Yes, it would secure the next few years. On SAM's, I think the HUMRAAM(Humvee mounted AMRAAM) would be an excellent choice of medium range SAM for Australia. In particular, it can engage cruise missiles, which would be an excellent capability if any SU-30 launched missiles(250km range I believe, can't remember the designation) managed to slip the net.

Stick it on a bushmaster and call it a BUSHRAAM... Still haven't really worked out why they are going to so much trouble to bu Bushmaster... Whoops - not really a topic for this page...maybe at a later date on armour...

I don't think you folks down under need to worry that much. More important than the equipment is the avionics and the training. As long as your pilots get plenty of training (which you say may be a problem with fatigue issues) and keep the avionics updated you'll have no trouble handling the Indo flyboys in a conflict.

Yes, the fatigue issue is a big worry. I was horrified when I heard our Hornet pilots were getting "selective training" to conserve airframe hours. On the positive side, I doubt the Indonesians will be getting any active homing AAM's, like the AA-10 or AA-12. While we have AMRAAMS we have a big advantage against anyone using semi-active homing missiles like the AA-7. A SARH missile equiped fighter has to keep their nose pointed at you while the AMRAAM equiped one can turn and fly in the other direction during the later stages of flight, meaning allowing them to effectively outrange thier opponent.

What I don't quite understand is: Australia is a huge area with up to now minor threats against this territory. This should indicate a lot of simpler aircraft at more locations - and there are plenty of good F-16's around for a reasonable price.

That stratagy would not work, for a number of reasons. These include, 1. Lack of pilots. RAAF trained pilots command high salaries in the airlines, and having train more of them would simply exacerbate our current manning problems. 2. Airfields - What you would save on cheap F-16's, you would spend building more airfields. Don't forget as well that the extra airfields would have to be built thousands of kilometres from the nearest city, making them even more expensive to maintain. Also, pilots and their spouses don't want to live in the middle of nowhere, exacerbating the pilot shortage again. 3. Capability - There is not point having a bunch of F-16A's when they would be promptly shot down by a bunch of SU-27's. Also, they have an even worse range than the F-18A, limiting our ability to patrol offshore installations, provide air-cover for the navy, escort the F-111's and provide anti-shipping strike. Finally, one engine is no good when you usually operate over water. We really need a fighter with F-15C/F-18E type range and with the ability, with force multipliers if necessary, to defeat the SU-27/30. It is better for us to have less airframes of a higher quality.

Ok. what we are really talking is a pilot shortage problem. 1 versus 2 engines: The magazine AirForce had an article about the issue a couple of years back. the gist of the conclusion was that it really didn't matter - the issue was tactics. I agree with the conclusion, as modern jet engines are pretty reliable and if you get hit, probably both engines are broken. But I see your point: What you need is an F-18 with double range. The old argument between European and American fighters. European have generally been short on range, but good on accelleration. Example: Lightning, there have been produced cigarette lighters with more fuel; but the problem on take-off was to avoid going supersonic once the roller-skates were picked up. The solution seems to be what you suggest some sort of F-18, with 2 engines - just for comfort. Then supplement it with tankers. Have you looked into a C-130J with refuelling equipment. Yes I know it is a prop; but they go quite fast and can fly over nasty weather. The time factor should be manageable - If it is nothing else, then the NOrthern Territory is strategic depth.

Yes, an F-18 with double the range. Or at least one with 40% more range, like the F-18E... Which brings me back to my arguement that about 48 more of these(+ 12 F-18G's) should be bought/leased to replace the F-111's and supplement the F-18A's, until the JSF arrives. As for the Northern Territory giving strategic depth, I doubt that the good citizens of Darwin or Broome would think much of that theory. Neither would the owners of all the offshore oil and gas installations that we have up there. I'm afraid the "scorched earth" stratagy that we adopted in WW2 is long gone. We need to stop an enemy before they reach our shores, and long range fighters and strike aircraft are the key to this.

Since you say the the Northern Territory must be defended, and is clearly the front line for Australia, What % of your armed forces are based there? You need airfields and enough ground troops to defend them at least.

Our home defence stragy focusses on the defence of the north(amongst other things), but is primarily an airforce/naval stratagy. We rely on the ability to send an invader to the bottom of the ocean before they get to our shores. Hence, we emphasise long-ranged strike assets like the F-111, high performance fighters (the F-18), surface units capable of long-ranged, independent ops and big conventional submarines. The army is primarily poised in a base defence role(mainly against light/special forces) and is mainly based in the cities south of the northern territory, to be moved north as a threat develops. This is because the military bases have traditionaly been based there(hence the defence owns land there), and because of recruiting issues(not everybody wants to live in a tin-pot little town like Darwin). In recent years we have improved our ability to deploy them quickly by road, in armoured trucks, because of the threat of ambush/mines by light forces. Naturally the airforce can be deployed to northern bases at short notice, and the Navy operates off both East and West coasts, and patrols the north regularily. Additionally, we have have recently moved the majority of our armoured and mechanised forces to Darwin. There are 2 manned and 3 unmanned airfields (to be used during war, which keep. We also keep a squadron of F-18's in Darwin on short notice to move. We also have three reserve recon battalions, which use mainly farmers and aborigines familiar with the local environment, to patrol the north during peacetime and war. Finally, we have an over the horizon radar network that will detect anything, on the surface or in the air, trying to cross the ocean to get here, and very strong human/electronic intellegence capabilites that(hopefully) will allow us time to build-up to counter any threat.