Crapping thread for the crappers and the crap.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
sgstars,
I only disagree with the following:
ever figured that if australia were to adopt the dense AA/ADA umbrella network that singapore has, even with s-300 or patriot style systems, it would be a HUGE drain on manpower and resources ? even if they did, what are they going to be doing ? preventing the "enemy" from bombing the grain fields or cows ? simply not cost effective to do that.
1. That it will be a huge drain of manpower and resources
2. That there is nothing significant to bomb but fields, cows, and kangaroos.
Examine the other side of the coin. The costs involves in pilot training, maintaining air bases, maintaining aircraft etc, versus deployed or semi-deployed ADA systems. I am not suggesting that the Aussies need such a high density of Air Defence Systems coverage, but at least that ground based system should form the core.
Which is cheaper to build / buy? AEGIS ships or land based Air Defence systems (Pac 3, essentially a BMD an exception)?
Which is cheaper for 24-hour "ready to shoot" type of readiness? Large number of aircraft (given the expanse of Australia) constantly sitting at alert 5 or alert 15?
If I tear a hole in an air defense system, I can pretty much choose what I want to hit by altering my Strike packages through the gap. I don't have to hit cows and fields. Key structures would include joint UK-AUS-US intelligence gathering facilities, as well as centers of political activity, such as Canberra, and anywhere I need to drive home a point.
hey hello shotgun ! think you should know me from elsewhere.
like i said, i dont know much about AA/ADA but me take on the whole issue is this :
1) Flexibility : with ships , you basically have a mobile AA platform that can reach almost any major australian city since they are all located at near the coastal regions. with their purchase of SH and possibly growlers and AEGIS, you have a potential weapons package that can cover as much ground for as little cost as possible. it isnt static. but a rather dynamic system.
2) S-300 and patriot style systems use very large missiles. i m not too sure about the type for fuel they use, but i m assuming its non solid fuel. there's a whole lot of issues regarding storage/refueling and defueling such missiles. big pain in the ass for handling too. might piss the australian greenies. even if its solid fuel, its going to be prohibitively expensive storing it and supplying it across australia.
was thinking along lionnoisy's lines of having a very dense/packed AA/ADA network across australia. but i see your point. didnt think about it. having a couple of such batteries in like a few choice cities seems like a pretty good idea now. theater missile defence. maybe this is a chink in australia's ada/aa shield.
but even then, the cost of these batteries arent cheap. the radar and tracking systems alone are a few hundred million. not to mention the cost of upkeeping them and training the manpower. manpower costs go up too. as it is, australia is struggling to find people for their armed forces. the costs of establishing a missile defence arm and funding the follow up logisitics requirement might not be a politically palatable (i .e hostile public opposition to arms procurement, for instance, take a look at how the aus public isnt too happy with the money sunk into f35 program and the f18 purchases, was a big scandal over there if i aint mistaken) decision even though its a sound decision.
and another possible thing to look at is the desire. maybe the brass feel that what they have is sufficient enough for the current threat scenarios. why provoke and raise unnecessary tensions and trouble by telling everyone, "hey , i m going to build a big air defence network right here if you blokes dont mind me". certain to raise eyebrows and create unease within the region. like for the same reason why we persisted with the SM1 for so many years even though we probably felt they were obsolete a long time ago.
by putting the missiles on ships instead of land u get several benefits. no green groups to piss you off. dramatic enhancement of your fleet capability and protection. mobility and flexibility in deployment (not something that can be easily done cross country in australia). PLUS , you get the added bonus of doing it on the sly. you dont want anybody to know where is your ace in hand. remember, few regional countries have the means or abilities to probably detect and track the movement of aussie AEGIS destroyers. that makes deploying enemy aircraft harder. and even tied up pierside, aussie AEGIS can play a role too. it becomes a static defence. truly very handy assets.
a small scenario exercise? i really have no idea. say australia splashes out on either a fleet of 50 JSF versus a patriot/pac 3 system country wide (inclusive of roo and croc land) .
patriots provide a deterrent value . a shield of sorts. but thats it. it can be neutralised (not sure how and by what means but most definitely expensive). its not able to turn into a active asset. you cant send your pac batteries to go hunting for ships or enemy troops. once the need for them has been overcome/compromised/supersceded, its as good as useless.
on the other hand, the F35s are flexible. they are like a sword. u can use it to kill things or you can use it to open letters (a gross overstatement but possible) a sword posesses a deterrent value as well. and provides you a whole lot more options for the money spent.
perhaps if ya look at the projected lifetime operating costs and consider how the added dimension of possiblities, its easier to justify more aircraft.
sorry if i lapse into cliches such as sword and shield but i figured the key component of the aus defence planners would be flexibility. in conclusion, improvement of the aussie air defence would be nice, giving them more SAM or TMD assets but i guess they havent done so for their own reasons, namely either political or the desire not to provoke or create unnecessary awareness.
on another note, was reading about the FPDA. the key and biggest component of FPDA is this joint AUS-SIN-MAL-UK IADS HQ located in butterworth penang. an australian air marshall is the nominal head of this HQ. not too sure if i am reading it right but the australians probably do have a very in depth knowledge of the region's air projection and defence capabilities. hence their procurement policies ?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I sense some desperation in your reply, you normally reply like this when you are shaky and losing confidence.
You just answered your own question, but maybe you are too scared to see the answers in your own conclusion.
If you have no eyes, you cna have the best platforms and missiles in the world and they will be little more then fireworks going nowhere like the hundreds of SAMs the that Iraqis launched in desert storm that literally went nowhere.
Answer lionnoisy, or you don't dare?
How come LCS thread you still haven't answer?
maybe his nick says it all. he's a noisy lion. not a substantiative one. makes alot of noise and then run away.
-
http://www.boeing.com/global/Australia/BAL/DIVNetworkEnabledSystems/vigilare.html
Oh look what I found in three minutes!!!
There are ground based air defence systems in place for Australia. In this particular case, it's for the airbases Tindal and Williamtown.
I'm sure there's more out there, I will keep looking, but this just goes to show how insufficient and mediocre noisylion's searches are.
Yes, the main system is the RBS70 Bolide, but this link proves there are other systems as well.
No, Australia will never have a dense air defence system like SG. It takes almost a week to drive across Australia, it takes an hour to drive across Singapore! Get the difference, people?
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
http://www.boeing.com/global/Australia/BAL/DIVNetworkEnabledSystems/vigilare.html
Oh look what I found in three minutes!!!
There are ground based air defence systems in place for Australia. In this particular case, it's for the airbases Tindal and Williamtown.
I'm sure there's more out there, I will keep looking, but this just goes to show how insufficient and mediocre noisylion's searches are.
Yes, the main system is the RBS70 Bolide, but this link proves there are other systems as well.
No, Australia will never have a dense air defence system like SG. It takes almost a week to drive across Australia, it takes an hour to drive across Singapore! Get the difference, people?
gee.. calm down.
lionnoisy isnt representative of singaporeans. why you so worked up about it ? you dont need to prove him wrong. its only going to make this thread longer and goad lionnoisy into making more stupid responses
the thing is, lionnoisy will never grasp what we are discussing here. he simply dosent get the "different strokes different folks " idea. in his mind, SAF rules the world and we are best of everything.
shows that propaganda and programming actually does work eh ?
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
http://www.boeing.com/global/Australia/BAL/DIVNetworkEnabledSystems/vigilare.html
Oh look what I found in three minutes!!!
There are ground based air defence systems in place for Australia. In this particular case, it's for the airbases Tindal and Williamtown.
I'm sure there's more out there, I will keep looking, but this just goes to show how insufficient and mediocre noisylion's searches are.
Yes, the main system is the RBS70 Bolide, but this link proves there are other systems as well.
No, Australia will never have a dense air defence system like SG. It takes almost a week to drive across Australia, it takes an hour to drive across Singapore! Get the difference, people?
http://www.permian.com.au/projects/vigilare/
http://www.permian.com.au/news/
The sensors will help.
But my questions is
''Besides RBS--70(Bolide),What's Australia Ground Based AA ?''
Sea Based AA have to defend themselves?
Darwin is not expendable
Every citizen expect leaders exercise reasonable degree of
Duty of Care.Leader fails their job if they dunt provide
reasonable AA to each major city.For each city,
A set of say 300 km range AA radar,few AA missiles and
AA guns are minimum .It is good to deal with a hijacked plane
going to crash to the city.
I am not saying PRC or whoever will attack Darwin or Oz.
This is Oz say:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-07.html
One of the critical byproducts of the transformation of military capabilities across Asia is that older short range weapon systems are being replaced by systems with significantly greater reach, which for the first time since the 1940s places significant portions of Australian territory and its area of interest under the footprint of foreign military air forces.
The depicted footprint labelled "Cruise Missile Armed Bombers" is representative of types such as the Xian H-6K turbofan Badger and Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire. The coverage depicted for the Flanker excludes aerial refuelling support. Greater reach has coincided with a greater economic dependency in Australia upon energy and mining resources across the north and north-west of the continent (C. Kopp).
-
sources:
National Military Strategy
and the
Defence 2008 White Paperby a team of retired RAAF officers etc
-
AEW
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/AEW&C.cfm
http://www.defense-update.com/features/2008/july08/caew_elta.htm
i like the shape of SG new AEW!!
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/AEW&C.cfm
Have Oz used AEW before?
If Oz can afford do without AEW for few years,
why cant she continue defend without AEW?
Air tankers
The one flys in Oz has not been certified.
How can a 1 st world country do without air tankers?
This is time management,project management!!
-
You made up the sources of your claim.
The Carlo Kopp paper has been around for years! I've read it 5 times.
As for the defence white paper 2008, it's not even released yet cos it's still in progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW YOU'RE A LIAR AS WELL!!!
You've been caught out again and again, yet you don't learn anything. Did your mum have problems with your birth?
Oz is getting AWACs cos Oz wants NCW capability. Simple!
-
As for the man shortage in the navy, this is an issue that is overhyped by the media, so idiots like you read it then get all excited! Hence more newspaper sales.
There is a shortage but it is not that drastic. If you hunt for further sources 4 subs are currently operating plus if you're really good you'll even know where!
1 in in the North at the moment exercising, 1 is in the WA training area and another one is in the South.
2 are in dry dock undergoing upgrading.
-
Excuse the black sheep in sgForums or should I say black lion.
lionnoisy has been at odds with Australia ever since they rejected his application for citizenship.
-
Thank god they did reject the application too!
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
Thank god they did reject the application too!
He would have done great damage to Australia, now he is just a liability for Singapore. -
Originally posted by sgstars:
hey hello shotgun ! think you should know me from elsewhere.
like i said, i dont know much about AA/ADA but me take on the whole issue is this :
1) Flexibility : with ships , you basically have a mobile AA platform that can reach almost any major australian city since they are all located at near the coastal regions. with their purchase of SH and possibly growlers and AEGIS, you have a potential weapons package that can cover as much ground for as little cost as possible. it isnt static. but a rather dynamic system.
2) S-300 and patriot style systems use very large missiles. i m not too sure about the type for fuel they use, but i m assuming its non solid fuel. there's a whole lot of issues regarding storage/refueling and defueling such missiles. big pain in the ass for handling too. might piss the australian greenies. even if its solid fuel, its going to be prohibitively expensive storing it and supplying it across australia.
was thinking along lionnoisy's lines of having a very dense/packed AA/ADA network across australia. but i see your point. didnt think about it. having a couple of such batteries in like a few choice cities seems like a pretty good idea now. theater missile defence. maybe this is a chink in australia's ada/aa shield.
but even then, the cost of these batteries arent cheap. the radar and tracking systems alone are a few hundred million. not to mention the cost of upkeeping them and training the manpower. manpower costs go up too. as it is, australia is struggling to find people for their armed forces. the costs of establishing a missile defence arm and funding the follow up logisitics requirement might not be a politically palatable (i .e hostile public opposition to arms procurement, for instance, take a look at how the aus public isnt too happy with the money sunk into f35 program and the f18 purchases, was a big scandal over there if i aint mistaken) decision even though its a sound decision.
and another possible thing to look at is the desire. maybe the brass feel that what they have is sufficient enough for the current threat scenarios. why provoke and raise unnecessary tensions and trouble by telling everyone, "hey , i m going to build a big air defence network right here if you blokes dont mind me". certain to raise eyebrows and create unease within the region. like for the same reason why we persisted with the SM1 for so many years even though we probably felt they were obsolete a long time ago.
by putting the missiles on ships instead of land u get several benefits. no green groups to piss you off. dramatic enhancement of your fleet capability and protection. mobility and flexibility in deployment (not something that can be easily done cross country in australia). PLUS , you get the added bonus of doing it on the sly. you dont want anybody to know where is your ace in hand. remember, few regional countries have the means or abilities to probably detect and track the movement of aussie AEGIS destroyers. that makes deploying enemy aircraft harder. and even tied up pierside, aussie AEGIS can play a role too. it becomes a static defence. truly very handy assets.
a small scenario exercise? i really have no idea. say australia splashes out on either a fleet of 50 JSF versus a patriot/pac 3 system country wide (inclusive of roo and croc land) .
patriots provide a deterrent value . a shield of sorts. but thats it. it can be neutralised (not sure how and by what means but most definitely expensive). its not able to turn into a active asset. you cant send your pac batteries to go hunting for ships or enemy troops. once the need for them has been overcome/compromised/supersceded, its as good as useless.
on the other hand, the F35s are flexible. they are like a sword. u can use it to kill things or you can use it to open letters (a gross overstatement but possible) a sword posesses a deterrent value as well. and provides you a whole lot more options for the money spent.
perhaps if ya look at the projected lifetime operating costs and consider how the added dimension of possiblities, its easier to justify more aircraft.
sorry if i lapse into cliches such as sword and shield but i figured the key component of the aus defence planners would be flexibility. in conclusion, improvement of the aussie air defence would be nice, giving them more SAM or TMD assets but i guess they havent done so for their own reasons, namely either political or the desire not to provoke or create unnecessary awareness.
on another note, was reading about the FPDA. the key and biggest component of FPDA is this joint AUS-SIN-MAL-UK IADS HQ located in butterworth penang. an australian air marshall is the nominal head of this HQ. not too sure if i am reading it right but the australians probably do have a very in depth knowledge of the region's air projection and defence capabilities. hence their procurement policies ?
I think I'm not so extreme to insist that ADF should cover every inch of Ozzie airspace with PAC-2 or PAC-3 coverage.
1. I do agree with your point of flexibility and redeployability of ADA on warships. No arguments there. However, it also comes at the cost of Vulnerability from maritime threats, especially submarines. I've been going at this like a broken record, my apologies. When ADA radars turn on, ESM equipment on submarines are able to pick it up and help them locate the AAW ship, thereby giving away their location, making them vulnerable targets for submarines.
2. Large missiles? I don't think they really considered this a problem since they DID consider the PAC-3 missile system before. Naturally, that was for their BMD initiative. I'm suggesting PAC-2 Systems for anti- aircraft warfare, not for BMD coverage. They are significantly less costly when compared to the PAC-3.
I think you've mentioned the precise scenario of the defense gap posed by a ADA coverage whose core is based on a naval platform. Given their versatility, they can be sent out on ASuW tasking. Great, excellent versatility! What happens to ADA coverage at home when that happens? Ships move out of position, gaps appear in defensive umbrella, that is precisely the problem I am bringing up. What I am saying is that, they should have the core-ADA coverage land based with PAC-2 systems, to cover these gaps.
Yes, land based ADA can be "neutralised." But not easily, because, you can either only target it by Anti Radiation missiles, originating from the "Air" domain, or ground troops, which must first penetrate the maritime defenses, or Air defenses before they can set foot on Australia. They certainly cant be shot at by submarines, which are now identified as one of the most potent threats of naval warfare.
FPDA is an agreement, so is the IADS for it. Its existence in peace time is pretty much "paper." As far as I know, there is no concrete implementation of it. Its like a framework in the event that something really does happens. The focus of this IADS was SEA, not Oceana. As far as Australia goes, its out of FPDA's IADS coverage.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I think I'm not so extreme to insist that ADF should cover every inch of Ozzie airspace with PAC-2 or PAC-3 coverage.
1. I do agree with your point of flexibility and redeployability of ADA on warships. No arguments there. However, it also comes at the cost of Vulnerability from maritime threats, especially submarines. I've been going at this like a broken record, my apologies. When ADA radars turn on, ESM equipment on submarines are able to pick it up and help them locate the AAW ship, thereby giving away their location, making them vulnerable targets for submarines.
2. Large missiles? I don't think they really considered this a problem since they DID consider the PAC-3 missile system before. Naturally, that was for their BMD initiative. I'm suggesting PAC-2 Systems for anti- aircraft warfare, not for BMD coverage. They are significantly less costly when compared to the PAC-3.
I think you've mentioned the precise scenario of the defense gap posed by a ADA coverage whose core is based on a naval platform. Given their versatility, they can be sent out on ASuW tasking. Great, excellent versatility! What happens to ADA coverage at home when that happens? Ships move out of position, gaps appear in defensive umbrella, that is precisely the problem I am bringing up. What I am saying is that, they should have the core-ADA coverage land based with PAC-2 systems, to cover these gaps.
Yes, land based ADA can be "neutralised." But not easily, because, you can either only target it by Anti Radiation missiles, originating from the "Air" domain, or ground troops, which must first penetrate the maritime defenses, or Air defenses before they can set foot on Australia. They certainly cant be shot at by submarines, which are now identified as one of the most potent threats of naval warfare.
FPDA is an agreement, so is the IADS for it. Its existence in peace time is pretty much "paper." As far as I know, there is no concrete implementation of it. Its like a framework in the event that something really does happens. The focus of this IADS was SEA, not Oceana. As far as Australia goes, its out of FPDA's IADS coverage.
haha, no contest from me here. like i said, i dont know much about ADA.
was just trying to debunk lionnoisy's nonsense.
hmm, but i dont think FPDA can be written off that simply. i was thinking more along the lines that the Australian's know SEA's IADS and the capabilities of the various nations in attacking and defeating them as a result of FPDA. hence maybe their present focus is on defending against any possible air attack from "rogue" SEA nations, and having sufficiently capable resources to do so.
in the very long run, like you mentioned, currently ATM , the only possible "hostile" nation that might have the capabilities to attack australia would be russia. and even then, that is a remote bordering on the impossible proposition. in the likelihood of a more nearby threat from another rising power in asia, i m sure oz will get more capable IADS toys
-
Gosh lionnoisy is getting owned as usual...
Eh lionnoisy, you still haven't answered us:
What about our SAR-21 variants that were supposed to issued be 9 years ago but still not issued to our troops?
What about you using clones?
How come you can talk so much on things you don't know about, but answering a simple question on why you had to resort to using clones so difficult to you?
-
A set of say 300 km range AA radar,few AA missiles and
AA guns are minimum .It is good to deal with a hijacked plane
going to crash to the city.
I am not saying PRC or whoever will attack Darwin or Oz.
This is Oz say:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-07.html
Wait a minute lionnoisy...
Just a few posts ago you were saying it's usless for JORN to have such a long range because it's meaningless...
But now you are making a point based on long ranged air defence? To the point you can even dare to post a map showing the combat radius of potential enemy aircraft? The exact kind of zone that JORN provides COVERAGE for?
So how lionnoisy? You just contradicted yourself.
How you justify your "meaingless" comment?
Answer.
-
AA guns are minimum .It is good to deal with a hijacked plane
going to crash to the city.
WRONG, AA guns are prehaps the WORST option to deal with a hijacked plane. Firstly they have a lack of range, and secondly they do not make a "clean" kill of the aircraft, the shot-down aircraft will simply crash to the ground in the city which was it's point in the first place, the damage caused is the same.
And worse, the hijacked aircraft can simply fly around the combat radius of the AA guns or simply fly too high enough to be out of engagement range.
The best way to deal with a hijacked plane is to intercept it with another aircraft, which is what all militaries actually DO, except yours prehaps.
AA guns on their own in modern warfare are practically useless, if they are not part of an IADS they are simply sitting ducks for a wild weasel standoff munition.
This is the fatal flaw in your plan, you are pushing for the retarded idea that each and every single Australian city must have an IADS like Singapore, we can afford to set up such an IADS for the simple reason we have no other option and have nowhere else to run to nor do we have the space to spread out our defences.
Trying to set up an IADS to defend each and every Australian city ala. Singapore is like your 3000 ship navy idea to defend each and every square inch of Australian waters to counter and enemy that can pop up anywhere and anyhow.
Also since you posted your "enemy aircraft range map", go and study it with some common sense.
Note that these represent the combat radius of enemy aircraft, note that Australia is at the very limit of their endurance, and in any case if the PRC wants to attack Australia they have to fly to the very limit of their endurance, for half of that flight or even more, they will already be picked up by JORN. This gives the Australians HOURS to respond to any air attack from the PRC.
And what is the best way to respond for it? To wait in their cities with your "minimum" AA guns and wait the several hours for the enemy to arrive or to meet them out at sea with their air force and navy?
Also note that any air force save the USAF flying sorties to Australia will be unable to keep up a good operational tempo due to the atrocious turnabout times required. The roundabout trip is simply too long and the journey too fraught with risks given they are flying at the limits of their endurance.
This is why for most air forces trying to stragetic bomb Australia is simply not a practical option. Any potential enemy trying to attack Australia has to grapple with issues of operational temo, distance, logistics and what have you not. Unlike your imaginary army in your "wargames", they cannot pop up "anywhere, anytime and anyhow".
Singapore has no choice but to rely on an IADS due to our utter lack of depth, but if we had the choice this is NOT the way we want to fight. In fact our battle plan involves one that hopefully does not need us to use our IADS at ALL by trying to gain air superiority or even air supremacy over any potential enemy with our air force to the point that we won't have to use our air defences at all, if possible.
So all the stocking up on air defence is not a sign of our strength, it's actually a sign of our WEAKNESS. It's not because we have some great idea but because we have a great weakness in our lack of depth that we need to stuff it full of guns and SAMs.
But you don't seem to understand that, thinking that this is a "great" idea that the SAF has that the world has to follow.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
haha, no contest from me here. like i said, i dont know much about ADA.
was just trying to debunk lionnoisy's nonsense.
hmm, but i dont think FPDA can be written off that simply. i was thinking more along the lines that the Australian's know SEA's IADS and the capabilities of the various nations in attacking and defeating them as a result of FPDA. hence maybe their present focus is on defending against any possible air attack from "rogue" SEA nations, and having sufficiently capable resources to do so.
in the very long run, like you mentioned, currently ATM , the only possible "hostile" nation that might have the capabilities to attack australia would be russia. and even then, that is a remote bordering on the impossible proposition. in the likelihood of a more nearby threat from another rising power in asia, i m sure oz will get more capable IADS toys
Don't worry about Lionnoisy's stuff, most of it are pretty extreme. Usually he will debunk himself some way or another. Besides, our resident lion tamer, SgTrex will take care of him.
He has brought up an interesting issue though. I personally do not believe naval AAW should form the core component of a country's IADS, with reasons stated in my previous posts.
These arguements are endless because its a tug of war between Military Effectiveness vs Political Effectiveness.
Skew to one side too much, you'd either be spending too much on defense, or too little to guarantee security when push comes to shove. I'm a realist when it comes to military stuff. Whatever that I have, has to work as advertised when the sh!t hits the fan. Unfortunately, politicians are still the ones who write the cheque.
For a country thats never been invaded before, and always fought beyond their shores, its also understandable why they don't base much of the AAW capabilities on land.
-
Where did i say Oz need to put AA in every single miles?
I just said each big city need a reasonale AA.
Lets recap what Oz have in sensors and weapons:
Sensors for national level
JORN-----.But just cover one major city--Darwin.
AEW-----Not in service.delay for operations.
Sensors City level/point defence level
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/EDITIONS/4602/topstories/story09.htm
4 sets of TPS-77 radar.
Weapons---national level and city/point defence
Besides RAAF aircrafts,RBS--
70(Bolide)---8 km range,
a ceiling of about 4.5km (15,000ft)
Some one mentions there are other AA sys.
Good,I would like to see.
Oz split into 3 inaccessible isolated locations for RAAF
From Adelaide to Brisbane is one location,Darwin 2 nd and Perth the third.
If Perth (no fighter/striker stationing) or Darwin needs
RAAF reinforcement,can RAAF planes from Brisbane or Sydney
fly there in Combat Loading?
The planes have to fly about 2000 km from Brisbane to Darwin.
Without airtankers,i dunt think reinforcement can reach Darwin
in Full Combat Loading.
So,lack of air tankers,like oz facing now,make RAAF planes cannot
give reinforcement to Darwin or Perth from Brisbane or Sydney.
The 3 locations are totally isloated from each other.
Can u tell me how RAAF planes can fly to Darwin from Sydney,
in Combat loading?
Cool down,mates.
I just give some ideas of deployment.
of course,u can tell me no one will knock on Oz's door.
If it is the case,then what is the hell Oz spending billions
in defence?Oz shall follow New zealand decommissioned all
fighters/strikers.
below--ONLY 3 RAAF Bases for all strikers and fighters
F18
- Ferrying 2,700km (without refuelling)
- Interdiction over 1,000km
- Combat radius 740km
F 111
Ferry range in excess of 5,500km
Combat radius??
-
How many Layers of air defence in Oz
some experts here says Oz AA get layers of defence.
i just find JORN in north.Even i consider the Rapier,the most
Oz get is 2 layers.Besides RAAF aircarfts,AA is low level
of RBS--70(Bolide)---
8 km range,a ceiling of about 4.5km (15,000ft).
How about the middle to high level / range AA,
say ceiling 15000 to 30,000 ft and range up to 30 km?
Oh yes.I am waiting for u to tell me.
I remember ADF did not mention the concept of Layers
Defence.The ocean is their Great Wall lah!!
Why do they need layers of defence?
U guys just very kind to say for them.
some of u say SG need heavy AA becos SG is small
and congested.Have u forget oz also get cities?
One city in Oz easily gets 3 million population.
Few bombs dropped will cause lot of problems.
Layers of Air Defence ,SG style
there are 3 layers of defence
Our fighters formed the
first and outermost layer,our High-to-Medium
altitude Air Defence (HIMAD) missile system,
the Improved-HAWK (I-HAWK) formed the
second, andour Short-Ranged Air Defence
(SHORAD) systems such as the Rapier, RBS-
70, and Mistral SAMs formed the third.
-
are you ever going to learn ?
if you aint going to absorb and come up with something fresh and maybe even some new basis for arguments instead of repeating yourself like a broken record, i m just going to post this until you get it.
-
Repeating your old arguments that have been debunked will not gain you any mileage in here lionnoisy, people can read and comprehend arguments, unlike you.
You post so much for what? You still haven answered these VITAL points that are destroying your case:
1. How is it even possible to set up your kind of proposed IADS to cover the whole of Australia?
2. Is Singapore reliance on IADS a result of us having a great idea, or no choice because of our lack of depth?
3. Which viable airforce in the region can really afford to bomb
4. Which is more cost effective and practical? A lionnoisy-style IADS that waits for the enemy to come or JORN based-standoff defence based on sea and air responses?
If you cannot answer, you've just wasted your effort reposting.
-
I remember ADF did not mention the concept of Layers
Defence.The ocean is their Great Wall lah!!
Why do they need layers of defence?
U guys just very kind to say for them.
Your english comprehension fail ah?
Do you even know what defence in depth is?
The Australian kind of defence is prehaps one of the ULTIMATE examples in the region of air defence in DEPTH.
The Australians have a buffer zone of 500 KILOMETERS to respond to any enemy threat with.
It is the Singaporean defence that is the one that lacks depth
some of u say SG need heavy AA becos SG is small
and congested.Have u forget oz also get cities?
One city in Oz easily gets 3 million population.
Few bombs dropped will cause lot of problems.
WRONG, SG needs heavy AA because there is no place to put out a defence. If you want to defend something the best option is to keep the enemy AWAY from the city in the first place, and this is what the Australians are doing.
In short, our kind of air defence is practically a point defence network... in short the LAST option you want to resort to when planning for air defence.
BTW, if we don't have air superiority no matter how many guns or SAMs we put bombs and missiles are going to get through our IADS network, there is no question about it. Our network is only there to reduce the damage, not to stop it entirely.
In an era of smart standoff weapons and electronic warfare, IADS networks are vulnerable to penetration to such means. Hence the best option is still to stop the enemy from reaching in the first place, if they can reach your SAMs and guns you are already in a very bad state.
So you are suggesting the Australians divert their funds from actually having an effective air defence solution in JORN standoff to your last-ditch idea?
Wow, how logical...
-
of course,u can tell me no one will knock on Oz's door.
If it is the case,then what is the hell Oz spending billions
in defence?Oz shall follow New zealand decommissioned all
fighters/strikers.
WRONG, what we are saying is that no one CAN knock on Oz's door EASILY.
Trying to attack Australia has plenty of natural difficulties that any hostile airforce has to overcome.
PS. It's not that difficult to relocate planes across Australia FIY, they're done this plenty of times. You are trying to invent problems and questions without even bothering to see the facts before you make them... wow...
And why fly there in combat load when your combat load is waiting for you there?
Isn't it obvious why they are spending billions on their military? In fact you even made a big hoo ha about it in when they got their "mini-cv".
They want to power project.
You understand what power-projection is?
-
Besides you like to do wargames so much, tell us what will happen if the PRC airforce manages to reach us despite the RSAF and launches a standoff cruise missile saturation attack on us?
Do you think our IADS can handle that kind of attack?