Well for some reason he likes to revive old threads using old arguments despite being badly pwned:

In any case:

The question an IADS can even be set up that can cover the size of that country, and if the costs of running this system can be justified. A system like JORN working with their airfoce and navy is a better solution for that need. Given you have large gap of water to engage the enemy over, why let them come to your doorstep?  

The way I see it, if they actually do an IADS, lionnoisy will post some long post talking about how expensive the system is and pointing out all the minor flaws in it.

I've noticed a curious kind of illogic of lionnoisy's posts. He operates under this principle: 

If the SAF spends a lot of money on something, it's a vital and needed purchase.

If the SAF does not operate something, it's because it's too expensive and not needed, despite the fact that in lionnoiy's world, wars can break out "any time, any day, and any how."

If the ADF spends money on something, it's expensive a waste of money no matter what benefits the system offers them, even if these are capabilities that are greatly beyond anything the SAF has.

If the ADF does not do something, they are neglecting something important and must take unfeasibly expensive solutions like operate a 3000 ship navy to patrol each and every square inch of their oceans to protect against a mysterious enemy can can appear "any time, any day, and any how."

Nuff said.

Somebody seems to have forgotten about the SM2 missile

In any case it is impossible for the ADF to put up a air defence umbrella over the entire nation due to the massive size of their nation which is thousands of times bigger then ours, hence their focus is on point defence for key installations hence the choice of RBS-70. Additionally has been pointed out plenty of times, the risk of saturation air attack on Australia is significantly less due to their geographical location, no air force in the region that can really put up a serious air attack on them.

Anything that is attacking them will have to get past their interceptors and Aegis systems, with the ground defences to take up the leakers... which makes far more sense then to spend billions on static ground defences scattered all over the country each with limited engagement envelope.

We have no choice but to put up a heavy air defence network for the simple fact that our geographical factors mean that all the bombs that fall here are far more likely to hit something important, and that there's no space to play with anyway unlike the Australians who have plenty of land and sea at their disposal.

What a basic question that for some reason, is lost on lionnoisy.

 Not to look down on our country but one nuclear strike on Malaysia can led to total annhilation of Singapore >.<

Not very likely, unless they hit somewhere near like JB.

The typical H-bomb of 20MT yield have a lethal radius of roughly 17km, where it will destroy most civillian buildings. At 47km there is only moderate damage, though you have to worry somewhat about the fallout.

So by most calculations you need at least a two or three overlapping H-Bomb strikes to totally annhilate Singapore, or an oversized bomb like the 50MT Tsar Bomba.

But seriously if you keep worrying about nuclear war and say there's no need for the SAF since no point, then see what exactly will happen when we really have NO SAF and other nations find this little island a pushover.

So the entire thing is just an exercise in wayang so that lionnoisy can get media articles to toot his horn about?

As you said, why reinvent the wheel?

Not sure about quality issues, it depends on which contractor you pick. Plenty of the military stuff the US use after all created by civillian agencies who bid for the project and the QA basically is via contract.

Whoops, my bad. I must have misread the article.

In any case you said it yourself, if everything was going to be internally developed, why even bother with COTS in the first place for NCW unless there is some rhyme and reason behind it?

GIYF

type "NCW COTS"

Also, look up the IT-21 network.

So lionnoisy, in your opinion the SAF made a terrible mistake when it decided to wait decades before getting Leopard 2 MBTs? So in the meantime the SAF didn't really have any serious MBT at all!

How do you think up your points? Seriously it's not taking much effort to demolish at all.

Please answer.

Also you have not answered about degaussing metal hulls for minesweepers as well as the incredible advantages in performance the LCS have over our own ships.

On paper,oz can tell u they are under threats of rising PRC etc

As at today,(dunt tell me the heaven in the future),

there is only one air tanker can take off from oz soil,though it is

not certified to fly.

If the Australians are worried about defence then mid air refueling is not an issue, because they will be fighting from home ground advantage. Instead of wasting time and fuel on constant CAP they can use JORN to scramble and direct their aircraft as and when they need.

It is the agressor against them who will need to worried about air to air refueling, not them.

In fact, they fact they want a serious air-to-air refueling capacity means that have intentions to PROJECT their airpower. 

The fact they are not getting our two-bit KC-135 and waiting for a better model is proof that they intend to have some serious regional power-projection capacity, something that the SAF cannot even dream to boast about.

Something that seems to be lost on you.

In fact if you studied the moves of the Australians carefully you'll realize that a lot of the points you try to raise actually backfire on you.

Financially,technologically,and politically they can acquire new air tankers

on time,before the old platforms retire one by one,and the last

one retired this year.The old tankers did not retire suddenly.

Oz can foresee the retirement schedule,but they act too late.

For the reasons above, they decided to play the waiting game for obvious reasons. The duh factor on this is so astounding I am surprised you can mess this up.

Let's see they had a choice:

Option A: Go lionnoisy "anyday, anyhow" war can break out panic and buy old KC-135s for millions of dollars only to need to replace them a bit later down the road.

Option B: Have some common sense and wait for a far better and modern model to come out.

Gee, tough choice.

Future is just a dream.When u need a weapons NOW,no point i give

you all the arsenals in US Army in the future,but nothing

now.When i deliver all the weapons in the future, u already die.

I think u will ,in exchange for future Star War wepaons,a M4

NOW,instead of the promised arsenals!!

Really?

So the A330 does not exist except on paper ah? Or is not the project already well on track?

So they day the Aussies get their A330 what are you going to say? That the RSAF made a bad choice jumping the gun?

So what about our 3G army? How come not developed yet? Going by your logic it is a useless dream then.

Lol, you type such a long post, but get owned in a few sentences.

If Oz dunt think nobody knock on her door because of the remote location,

then why they are spend A$6 billion in  2007 to buy Super Hornets

just for INTERIM purposes?The cant wait the F35 come!!

Don't grasp at straws lionnoisy, it's obvious that the Australians are gearing towards power-projection with their military developments.

Something that seems to be lost out on you.

dun agree that technology behind NCW is developed by the civilian sector also.

Since, internet is developed and used by the military before opening to the civilian sector, i would say the idea behind NCW is made possible by harnessing today's or future technology.

Hmmm...

Lets see:

This capability may seem to be decades away from reality with hundreds of millions of dollars of research being needed before the NCW is ready for prime time.The reality is that systems such as the ones described here are only several years off (see Figure 3).Given the current strategy that seeks to leverage commercial off-the-shelf software and hardware, the time to develop and deploy advanced NCW capabilities in the not so distant future is realistic.Many operational components required for a system such as this are in commercially available and in use today. Supply Chain software in use today by most corporations can serve as the basis for the logistics support and modeling.Commercially available computer aided dispatching (CAD) systems in use by police departments, emergency medical services and fire departments could also serve to accelerate the custom application components that specifically address the unique challenges faced by the military.The conceptual systems hardware requirements pose a bit more of a challenge.Hardened and tamper proof packaging technology must advances to protect the integrity of fielded systems in the event some of this equipment would fall into enemy hands.

And what does our own Mindef's report on NCW?

NETWORK-CENTRIC ARCHITECTURE

Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Technologies (COTS)

The emphasis will also be on adapting commercial components and processes to reduce combat system space and weight, minimise ship impact and reduce life-cycle costs. COTS integration has the bonus of increasing combat system capability over the long - term. As commercial technologies mature, COTS systems (processors, displays, LANs) can be expected to exhibit greater functionality over those they supercede. The result could be by way of an increase in processing power, disk space or networking capacity within the existing combat system architecture that can then be applied to future combat system upgrades. The challenge remains one of enabling improvements by adopting a learning systems-of-systems approach that culls new employment concepts and tactics, training, logistics support to derive optimum performance benefit from the COTS advancements.

Just in case you thought that I was making it up as I went along...

Originally posted by spencer99:

The M4 is suppose to be an interim solution for the US... the ultimate aim is that futuristic OCSW or something.... the hybrid weapon which shoot grenades and a small caliber direct fire weapon....

 

 

interestingly.. the malaysian armed forces is ordering 14,000 units, that is not enough to equip the entire armed forces...

 

Well you know lionnoisy and his usual style of can't see anything but the present for the militaries of other countries ignoring what that will likely arise in the future and projecting fantastic (and sometimes impossible) abilities for our own, because for some reason, war can anyday, anyhow break out.

Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:

i dun agree that network centric warfare is a progression of things due to technology and wasnt designed to give any advantage.

i would say the idea behind NCW can be made possible by harnessing today's or future technology.

i also dun agree that the equipment used are off-the-shelf items

Most of the stuff assembled for network centric warfare are basically civillian technology and ideas that has been milspeced. Why reinvent the wheel when communications technology is being developed by the civillian sector?

When i say it wasn't designed to give any advantage, what I mean is that some dudes didn't just think up of this radical new idea. It was a pragmatic and natural progression given the internet era we are in now. What is truly radical about NCW is the speed at which information can flow and be shared by your units, but it's not really surprising for anybody who uses the net a bit and not really surprising that this technology will eventually go military.

The tanker that RAAF is ordering is based on the Airbus A330. This is the one offered by EADS to the USAF to 'replace' the KC-135 used by the USAF!

 

These are modern advance airborne tankers that the RAAF is going to operate in the future.

As usual, lionnoisy is too scared to mention this fact, given this will mean that the RAAF will actually have BETTER air-to-air refueling capacity then us.

Enemy must shot and scoot in 4 minutes

Or else they will be hitted by RSAF.

There is no such word as "hitted".

And you never heard of this thing called electronic warfare and standoff munitions that can mess up your "shoot and scoot in 4 minutes" assumptions ah? While we may have one of the the densest air defence coverage in the world we are also limited by the fact that we are basically fighting from a very small island, and the enemy does not really need to aim anywhere to hit something.

This advantage could be gone when 2 forces with equal capabilities in network centric warfare 'rubbed shoulders' and  how to regain this advantage is thru how they deploy and how they use and how they hamper each others network.

I don't think network centric warfare was designed with the intention to give any military an "advantage" over non-equipped foes, given so much of it is actually created from off the shelf equipment and what have you not.

I see it more as a progression of things due to technology that has matured, however yes it would be right to say that a network centric force has significant advantages over a old-style force, and how you play your cards against a similar enemy will determine if you can retain that advantage.

This show Oz think no one will knock on her door.

And who is going to knock on her door?

Your mysterous, "anyday", "anytime" redland forces?

Basically any hostile airforce trying to knock on their door will have to make a very long trip across an ocean, all the time under JORN and basically being forced to engage them at the very limit of their endurance while the Aussies have home ground advantage.

Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:

understand...

but with equal network centric capable aggressor, is the advantage still there ?

All these while, the showcase of network centric warfare is on inferior aggressor.

What if my aggressor can gather info, decide as fast as me ?

I wont have that advantage already.

Since when was it a free lunch to victory?

It's like saying spies offer our country an advantage in intelligence, but no point because other countries have spies can it'll just cancel out. But that hardly means you give up entirely on developing your own intelligence capacity.

The question is, in modern war can we afford to do without it?

Network centric warfare is just another step into the age old process of gathering information about the battlefield and making decisions better and faster then your enemy, it does not by any measure mean that just because you have it you'll have that advantage.

Obviously it would be silly for any military not to develop their abilities in this area and the military with the best ability in this area will have the upper hand. The way I see it, it's not just having the ability to go network centric, but how well you can spread and deploy your network to make sense of your battlespace and how well you can prevent your enemy from doing the same or to hamper him from doing it. Just because your enemy (or you) has the ability to go network centric does not mean that deploying that network is a given.

That would then be a matter of how you play your cards, but there's no denying that the battle quite obviously belongs to the force that can make quicker and better decisions.

even a recoiless rifle penetrated the Abrams and caused it to be set on fire

That was because the RR was fired into the rear compartment, where the armour on any MBT is thin. Actually an RR is overkill, even a LAW can seriously hurt most MBTs from the rear.

MBTs carry their heaviest armor on the front, where the threat is heaviest. To armour every side of the tank as heavily as the front would mean the tank will be too heavy to move.

The idea of armour is not to be totally immune to everything, but to be able to protect from a reasonable amount of threats so that the unit can carry out it's mission. No matter how well you built something, all somebody needs to do is to pack in more explosives in an IED to blow it up. In terms of protection, you probably don't want to be in anything else other then an MBT or a MRAP.

Network Centric Warfare, sacrificing protection with greater awareness has only proved effective against poorly equipped aggressor

and not equal and capable aggressor...

Erm wrong, Network Centric Warfare is not about sacrificing protection for greater awareness.

The push towards lighter units by the US, in their thinking, is to take full advantage of the SA that Network Centric Warfare provides in terms of having the mobility in order to exploit the knowledge.

However Network Centric Warfare can also be used for conventionally equipped forces.

I don't see how it can't be effective, if you can gather information and make sense of it faster then an agressor that is equal to you in everything but that aspect, you are bound to have a significant advantage over him in terms of being able to get within his decision-making loop.

Heavy armor will be phased out soon enough in the future as more modern ATGMs, Sabot rounds , shoulder-fired RPGs and IEDs are deployed , We do not need to incur further loss of life should these penetrate the armor and kill the crew operating that tank and incurring monetary losses(A Abrams M1A1 costs about USD $2.5m-4.5m)

And what exactly in your opinion is going to face those modern ATGMs, Sabot rounds , shoulder-fired RPGs and IEDs? They will still kill any lesser manned ground unit far easier and you'll still incur loss of life, as it stands the MBT is still the most protected thing on the ground. As long as troops are on the line and exposed to these weapons, there is no perfect solution.

Additionally, MBTs do not fight alone, they can be used to support infantry and are in turn supported by infantry and other units. This is especially true in network centric warfare. It's not such a simple issue of weapon versus weapon, how you play your cards is important as well.

At the end of the day I am not sure if the tank as we know it will survive, but the concept of it almost certainly will. There is always be a need for a mobile, protected space carrying a weapons system.

If we want to speculate on the future, I envision that barring breakthroughs in materials technology like the ability to manufacture carbon nanotubes for armour, eventually the emphasis on the tank of the future will be not to take hits, but rather to hide and not be hit in the first place. Also, active protection systems will start to become more popular and become the armour of the future. Mobility will be a factor.

Instead of engaging the enemy with direct fire, the tank of the future might rely on missiles instead, using network centric warfare to find targets that are out of its personal LOS, allowing it to engage targets that it cannot see. However these systems will be expensive so the good old gun will still probably see use, though they might be options for smart shells.

Also, we must consider the possibility of unmanned tanks, ie. souped up UGVs starting to take up roles alongside manned units. UGVs will be lighter, smaller, cheaper and easier to protect given they do not carry a crew and their applications will have potential.

MBT or not, the concept of the tank, which is the mobile, protected space carrying a weapons system will probably be around in warfare... in fact these concepts have long existed before the invention of the tank with ancient battering rams or siege towers.

LOL

Maybe you would like to try some of the M1A4 tanks in John Ringo's Posleen Wars universe, a variant of the Abrams upgraded to fight an invading alien horde that is intent on eating all the humans in the galaxy...

Well it's written by an American so try to take all the USA is best rah-rah with a pinch of salt:

The Abrams Main Battle Tank was originally designed for the sole purpose of killing other tanks, almost assuredly Soviet and ex-Soviet designs. It had advanced composite armor, a quick-firing, stabilized 120mm main gun, sophisticated targeting systems, nuclear, biological and chemical protection and an amazing turn of speed supplied by its Lycomings jet-turbine engine. Furthermore, on battlefields across the globe, it had proven itself the finest machine in the world for that task, able to both out-fight and outmaneuver any other tank on the planet, seventy plus tons of fast-rolling incredibly deadly meanness. But with the coming of the Posleen, changes in design were inevitable; the Posleen didn't really have anything worth hitting with a 120mm depleted uranium dart. Or, if they did, it was too large to care about being scratched by an Abrams.

However, the base tank was the finest piece of war machinery ever designed and it seemed a shame to simply throw all that engineering away. At first, when they turned out to be highly vulnerable to plasma and even 3mm railgun fire, the tanks seemed doomed. But technology came to their aid in the form of new, and lighter, armor materials. The M-1A4's turret and primary frontal armor was a layer of battle-steel, room-temperature superconductor, nano-tube composite and synthetic sapphire threading. The combination meant that frontally it could shed off the fire of anything but a direct and unlucky HVM hit.

From the side it was not so well armored but if the Posleen were on your flank you were screwing up anyway.

To reduce the possibility of being flanked, and to deal with the main problem of the Posleen, the fact that there were just way too many of them, the gunnery of the tanks was modified. On either side of the turret "add-on" weapons were installed. These were 25mm cannons like the main gun of a Bradley, but where a Bradley had one gun the Abrams were mounted with first two, one on either side, then four and finally eight. The .50 caliber TC gun was replaced with a 7.62 Gatling gun capable of hurling 8000 rounds a minute and the "coaxial" 7.62 machine gun mounted alongside the main gun was switched out for another. Even excepting their main gun, the "A4" Abrams could hurl an amazing mass of lead.

The main gun, however, remained a problem. It seemed a shame to pull the weapon, since it was about as good as it got from a cannon perspective. Finally, it was decided to leave the cannon in place and simply change the ammo mix. The ammo bin still carried a few "silver bullets" for old time's sake, but the majority of the rounds stored in an A4 were canister.

Unlike the complex depleted uranium or High Explosive Anti-Tank rounds, canister was simplicity in itself; in effect it was a giant shotgun shell. Each round held 2000 flechettes packed in ahead of a powerful firing charge.

I think M4s with scopes are only issued to front line combat soldiers. Ordinary soldiers still get M16s & not M4s -   someone please confirm.    

I don't know who gave anybody the idea that the US military only uses M4s across the board when most of the ordinary grunts use the M16. But they are basically the same thing save for the fact that M16 shoots further and hits harder.

As for scopes, it depends on where you are, but the idea is to get the good stuff to the front lines.

Can someone advice on the basic M4 issued to the ordinary soldiers of US - i don't think they come with any scope even.

Depends on their unit, but the push is towards modular mounting systems. The ordinary US Marine certainly gets far better sights then the ordinary SAF soldier gets with the SAR-21.

The USMC uses the M16A4, which is a modular system as well, and the US Army using that for some of it's units as well.

Here are examples of what the ordinary US troops in Iraq are using: