Another I hate Australia thread
-
Answer lionnoisy and don't avoid the topic.
Do you think your dishonest and antisocial behaviour in this forums against your own countrymen as well as our foreign friends have honoured the intergity and reputation of our nation?
Do you think the hard work, blood, sweat and tears that our forefathers have spent to build up this nation deserves your style of talking about it? A style the dishonors their memory and achievements by trying to twist it to fit a irrational warped nationalistic worldview that has caused many evils in this world.
No lionnoisy, Australia is not our idol.
But it seems you have made Singapore your idol, and in doing so actually dishonored and disgraced the very nation you think you are protecting.
Is it not ironic? You want to make Singapore look good but make it look worse instead. It is the rational Singaporeans in here who give fair play to all sides and nations in here that are honouring what our country stands for.
So tell me, lionnoisy, who have been the true Singaporeans in here?
Not you.
-
Well.My poor knowledge cant discuss with u experts here.
Israel,a country in war for few decades,also choses this platform.
So,they also think this can prorect their air.
There is a good chance that SG will pick PHALCON,(3)
Then how come Israel use Merkava we never follow them and buy? Instead buy battle-untested Leopard 2?
How them they use Tavor you say it's lously and not as good as our SAR-21?
Selective reasoning? When Singapore uses a system Isreal uses then Israel is suddenly a battle-hardened nation "in war for few decades" that is our "reference customer" and when they use something different or better it's suddenly a mistake by the IDF?
Man, you are a JOKE.
LOL.
Please answer, or you don't dare?
-
The Commonwealth of Australia placed a contract on Boeing in December 2000 for the development and supply of the 737 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) programme, Project Wedgetail.
"Project Wedgetail is the 737 AEW&C airborne early warning and control programme."Boeing is the prime contractor for the program and team partners include Northrop Grumman's Electronics Sensors and Systems, Boeing Australia Limited and BAE Systems Australia.
The initial contract was for four AEW&C systems with options for up to three additional systems. The contract also provides a mission support segment and the associated ground based support segments for flight and mission crew training. In May 2004, Australia exercised options to purchase an additional two aircraft.
Boeing Australia is responsible for providing systems engineering and leading the product support teams. BAE Systems Australia is to supply the electronic support measures and the electronic warfare self-protection systems. Quantas Airways has been awarded the contract for maintenance of the aircraft. The first two aircraft will be completed by Boeing in the USA; the remainder will be modified in Australia.
The first airframe for modification was rolled out in December 2002, ready for modification and installation of the radar and systems. First flight of the aircraft with the radar and mission systems took place at the Boeing Field in Seattle in May 2004. Performance and flight handling tests were completed in July 2005. The first aircraft for modification in Australia arrived in January 2006.
Delivery of the first two aircraft, capable of peacekeeping and training roles to the Australian Air Force is planned for July 2009. These aircraft will then be upgraded to full mission capable status by January 2010. The remaining four aircraft will be delivered, fully mission capable, in early 2010. It is expected that the first aircraft will enter service with the Royal Australian Air Force's new Number 2 Squadron, with headquarters at Williamstown Air Base, by the end of 2010.
In May 2002, the Turkish government signed a contract with Boeing for four 737 AEW&C systems with options on a further two. The sale received US Government approval in September 2003. Boeing is modifying the first and Tusas Aerospace Industries (TAI) of Ankara the other three. The first aircraft for local modification arrived in March 2006.
Deliveries of the system, to be known as Peace Eagle, are expected by 2010. The first flight of the Peace Eagle was in September 2007.
In August 2006, the 737 AEW&C was selected as 'sole candidate' for South Korea's E-X requirement for four surveillance aircraft to be delivered by 2012. The contract was awarded to Boeing in November 2006.
Boeing 737-700 aircraft
The aircraft selected for the Wedgetail is the Boeing 737-700 Increased Gross Weight variant (IGW), based on the airframe of the Boeing Business Jet. The aircraft is flown by two flight crew with between six and ten mission crew.
"The aircraft has a flying boom receptacle."The aircraft operates at an altitude of 30, 000ft to 40,000ft with a maximum operating altitude of 41,000ft. The aircraft has state-of-the-art flight deck, avionics and navigation equipment. It has an extensive communications suite including three HF, eight VHF/UHF communications systems together with Link 4A and Link 11 systems.
Engines
The aircraft is equipped with two CFM International CFM56-7B24 engines each rated at 118kN. The aircraft's maximum take-off weight is 171,000lb (77,110kg). The range is 3,800 nautical miles and the time on station is estimated at more than nine hours.
The aircraft has a flying boom receptacle and a fixed probe providing dual in-flight refuelling capability
Mission avionics
The Advanced Systems Division of BAE Systems North America is to supply major elements of the aircraft's mission avionics, including cockpit tactical mission displays, command and control consoles and mission computers. There are six multi-role / multi-purpose mission consoles with ultra-high resolution Flat Panel Tactical Displays installed in the aircraft. Production of the equipment is scheduled to be carried out at BAE's Advanced Systems Greenlawn facility.
The computers use advanced signal processing algorithms to analyse, categorise and prioritise the data. The data is presented to the mission crew on an integrated situation display on the system console. The open system architecture ensures that the systems can be upgraded and extended. The AEW&C Wedgetail aircraft is compatible and interoperable with the E-3 and 767 AWACS Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft.
The AEW&C Peace Eagle aircraft for Turkey are being fitted with EADS Defence Electronics multi-sensor integration software.
"Deliveries of the modified system, to be known as Peace Eagle, are expected by 2010."Radar
The MESA Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array radar is being supplied by Northrop Grumman Electronic Sensors and Systems Division, based in Baltimore. Tenix Defence Systems of Adelaide, Australia, is supplying some components and modules for the radar. MESA provides 360° coverage and a range of over 200nm.
The radar has a system track capability of 3,000 targets and can track air and sea targets simultaneously.
The system's variable track update rates and dedicated tracking modes allow the operator to track allied and hostile high performance aircraft while continuously scanning the area of operations.
The electronically scanned array features an assembly of transmit and receive modules, operating at L-band and sharing three apertures to provide the 360° coverage. The radar system provides a high level of operational capability because the system is dynamically structured to match the changing mission requirements. When an operator requires a long range view of a selected sector of the operational area, then the relevant system modes can be selected to initiate the search of that sector at more than twice the nominal uniform surveillance range.
An integrated Identification Friend or Foe system (IFF) is combined with the primary radar and uses the same aperture as the primary radar, which avoids target correlation problems. The IFF system has an operational range of over 300nm.
The distinctive 'Top Hat' radome provides a low aerodynamic drag profile while meeting the requirement for fore and aft coverage. Two large strakes are fitted on the underside at the rear section of the fuselage. The strakes provide an aerodynamic balance to offset the effect of the MESA radome on the upper surface of the fuselage. In January 2005, flight tests of the aircraft were temporarily suspended while the upper surface of the radome was raised by about 100mm, to improve radar performance.
Countermeasures
BAE Systems Australia is responsible for the electronic warfare self protection and electronic support measures subsystems for the Wedgetail.
"MESA provides 360° coverage and a range of over 200nm."Elta Electronics of Israel has been selected to supply the advanced ESM/ELINT electronic support measures system.
The system provides 360º instantaneous surveillance and is similar to Elta ESM systems on RAAF P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft.
In February 2002, Northrop Grumman Electronic Sensors was awarded the contract to provide the AN/AAQ-24(V) Nemesis Directional Infrared Countemeasures (DIRCM) system, augmented with the Viper solid state multiband laser.
-
Actually I think SG made a wise choice in buying the Leopard 2 even though you say it's unproven. Germany is desperate to sell them at cheap prices and you get quite a good tank as well . Good value!
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
Actually I think SG made a wise choice in buying the Leopard 2 even though you say it's unproven. Germany is desperate to sell them at cheap prices and you get quite a good tank as well . Good value!
Correct, but lionnoisy has to justify why he, the "layman" who cannot argue with the "experts" can suddenly slam the Israelis for using the Tavor in one thread, and then support them as a battle-harderned reference customer for the SAF in this one because they happen to use the same thing we are using.
His own logic as always, is inconsistent.
Also lionnoisy, you post an article on 3G SAF air defence for WHAT when our 3G SAF is not ready yet. You make so much noise about how the aussie tankers are not here yet but dare to talk about a 3G network that is nowhere near ready to make your argument?
How lionnoisy, you contradict yourself leh...
-
Shhhhhh..............lionnoisy busy now.
-
hey sgtyrannousaur.
dont mind me asking. i really dont know much about AWACS/AEW-C platforms but i do observe two trends.
in the past its usually large and placed on medium sized civillian jets e.g the 707. until the development of the e2c hawkeye, there's a new sub-market in the small/business jet sized AWACS. like the saab 2000 erieye and the israeli phalcon.
but why is the platform being mounted on somewhat large aircraft like the 737 in more recent developments like wedgetail when it can be minaturised without substantial compromise in the abilities in a platform like the phalcon ?
wont putting it in a substantially bigger aircraft make it a much easier/bigger/fatter target ? i understand the need for room to incorporate more gear. but aside from that , what possible benefits could be derived from a bigger aircraft ?
personally i think the larger the size of the awacs, the bigger the liability.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: Answer lionnoisy and don't avoid the topic.
Do you think your dishonest and antisocial behaviour in this forums against your own countrymen as well as our foreign friends have honoured the intergity and reputation of our nation?
Do you think the hard work, blood, sweat and tears that our forefathers have spent to build up this nation deserves your style of talking about it? A style the dishonors their memory and achievements by trying to twist it to fit a irrational warped nationalistic worldview that has caused many evils in this world.
No lionnoisy, Australia is not our idol.
But it seems you have made Singapore your idol, and in doing so actually dishonored and disgraced the very nation you think you are protecting.
Is it not ironic? You want to make Singapore look good but make it look worse instead. It is the rational Singaporeans in here who give fair play to all sides and nations in here that are honouring what our country stands for.
So tell me, lionnoisy, who have been the true Singaporeans in here?
Not you.
Wedgetail----'' final operating capability in mid-2011''
Am i look like anti--Aussie?
Pl lah..
Due to my limited English,i dunt put forward long winded
theory or decriptions.I just repeat the official and reliable
facts and figures here.Did i just quote news from
Ausie medias with small circulations to support
my postings?I just quote reputeable medias.
What i said just do not conform you guys long established perception
on Aussie.
Some one said Wedgetail is much better than Gulfstream.
I remind him Israel also used Gulfstream.
Then,do we need to adopt every gears that Israel using?
Aussie sometimes pick up US military gears,sometimes Spain,etc.
Unfortunately,sometimes they cant work together very well.
Who's faults?Project Manager in First World country management.
But who was responsible in Aussie much delay or cancelled projects like
Collins
Seaspirits
Recent UAV.....
Wedgetail
SingaporeTyrannosaur said
The Commonwealth of Australia placed a contract on Boeing in December 2000 for the development and supply of the 737 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) programme, Project Wedgetail.
But---u have to wait until 2011.
DMO Annual Report 2006--2007
SECTION 2
CHAPTER 3
Outcome performance
(Australia) Defence is now planning to
establish an initial operating capability by mid-2010
and final operating capability in mid-2011
Did i say it is rubbish?No.What i said at this very moment,
Oz do not has AEW,oh No,it is a better version called:
AEW&C.(SG AEW E2C also can control,indirectly,Harpoon
to hit over--the--horizion targets,at this very moment--NOW!!)
Aussie will get the great protection of AEWC only on 2011,
if everythings go fine!!
Well.Like Chinese say,''Slow work produce fine product.''
It will take good 11 years from signing of contract
to '' final operating capability in mid-2011''.This is somethings
u guys in whatever Project Management shall look into the process.
This project is already behind schedule,like many other Aussie
projects.
One Aussie expert said aussie has a cutting edge on Asia
countries in 3 aspects(targets date)
But 2 out of 3 is still in the air,literally.
-----AEW&C('' final operating capability in mid-2011'')
-----mid air refuelling (''The in-service date—for two aircraft, qualification
.........................................tested and issued with military airworthiness
........................................certificates—remains as planned for late 2009'')
------EW(of course --classified)
source----same DMO report listed above
SingaporeTyrannosaur said
Also lionnoisy, you post an article on 3G SAF air defence for WHAT when our 3G SAF is not ready yet. You make so much noise about how the aussie tankers are not here yet but dare to talk about a 3G network that is nowhere near ready to make your argument?
There is no end for whole 3G SAF.u cant say it is complete.
i think 3G network for AA can work now to a certain degree.
Anyway,it is a matter of perception and reality.
Like u say or other say for Aussie,Who dares or can attack Oz?
i also can say:
Who dares or can attack Singapore?
nnn
-
With larger platforms you have the ability to carry larger radars, plus more analysing equipment of board. Therefore greater capability.
However with smaller craft, you get the advantage of lower initial cost and running costs.
As for 737s being larger targets? If you were using guns like in WW1 and 2 then yes, it would make a difference. With missiles these days, it makes no difference. In fact, larger planes have the ability to carry more sophisticated countermeasures.
Another little known advantage of the 737 Wedgetail is that it has one refuelling boom. So it could act as a supplementary air tanker as well while performing AWACS.
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
With larger platforms you have the ability to carry larger radars, plus more analysing equipment of board. Therefore greater capability.
However with smaller craft, you get the advantage of lower initial cost and running costs.
As for 737s being larger targets? If you were using guns like in WW1 and 2 then yes, it would make a difference. With missiles these days, it makes no difference. In fact, larger planes have the ability to carry more sophisticated countermeasures.
Another little known advantage of the 737 Wedgetail is that it has one refuelling boom. So it could act as a supplementary air tanker as well while performing AWACS.
dont think its a simple matter of size = capability.
its like chucking all your eggs in a basket. you can have 4 smaller awacs, accept a smaller performance tradeoff *(assumption as i dont know the full performance of the phalcon vis a vis the wedgetail) as you have lesser operators and room for equipment. but if you lose one, it dosent mean that much for you. on the other hand, the strategic significance and value of a single wedgetail is much higher. as it is with almost all high tech wizadry of the military these days, its the people that arent that replacable. not so much the hardware. hardware can be replaced with money but the years of experience and cost of training and handpicking these people cannot be bought back that easily.
737 has certain clear benefits for example, shared common parts with commercial aircraft, which would lead to lower lifetime operating costs.
buts its a helluva lot more vulnerable too. imagine the IR signature or the radar signature of it. it would be a ginormous one compared to a gulfstream based phalcon.
and its simply just isnt as nimble. nimble NOT in the sense that it can dodge missiles or outrun other jets but in the notion that it cannot shift away or react from a possible danger / shift in threat directions. look at the 737 turning radius and climb rate and operating limits compared to a smaller gulfstream and i think you'd get what i am trying to say.
-
buts its a helluva lot more vulnerable too. imagine the IR signature or the radar signature of it. it would be a ginormous one compared to a gulfstream based phalcon.
Moot point, the point of having an AWACS in the sky is to turn on its radar, and turning on such a powerful active radar means that your RCS will be pretty much irrelevant, everyone will pretty much know where you are if you are an AWACS.
-
Anyway,it is a matter of perception and reality.
Like u say or other say for Aussie,Who dares or can attack Oz?
i also can say:
Who dares or can attack Singapore?
nnn
Your perception and reality are wrong, as usual.
If push comes to shove plenty of nations will dare, and CAN attack Singapore, and WILL cause a lot of damage to it.
The malaysian military presents a challange for the SAF and can cause plenty of problems for us if we ever got down to the ring.
Also if the PRC ever goes bad, we are well in range of their airforce and cruise missile saturation attacks. Note that we are just a cluster of targets in a small island, no matter how many AA defence you put up some will get through. Both Gulf Wars are proof of the fact that saturation point air defence is no subsitute for proper Air Superiority.
The reverse is not true for Australia, safe the US, no military power in the world can reach with without expending a lot of effort due to their geopolitical location. Singapore's centralized location makes us practically fish in a barrel in terms of war waging if it ever comes down to it.
So lionnoisy you are wrong, plenty of nations CAN and WILL attack Singapore despite our SAF and can cause a lot of damage to us if need be.
So how you going to answer to this?
Or you don't dare?
-
It will take good 11 years from signing of contract
to '' final operating capability in mid-2011''.This is somethings
u guys in whatever Project Management shall look into the process.
This project is already behind schedule,like many other Aussie
projects.
You talk so much about Aussie projects.
How come I never hear any word from you about our much delayed improvements to the basic SAR-21 our soldiers need which have been delayed for 9 YEARS, to the point that if we go to war today our M203 gunner still does not have a common weapon with those using the SAR when it should have been corrected back in 1999?
And note that this is a BASIC need, the rifle is the most basic building block of our defence.
What about many of the promised capabilities of the 3G network that have been delayed or logjamed?
What about the 20 year long light tank project that came to nothing and is still stuck somewhere?
It seems that when Aussie projects logjam, you can talk alot, but things on your own doorstep you can't even handle?
Don't be a joke larh.
Can you answer...
Or once again you don't dare?
-
Why 9 year delay lionnoisy? You mean our STK is unable to sort out problems with such a basic thing like a 40mm grenade launcher for the SAR-21 despite having a 9 YEAR period to do it?
How come till now all we see of the SAR-21 M203 and advanced SAR-21 variants are only in wayang pictures and worse, in the hands of soldiers of other countries?
For a small nation which needs a top-notch defence is this acceptable?
-
“Now, back to what I had first said,” Cheah said.
“There are seven problems with the SAR-21 and its carbine form.
“The biggest one is that it cannot be used by left-handed people. It’s of a bullpup design, see, and if lefties use it, empty brass will fly into their face. There’s no conversion for left-handed people right now, so left handed people have to use their left eye to aim, and fire from their right shoulder. It’s highly unnatural…hell, I tried doing it once, and damned near sprained my neck. According to a left-handed soldier, it took him dozens of live-fire sessions before he could hit one target.
“The next is its so-called safety. It has two safety…buttons, I guess, a little like the Thompson M1921 and its successors…though it really should be called ‘Auto Ordnance’. Anyway, the safety device is at the rear end of the handguard. It can be engaged and disengaged just by pushing the protruding end. The second button is really a fire selection switch. However, the bloody thing’s in the stock, so you have to take your left hand off the handguard to switch between semiautomatic and full auto. In a firefight, the delay is long enough to get you killed, especially if you’re ambushed. I prefer the M16’s safety: it’s very instinctive and very fast.
“The third problem is with the sights. It uses a 1.5x sight that is pre-zeroed at the factory, and is one of the best sights I’ve ever seen. However, there are no good iron sights, just the pistol sights mounted on the 1.5x sight. I mean, for CQB, you can use the crude sights, but what if the optical sight breaks in open combat? Frankly speaking, you’ll be screwed. Also, in cold weather, the sights will fog up…and the same thing will happen if you fire sixty rounds through it at full auto. An assault rifle should be able to be used in all weather conditions, not just in some.
“The fourth is its laser sight. The bloody thing can be knocked out of true just by a hard blow to the handguard. Imagine what would happen in wartime.
“The fifth problem is that it’s incompatible with the M203 grenade launcher we’re using. Now, a modified version called the CIS 40 has to be built so that the SAR-21 can be fitted with a grenade launcher. Hell, a laser sight is incorporated into the CIS 40, since it blocks off the original one.
“The sixth problem is with the MMS. I mean, standard issue MMS carbines come with a CCTV (closed circuit television) fitted on its accessory rail, a HWS (Holographic Weapon Sight) on top of the CCTV, a pistol grip, a bipod, and another CCTV fitted on the accessory rail below the barrel…the handguard has to be removed, Ding, in case you’re wondering. It’s replaced with some sort of platform built of polymer and fitted with that rail. If necessary, the bipod can be replaced with a laser. Now, that makes three or four sights that you have to zero to point of aim. That’s bloody tedious. Plus, the CCTVs only work if they’re connected to a wearable computer, which is connected to some sort of monitor fitted to the soldier’s helmet. That adds weight, and reduces peripheral vision in CQB.
“The final problem follows. The gun is of a bullpup design, right? So is the MMS. Now, it’s touted to be able to fire around corners with the CCTV equipped, right? If the corner turns to the right, you’ve got a problem. The ejection port is facing you, and is in your face or chest. If you pull the trigger, that’s where the brass will land. And, in accordance with Murphy’s Law, the brass casing may land inside your clothing, and you’ll have to remove it before it burns a hole in either your or your uniform, or both. For conventional arms, the ejection port is facing your arm or the wall, so it’s not so bad.”
“Precisely!” Wong exclaimed from his seat. “That’s why we don’t use the SAR-21 or the MMS unless necessary. I’d rather stick with our M4A1s. Besides, you forgot one more thing. The charging handle of the SAR-21 is not what I consider ideal. It’s folded under the sight. To cock the rifle, you have to flip the handle out before you can use it. The M16 series have charging handles that can be accessed immediately, and is ambidextrous to boot, so it does not waste more time than necessary,” Wong continued.
“The M4s aren’t as reliable as the SAR-21, you know,” Cheah countered, “and reliability is everything in battle. If a gun is unreliable, it’s no good.”
“Yeah, well, if you take good care of it, it can be very reliable in combat.”
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Why 9 year delay lionnoisy? You mean our STK is unable to sort out problems with such a basic thing like a 40mm grenade launcher for the SAR-21 despite having a 9 YEAR period to do it?
How come till now all we see of the SAR-21 M203 and advanced SAR-21 variants are only in wayang pictures and worse, in the hands of soldiers of other countries?
For a small nation which needs a top-notch defence is this acceptable?
Wow!!Do u really mean it or typo error?
This is the first time u write SG defence capability in a positive
way.
Why do only big country can go for top--notch defence?
i read from ST lately:
The strong shall do what they can:
the weak have to suffer what they must.
We dunt want to suffer.
when your units dunt get this or that weapons,
u cant say for other units.Right?
-
This article from Oz think tank prove my thread:
The author says there are only 12 main surface combatant
in service:
u can include 14 ships of
http://www.navy.gov.au/Armidale_Class as main combatant
if u like.FYI,their weapons are:
Rafeal Typhoon 25mm naval stabilised gun deck and two 12.7mm machine guns
principal contribution to the nation's fisheries protection, immigration, customs and drug law enforcement operations.Pl note no Naval tasks are mentioned!
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publicationlist.aspx?pubtype=6
-
12 major surface combatants are the 8 ANZACs and 4 OHP class frigates. The 14 Armidales aren't included. The 6 Collins class aren't included as well.
Then behind them you have minehunters and transport ships. So what have you proven?
You've proven that you're a liar, a plagarist, a retard, and an embarrassment.
-
And a sadist as well. You get rejected and embarrassed so often on this website yet you keep coming back for more.
So it's clear that you love sadism. Are you Singapore's bi*ch?
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Wow!!Do u really mean it or typo error?
This is the first time u write SG defence capability in a positive
way.
Why do only big country can go for top--notch defence?
You english comprehension fail ah?
Singapore has NO choice but to have a top-notch defence due to our geographical location.
So given this need, why all the serious errors?
Why take so long to get a vital MBT capability for our military, having being stuck with a practically useless AMX-13 for so long?
Why take so long to get our 3G network up and working that till now no end is in sight?
Worse, when we need a top-notch defence, we can't even get a basic thing like issuing our troops with basic weapons correct despite having YEARS to correct the problem?
Is this acceptable?
when your units dunt get this or that weapons,
u cant say for other units.Right?
I served a stint in Guards which along with the Cdos, are the tip of the spear of the SAF, the first to go in if anything breaks out. but yet we didn't get the equipment we need.
Additionally, go ask anybody who serves in those front-line units who have to fight. None have recieved even basic things like the SAR-21 GL, which is for some reason stuck in development hell for NINE years.
Worse, in an era when armies are modernizing with modular and advanced sighting systems we are stuck with our 1.5X, and even worse, we see the SAR-21 versions that ought to be used by our troops being sold to other armies.
Which unit did you serve in on the other hand during your NS?
Have you even fired a SAR-21 before?
Do you know any combat tactics or drills?
Do you even know what it means to be a soldier and to serve your nation?
-
ST, to be honest, all my buddies and myself agree. 3G Army still far far away for the rNSmen...we are at best 2.5G SAF now
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
12 major surface combatants are the 8 ANZACs and 4 OHP class frigates. The 14 Armidales aren't included. The 6 Collins class aren't included as well.
Then behind them you have minehunters and transport ships. So what have you proven?
You've proven that you're a liar, a plagarist, a retard, and an embarrassment.
I was saying every day,on average,there are not more than
10 cambtant platforms out to sea.I am not talking about supports ships.
Why so angry.We know Oz get support ships,of course.
i just showed u guys on ytd post.Right?
But i have not stated their ability yet.Pl read my opening post.
Every word and figure are fully and correctly supported by offical
reference.Pl bear in mind recent news reported
the 4th Oz Collins sub ,most powerful conventional sub,
went to docks.Reasons:short of crews!!
So,now only 2 subs in operation.Pl note all Collins sub
DID NOT reach Full (or Final)Operational Cababilty yet.
All of them just declared Operation Release .
Reasons:The Combat Sys cannot work properly.
Not surprisingly, the biggest impediment to achieving full operational performance for the Collins Class proved to be the combat system. The original combat system supplier Rockwell..
....fitted into the Collins Class boats by 2010.
12 years after the first ship was launched,Oz still fixing the Combat Sys.
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publicationlist.aspx?pubtype=6
Strategic Insight 22 - Cutting Edge: The Collins experience Thursday, 23 February 2006 Authored by Patrick Walters
Platforms avaiable per day(max)
(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
@@note:SSK Collins--only 2 can sail from mid 2008.
Total:10+9.4 Armidale class Patrol Boat(Coastal guard role)!!
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications.cfm
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/2006-2007_Defence_DAR_03_v1_s2.pdf
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/03-04/dar/02_05_outcome2_3.htm
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/99-00/pbs/99-00s3.pdf
Learn more about the Collins sad story---official records
So sad Oz has not learnt from
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02RP03.htm
Yet it remains a mystery why the RAN, able to call on the USN in the late 1990s for help, did not monitor progress with the BSY-1 and draw a parallel between American experience and that of the Collins' CDS, which was clearly replicating the former. Instead, Navy sought to preserve this part of its procurement strategy when clear evidence suggested it had failed.
Research Paper 3 2001-02Getting in Early: Lessons of the Collins Submarine
Program for Improved Oversight of Defence Procurement
Derek Woolner
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group
18 September 2001It has been the subsequent failure of this system to meet its design requirements that has left the submarines with a severely impaired combat capability. The design of the Collins CDS has been described as dated and inflexible and the management of its software development process has been criticised. .....
-
15 years ago,US wanted to fit a very complicated Combat Sys
on Collins.Failed.But the Collins are still run by this Sys .
Now ,US and Oz jointly going to fit a nuke sub Combat sys
on Collins!!!
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publicationlist.aspx?pubtype=6
Strategic Insight 22 - Cutting Edge: The Collins experience Thursday, 23 February 2006 Authored by Patrick Walters
In September 2001, Canberra and Washington entered into a long-term partnership on submarine technology. This resulted in Raytheon being selected to equip the Collins Class with the AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System (CCS) Mk2 system which is also being fitted to the US Navy’s SSN-744 Virginia Class boats and retrofitted to the US Seawolf Class. A joint project office has been established to develop, manage and support the new combat system for both navies.
Navy’s original specification proved to be too ambitious for the 1980s technology that was locked into the design.
Navy’s original specification proved to be too ambitious for the 1980s technology that was locked into the design. Nearly two decades later the irony is that the major setbacks in the combat system development that occurred in the 1990s will now result in an even more advanced system being progressively fitted into the Collins Class boats by 2010. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
I was saying every day,on average,there are not more than
10 cambtant platforms out to sea.I am not talking about supports ships.
Why so angry.We know Oz get support ships,of course.
i just showed u guys on ytd post.Right?
But i have not stated their ability yet.Pl read my opening post.
Every word and figure are fully and correctly supported by offical
reference.Pl bear in mind recent news reported
the 4th Oz Collins sub ,most powerful conventional sub,
went to docks.Reasons:short of crews!!
So,now only 2 subs in operation.Pl note all Collins sub
DID NOT reach Full (or Final)Operational Cababilty yet.
All of them just declared Operation Release .
Reasons:The Combat Sys cannot work properly.
12 years after the first ship was launched,Oz still fixing the Combat Sys.
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publicationlist.aspx?pubtype=6
Strategic Insight 22 - Cutting Edge: The Collins experience Thursday, 23 February 2006Authored by Patrick Walters
Platforms avaiable per day(max)
(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
@@note:SSK Collins--only 2 can sail from mid 2008.
Total:10+9.4 Armidale class Patrol Boat(Coastal guard role)!!
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications.cfm
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/2006-2007_Defence_DAR_03_v1_s2.pdf
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/03-04/dar/02_05_outcome2_3.htm
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/99-00/pbs/99-00s3.pdf
Learn more about the Collins sad story---official records
So sad Oz has not learnt from
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02RP03.htm
<!--Content Area Start-->
Research Paper 3 2001-02Getting in Early: Lessons of the Collins Submarine
Program for Improved Oversight of Defence Procurement
Derek Woolner
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group
18 September 2001and so whats the point ?
you simply think that the RAN is underequipped and undermanned and is fundamentally flawed ?
wake up and smell the roses lionnoisy. As a force, its still very capable. and if the aussies arent worried about their maritime security. why the hell should you be worried about that ? every military force is bound to have strength and weaknesses .our navy isnt exactly above that. look at the MGB/ recently retired victory class its a compromise decision.
RAN's biggest problem comes from it being a relatively wealthy country with plenty of coastline and a small population. what will the RAN have to do before it satisfies you ?
build a carrier battle group and have a 3000 ship navy to guard every single square mile of sea ? and build a massive airborne defence network ? have soldiers running around in kangaroo boots or inline skates ?
i bet if singapore had a sampan and australia has a carrier, you'd find some way to argue that our sampan is superior to their carrier
or maybe RAN's biggest mistake was not to fire every single person in their military and hire you. i am sure YOU have the capability and intelligence to REVOLUTIONISE the australians and turn them into the world's premier "Fighting force" without peer or flaw.
sometimes i really wonder what dope youve been taking. get out of that bubble and wake up to reality.
-
Now ,US and Oz jointly going to fit a nuke sub Combat sys
on Collins!!!
You are talking in circles lionnoisy, basically you revived your old arguments that have been debunked and I'll simply post the old answers to them.
You should be worried about the US fitting their system onto the Collins sub, because this will mean the Collins will be the most capable in warfighting capacity of any SSK in the world!
@@note:SSK Collins--only 2 can sail from mid 2008.
Total:10+9.4 Armidale class Patrol Boat(Coastal guard role)!!
Wrong! You never check your sources!
Go and do your homework again.
How many ships you want patroling Australian waters? 70? 300?
3000?
You keep raising the same argument after a long time of silence because you are afraid people will read the answers to them, but to save everyone the trouble, I'll just copy and post them: