Well, an 18 billion $ fighter, who do you think that's for?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 23:25
VIEWED: 3451
PAGE 2 of 3
Because they are going to last 30 years. To military planners it makes sense to buy the new shiny toy now so that you can still fight with it in 30 years.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Aussies don't need them; something fishy is here.
Sometimes the 'roo population gets a bit out of hand and these JAF's would do just GREAT at reducing those numbers.
Seriously, how does one determine what another country needs or doesn't need when it comes to its own military ?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When I say older, I of course don't mean used, just an older model that's maybe not so state-of-the-art, so unless there's a specific reason for the JSF to last longer than older models, I don't see why those models wouldn't also last 30 years.
In a couple of years time the JSF is not going to be state-of-the-art anymore either, so it's not really an issue of having "the best" for the entire duration of the fleet's active life. At some point (relatively soon) both an older model and the current best model are going to be outdated.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Seriously, how does one determine what another country needs or doesn't need when it comes to its own military ?
Well, by thinking about what such a purchase tells us we can sort of infer what Australia needs when it comes to its military. If the Aussies feel the need to buy a fleet of JSFs, it's either a case of out-of-control military spending or they need it for a specific purpose. Since, as said, it's highly unlikely that it needs it for its own defence, one has to wonder what the US has up its sleeve for the 2010's for which it needs the help of the Aussies.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see what you are saying but in practice you want to have state of the art for at least part of the 30 year service life.
The reason for having them is almost definately China, because irrespective of how things look now Australia has to consider the long term needs and potential threats.
I've said it before and I mean it, military spending is a lot like buying insurance, it is hellishly expensive and a waste of money if you never need to use it. The question is, can you afford to be without it if something bad happens?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally I'm having a tough time envisaging a war with China since for most Western countries, being consumer-based economies, that's going to be akin to economic suicide (because the cheap products from China are what makes consumer spending as high as it is). Of course, there's always the possibility that China actually starts a war, who knows.
The fleet is supposed to be in place by 2013 if I remember correctly, so if the US has something nasty planned for the middle of the next decade I guess the fleet would still be in its state-of-the-art condition. Whether it's China or not, something's planned for that time and that almost certainly has to be the reason why the Aussies are spending such an extraordinary amount of money on new fighter planes.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not nescessarily. We had a big discussion in the 1980's about the need to replace the UK's Polaris subs with Trident ones. It included a lot of the same things you are suggesting such as was this really an independent deterent or where the Brits just paying to "own" part of the US war machine?
If we had followed the same logic then you would have assumed that the US had something big planned for the '90's and we'd have used them by now. In the event that didn't happen. In an odd way actually thinking there is some great plan in motion is reassuring, otherwise it just appears to be a great waste of money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In an odd way actually thinking there is some great plan in motion is reassuring, otherwise it just appears to be a great waste of money.
Lol, that's true.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Okay, it's pretty late and I'm a tad sloshed, but Chris, I don't quite understand what you meant by your comments.
i) It's $18 billion for a fleet of fighters, not a fighter;
ii) Australia is buying the fleet, China wasn't mentioned in the article; and
iii) "We must be second to none"... huh? I agree with the sarcasm, but I don't see the relevance to the article.
I'm probably being dense and missing every damn thing. Off to bed and sleep the whole of Sunday...
Yeah, what's he got against Australia. We build, they buy...good for them, good for us.
Maybe he's really from Australia and fears a continuation of their aggressive and confrontational foriegn policy.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, they're gonna us them internally, against the native kangaroo population, and claim it's collateral damage, or over-population control for their own good, or some such euphemism.
Originally posted by Hero:
Maybe he's really from Australia and fears a continuation of their aggressive and confrontational foriegn policy.
Mad Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME