Australia's aquisition of cruise missiles

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

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


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 =---

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

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.

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

snip


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

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

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

Brooks

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

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

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

You mean with a nuke?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Short range ballistic missiles however are a different story.

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.

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/a...977/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.

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

Mirage III purchases are old hat.