Another I hate Australia thread

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  19 Jun 08, 22:05

  Not to mention an Australian has already answered your question:

  Hi, my first post here. This is a v interesting thread. I'm from Oz and I think I can clear up some issues.

  1. Lionnoisy is an idiot who's probably still in his teens and doesn't know anything military about from video games and the news. I'm impressed with SG Tyrannosaur's level of knowledge.

  2. The Collins Class SSK is noisy and has heaps of problems. In Oz, we prefer that the rest of the world thinks this is the case. ;) It gives us the element of surprise. Besides this point, it is the largest SSK in the world at over 3000 tons displacement with the same combat system as the Virginia SSN. It is armed with ADCAPS and is fitted for special forces. There is discussion of fitting Tomahawk capability.

  3. A smart country only spends what is neccessary for effective defence and not a penny more. A lot of teenage boys are obsessed with large military forces when clearly the country doesn't need it. For example Singapore doesn't need an aircraft carrier.

  4. Taking into account point 3, you can't compare SG's navy to Aust's navy. We're a blue water navy because we have to be with so much ocean. SG is a green or brown water navy because it only has to defend itself from Malaysia and Indonesia. There is no open ocean to consider.

  5. Lionnoisy claims that Australia has only 10 ships defending its borders. Have you heard of JORN? With JORN we don't need to have ships physically there for defence. We have electronic "eyes" scanning our borders all the way up to Singapore Harbour and possibly to Hong Kong.

  6. Apart from SE Asia, the corvette platform is a redundant platform. Outside SE Asia's islands, the corvette is ineffective. Australia chooses to have large ships instead of smaller ones like SG, even though SG may have a larger number of ships.

  7. Australia's future navy is looking very good and Lionnoisy should be aware of this since even the news is reporting it.

  2 LHD @ 27000 tons, 1 RoRo ship ( to be ordered by 2010), 3+1 Aegis Destroyers @ 6250 tons, 8 Anzac Frigates @ 3600 tons, 6 Minehunters, 6 Collins Class Subs, 14 Armidale Patrol Boats.

  SG has 6 Formidables? @ 3200 tons. Please lionnoisy, get a brain, SG navy more than kicks Malaysia's, but Australia is a Top 10-15 Navy.

  I think what is interesting is that you seem to think reusing old arguments will work just because you haven't used them for a while.

   

• gaoxingdcf07

  20 Jun 08, 17:43

  SG doesn't really need aircraft carriers anyway ~~ Like SingaporeTyrannosaur have said we have 'eyes' scanning our borders 24/7 so Police Coast Guards are pretty much sufficent to patrol our coastline with some MGBs. Aircraft carriers are a big ships,i haven personnelly saw it with my own eyes when i was still in services,they cannot even fit into the inner harbour,where our frigates and LSTs that we consider big,have difficulties moving in when the harbour is full..  

• tankee1981

  22 Jun 08, 15:47

  Aircraft carriers also needs alot of manpower and resources to maintain even if it is a small one like what the RN is currently using. Manpower is something which we cannot afford as activating NSmen for Carrier ops will not be ideal. Carrier Ops requires long and hard training.

  We also do not have any where to sail our carrier to. A carrier is consider to be offensive, our neighbours certainly won't want this ship any where near them. There will also be political problems as our neighbours will suspect our intentions. Carriers are certainly not ideal for patrolling SLOC. We will also need escort vessels to protect the carrier.

  Thus it will be very unrealistic to have a carrier in RSN, at least for the next 20 years.

• gaoxingdcf07

  24 Jun 08, 17:08

  Like tankee buddy had said ~~ The manpower for the carrier is around 1/2 of the RSN orbat chart,that include storemen,drivers and ASA.. No use for a aircraft carrier anyway.. So lionnoisy please get ur facts rite and stop cutting and paste the article from the aussies' defence page`~

• Joe Black

  24 Jun 08, 18:28

  By the way guys, I've juste borrowed a DVD documentary about RAN submarine crew called "Submariners". It was shot onboard HMAS Rankin (a Collin class sub). Man, I must tell you, the Collin class is definitely impressive.

  The crew is definitely highly trained, and they showed us how the got one of the Burk class DDG in the exercise. The documentary followed the deployment of HMAS Rankin to the RIMPAC 2004 exercise.

  I am definitely very impressed!

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  24 Jun 08, 23:28

  The crew is definitely highly trained, and they showed us how the got one of the Burk class DDG in the exercise. The documentary followed the deployment of HMAS Rankin to the RIMPAC 2004 exercise.

  Getting an Arleigh Burke is no mean feat, given the USN considers it one of it's most capable surface platforms. No surprise they are looking to work with the aussies on SSK warfare.

• pigsticker

  24 Jun 08, 23:38

  guys, i think what lionnoisy was trying to say was a carrier filled with UAVs where we can launch them and hit the enemy ships ...

• Shotgun

  25 Jun 08, 00:52

  I've yet to see a UCAV that can carry a HARPOON or a TASM. How to kill ships?
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  25 Jun 08, 03:37

  Originally posted by Shotgun:

  I’ve yet to see a UCAV that can carry a HARPOON or a TASM. How to kill ships?

  
  lionnosy means by crashing our UAVs into them.

  If you recall, he advocated the idea of crashing a very expensive FANTAIL UAV into targets like machine gun nests as well as using it's 400 gram puny payload to carry a single cluster munition, which he assumes is an efficent way of taking out MBTs.

  But given he advocates the use of 40mm grenade launchers at extreme range as an anti-armour defence option... I am not too surprised.

• Joe Black

  25 Jun 08, 18:20

  Yeah, getting a Burke class DDG on the attack periscope sight was a feat.  Too bad the USN cheated during RIMPAC 2004. They didn't want a repeat of the previous RIMPAC where the RAN HMAS Sheean penetrated their battle group and "sunk" their amphbious assult ship USS Tarawa and LSD USS Rushmore.  However, HMAS Rankin did get close to USS JC Stennis aircraft carrier.

   

   

• Shotgun

  25 Jun 08, 20:59

  Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

  
  lionnosy means by crashing our UAVs into them.

  If you recall, he advocated the idea of crashing a very expensive FANTAIL UAV into targets like machine gun nests as well as using it's 400 gram puny payload to carry a single cluster munition, which he assumes is an efficent way of taking out MBTs.

  But given he advocates the use of 40mm grenade launchers at extreme range as an anti-armour defence option... I am not too surprised.

  
  If I want a kamikaze UCAV.... I'd build a missile. =D

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  25 Jun 08, 22:46

  Well we tried telling him that, but he kept on going on about how FANTAIL could carry one 400 gram submunition and how it was the smallest UAV around (which sadly wasn't true).

• lionnoisy

  4 Jul 08, 09:37

   

  Andrew Davies of Australian Strategic Policy Institute

  confirmes there are only 12 major surface combatants in Oz.

  So i am very generous to say that there are 10 defending Oz

  in any day.

  http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=176&pubtype=6

  Strategic Insight 42 - Asian military trends and their implications for Australia

  Thursday, 3 July 2008

  page 7

  Country --------------Australia
  Regular Force
  Reserve Force
  Tanks1
  Other Armoured
  Vehicles2
  Combat Capable
  Aircraft3
  Helicopters
  Major Surface
  Combatants4---------12
  Patrol and Coastal
  Combatants-----------14
  Submarines5----------6
  Amphibious6----------3

  Notes:

  4. Includes corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers.
  5. Includes nuclear and conventional submarines.
  6. Amphibious ship categories, including: tank landing ship, medium landing ship, heavy landing ship, amphibious
  landing platform, landing ship logistic and helicopter, landing ship dock, assault landing ship and landing ship
  helicopter and dock.

  But if u insist include Patrol Boat etc,i have no objection.

  Just like if u say a Comfort Taxi can race with a F1.I also say ok.

  pl read further that Oz sub in ''poor shape''.Pl

  again take note the learned

  Andrew Davies of Australian Strategic Policy Institute

  said this.I assume he is an Oz.Not me.Ha ha.

  How poor is poor?U ask him lah.

  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23966344-31477,00.html

  Call to submerge our naval force

  Patrick Walters | July 04, 2008

  But Australia did not have such a clear-cut advantage in naval power and the RAN had an "Achilles heel" under water.

  The navy's anti-submarine warfare capability was in poor shape, which, when faced with the proliferation of submarines in the region, could "seriously affect the freedom of action of the RAN's surface fleet".

  

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  4 Jul 08, 15:18

  The only thing you seem to be generous is in posting new posts without replying to anything that was raised to rebutt your previous points.

  You are contradicting yourself, another example of you not doing your homework beyond quoting media articles if you quote this:

  The navy's anti-submarine warfare capability was in poor shape, which, when faced with the proliferation of submarines in the region, could "seriously affect the freedom of action of the RAN's surface fleet".

  What submarine force in the region can match the RAN submarine fleet? So far only the RSN can do so, and even we are far away.

  Also all things considered, even if the Collins was in poor shape, it still OUTCLASSES any submarine force in the area.

  More importantly, other submarines, even ours, in the region have problems operating in deep ocean water which is where the Australians can.

  So even if there's a proliferation of submarines, they can't reach the Australian coastline, the real threat is if the Australians want to move their navy OUT to reach others in offence, not defence.

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  4 Jul 08, 15:23

  But if u insist include Patrol Boat etc,i have no objection.

  Just like if u say a Comfort Taxi can race with a F1.I also say ok.

  Then why are you insisting our 600 ton Corvettes are a match for their multi-thousand tons surfarface combatants?

  Also I noted when you counted the RSN's force, you included the puny and outdated MGBs in your calculation.

  All the major surface combatants of the RAN are heavyweight fighting ships, not to mentioned they have planned a future surface combatant programme.

  You are the one who saying a Comfort Taxi can race with an F1.

  Also you haven't addressed the issue of which force in the region can possibly challange the RAN, can you name one force? 

  So what are you talking about except coming up with imaginary senariaos that Australia will suddenly be attacked and cannot defend itself?

  Also how come you never include JORN in your arguments? How can any surface force sneak up on the RAN given JORN is capable of detecting even our Formidibles?

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  4 Jul 08, 15:27

  I am not surprised if you do not dare to answer and only post again after you find another media article.

  Say, how come you are not touching the 40mm thread?

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  4 Jul 08, 15:31

  Since you like media articles:

  AdelaideNow: Collins Class a Triumph

  DEREK WOOLNER

  May 12, 2008 12:15am

  PEOPLE in the street and some sections of the media dismiss the navy's Adelaide-built Collins Class submarines as monumental duds.

  In stark contrast, most insiders we interviewed, as the authors of the history of the project, consider them a naval engineering triumph and a monument of Australian nation-building.

  From its inception in 1978 the project was seldom far from controversy and it was mercilessly attacked by the media and the Howard government for a myriad of technical failings – real, exaggerated and imagined.

  It is widely believed to have been a financial disaster, yet it is one of the few military purchases where the original budget was still relevant at the end of the project.

  Further, Australian industry responded successfully to the challenge of building submarines in this country, an achievement widely believed to be beyond Australian capabilities and one in which many other countries have failed disastrously.

  During the 1970s the Australian Navy operated British-built Oberon diesel-electric submarines on some of the most secret intelligence-gathering missions of the ColdWar.

  Nuclear submarines lacked the stealth for these covert operations, and the U.S. Navy encouraged Australian military planners and politicians to maintain the long-range intelligence-gathering capability in the Oberons' successor vessels.

  At the same time the Australian submariners developed convincing arguments that submarines were the most effective vessels for use in long-range offensive operations in enemy waters.

  Thus was born the desire to build the most modern long-range conventional submarine in the world.

  Modernity would be attained through a then-revolutionary idea: Instead of taking whatever options for a combat system came with the design, the navy would specify the combat system which best met its needs and this would be developed separately from the submarine.

  Further, following intense debate, it was decided to build the submarines in Adelaide as a focus for industrial regeneration and to provide better long-term maintenance and support than was usually received from overseas shipyards.

  These factors determined the nature of the Collins project. To U.S. submariner Admiral Phil Davis, the project was a huge undertaking, a "monumental feat".

  "There is really nothing in the history of submarine construction that has been done like that," he said of the transformation of a small Swedish submarine into a "radical new design", built 18,000km from the designer's office "in a new yard with a new workforce".

  Amazingly, the project's objectives were largely delivered. Today, the Australian Navy operates sophisticated long-range submarines.

  Peter Sinclair, the first skipper of HMAS Collins, who has wide experience with other conventional submarines, believes the Collins is more capable than any conventional submarine at sea, with a turning circle second to none and "super quiet at slow speed, quieter than anything else in the world".

  Few thought that Australia's recession-ravaged industries of the early 1980s could build a submarine. Yet, with the introduction of modern techniques that accompanied the project, over 70 per cent of its value was produced in Australia by hundreds of subcontractors who embraced the exacting defence quality standards. The welding standards remain some of the best achieved in the world.

  THE project suffered its share of problems but the only surprise, given the ambition of the project, was that they were not better anticipated.

  With problems overcome through some remarkable defence science and assistance from the U.S., the submarines were delivered close to budget and an average of 26 months behind schedule.

  This is one of the shortest delays with any military purchase and remarkable for the largest systems integration project in Australian history.

  The persisting failure has been the combat system, a testament to both the inadequacies of some of the world's major arms corporations and the unchecked ambition of Australian submariners.

  Even this disaster was salvaged by the expertise and ingenuity of Australia's project engineers and defence scientists, cobbling together a system to provide an acceptable performance.

  Derek Woolner is an expert on defence procurement projects, and is Visiting Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. He is co-author, with Peter Yule, of The Collins Class Submarine Story – Steel, Spies and Spin.

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  4 Jul 08, 15:34

  The Australian navy has six Collins Class submarines, designed by the Swedish company Kockums, and built by the Australian Submarine Corporation at Adelaide between 1989 and 2003. The construction of the Collins class submarines was Australia's largest and most controversial military purchase. The submarine project was subjected to an unprecedented level of media scrutiny and criticism, became highly politicised and on several occasions faced the prospect of being abandoned.

   

  The general public perception of the submarine project is that it was a hugely expensive failure and that the submarines are noisy 'dud subs'. While I am far from being an apologist for the navy, it is amazing how wrong this perception is. The submarines were indeed expensive - all modern weapons are expensive - but the submarine project was one of Australia's few modern military purchases in which the initial budget was still relevant at the end of the project. The submarines were a financial success.

   

  The Collins submarines had technical problems - all new and complex machinery has teething problems - but the general belief that they are 'noisy as a rock concert' is wrong. The reality is that they are probably the second-quietest submarines in the world, with the only quieter ones being the Swedish Gotland class, Kockums' next design after the Collins class. The minor noise problems of the early submarines, as with the other mechanical issues, have long since been solved.

   

  However, the submarines suffered from one major defect which the media and the public never really picked up on. The combat system - that is the computer systems in the submarine used to find enemies and fire torpedoes or missiles at them - has been by far the largest problem for the Collins class submarines. The earlier Oberon class submarines had a largely Australian-built combat system which was one of the best in the world. When our submariners began planning the combat system for the new submarines, they naturally wanted an even better one. However, what they asked for proved to be too hard to build and the combat system never worked properly - in fact it was never finished - and it was abandoned in 2000.

   

  The navy then ran a competition to select the best available combat system already in operation in foreign submarines - a competition won easily by a European electronics company. However, the result was overturned by the coalition government, which insisted that our submarines had to have an American combat system. As the Americans did not have a combat system suitable for non-nuclear submarines, the consequence was that it was not until 2007 that our submarines began to be fitted with a combat system of the standard hoped for when the submarines were designed back in the 1980s.

   

  The media and the public (and even to a surprising extent, the navy) never understood the sheer scale, complexity and risk of the submarine project. Building submarines is hard and getting harder - far harder than building aeroplanes, the closest analogy is perhaps with space ships. To build a hull to withstand extreme water pressures has always been demanding but the increasing complexities of electronics and computer systems make modern submarines among the greatest of engineering challenges. Even countries with long histories of submarine construction often have problems, while countries attempting to build submarines for the first time regularly experience disasters. Dilapidated or abandoned shipyards from Buenos Aires to Bombay, littered with the relics of failed submarine projects testify to the magnitude of the challenges.

   

  The submarine project was taken up with great enthusiasm by the Hawke government in the 1980s as a major nation building endevour to revitalise Australian manufacturing. Consequently the submarines were built in Australia rather than overseas and over 70% of the money spent on the submarines was spent in Australia - a far higher proportion than with most military purchases. The end result of the project is a squadron of submarines that are among the best conventional submarines in any navy in the world and rank with the F111s as Australia's most potent weapons. The Collins Class submarines were an extraordinary engineering achievement and it is testimony to the power of politics and the popular press (lionnoisy) that they are regarded as a disaster.

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  4 Jul 08, 15:37

  Australia leads the way in Submarine development, not STK!

  The Future of Submarines Is Down Under

  The Collins class submarine replacement is getting a lot of attention. In case you are curious why the topic has suddenly came up in the media, it has little to do with any new movement and everything to do with politicians talking about it. These are the only details that matter on the subject to date.
  

  New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has ordered planning to begin on the next generation of submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's Collins-class fleet with the aim of gaining "first pass" approval for the design phase from cabinet's National Security Committee in 2011.
  
  The 17-year project will be the largest, longest and most expensive defence acquisition since Federation, potentially costing up to $25 billion.

  
  Everything else is speculation, mostly regarding what the new platform will be, hell we've done a bit of our own. In reality though, if you are looking towards an existing design as a contender for the Collins replacement, you are probably looking in the wrong place.
  
  The Collins class had a tough start, was given a bad reputation, and to this day is one of the least understood weapons of war taxpayers in Australia probably do recognize by name. Perception drives the reality of the media, and in general the media misses the mark today when it talks about the Collins class submarines.
  
  The truth is, the Collins class submarine is one of the best submarines in the world, anywhere. Only Japan and the United States are realistically contenders in a match game debate, it really is that good. Any American submariner who has served on a Seawolf or Virginia class submarine would feel comfortable in a Collins, the same tech exists. In fact, the same strike packages exist, the same mission profiles exist, and in many ways they handle the same roles for their respective services. The only real difference is the propulsion system and the size.
  
  The Collins class may not be nuclear, but it is a fleet submarine. We have recently learned thanks to released documents that if they were allowed, Australian submariners could tell more than a few stories of cold war operations deep into Russian waters in the Pacific, and it is a good bet if they did it with older submarine platforms, they will conduct the same mission profiles with the Collin class, and the Collins class replacement.
  
  There is a lot of speculation regarding what the requirements of the Collins class replacement will be. From my discussions with people who do know, this is all we actually know..., it will not be like anything on the market today outside the US, and when 2011 comes, we will only hear the generic details. We can only count on three specific requirements leading the design focus: Fuel cell technology, high energy requirements, and it will operate as an underwater mothership for both manned and unmanned deployable systems. There is currently nothing in the market that meets those requirements outside of the US, and sense it is unlikely Australia will go nuclear with its submarines, it means there is nothing in the market designed today likely to be the Collins submarine replacement.
  
  Australia will introduce something new, likely to only be influenced by Japanese and American concepts and technologies. Of all the underwater programs under development today, if you are looking for the next 'game changer' in underwater warfare, the Collins class submarine replacement program is the program to keep your eye on.

• Asian Aussie

  6 Jul 08, 14:57

  The Collins Class Sub is the best diesel sub in the world. No doubt about it. Idiots can continue to underestimate it at their own peril. Australia's major fleet combatants are not charged with defending Australia's coastline day to day. That job is left to the Armidale class patrol boats which are smaller and more cost effective to run.

  I've already mentioned JORN which has the ability to detect stealth planes. How? I'm not going to explain it cos I love my country and there's no point in saying too much.

  In addition to JORN and the patrol boats, Australia also has 12 AP-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. No other country in SE Asia has these babies, Australia keeps 2 in Malaysia to go around and spy on everyone.

• 16/f/lonely

  6 Jul 08, 15:46

  Originally posted by Asian Aussie:

  The Collins Class Sub is the best diesel sub in the world. No doubt about it. Idiots can continue to underestimate it at their own peril. Australia's major fleet combatants are not charged with defending Australia's coastline day to day. That job is left to the Armidale class patrol boats which are smaller and more cost effective to run.

  I've already mentioned JORN which has the ability to detect stealth planes. How? I'm not going to explain it cos I love my country and there's no point in saying too much.

  In addition to JORN and the patrol boats, Australia also has 12 AP-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. No other country in SE Asia has these babies, Australia keeps 2 in Malaysia to go around and spy on everyone.

  

  Spy??

• lionnoisy

  6 Sep 08, 12:52

  Oz navy is in serious short of hands,expecially subs!!

  The sub situation is decribed by Oz Navy chief engineer

  CommodorePeter Marshall as ''perilous''!!

  Good news to SG sub crews----good chance migrate to oz!

  ADF recruit Oz PR also.

  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24302147-601,00.html

   

  Navy told to stop whining, get tough

  Cameron Stewart | September 06, 2008

  "The focus of this letter to the community (of naval engineers) is unashamedly about leadership," he wrote in a navy minute dated April 18 and obtained by The Weekend Australian.

  "I do not need to tell you how bad our engineering manning issues are -- suffice to say that most of our categories are categorised as critical with the submarine categories assessed as perilous.

• lionnoisy

  6 Sep 08, 12:56

  Lack of man power was cited as  the reason to scrap the

  $150m Boeing UAV deal

  I think currently there is no made in oz UAV!!

  Speaking at the National Press Club, Mr Combet cited a lack of skilled workers as one factor behind non-performing contracts causing a $1 billion spending shortfall by Defence last year.

  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24296543-31477,00.html

  Good news to ST Eng people think to migrate to Oz!!

• sgstars

  6 Sep 08, 23:29

  this will be my one and only post here i think. ive been reading through lionnoisy's posts. quite funny. light entertainment.

  is he trying hard to spoof everything the aussies have ?

   

  i m not going to debate or counter his arguments. i m sure he's quite well beyond reproach so i m just going to hang this sign somewhere around here

   

  

   

   

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  8 Sep 08, 00:35

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

  

  In any case: