Crapping thread for the crappers and the crap.
-
Is there any Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) weapon operated
by Oz ,besides RBS 70- missile system ?
BAE (British Aerospace) Rapier missile systems was decommisioned
in Nov 2005.
I surfed high and low to look for any other Oz
Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) weapon system,
but i cannot get any.
Can u guys help me?
U will tell me the Super Radar.I know lah.
Pl just tell me any Ground Based Air Defence weapons.
If Oz can cope with just one Ground Based Air Defence weapon
RBS--70.This will save lot of $$ and man power.
Can SG learn from Oz how they have so high confidence
to protect Air Base by one weapon?
Does Oz has other secret weapons,like giant
to shot down aeroplanes?
Singapore Ground Based Air Defence weapons
RBS 70 System (Bn)-- 5 km.
(but Oz version 8 km.)
Upgraded I-HAWK
MISTRAL MANPADS
Mechanised Igla
IGLA Missile System
The 35mm Oerlikon Gun
and put a opened
as projectile
Giraffe 
I-Hawk Mistral IGLA FPS 117 RBS 70 Oerlikon http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/air_force/assets/weapon_systems.html
references:
http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/200602/groups/army.htm
The last firing of the highly capable but ageing Rapier took place in(2005) November and Rapier was then decommissioned
Oz latest RBS--70(Bolide)---8 km range,
a ceiling of about 4.5km (15,000ft).
''Mike Wilkins (Saab Systems), Ross Erickson (DMO) and
LTCOL Inger Lawes (16 AD Regt) inspecting the new hardware.
Photo by: 16 AD Regt''http://www.army.gov.au/RRAA/default.htm
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/land19/land19.cfm
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/jobs/OperatorGroundBasedAirDefence/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_missile
https://16airdefence.org/Unit%20History.html
the operator of RBS --70
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_missile
-
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.
-
what happened to the rapier, it's been phased out already ?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
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.
Ground Based Air Defence for Land Key points
I am sorry i have not define the area of discussions.
Lets zoom in Ground Based Air Defence for Land Key points.
Key Points refer to Air /Naval Bases,army camp,Command Center,
key gavaman installations etc.
2.SM 2 missiles and Aegis
SM 2 missiles is currently on http://www.navy.gov.au/Adelaide_Class.
Some Land Key Points are too far away from sea.
It is not fair for the Adelaide Class frigate to protect Land KP,
besides to protect herself.
I think her hands are too full.
I think each Land KP shall has its own adequate AA.
Where is current Ageis sys in Oz?I think Ageis just currently
a dream for Oz AWD---Airwarfare Destoryer.
The AWD still in drawing board,now called monitor.
It is fun to note that the Ageis Sys was chosen before the main platform
was chosen.After Ageis can run,i cant see any chance to enhance
AA for Land KP far away from AWD.
To conclude,each Land KP shall get its adquate AA on site.
The dependence on naval SM 2 missiles and Aegis
will increase the work loads of the naval platforms.
I am not sure how effective of the naval ships to protect
in land KP.
3.Is RBS-70 adequate to protect Land KP---a question of mindset?
Latest RBS --70(Bolide)---8 km range,
a ceiling of about 4.5km (15,000ft).
Based on Sg Ty assumption,the chance is slim that Oz under attack.
But how come Oz is the 13 th biggest defence spending in the world,
in absolute terms?I think Oz War Planners have similiar thinking.
Therefore,no point to acquire longer range and higher ceiling AA.
The reason is simple--- no enemy aeroplanes can reach Land KP!!
It is the smartest thinking or the foolest,too.
4.Why dunt spend a little more on AA
Is it very expensive to acquire better AA,just in case?
What are the marginal costs and benefits to acquire
more in AA?Why does Oz need to take the risks?
I find the words and actions dunt match.
u can read from the Defence Papers etc to know
how Oz think.
Thats why Howard gavaman spend over A$10 billions
within 9 months before he stepped down----for
3 AWD and two Land Dock for transports and attacks!!
Further,another A$6 b for new Super Hornets.
Now,JSF and new subs is under serious planning.
Oz gets most modern non--nuke subs(new sub with crusie missiles
on adgenda).
Latest transport planes.
But currently no mid- air tanker can work !!
But there is no AA for Land KP for range say 30 km.
This doesnt make sense to me.
BTW
how muxh it cost to buy
I-Hawk-----Upgraded I-HAWK
Range: 40km
c. Height: 18km
d. Max speed of missile: Mach 2.7
e. Single Shot Kill Probability: 85%
f. Guidance: Semi-Active Homingdetects and tracks air targets up to 20km and computes firing data.
If this poor SG can afford,it is sure Oz can afford!!
Mindset determine all the outcomes!!
-
Australian defence policy aims to neutralise any air threat over the North sea gap. The RBS 70 system is more for point defence and also for overseas deployment to protect temporary bases.
Any air threat will not have the chance to reach Australian soil and will end up as a dive wreck. Australia has the 13th largest defence budget., true but we don't have conscription. We also have capabilities that other countries don't have, why are you so stupid in just looking at one tiny aspect of an entire defence of a nation?
-
Australian defence policy aims to neutralise any air threat over the North sea gap. The RBS 70 system is more for point defence and also for overseas deployment to protect temporary bases.
Any air threat will not have the chance to reach Australian soil and will end up as a dive wreck. Australia has the 13th largest defence budget., true but we don't have conscription. We also have capabilities that other countries don't have, why are you so stupid in just looking at one tiny aspect of an entire defence of a nation?
-
Everyone forgot other AA weapons at Oz's disposal - GPMGs, MINIMIs & AUGs.
-
Against WHAT birds would the newly purchased AA be deployed against?
Where is the nearest airfield with a credible strike airforce based?
No immediate threats via air = no need for comprehensive AD umbrella.
Aussies are smart and know where to spend their money.
Buy new AD system to shoot at flying penguins is it.
-
I would disagree. I think its important for Australia to have an IADS comprising of more than RBS-70s. Simply put, the RAN is not gonna be around all the time. When some ships put to sea, gaps will appear in the AD picture.
They need to decide, are they gonna play an active part in regional defence or not. If they are, they need to prepare for an eventuality that their ships will be deployed away from Australia as part of regional defence efforts. When that happens, mainland Australia itself will be left vulnerable.
It easy to look at the current picture and say that there is no need for static air defense assets to protect the country. Thats what the British figured when they were evaluating colonial Singapore's defense in the 1830-40s. They figured the Royal Navy would handle everything. Only after the Crimean Wars kicked off did they realized that they had to prepare for an eventuality where Singapore would have to hold off attacks until the RN could come to their rescue.
Sure, the RAN doesn't really deploy very far from home very often to cause massive peace time gaps. But what about operations during wartime footing?
Of course, they can hold on to the notion that no-one would ever want to attack Australia....
-
Aussies are correct not to have IADS given the size of the country and the distance it is from any conceivable threat. The Air Force and Navy shud be the primary defence against air threats.
Aussie GBAD assets shud be focused on mobile point and perhaps area AD systems.
Irrelevant to compare with Singapore's AD system. We are in striking distance from point blank range of any air threat. Even a single armed UAV getting thro our AD can cause significant damage.
-
Shotgun askes "but what about operations during wartime footing?"
It's a whole new ball game in wartime footing, so to even talk about it is futile. It's ridiculous for a country to be constantly on high alert. The costs would be too high. Think about this: at the end of WW2 Australia had the 5th largest navy in the world with more than 150 ships, there is no way we can afford that in peacetime.
-
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.
-
to refine SG tyrannosaur's description of lion noisy's moduis operani :
A) dig up some obscure aspect of australia's weapon systemb) comment on australia's deficencies. not once will he even attempt to give balance or address something positive about that system or weapons platofrm.
c) list a whole gamut of singapore's weapon system, be it even in the same weapon field/class for relative comparison or simply something thats in the inventory of SAF that remotely resembles the australian system,d) he will then conclude SAF's weapon systems/platform is better or superior in any aspect be it cost-effective to combat efficiacy.
with the possible exception of A) raising an issue that is of general curiosity and subject to open questioning, every other type of point he will raise is nothing short of pure and sweet sensationalism without any basis of comparison or discussion.
someone needs to show lionnoisy that apples arent oranges and they cannot be classified and compared objectively. applying the same rationale would lead you to conclude that you cant produce apple juice from oranges. and exactly in the same manner,
SG's defence policies are crafted to suit its strategic/territorial/technical/professional capabilities and weaknesses. the same obviously goes for australia. to compare chalk and cheese would be, well only something lionnoisy would do on a regular basis and be subjected to constant scorn without even pausing in lieu of all the scathing attacks on him and [b]reflecting[/b] on his thoughts/actions.
your posts here are a serious intellectual insult to the notion that logic , reason and good old common sense is a quality all men (and women) possess innately
-
i have yet to get a convincing explanation why oz currently
get no air tanker.
I dunt think u can tell me it is their adopted doctrine.
NO air tanker in service for RAAF
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/326164
Reasons of just RBS--70(Bolide) for low level & short range AA
Tx for all your responses.
It is good they save lot of $$ and man powers.
Every decision come with costs,benefits and risks.
Oz will get benefits and bear the consquences of this wise decision.
But this RBS--70 AA weapon put Oz on par with SG AA in 1980's.
Remember Mas Selemat case?
The SP noted there was no grill on the window.Contractor at the end
did not put on a grill.Thinking all detainee is watched by Gurkha AT
ALL TIME,SP just ordered the handle of the window to be cut.The Gurkha of Mas Selemat,against the Standing Order to look at him
AT ALL TIME , thought the toilet cubicle IS SECURED.
He did not look at him for few minutes.The rest is history.
I can guess some one noticed the fence is not properly installed.
But he or she thought that there are many precautions and did not
take action....
U read history,there are too many ''We think''...
-
i have yet to get a convincing explanation why oz currently
get no air tanker.
I dunt think u can tell me it is their adopted doctrine.
NO air tanker in service for RAAF
You get no convincing explanation for the simple reason you refused to be convinced.
For some reason the fact the RAAF is going to get an air-to-air refueling capacity that is much better then the RSAF is also something you seem to have convinced yourself to ignore.
Remember Mas Selemat case?
The SP noted there was no grill on the window.Contractor at the end
did not put on a grill.Thinking all detainee is watched by Gurkha AT
ALL TIME,SP just ordered the handle of the window to be cut.The Gurkha of Mas Selemat,against the Standing Order to look at him
AT ALL TIME , thought the toilet cubicle IS SECURED.
He did not look at him for few minutes.The rest is history.
I can guess some one noticed the fence is not properly installed.
But he or she thought that there are many precautions and did not
take action....
U read history,there are too many ''We think''...
So what's your idea of "precaution"?
The RAN must have 3000 ships that can patrol each and every square mile of ocean ah?
They much spend millions of dollars setting up an IADS all over their country ah?
Wake up your idea lah.
At least Mas Selamat case can be said to be Singapore learning a lesson, so you want to learn form history rite?
What lesson you learn from all your history of mistakes in here?
Nothing.
Tx for all your responses.
It is good they save lot of $$ and man powers.
Every decision come with costs,benefits and risks.
Oz will get benefits and bear the consquences of this wise decision.
But this RBS--70 AA weapon put Oz on par with SG AA in 1980's.
Actually with their JORN and Aelgis systems one might argue their AA capacity is actually a lot better then that of Singapore, which has to conduct literally knife fighting with our AA defences while the Australians have the luxury of space, time and advanced technology.
You don't want to believe your loss lorh.
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
Shotgun askes "but what about operations during wartime footing?"
It's a whole new ball game in wartime footing, so to even talk about it is futile. It's ridiculous for a country to be constantly on high alert. The costs would be too high. Think about this: at the end of WW2 Australia had the 5th largest navy in the world with more than 150 ships, there is no way we can afford that in peacetime.
Asian Aussie,
All respectable militaries strive to maintain full operational capabilities WITH redundancy in war-time footing. Thats what the military is for.
Of course, there is a need to strike a balance with how much redundancy due to the cost factors involved. This is the same lesson that the British took too long to learn with regards to their defense of Imperial colonies. The Royal Navy was thought to be the main line of defence of all their coastal colonies, so most local governors and richer merchants didn't see the need for costly coast defense artillery. WW1 saw how that idea became a miserable failure when RN ships had to be recalled to UK, and they had to rely on Japan to protect their sea-lanes in South East Asian colonies.
A lesson in history.
Modern warfare moves at even greater pace and intensity. Who is to say that the Chinese or Russians submarine patrols would not be able to cripple the RAN's AAW ships? After all, modern diesel electric submarines operating in littoral waters are a very serious concern today.
Ships can be sunk, Aircraft can be shot down. Australian land based- air defenses will either need to be shot at from the air its meant to guard, or by enemy forces that land in Australia. Of that 3 threat axis, the last is the most UNLIKELY and hence the least vulnerable. Rationality would seem to suggest to beef up the best AAW capabilities on land rather than on the sea, where its vulnerable from all sorts of maritime warfare devices a potential enemy can launch.
If you are talking about cost, how much does it cost to take to send a few jets out on patrol and to maintain a land based air defense system? To maintain the same coverage time that the air defense system provides, its gonna cost an exorbitant amount of jet fuel, maintenance costs and indirect attrition in wartime operations. Every jet I put up to guard my airspace, is one less jet I can use to strike my enemy.
Something for you think about: IF a military is not preparing to operate in a war-time footing, then what exactly is it supposed to prepare for?
-
The question is if there is anything really worth bombing in Australia to begin with, or that somebody might even bother with that effort of crossing the ocean to do that.
If you cripple the RAN and the RAAF, the Aussies practically can't do much power-projection to begin with and are effectively out of any possible future conflict. Why bomb their airfields or naval bases when they have no planes or ships to send out in the first place?
As an enemy I would be perfectly happy to let them have all the land based AAW they want because for all practical purposes unless I want to invade them (of which reason I can't really find any since WW2 when the Japanese toyed with the idea), they would simply prevent the Australians from doing anything with their military by being unable to power-project. And if it reaches that point the Aussies are pretty much screwed anyway.
Hence any battle for the Australians will be decided out away from the mainland, no suprise they are beefing up that area with something credible first.
-
Actually with their JORN and Aelgis systems one might argue their AA capacity is actually a lot better then that of Singapore, which has to conduct literally knife fighting with our AA defences while the Australians have the luxury of space, time and advanced technology.
JORN just cover the north,but not the east and west where all
major cites situated,except Darwin.
Most of RAAF Bases concentrates in SE corner
and SW corner of Oz,far away from JORN coverage.
U have also bear in mind,CURRENTLY,there
is no workable air--tanker and no AEW .
see the RAAF assets here.
http://www.raaf.gov.au/aircraft/ no AEW nor air tankers.
By the time Oz RAAF
reach the estimated interception point,Oz plane already low or
runs out of fuel or have to return to base,if the pilot wants
he can make it to base.Air tanker or other hard wares
is not a must in modern warfare,but without it,u have less option.
Any enemy pilots would not be so stupid stay within JORN
coverage for so long.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/esd/jp2025/jp2025.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_air_force_bases
RAAF Bases
Northern Territory
Queensland
- RAAF Base Amberley, Ipswich (near Brisbane)
- RAAF Scherger near Weipa (bare base)
- RAAF Base Townsville, Townsville
[edit]
[edit] South Australia
- RAAF Base Edinburgh, Salisbury (near Adelaide)
- Woomera Airfield near Woomera (training area and live fire range)
[edit] Western Australia
- RAAF Curtin near Derby (bare base)
- RAAF Gingin, Gingin (airfield only)
- RAAF Learmonth near Exmouth (bare base)
- RAAF Base Pearce, Bullsbrook (near Perth)
[edit]
New South Wales
- RAAF Base Glenbrook, Glenbrook (near Sydney)
- Defence Establishment Orchard Hills, Orchard Hills (near Sydney)
- RAAF Base Richmond, Richmond (near Sydney)
- RAAF Base Wagga, Wagga Wagga
- RAAF Base Williamtown, Williamtown (near Newcastle)
[edit] Australian Capital Territory
[edit] Victoria
- RAAF Base East Sale, Sale
- RAAF Williams, Laverton Base, Laverton (near Melbourne)
- RAAF Williams, Point Cook Base, Point Cook (near Melbourne)
http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
Aegis sys
Where are they NOW?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
The question is if there is anything really worth bombing in Australia to begin with, or that somebody might even bother with that effort of crossing the ocean to do that.
If you cripple the RAN and the RAAF, the Aussies practically can't do much power-projection to begin with and are effectively out of any possible future conflict. Why bomb their airfields or naval bases when they have no planes or ships to send out in the first place?
As an enemy I would be perfectly happy to let them have all the land based AAW they want because for all practical purposes unless I want to invade them (of which reason I can't really find any since WW2 when the Japanese toyed with the idea), they would simply prevent the Australians from doing anything with their military by being unable to power-project. And if it reaches that point the Aussies are pretty much screwed anyway.
Hence any battle for the Australians will be decided out away from the mainland, no suprise they are beefing up that area with something credible first.
Australia has quite a number of high value assets that would play a very significant part in regional conflict, or even a tussle of superpowers. Example, stuff like Echelon as well as other not so well known cooperative projects. There's nothing wrong with beefing up their Air Force and Naval capabilities, its about time for them anyways. But like as I pointed out, nothing kills land based ADA except for other air craft, or Land attack which is highly unlikely, save for special forces. Even so, they would have limited success given the lack of "pocket firepower".
Secondly, you can think of Australia like how you think of UK projecting its power into Europe, except that its projecting towards S.E.A. Its not really what Australia has that makes its a strategic target, its what its able to control. Imagine if both Australia and Singapore fall into unfriendly hands, west-east access into the North and South Pacific Ocean would be locked down. If Singapore was the front door, then Australia would be the back door.
History has shown that defence plans that fail spectacularly are often those that fail to plan for very large scale conflicts, like showdown of superpowers. Fail to plan on how to take sides and fit into the greater scheme of things, and one will be swept away by the ensuing war.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Australia has quite a number of high value assets that would play a very significant part in regional conflict, or even a tussle of superpowers. Example, stuff like Echelon as well as other not so well known cooperative projects. There's nothing wrong with beefing up their Air Force and Naval capabilities, its about time for them anyways. But like as I pointed out, nothing kills land based ADA except for other air craft, or Land attack which is highly unlikely, save for special forces. Even so, they would have limited success given the lack of "pocket firepower".
Secondly, you can think of Australia like how you think of UK projecting its power into Europe, except that its projecting towards S.E.A. Its not really what Australia has that makes its a strategic target, its what its able to control. Imagine if both Australia and Singapore fall into unfriendly hands, west-east access into the North and South Pacific Ocean would be locked down. If Singapore was the front door, then Australia would be the back door.
History has shown that defence plans that fail spectacularly are often those that fail to plan for very large scale conflicts, like showdown of superpowers. Fail to plan on how to take sides and fit into the greater scheme of things, and one will be swept away by the ensuing war.
The real question I believe is do you think the Aussies are going to, for now anyway, plan for a showdown of superpowers ala. cold war era? Could they justify spending billions on a "what if" and that is a very big what if.They way it stands now, I do not think so. Barring some really drastic change in world events and politics we will not be seeing superpower showdowns or large scale conflicts that will engulf our region the way things are (though that could change). If things are heating up or if some potential superpower like China is showing ambitions on the region and the Aussies are doing nothing then they could be accused of napping, but as it stands now this is not the case.
But the real issue I believe, that if the region north of Australia really falls and the Aussies are unable to power-project then they are practically screwed anyway as was nearly the case in WW2. In that case an IADS will only start to be really useful and the real question is if the Aussies even want to get to that state in the first place.
Given a peacetime budget, I suspect they will be more willing to spend on the ability to keep wars away and prevent things from becoming too crappy as opposed to neglecting the first link in the chain to prepare for the worse. And this seems to be what they are doing.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
JORN just cover the north,but not the east and west where all
major cites situated,except Darwin.
Most of RAAF Bases concentrates in SE corner
and SW corner of Oz,far away from JORN coverage.
U have also bear in mind,CURRENTLY,there
is no workable air--tanker and no AEW .
see the RAAF assets here.
http://www.raaf.gov.au/aircraft/ no AEW nor air tankers.
By the time Oz RAAF
reach the estimated interception point,Oz plane already low or
runs out of fuel or have to return to base,if the pilot wants
he can make it to base.Air tanker or other hard wares
is not a must in modern warfare,but without it,u have less option.
Any enemy pilots would not be so stupid stay within JORN
coverage for so long.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/esd/jp2025/jp2025.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_air_force_bases
RAAF Bases
Northern Territory
Queensland
- RAAF Base Amberley, Ipswich (near Brisbane)
- RAAF Scherger near Weipa (bare base)
- RAAF Base Townsville, Townsville
[edit]
[edit] South Australia
- RAAF Base Edinburgh, Salisbury (near Adelaide)
- Woomera Airfield near Woomera (training area and live fire range)
[edit] Western Australia
- RAAF Curtin near Derby (bare base)
- RAAF Gingin, Gingin (airfield only)
- RAAF Learmonth near Exmouth (bare base)
- RAAF Base Pearce, Bullsbrook (near Perth)
[edit]
New South Wales
- RAAF Base Glenbrook, Glenbrook (near Sydney)
- Defence Establishment Orchard Hills, Orchard Hills (near Sydney)
- RAAF Base Richmond, Richmond (near Sydney)
- RAAF Base Wagga, Wagga Wagga
- RAAF Base Williamtown, Williamtown (near Newcastle)
[edit] Australian Capital Territory
[edit] Victoria
- RAAF Base East Sale, Sale
- RAAF Williams, Laverton Base, Laverton (near Melbourne)
- RAAF Williams, Point Cook Base, Point Cook (near Melbourne)
http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
Aegis sys
Where are they NOW?
Don't be retarded lionnoisy, if you want to attack Australia from beyond JORN where you going to fly from? The south pole? Which regional airforce has the capacity to make such a power-projected, back door attack?
Additionally the main threats to Australia will come from the north and the west respectively, which is logically where you see them cover.
Any enemy pilots would not be so stupid stay within JORN
coverage for so long.
I think you are the one yet again not using logic. The zone covered by JORN will take you a significant amount of time to cross even if you are in an aircraft. If you want to skirt it you have to burn a lot of fuel and time to get about it, at which point you either do NOT have enough range to make it back to base or much loiter time to do your attack on the areas NOT covered by JORN.And worse if you want to return you will have to take the roundabout trip again.
Apparently the logistics of such an attack is lost on you, do you have any idea how long it takes to fly across Australia to attack targets across it? Ever been in a plane before? All this while you are exposed to interceptions from planes with home ground advantage.
-
Aegis sys
Where are they NOW?
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.
-
Shotgun, a military is to prepare for possible war at all times yes I agree, but with redundancy? No I do not agree with this. Countries can't afford to operate with redundancy capacity, full stop. Remember that running a nation involves other aspects besides defence - education, health, welfare, infrastructure you name it.
The KEY ISSUE here is the ability of a nation and its military to respond to conflicts - hence why Australia maintains skills such as ship building, sub building and maintains companies like Boeing Australia, Thales and ADI. It is the ability of a nation to respond quickly that counts. If a war does break out, Australia has the ability to ramp up production just like WW2 when we had more than 150 ships.
History lesson for you: You mentioned WW1 and the failure of Britain, for starters I do not believe the British thought that much of its colonies, to them they were expendable, Australia included.
With regards to your point of conflicts moving quickly, this is what intelligence is for. Intel aims to pick up details that can give us advance information with regards to this. There are always signs of tension before any war as well that would put a nation on alert. Look back at history and you will find friction before every battle. Australia is also a close ally of the USA to protect itself from stronger powers.
Australia's AAW ships are multirole despite its name. I agree diesel subs in littoral environments are dangerous, but it's not easy getting a diesel sub from China to Australia, nor is it easy considering Collins subs are lurking around too.
Ships can be sunk, aircraft can be shot down, but increasing land based AA shouldn't be the key. Wouldn't you instead beef up capability so that your ships and aircraft aren't taken out in the first place?????
Australia is doing this by investing in AWACS, network centric warfare, and new air defence multirole destroyers.
Finally your final point about sending jets out on patrol. I mention JORN again. Australia has built this system to stop sending its jets out. Does it work? Look at the number of refugee boats getting in since it started up!
In case you are skeptical, Australia has also joined the US in a new broad maritime surveillance project that will involve UAVs. So you see, Australian defence has thought of all your issues.
-
The real question I believe is do you think the Aussies are going to, for now anyway, plan for a showdown of superpowers ala. cold war era? Could they justify spending billions on a "what if" and that is a very big what if.
They way it stands now, I do not think so. Barring some really drastic change in world events and politics we will not be seeing superpower showdowns or large scale conflicts that will engulf our region the way things are (though that could change). If things are heating up or if some potential superpower like China is showing ambitions on the region and the Aussies are doing nothing then they could be accused of napping, but as it stands now this is not the case.
But the real issue I believe, that if the region north of Australia really falls and the Aussies are unable to power-project then they are practically screwed anyway as was nearly the case in WW2. In that case an IADS will only start to be really useful and the real question is if the Aussies even want to get to that state in the first place.
Given a peacetime budget, I suspect they will be more willing to spend on the ability to keep wars away and prevent things from becoming too crappy as opposed to neglecting the first link in the chain to prepare for the worse. And this seems to be what they are doing.
Its not a matter of "What if" but rather "When." WIth the revival of Russia, we've seen how they have taken military actions to "remind" NATO of their resurging power. Even more recently, they've demonstrated that they have made significant improvements in their conventional warfight capability.
Its time to realise that Russia perhaps stronger than it ever was, and perhaps even more insecure than it ever was. With its resurging power and so many of their satellite states joining NATO, there will be friction in Europe.
Naturally, this is not to suggest that Australia would be come the center of conflict. That would be absurdity. To say that Australia should arm itself to the teeth just because of the return of Russia would also be unrealistic. However, they need to evaluate how they can prepare themselves to fit into the picture of large scale global conflicts, while being able to secure mainland Australia & NZ.
For starters, to reconsider integrating air defense of naval platforms to their land ones. And of course, to beef up their land ones to include some kind of medium to high altitude coverage. Probably something along the lines of Patriot systems. With these, should their naval AAW platform need to be detached out as part of the greater conflict, or worse, sunk; Australia would still have a air defense system capable of deterring air attacks; manned or cruise missile systems.
-
I am hit not by a SAM or SSM, but with a bunch of text.
Anyway, ship based SAM could well protect sg from invaders because sg was a all surrounded by waters, so i hope that singapore could well place patroit SAMs on the new classes of warships they buy, or at least Palnex(spelling wrong) 20mm CIWS
