded
>
> Oh dear, we are off into Tarverland.

bugger off

[L'acrobat]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

> >
> > >The Hindi did not think the bombers were
> > > trying to kill Americans, as the Aussies have somehow concluded
> >
> > Oh dear, we are off into Tarverland.
>
> bugger off

Yawn.

[Tarver Engineering]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > >
> > > >The Hindi did not think the bombers were
> > > > trying to kill Americans, as the Aussies have somehow concluded
> > >
> > > Oh dear, we are off into Tarverland.
> >
> > bugger off
>
> Yawn.

You want to have a discussion of security matters in Asia, act like an
adult. It is not as though Howard took well to Oz's role as local sheriff
and your next best bet is to learn Mandrin Chinese.

[L'acrobat]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > >
> > > > >The Hindi did not think the bombers were
> > > > > trying to kill Americans, as the Aussies have somehow concluded
> > > >
> > > > Oh dear, we are off into Tarverland.
> > >
> > > bugger off
> >
> > Yawn.
>
> You want to have a discussion of security matters in Asia, act like an
> adult. It is not as though Howard took well to Oz's role as local sheriff
> and your next best bet is to learn Mandrin Chinese.

ROTFLMAO.

You are the cretin who, as per usual, set off into your fantasy land.

India invading Aust to stop Muslims killing Hindus in Indonesia? the scary
bit is that you have proposed even less credible things in the past...

China invading Aust? they can't even manage to invade Taiwan you goose.

If you want to discuss security matters in Asia, get a clue first.

[Tarver Engineering]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >The Hindi did not think the bombers were
> > > > > > trying to kill Americans, as the Aussies have somehow concluded
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh dear, we are off into Tarverland.
> > > >
> > > > bugger off
> > >
> > > Yawn.
> >
> > You want to have a discussion of security matters in Asia, act like an
> > adult. It is not as though Howard took well to Oz's role as local
sheriff
> > and your next best bet is to learn Mandrin Chinese.
>
> ROTFLMAO.

So then, there is no reason to expect any serious discussion from ram's
Aussie participants. It is little wonder that Oz was singled out, earlier
this year, for exclusion from usenet; as a Nation.

[L'acrobat]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

> > >
> > > You want to have a discussion of security matters in Asia, act like an
> > > adult. It is not as though Howard took well to Oz's role as local
> sheriff
> > > and your next best bet is to learn Mandrin Chinese.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO.
>
> So then, there is no reason to expect any serious discussion from ram's
> Aussie participants. It is little wonder that Oz was singled out, earlier
> this year, for exclusion from usenet; as a Nation.

Yawn.

Tell me again about the upcoming Indian invasion of Aust and how it will
prevent Indonesian Muslims killing Indonesian Hindus.

You are simply a ridicule magnet Tarver and deservedly so.