Crapping thread for the crappers and the crap.
-
Tyrannosarur, if war does come to Australia, Aust will decide where they will form a stand against their enemy and yes that will be over the sea.
The Australian Govt estimates that the RAN and RAAF are more than capable of handling any threat bar a massive one from a superpower, hence USA protection.
Everyone underestimates the tyranny of distance, Australia is very far away, a fighter jet does not have the same range as a 747. Japan knew about this problem and the difficulty of maintaining a supply line hence it did not invade.
As for lionnoisy, , you are the most stupid defence poster I have ever met. How can a squadron fly all the way around and attack Australia from the sides or south? You say enemy pilots would not be stupid to stay in JORN area for long. Have you seen the size of JORN area? You posted up a pic of it yet you don't bother to look. The whole of SG is under JORN. If you knew some science, you would also know that the range of JORN is variable due to the ionsphere and that on very good days it goes all the way to HK. I stress very good days only!
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
Tyrannosarur, if war does come to Australia, Aust will decide where they will form a stand against their enemy and yes that will be over the sea.
The Australian Govt estimates that the RAN and RAAF are more than capable of handling any threat bar a massive one from a superpower, hence USA protection.
Everyone underestimates the tyranny of distance, Australia is very far away, a fighter jet does not have the same range as a 747. Japan knew about this problem and the difficulty of maintaining a supply line hence it did not invade.
As for lionnoisy, , you are the most stupid defence poster I have ever met. How can a squadron fly all the way around and attack Australia from the sides or south? You say enemy pilots would not be stupid to stay in JORN area for long. Have you seen the size of JORN area? You posted up a pic of it yet you don't bother to look. The whole of SG is under JORN. If you knew some science, you would also know that the range of JORN is variable due to the ionsphere and that on very good days it goes all the way to HK. I stress very good days only!
Suppose few enemy planes spotted 500 km north of Darwin?
What would u sugget?How will u deploy Oz planes?
Where is/are nearest RAAF bases?
Lets do a war game,NOW!!
-
BTW,what is the use of JORN when Oz dunt have no
tanker and AEW?
What can RAAF do when they spot enemy planes(if they can identify),
and track them,say 1000 or 2000 km away?
Just track them?
It seem a motor cycle traffic police see a Ferrai speeding car
running 150 km/ per hr 2 km away.What can he do?Nothing!!
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Suppose few enemy planes spotted 500 km north of Darwin?
What would u sugget?How will u deploy Oz planes?
Where is/are nearest RAAF bases?
Lets do a war game,NOW!!
Pardon me is i made any mistakes.
I would first direct my anti-air warships to meet the threat
Then, I would ready my anti-air defenses in the northern region
Finally, i would deploy planes to the area
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
BTW,what is the use of JORN when Oz dunt have no
tanker and AEW?
What can RAAF do when they spot enemy planes(if they can identify),
and track them,say 1000 or 2000 km away?
Just track them?
It seem a motor cycle traffic police see a Ferrai speeding car
running 150 km/ per hr 2 km away.What can he do?Nothing!!
You seem to neglect the ships and coastal defenses
-
I think if we get too involved into a scenario based argument, I'd end up deploying my Death Star to blow up earth.
I don't know about lion noisy's point. Mine is simply put that, land based air defenses to cover the medium to high altitude block, eg Patriot (PAC 2)systems is not without its merits in the case of defending Australia.
The entire case for an IADS is not all about shooting down an enemy aircraft, though that is of course an ideal situation. It is to present problems to enemy air attacks, denying them of air space to manuever, or forcing them to manuever around, burning more fuel, or committing more aircraft. And thats where the deterrence value comes in. It would simply cost too much to attack Australia with anything short of a nuke.
Naval AAWs or other assets themselves are vulnerable to submarines. And that is an acknowledged problem that even the US Navy is worried about. If enemy modern diesel submarines aren't able to score a kill on a carrier, killing its AAW escorts chips away at the wall that protects the carrier, creating gaps in the defense.
Personally, the only reasons for not beefing up their land based AAW I can think of are largely political. With the SHornet purchase coming under so much criticism, it would be politically unwise to spend more money investing in another air defense capability.
-
Lionnoisy, you answered your question already you dumbass, the nearest base is RAAF Darwin!
As for doing a wargame, you haven't got the intelligency nor the experience for conducting one. Come back when you get a brain!
If JORN did track a plane 500km out, then planes would have to be put on standby first! The plane would have to be identified plus you would also have to determine if it's hostile, JORN doesn't tell you this.
However let's assume it's hostile, then yes up go the planes. 500km is not out of range for the Hornets considering they have SLAM-ER missiles (400km range). The Hornets would fly the rest of the distance to get the planes in range.
Another option is to wait until they close in say 200km out.
Also important to note is this. If there is an enemy fighter there, there must be a tanker there as well to blow up!
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I think if we get too involved into a scenario based argument, I'd end up deploying my Death Star to blow up earth.
I don't know about lion noisy's point. Mine is simply put that, land based air defenses to cover the medium to high altitude block, eg Patriot (PAC 2)systems is not without its merits in the case of defending Australia.
The entire case for an IADS is not all about shooting down an enemy aircraft, though that is of course an ideal situation. It is to present problems to enemy air attacks, denying them of air space to manuever, or forcing them to manuever around, burning more fuel, or committing more aircraft. And thats where the deterrence value comes in. It would simply cost too much to attack Australia with anything short of a nuke.
Naval AAWs or other assets themselves are vulnerable to submarines. And that is an acknowledged problem that even the US Navy is worried about. If enemy modern diesel submarines aren't able to score a kill on a carrier, killing its AAW escorts chips away at the wall that protects the carrier, creating gaps in the defense.
Personally, the only reasons for not beefing up their land based AAW I can think of are largely political. With the SHornet purchase coming under so much criticism, it would be politically unwise to spend more money investing in another air defense capability.
I dunt think Oz will consider feeling of foreign countries.
Compared with the few big tickets confirmed and contracts signed in
last 2 years,the AA are peanuts.
I think the lack of planning,not serious in defence,
looking for big ,latest and expensive stuffs mind set
and corruptions prevent them to have a better AA sys.
Super Hornets----A$6 b
air warfare destoryer----8 b
Landing ship docks----2 b?
How much for Oz to buy few more AA missiles
and few more AA guns?
Sensors for national level
JORN.Full Stop.No AEW yet.
JORN
Sensors City level/point defence level
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/EDITIONS/4602/topstories/story09.htm
4 sets of TPS-77 radar---same as SG one.Oh may be better!
But There are at least 6 major Oz cities and more than 10 major RAAF
and RAN Bases!!oh ya!!Radars are movable.
The TPS-77 is a smaller, transportable version of the FPS-117 air defence radar used by nations including Germany, Canada and Singapore, but larger than the existing analoguebased TPS-43.
But in order this latest radar to be effective,u need
weapons---land based AA or RAAF---to engage the targets.
Dunt count on RAN.They need to protect themselves.
Weapons---national level and city/point defence
one foot kick all.
unknown no. of
RBS--70(Bolide)---8 km range,
a ceiling of about 4.5km (15,000ft).
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/329569
and RAAF assets.read the map above and bases here.
http://www.raaf.gov.au/bases/index.htm
pl read the assets in each Base before u talk.
Eg Darwin---
http://www.raaf.gov.au/bases/darwin/index.htm
It is a paper Kangaroo---no fighter is supposed station there.
http://www.raaf.gov.au/organisation/info_on/bases/tindal/base_information.htm
F18 atation at 320 km from Darwin.
RAAF Base Darwin
http://www.ausairpower.net/notams.html
many interesting and useful info for me.
u guys know all lah.no need to read.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030808-1.html
D.I.E.D. in Air Combat
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
Lionnoisy, you answered your question already you dumbass, the nearest base is RAAF Darwin!
As for doing a wargame, you haven't got the intelligency nor the experience for conducting one. Come back when you get a brain!
If JORN did track a plane 500km out, then planes would have to be put on standby first! The plane would have to be identified plus you would also have to determine if it's hostile, JORN doesn't tell you this.
However let's assume it's hostile, then yes up go the planes. 500km is not out of range for the Hornets considering they have SLAM-ER missiles (400km range). The Hornets would fly the rest of the distance to get the planes in range.
Another option is to wait until they close in say 200km out.
Also important to note is this. If there is an enemy fighter there, there must be a tanker there as well to blow up!
SLAM-ER missiles (400km range)?
RAAF does not say this
http://www.raaf.gov.au/aircraft/hornet.htm
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
Tyrannosarur, if war does come to Australia, Aust will decide where they will form a stand against their enemy and yes that will be over the sea.
The Australian Govt estimates that the RAN and RAAF are more than capable of handling any threat bar a massive one from a superpower, hence USA protection.
Everyone underestimates the tyranny of distance, Australia is very far away, a fighter jet does not have the same range as a 747. Japan knew about this problem and the difficulty of maintaining a supply line hence it did not invade.
As for lionnoisy, , you are the most stupid defence poster I have ever met. How can a squadron fly all the way around and attack Australia from the sides or south? You say enemy pilots would not be stupid to stay in JORN area for long. Have you seen the size of JORN area? You posted up a pic of it yet you don't bother to look. The whole of SG is under JORN. If you knew some science, you would also know that the range of JORN is variable due to the ionsphere and that on very good days it goes all the way to HK. I stress very good days only!
UK attacked Falklands on the other side of the Earth.
So how?
There are 3 bases for strikers and fighters.
inadquate AA is a potential weakness.
Darwin is very flimsy.No fighters in Darwin AB.
http://www.raaf.gov.au/organisation/info_on/bases/tindal/base_information.htm
F18 satation at 320 km from Darwin.
BTW,how many assets in RAAF?
http://www.f-111.net/RAAF-force-merge.htm
Headquarters Air Combat Group has been established at RAAF Williamtown, with the various elements of the group remaining at their current locations of Amberley (Queensland), Tindal (Northern Territory), Pearce (Western Australia) and Williamtown (New South Wales).
http://www.raaf.gov.au/aircraft/f111.htm
total 145 aircrafts
F/A-18 Hornet fighter
The Hornet is operated by:
- No 3 Squadron, RAAF Base Williamtown, near Newcastle
- No 75 Squadron, RAAF Base Tindal, near Katherine
- No 77 Squadron, RAAF Base Williamtown
- No 2 Operational Conversion Unit, RAAF Base Williamtown, who train pilots transferring to Hornet squadrons.
F-111 strike aircraft
It is operated by No 1 Squadron and No 6 Squadron of the Air Force's Air Combat Group from RAAF Base Amberley, near Brisbane.
above--ONLY 3 RAAF Bases for all strikers and fighters
how about Perth?
coverage of JORN---super radar.Claimed SG under coverage.
What is the use of detecting so far away?
Anyway,u need identify them when they say 300 km away.
Those beyond is meaningless.
I would rather the $$ and man power to buy few more radars
and more AA missles and guns.
For each coastal city of over 1 million people,
at least a fixed radar of range 500 km,one sys of missiles
and one sys of AA guns .Oz is the 13th defence
country(in absoulte term) in the world.
oz can afford.mates.
Sensors and weapons RBS--70(Bolide)/ RAAF) shall stay together
Radars sys and weapons shall stay together,unless
the data link is very secured.
u cant depend all on JORN.u cant afford a suprises vistis
or univited aeroplanes to your major cities!!
Oz get only 4 mobile radar sys.
How to deploy them ?
-
How can someone like you be the judge of whether a country is serious about their defence planning or not? What credentials have you got? Have you even finished your A levels?
Don't speak when you don't have the foundations to speak on.
As for RAAF Darwin, it has P3C Orion aircraft so it's not a paper kangaroo you dumbass. Plus the facilities are all there, so moving fighter craft there is a minor issue. I suggest you read more carefully, boy.
RAAF Tindal approx 250km away has fighter aircraft based there permanently. It is the main base of the north as well if you read carefully.
Just because the RAAF website doesn't list SLAM-ER doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You need to explore more sources before you comment.
Finally, take a deep look at what Aegis coupled with SM2 can do. In a trial test, the F100 Spanish ship parked off Newcastle coast in Australia tracked and shot down every single plane as soon as they took off.
-
UK attacked Falklands from other side of Earth?
UK had established facilities on Falklands, remember that you dimwit. There were airways in place. Plus UK has aircraft carriers! This doesn't mean Australia will get one, plus gosh the LHDs will be close.
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:show
UK attacked Falklands on the other side of the Earth.
So how?
There are 3 bases for strikers and fighters.
inadquate AA is a potential weakness.
Darwin is very flimsy.No fighters in Darwin AB.
http://www.raaf.gov.au/organisation/info_on/bases/tindal/base_information.htm
F18 satation at 320 km from Darwin.
BTW,how many assets in RAAF?
http://www.f-111.net/RAAF-force-merge.htm
Headquarters Air Combat Group has been established at RAAF Williamtown, with the various elements of the group remaining at their current locations of Amberley (Queensland), Tindal (Northern Territory), Pearce (Western Australia) and Williamtown (New South Wales).
http://www.raaf.gov.au/aircraft/f111.htm
total 145 aircrafts
F/A-18 Hornet fighter
The Hornet is operated by:
- No 3 Squadron, RAAF Base Williamtown, near Newcastle
- No 75 Squadron, RAAF Base Tindal, near Katherine
- No 77 Squadron, RAAF Base Williamtown
- No 2 Operational Conversion Unit, RAAF Base Williamtown, who train pilots transferring to Hornet squadrons.
F-111 strike aircraft
It is operated by No 1 Squadron and No 6 Squadron of the Air Force's Air Combat Group from RAAF Base Amberley, near Brisbane.
above--ONLY 3 RAAF Bases for all strikers and fighters
how about Perth?
coverage of JORN---super radar.Claimed SG under coverage.
What is the use of detecting so far away?
Anyway,u need identify them when they say 300 km away.
Those beyond is meaningless. End Quote
Before you said 500km for your 'wargame' now you say it's meaningless you detect so far. Make up your goddamn mind! Of course it's better to have greater coverage, spastic.
You also don't take into account all the other things I mention like the US Broad Maritime Area Surveillance Project. In fact you are so naive in your replies.
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
Pardon me is i made any mistakes.
I would first direct my anti-air warships to meet the threat
Then, I would ready my anti-air defenses in the northern region
Finally, i would deploy planes to the area......
This is great.There are ,on average,8 (Adelaide and ANZAC)
war ships equipped with AA missiles
out to sea daily.There is a chance.
(Adelaide Class)..... ANZAC...Collins...Patrol
Guided missile FFG... FFG.....SSK......Boat
Annual Report 2006/07
Platforms in services--------------4......8..........6.......11
URD(unit ready day)---------------1046....1850......817....3449
Achieved(in days)----------------951....1829......802...??
Substantially achieved(days)---874......1669....583...2427
Platforms avaiable per day(max):2.9.......5.1..........2.2.....9.4
Total:10+9.4 Armidale class Patrol Boat(Coastal guard role)!!
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/314188
There in only one AB near Darwin.u dunt have air tankers
nor AEW.u have rely on JORN or one of 4 sets of TPS-77 radar
to detect but u have to find way to identify.
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
You seem to neglect the ships and coastal defenses
u have 8 warships with AA for whole Oz.The
RBS--70(Bolide)---8 km range,
a ceiling of about 4.5km (15,000ft)
is coastal as well as point defence.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I notice you like to focus on the NOW
So tell me NOW for the SAF:
Where are the basic M203 SAR-21 that our soldiers are supposed to get long ago? Nearly a decade later after the SAR was introduced our soldiers still are forced to operate with different weapons in a section because the M203 SAR-21 is no issued.
Where are the better versions of our SAR-21 NOW that we sell to other countries but not use for our own ssoldiers?
Where is our 3G arfighting network NOW? What if war break out NOW? How come it's still not ready despite years and millions spent.
Please answer.
Aegis sys
Where are they NOW? -----pl answer .dunt open another topics!!
-
let me give u an example.
Oz allow guns .At least 10% of population gets guns.
a rich man in oz stay in a ranch or farm.very heavy armed guards,
he thinks,patrolling bounday which is on average 500 m from the main house.
There is no armed guard in the main house.
Also, the rich guy dunt has gun in the main house.Do u think this
arrangement is reasonable?
i think at least he shall put a hand gun in bedroom.
I mentioned before the Marginal Costs to get more AA
and the marginal benefits!!
can u believe the 13 th defence spending country
dunt have air--tanker,
AEW and
AA guns in OPERATION?
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
How can someone like you be the judge of whether a country is serious about their defence planning or not? What credentials have you got? Have you even finished your A levels?
Don't speak when you don't have the foundations to speak on.
As for RAAF Darwin, it has P3C Orion aircraft so it's not a paper kangaroo you dumbass. Plus the facilities are all there, so moving fighter craft there is a minor issue. I suggest you read more carefully, boy.
RAAF Tindal approx 250km away has fighter aircraft based there permanently. It is the main base of the north as well if you read carefully.
Just because the RAAF website doesn't list SLAM-ER doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You need to explore more sources before you comment.
Finally, take a deep look at what Aegis coupled with SM2 can do. In a trial test, the F100 Spanish ship parked off Newcastle coast in Australia tracked and shot down every single plane as soon as they took off.
NOT SERIOUS IN defence
Oz late in completing projects but fast to procurements!!
Behind schedule in major projects are a norm.
But can spend billions in few weeks---Super hornets for example!!
In the last few months,Oz cancel:
Seaspirit naval heli upgrading-----Vietnam era airfame marry with 1990's equipments
...............worths A$ 1000 million or 1 billion
UAV----------over A$ 100 million
another torpedo projects
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/defence/
Have u read their Reports on Major Projects?
AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft
can this deter aeroplane?
http://www.raaf.gov.au/aircraft/orion.htm
what are her serious weapons?
- Mk 46 / MU 90 torpedoes
- AGM-84 Harpoon air-to-surface missiles
- Various sonobuoys and stores
- Air-Sea Rescue Kits
- Storpedoes
- Heliboxes
-
Aegis sys
Where are they NOW? -----pl answer .dunt open another topics!!
Don't run away lionnoisy, this is a totally related question. You are the one who has to answer because you are the one unhappy with it but we are all perfectly happy to wait for it.
If you want to fault the Australians for not having Aegis now, then logically it must follow through you must be able to come up with an answer for why we do not have vital warfighting technologies like upgraded SAR-21 variants or even our much-advertised 3G NCW on which we have spent millions
If you cannot answer, which it's quite obvious now, then your orginal question on why the Australians do not have
I am perfectly happy to wait for future technologies to mature, you on the other hand, can't... unless the SAF is waiting for it.
LOL.
Answer me lionnoisy and don't run away like a cowardly lion. Where is our advanced SAR-21 variants or even basic things like SAR-21 GL and where is our 3G?
You want everything now now now, so what now?
The SAF dunt have.
-
coverage of JORN---super radar.Claimed SG under coverage.
What is the use of detecting so far away?
Anyway,u need identify them when they say 300 km away.
Those beyond is meaningless.
Pls lar lionnoisy, you are all for 3000 ships covering each and every square inch of Australia but not for a much cheaper, and far more practical super-radar that can detect stealth far out?
How on earth can the ability to see extremely far away and even pick out our stealth ships be a meaningless ability in a war? In fact in war WE might be asking the Aussie for help by loaning intelligence from their radar network.
How on earth can the ability to detect any potential enemies from the northern regions even before they are in your waters be meaingless? It is real time intelligence that our SAF can only dream about and with which our own AEW systems pale.
So what's so meaningless about it?
The only reason it seems to be 'meaingless' is because it is so threatening to you that the Aussies have such an ability that you just have to call it so.
It seems your post is beyond being meaningless...
Let me ask you.
What is the point of you making all these posts? Not making any sense onlymaking you look bad.
Now that's meaingless.
-
Aegis!! It is a future sys.Full stop.
This AWD first decide radar sys,then the main platform!!
Is it reasonable??
oh i think u read from this news
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,21754672-5002142,00.html
Both designs will be equipped with Aegis, and both ships will deploy Standard SM-2 long-range and Evolved Sea Sparrow short range anti-air missiles. With an upgrade from the SM-2 Block IIIB to the SM-3 missile, both would have an anti-ballistic missile capability.
In similar air defence exercises undertaken by both types about 60 nautical miles off Newcastle, observers saw F/A-18s, F-111s and Hawk lead-in fighter trainers tracked immediately after take-off from RAAF Williamtown and (theoretically) shot down shortly after crossing the coast.
-
hmm, sgtyrannosaur.
i think i might have deduced the problem of lionnoisy !
its called fatally flawed tunnel vision, otherwise known is bigotry. it can be described AS an approach to understanding or perspective which is static, fixed to one point of view. hence no point introducing or engaging in productive discussion with him. afterall its like water going down the drain, wont get into him anyway.
@lionnoisy. i know next to nothing about radar systems, ADA and defence strategies. but from all the posts here, i learnt a few things which u clearly havent.
1) australia's defence strategy/overall air defence framework relies on primarily on long range/early detection
2) australia's AA / ADA assets are primarily sea based and mobile. no sense building a fixed and dense network when u are a continent with alot of coast line to cover.
3) australia has a layered strategy of detect, track and intercept with sea and airborne assets.
the gameplan is to see and shoot them down if they approach.
but the problem is you are trying to apply singapore's ADA /AA defence framework onto australia.
1) according to you SAF has alot more AA/ADA assets than australia. in your terms we pwn them in AA
2) you equate more assets into A BETTER FIGHTING CAPABILITY.
our approach is to densely pack our ADA/AA assets into our homebase and to protect singapore from any raiders. if one bomb gets through and hits a HDB estate, the human cost is horrible. thats why we have such a dense network.
and please ask yourself is this even relevant in australia's case ?
if a bomb landed anywhere in central or northern australia, i bet my ass on the odds of it hitting a croc or a roo first before it even hits anybody. they are that sparsely populated. plus, darwin has little strategic value. you can bomb darwin to pieces and you'd have gained absolutely nothing in strategic terms. no damage to economy (maybe killing the crocs will hurt tourism - who knows?) or any major impact to australia. the only major strategic consequence of darwin is psychological. due to its lack of strategic viability, who would seriously want to attack ? its a low value target. but thats another long story altogether.
have you even looked at a map lately ? most of australia's cities are located at the southern and south western australia. why bother even forward stationing most of your airforce in a place like darwin ? protect the toes to expose the backside for the elements ? if an enemy aircraft crosses darwin/northern territories, isnt it a clear and unambiguous sign that it professes hostile intent and fair game to be shot down?
please remember that australia has this huge buffer space to play around with that singapore completely does not have. we probably could fit a few hundred singapores within australia's buffer/comfort zone before they decided to take a decisive response to shoot whatever it is down.
ever figured that if australia were to adopt the dense AA/ADA umbrella network that singapore has, even with s-300 or patriot style systems, it would be a HUGE drain on manpower and resources ? even if they did, what are they going to be doing ? preventing the "enemy" from bombing the grain fields or cows ? simply not cost effective to do that.
the way i see it , its simply a matter of adaptation to terrain and requirements. you are forcing singapore's adaptation into australia and demanding australia's air defence be interpreted in your shallow, immature terms.
some food for thought for you lionnoisy : ask yourself why is the USN arming and building more burke class destroyers rather than the zumwalt class and building BMD defences in europe. going by your flawed logic, they should concentrate and build all the defences on land and in the US of A.
-
sgstars,
I only disagree with the following:
ever figured that if australia were to adopt the dense AA/ADA umbrella network that singapore has, even with s-300 or patriot style systems, it would be a HUGE drain on manpower and resources ? even if they did, what are they going to be doing ? preventing the "enemy" from bombing the grain fields or cows ? simply not cost effective to do that.
1. That it will be a huge drain of manpower and resources
2. That there is nothing significant to bomb but fields, cows, and kangaroos.
Examine the other side of the coin. The costs involves in pilot training, maintaining air bases, maintaining aircraft etc, versus deployed or semi-deployed ADA systems. I am not suggesting that the Aussies need such a high density of Air Defence Systems coverage, but at least that ground based system should form the core.
Which is cheaper to build / buy? AEGIS ships or land based Air Defence systems (Pac 3, essentially a BMD an exception)?
Which is cheaper for 24-hour "ready to shoot" type of readiness? Large number of aircraft (given the expanse of Australia) constantly sitting at alert 5 or alert 15?
If I tear a hole in an air defense system, I can pretty much choose what I want to hit by altering my Strike packages through the gap. I don't have to hit cows and fields. Key structures would include joint UK-AUS-US intelligence gathering facilities, as well as centers of political activity, such as Canberra, and anywhere I need to drive home a point.
In strategic context, no potential hostile threat except Russia is capable of projecting air and naval power so far out to Australia yet. Russia's single carrier is now in the Middle East. However, that is likely to change as Russia has pledged to build the largest navy, second to the US's. With the Atlantic and Baltic seas firmly in NATO control, there is a possibility that Russian Naval power would be focused around the Pacific, Mediterrenean.
Perhaps I read too much into the significance of things, but to me, Russia has demonstrated that it has not forgotten about the Far East with its large scale Naval exercise on the 26th of last month. Often open military exercises are political events with agendas, I see no difference to believe otherwise this time.
-
Lionnoisy, Australia does have airtankers, you stretch the bloody truth by saying that we don't. They are under procurement and will be here soon. When the Super Hornets arrive that will be 24 more little tankers as well. One tanker is already operating.
As for AEW, this is also coming soon in the form of Wedgetails. The complete word is AWACS you dumbfuk.You must be so proud that SG has some pussy little AWACS planes that don't do shit.
These are full on big birds that we're getting.
Half the crap you say I don't get due to your lousy English.
Shotgun, your comparison is flawed in one major point. When you compare the cost of training pilots and AEGIS ships vs AA defence, yes it costs more to train pilots and AEGIS ships. But you can do a hell of a lot more as well in terms of capability.. All AA defence can do is AA defence. With AEGIS ships, you have mobility, ASW, ASuW, and AAW. I won't even mention having pilots and planes.
No such thing as alert 15.
I don't think there are any joint UK-Aust facilities.
Flying to Canberra in a fighter plane is not easy, if not impossible.
Japan and Korea have very good navies that would belt the current Russian navy. This may change who knows, but unlikely.
The Pacific will be controlled always by the Japan, Aust and USA triangle. How can you forget the US Pacific Fleet?
As for the Meditterranean? Can you tell me exactly how the Russians can dominate this area? Have you looked at the map? At what part does Russia have a border with this sea?? Dominating a large sea via a tiny outlet thru Turkey , I don't think so.
-
Aegis!! It is a future sys.Full stop.
This AWD first decide radar sys,then the main platform!!
Is it reasonable??
I sense some desperation in your reply, you normally reply like this when you are shaky and losing confidence.
You just answered your own question, but maybe you are too scared to see the answers in your own conclusion.
If you have no eyes, you cna have the best platforms and missiles in the world and they will be little more then fireworks going nowhere like the hundreds of SAMs the that Iraqis launched in desert storm that literally went nowhere.
This is why your "JORN see so far is meaingless" point is incredibly silly I am amazed you even dare to post it without seeing how wrong it is.
You still haven't answered my question:
SAR-21 GL and MMS with advanced sighting systems are NOT future systems, in fact they were supposed to have replaced our M16/M203 NINE years ago, with the MMS being phased in eventually to keep the SAF up to date with the arms market.
As it stands despite 9 YEARS later our front line units are still stuck with the M16/M203 and the only thing we see of SAR-21 GL is in wayang pictures. Worse, we end up selling the SAR-21 MMS to other armies while our own SAF uses the outdated version.
Is this reasonable?
Note that SAR-21 unlike Aegis, is a CURRENT weapons system that we have to rely on in war.
Like you like to say, anything can happen in 9 YEARS, what if war breaks out? How lionnoisy how? Our soldiers go to war with weapons that cannot share common parts in the most basic fighting unit, the infantry section.
Answer lionnoisy, or you don't dare?
How come LCS thread you still haven't answer?