Australia and Indonesia?

What's the deal with Indonesia and Australia?

I ask because I was reading today on a gun forum and some Australian guys were complaining about how the Aussie government had destroyed all the L1A1 rifles, and they said "We'll sure be missing those when the Indo's invade."

I don't know why, but it's the same thing when I go to the Mil & Space forum on Airliners.net; all the Aussies complain that those Super Hornets, Lightnings and ANZACs are complete crap because they can't swat down Indonesian subs and Flankers with a 100:1 kill ratio or something.

Its just a mix of Pro F-22 lobbyists, so-called arm chair "military Strategist" wannabes who say the JSF is only a strike platform not a Air Superiority fighter and the old bigotry, race hate groups from a very small minority of old school rednecks hyping up there so called "military and regional analyzing of SE Asia and Indonesia" with the combination of their perceived fear of the "yellow peril society" of our northern neighbors military and political determination to invade and destroy Australia's white Anglo/European British western aristocracy style way of life that use to be preached to the people since federation after the adoption of the "Whites Only Immigration law (White Australia Policy)" right through to the 2nd world war and during early post war period when communism was taking a foot hold in parts of SE Asia in the 50's n early 60's and still gets posted by the media now n then coincidentally owned mostly by Aussie born Rupert Murdoch news Ltd group and james packers PBL/ACP Publishing.

The fact is Indonesia hasn't been a threat to Australia or its neighbors (Singapore, Malaysia , the Philippines and PNG) since the removal of President Sukarno-hatta in 1965 and since then people in Australia through education and holiday trips to Bali have come to understand and like its northern neighbor and know that Indonesia has to many internal political and security problems of its own to warrant it as a threat of invasion. All of the ADF's equipment selection process is usually done by a very tough vigours process through a number of departments through a "Quality and value for money" process usually done through both DMO and DSTO as well as the other defence and Government Departments and this is very well known by defence/military arms companies around the world and with the offer given at the time Super Hornet, Gripen, Eurofighter, Rafale, F-16 E/F, F-15 E & F-35 being available since F-22 was ruled out because of Congress block on FMS on the type which both presidents Clinton and Bush,the USAF and Lockheed/Boeing wanted lifted so to bring buying and sales costs down n help allow more USAF orders we all know which aircraft was gonna win the AuD$16-20 billion dollar contract in the end. As for the 24 Super hornets its only 1 of a very few 4.5 generation Fighters currently available in full production and they are only a stop gap measure to allow the successful late 1950s design 60s built F-111 to retire from service in 2010 until the F-35 JSF comes into service from 2013/18 and also the aircraft had allot of commonality with the existing 71 AF/A-18 A and B Hornets currently in-service.

As For the Su-27/30 vs F-35 well yes SU-27/30 is a larger plane and can carry more weapons externally and a larger variety of AAMs and greater range then the JSF but both planes do have Thrust control vector nozzle engines, both have very high maneuverability and both do have very powerful long range phased array radars the F-35 how ever is a low observable "stealth" combat aircraft, JSF can carry both internal and external AAM loads both of which the Su-27/30 doesn't have but as pilot principles in Air to Air Combat say "spot the enemy first sneak up on him undetected, engage and destroy him before he can respond" and JSF has in that part an edge (on paper) over the Suhkoi fighters, Australia will eventually have up to 100+ JSFs in service as Indonesia will eventually have only 24 Su-27/30 fighters (ratio 4:1 in Australia's Favor). JSF operate the same weapons that already exist in-service with the F-111/AF-18 fleet making integration and buying brand new weapons to a minimum as for the Su-27/30 currently Indonesia only has them armed with its own internal cannon and a handful of AA-12 Archer AAM as the rest of Indonesias aircraft are of US/European origin and therefore can only carry and operate US/European weapons meaning new weapons stock has to be purchased and atm Indonesia can't afford it. The only negative part of JSF which i have to admit and do agree with is that the JSF is a single engine aircraft as opposed to twin engine fighters as proven in RAAF service and loses for fighter aircraft in peace time (CAC Sabre 112 built- 33 lost, Dassualt/GAF Mirage IIIO/D 116 built- 40 lost, MDD/GAF AF/A-18 Hornet 75 built- 4 lost).

As for the the L1A1 SLR our army in the late 1980's went to standardize most of its personal infantry weapons on the 5.56mm weapons such as the f-88 AuGStyer (SLR's replacement) and the F-89 Minimi LSW (M60 and Bren MG replacement). The only other weapon that was currently in field service that used 7.62mm ammunition was the belt-fed Mag-58 ISW (also M60 and Bren MG replacement) so with the 7.62mm ammunition orders being all Belt ammo or blank cartridge most SLRs were retired or scrapped from ADF service with the exception of those used by the ADF Federation Guard as ceremony drill riffles (RAN was last to phase them out of operational use as LTR's in 2003/4) and it was cheaper to have them scrapped or gifting them to South Pacific Island governments for their small forces then storing "redundant" Riffles that still require periodic checks, maintenance and security as Australia's ADI (now Thales) did manufacture the AuGStyer under licence it has licence rights from Styer to also do improvements and upgrades on the AuGStyer Riffles they manufactured and any rights to future continue manufacture of the type. The phased scrapping of "Worn Out and un-fit" SLR's had been planned earlier once the Styer was in full service and this started happening at the same time the 1996 Port Arthur Gun massacre in Tasmania took place which lead to the tough Gun Control laws we have today which was a coincidence and pro Gun lobby groups try to pervert the story by putting SLR's Scrapping and the Port Arthur incident being together too.

As for the hate crap and the old racist 1901 policy which gets attached to the Australia-Indonesian affairs every now and then and with some hate and pro gun lobby groups who like to see it returned was condemned by many in S.E Asia especially during post-WWII and around the world especially by Great Britain and later the newly independent Commonwealth country's that followed post-WW2 and not to forget the number of Australian owned Mining and Business companies and the growing opposition by Australia's people throughout the decades who were against the racist policy was finally officially abolished by parliament in 1971 by the New Whitlam Labor Government (1967 if you believe the liberal Party) and a Little note Winston Churchill once said in his memoir's "How can Australia ever adopt such a racist policy when u can never create a decent race out of Convicts and Irish"

So it's basically mostly this man

(Posted Image)

getting attention thanks to this man

(Posted Image)




?

well Murdoch has always made big bucks from any stories that been published even if the information was well referenced or not, biased and one sided or open and fair, fact or fiction, just take the case with his classic "News of the world" paper.and fox news and as for the other guy i get back to u on him as i don't know much about the guy but at the end of the day with JSF the skeptics will be proven wrong in the end this was proven with the F-111 in the 1970s and the Collins Class Submarines with the delays and miss-information placed on them.

Squizzy, are you from Dutch lanuage?

I ask because I just bought an Australian L1A1 kit off GunBroker for $300... complete with the torched barrel and sawed up receiver.

I've already got an Imbel receiver and a new barrel so all I have to do is part the gun up for legitness.

god help us if the indos do invade though. Between our failing submarine fleet (or lack there of) and our ANZACs that came under the "fitted for...but not with" defence plan of the howard era, we're gonna have a big fight on our hands

Indo/Aussie tensions have always been flaired since we backed the temorese in '74, and being the main UN force in '98 didnt help things much (cept we got a nice lil oil deal the indo's aint to happy about)

but I'm not too sure if anyone did notice...but a large contingent of Combat Engineers and Infantry was sent up to darwin 2 months ago...and the ARA (australian regular army) was sent to the northern territory to 'assist' the AFP in indigenous problems...but guess where thier command base was...darwin

Beaut :) A discussion I can get into ;) Squizzy has done a monumental job in outlining some of the controvesy over both defence spending, history, and foreign policy toward Indonesia (and all points north). Some will recall the 'Coffee War' scenario I began, with Bronquites taking over the story. As an AU it was an exageration of the tensions that arose when Sukarno's Indonesia began the confrontation with the Commonwealth over Malaysia; but with the (CIA mastered) fall of Sukarno Indonesia mostly abandoned an expansionist foreign policy.

The FIII was purchased as a threat weapon to deter Indonesia, but that was a decision made in the sixties when they were considered the natural enemy in any future war. I travelled in Indonesia in the 1970's, and I was struck by the sensitivity of the Indon's over the relations between the two countries; my being constantly 'sounded out' over Australia's attitude to Timor and West Irian; and the impression I got was that Australia was looked upon as potentially hostile over self determination - particularly for the Timorese.

Just as I can't quite grasp the current tensions in the USA over Obama and the future of foreign policy, it is also not easy to appreciate the mutual nervousness that exists between Australia and her northern neighbour. For a starter get out a map of North America, cut out the USA and stick Canada on top of Mexico, and then imagine how the two countries would look to each other. Also, get an Atlas and turn it upside down, then you have Australia looming large over Indonesia.
It does seem that both countries make 'sabre rattling' sounds in their media when either of them purchase new weaponry: The SU-27/30 and the Collins class subs being examples.

Australia is committed to the best conventional armed forces she can afford, which means good-value shopping abroad, as it would be impossible to design and build much at home. There has been heated debate over the retirement of the F-III, and the purchase of the Super Hornet, plus the JSF to replace the Hornet. Of course the RAAF would like to purchase the F-22, but it is both too expensive (at present), and the USA isn't ready to sell it abroad. But yes, notwithstanding the smaller number of Suhkois, the single engined JSF will be facing a more formidable opponent ( as the current Hornet is). What worries some Aussies is that the qualatative edge that they have enjoyed in the past over her near neighbours will be substantially eroded.

And we can also consider Singapore and Malaysia as local nations with enhanced armed forces. Then there is India, potentially a regional super power, with a national perception that the Indian Ocean is just that - Indian. Throw China into the equation, and we have a headache for the Australian defence planning. 'Tread softly, and carry a big stick' seems one solution: maintain friendly relations with neighbours and encourage joint defence, but also let them know that you have the means to repel any threat to the nations borders. This points to good surveillance and the weaponry to strike at any incursion - ssm's asm's, with the proper launch platforms. In that sense the FIII is irreplaceable, and the need for more submarines is evident.

There is also Austalia's commitment to supporting the USA in its 'war on terror'; which means more funding for small scale operations by ground forces opposing enemies like the Taliban. Also, a real need for 'homeland security', patrolling the seas, the skies, the vast empty stretches of coast, the portals of entry (airports and docks). Compared to a country of similar population and GDP in Europe, Australia as a huge area to protect with scant resources. Gauging the national mood, you'd find that most Aussies are tolerant and easy going in respect to Indonesia and other neighbours. The White Australia mentality has decreased over time, and today it is a multi-cultural society that allows a great deal of diversity in all aspect of culture. That said, I would expect the nation to be immediately united against any foreign threat - if seen as directly against the nation itself (and not some foreign campaign).

In summary: get your hands on the F-22, whatever it takes; and a fleet of 12 decent subs with cruise missiles; and the ability to spot a pimple on top of an Indonesian fishermans head in the Gulf of Carpentaria; And the abilty to airlift a battalion into any spot on the continent within twelve hours: then relax and say: G'day mate, fancy a snagger on the BBQ?"

I am in total agreeance with PB here, we desperatly need the f-22's, and with the cancelling of the JSF, our hornets arnt gonna be to handy when it comes down to blow for blow. The battalion problem was sort of fixed with the Canberra class, but another one would be handy

Also another issue is the recent Defence White paper. Now I had a good look at it when it came out (infact it landed on my desk about 15 minutes after publication with a post-it note saying "those bastards killed our AWD")

Regrettably the white paper said nothing about a 4th hobart class - a ship we desperatly need. Having a 4th would give us a ton more flexibility. The ADF's current 'strageic' plan for the AWD's is to have one lead a medium sized task force, one all by itself or with only 1 other FFH, and to have one in dry dock. But this plan does not take into account any battle damage, accidents, extreme weather and political issues (*cough* indonesia *cough*). A classic example is the Falklands war, and we could need all 3 of them for 6-10 months, possibly more, and with the new LHD's requiring protection from destroyers, only having 3 is a detriment to the capabilities of the RAN.

Also SEA 5000 (the plan to replace the ANZAC class) is still on the drawing boards, and atleast another 2 decades - possibly more - away.

More money and wiser choices need to go into the whole Indo/Aussie thing, and I for one dont want to be sitting there saying "I told you so" while my ship comes underfire from 6 SU's

A wha?



And because I kinda forgot about this topic, the man in the picture above Murdoch's is Carlo Kopp, a one-man Aussie defense think tank who's biggest intellectual contribution is his difficulty in deciding whether or not he'll sploodge over the F-22 or the Flanker.

JSF = f32's we were MEANT to be getting

incase no one outside heard, they were cancelled in April due to "contract issues"

also I'd like to point out the OPV concept that the white paper put forward. Is it even necessary to consider replacing partrol boats we just got?? I think the money could be wiser spent (*cough* AWD *cough*)

Anyone who talks to me will know that I am a Boeing supporter through and through, and their JSF was far better than the Lockheed POS, just like the YF-23 was far better than the F-22 but you do know what happened there, right? some Cheap-skate 4 star going Oh the F-22 may suck but, damn, we can afford it.

We couldnt afford it at all, but what happend to "better quality, fewer losses"?

Oh wait... our national debt... and bloody paper-pushing politician generals that never saw combat, deciding that "cheaper is better" Hell look at the M-16, we could have been using the FN-FAL/L1A1, a higher caliber better quality rifle. And then in their infinite wisdom they switched us from the .45 cal Colt M1911A2 to the 9mm Beretta M9, a piece of crap, did they forget that the .38 and 9mm have very little stopping power, as was proven in the Philippines after the Span-Am war? I am so glad the USCG switched over to the .40 cal Sig-SAUER in 2006.

Also the "conflict" that looms between Indo and Aussie in the real world, is the basis for my AU, the Draecen Commonwealth, My Commonwealth has something (still trying to figure out what, probably a lot of what the Japanese wanted from SE Asia in the first place, Rubber, Tin, and Oil) that the Indo's want (Abbreviating nothing personal to anyone of said decent) and big brothers Australia, USA and GB sell equipment to the country to avoid invasion by the Indonesians. The twist is that the Commonwealth is an effective TRUE Socialist Government.

So it's basically mostly this man

(Posted Image)

getting attention thanks to this man

(Posted Image)




?

Rupert Murdoch... a douche bag in three continents.

I hear you, I hear you...

The thing is.. the time for the switch to the L1 would have been the M-14 and not the 16, the M-16 came about because it is easier to carry a lot of 5.56 rounds then it is to carry a lot of 7.62 ones and the volume of fire school was ascendent.. not that they didn't have a point given that in a squad of 12 men in a fire fight perhaps 3 will actually fire their weapons.. higher volume of fire makes up for few barrels doing the firing.

The .45 thing is because it was cheaper to go along with the rest of NATO who use 9mm service pistols.. you can use common ammo stocks and not have to maintain a totally separate supply chain for .45 cartridges. Sure it sucks, but running out of bullets sucks worse in a fire fight then having to put three rounds instead of one into the target.

It is interesting to note that the big round school is coming back in vogue again because of the war in Afghanistan.. something around 6.5mm (Barret has a contender that I can't remember the exact head size on at the moment) carries a LOT farther then 5.56 does across a valley and will still have enough energy to do something other then annoy.