Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Indonesia buys Su-27's/30's: It had to happen.
Aussiegunner    7/29/2003 7:26:09 AM
I read a bit of bad news for all of us Aussies today. Indonesia is to take purchase of 2 SU-27's and 2 SU-30's, the first of a possible 24 of each type to be bought. Apparently this puts our upgraded F/A-18 force 4th in quality, behind Singapore and Malaysia(fortunately both allies), and Indonesia, in our immediate region. The Hornet's are also suffering centre barrel fatigue, which means that training hours are being limited to preserve the airframes. To make it worse, the Indonesians are looking at buying S-300's and an intergrated air-defence system, which seriously degrades the deterrant posed by our F-111's and their AGM-142's. While the current Indonesian government is relitively friendly, their are lots of Generals who are pissed off about our involvement in the liberation of East Timor. If their were a coup, it could spell trouble for us. I don't see that our government has any choice but to upgrade our airforce, to get us through the next 10 years before the JSF can be expected to arrive. Possible options are, -Leasing/buying new fighters until the JSF arrives. The late model F-16's would solve the fatigue problems of the F-18's, but would not give a real advantage over the SU-27. -An F-18E/EF-18G combo would be formidable, with the EW aircraft giving us a real advantage, though I don't like the idea of the "E's" getting caught without the "G's". This plan would however have training/maintainance advantages, as we already use F-18's. -A "silver bullet" force of F-22's has been suggested as part of the JSF buy, to give us a clear air to air advantage over any adversary. The government has rejected this, but mabye the idea or a variation of it needs to be introduced to get us through the next few years. While the F-22 may be to expensive/not available to Australia, a squadron of Typhoon's, to replace the oldest F-18's, may give us the edge we need. The F-18's could then be kept in reserve and rotated through the remaining squadrons, to extend the life of the force and give the pilots the hours they need. This would also give us an independent ability to provide dissimilar air combat training, though it would introduce another completely different logistics train. -ALCM's like the Joint Standoff Weapon for the F-111's, outranging the S-300s would provide us with the deterrant we need. They would also mean the F-111's could continue to adopt the less demanding high-level approach. -Long-range missile defences(ie, Patriots), for our northern facilites and for Darwin has also been suggested. Any thoughts on this?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Thomas    RE:Australias defence   9/3/2003 6:24:24 AM
Well that was my next question: How do you plan to detect the bad guys?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Australias defence   9/4/2003 12:03:14 AM
With the over-the-horizon radar network for a start. This system has an awesome capability. During the Timor crisis, it was able to track C-130's landing at Dili airfield, 400km off our coast. It has been reported that it can detect targets even further out than that, on sea and in the air, and it covers the entire northern, north-eastern and north-western approaches to the continent. We are also getting at least 4, possibly 7 new purpose designed AWAC's for more accurate detection over high-threat areas, and for coverage of any blind spots in the over-the- horizon network. We also have 19 P-3 Orions for maritime survelance, upgraded to C standard, and unnofficially 2 are highly modified to EP-3 standard for ELINT. There is a major electronic intellegence facility in North-Queensland. Our F-18's can all take reconnasaince pods and we have 4 F-111's with bomb bay mounted recon packs. We are also involved in developing the Global Hawk long range UAV with the US, which will be able to patrol coastal area's for 24 hours at a time. We have 15 patrol boats on duty in Northern Australia, and also patrol with our frigates. Our submarines are amongst the quietest in the world, and are heavily involved in gaining acoustic intelligence in the seas to our North and West. If need be we can deploy the Special Air Services regiment from them to gain intellegence from our neighbours. We also have a very strong human intellegence network in South-East Asia, with the US reportedly getting 80 percent of its intellegence on Indonesia from Australia. If any bad guys do manage to land, we have a battalion of specialised recon troops in each of the Northern territory, Western Australia and Queensland. The regular army is also very recon oriented, and in particular we have several cavalry regiments that are equipped/equipping with LAV's, that are very good at long-range armoured recon, along with a force of recon choppers (that will be upgrading from Kiowas to Eurocopter Tigers next year). Finally, the army has deployed its first UAV in the Solomens, and I guess this trend will continue. What you can derive from this as that our forces are very well equiped for recon/intellegence and surveilance. This, combined with our abiltiy to hit hard once a target has been detected (ie, with F-111's and other assets) is the way that we compensate for our small defence force.
 
Quote    Reply

Massive    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/4/2003 12:53:55 AM
AG, Given your comment in this thread and that on the Australian Navy, you appear generally happy with the broad structure of Australian continental defence and have a future structure in mind. I was wondering what you thoughts are with regard to the army? In particular: 1. Leopard I replacement. 2. M-113 upgrade 3. ASLAV purchase 4. Bushmaster (I note from your previous reply in this thread that you are pro to at least some extent) 5. Artillery 6. Helicopter assets 7. Available combat units (infantry battalions etc.) 8. The commando regiment Realise this is quite a lot - and maybe requires a new thread on another board. I am just building up my own view on these things and will be very interested inyou opinion.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Australias defence -    9/4/2003 1:19:01 AM
If you have that amount of control and warning, I think the question of which fighter You use is secondary.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/4/2003 4:19:41 AM
I think the army is well and truly capable of fulfilling its base defence role in northern Australia. Remember of course that in the event of an armed incursion in the north, we would have a much higher tolerance for casualties than for an overseas adventure. Hence, we would probably accept that reserve troops would not recieve the workup that they would like prior to the conflict and may have to conduct some training while they are stationed near the bases they are to defend. That said the regualar army is well trained, rapidly deployable and probably just big enough to fulfill this role until the reserves arrive. On equipment, the Bushmaster is an economical way of rapidly moving light battalions from the south, with adequate protection from ambush, and the ASLAV is a good reconassaince/light fire support platform for Australian conditions. Our utility helecopter force could do with an increase, especially the Chinooks of which you can't get enough. However, it is great to see that we are getting a real gunship/armed recon chopper, in the form of the Aussie Tiger. The Leopard 1 is still a useful asset for dislodging larger forces, given that nobody is going to get a ship full of MBT's across the ocean to challenge it. However, it is vulnerable to modern light anti-armour weapons, so a replacement is needed if casualties are to be avoided. On artillery, the light gun is a reasonable compromise between range and air-mobility, given that we need to be able to deploy our forces into places like Papua New Guinea. However, a wheeled self-propelled 155mm unit would be ideal, but that isn't going to happen so there is no point worrying about it. But..... the army is not adequately equipped and manned to be confident of winning conflicts in the islands surrounding Australia. This is even the case against a well armed gurrilla force (equiped with man-portable SAM's and ATGW, mortars and automatic weapons, possibly supplied by the likes of China), let alone the Indonesian military. This is especially the case if an enemy were to land light forces in Australia, as the regular army would need to stay at home until the reserves were up to strength. In the meantime, we have lost PNG or East Timor to the Indonesians. We would have a lower casualty tolerance in this instance, so better tanks and the ability to deploy them is the key. I prefer the Merverka, because it can carry troops and is the best tank for the infantry fighting role that we would most likely take. However, everybody seems to have their heart set on the Leopard 2, which would still be a massive boost to our capabilities. In an island fighting scenario, our helecopter force would definately need a boost, as many places are only accessable by chopper. Apart from that, the main issues is the numbers of troops on the ground (completely inadequate for anything but a low to medium level peace enforcement effort, at present) and the ability to transport them, which is a problem for the airforce and navy. At the present time, to win a conflict in PNG or East Timor, we would have to resort to a campaign of arming the friendly locals and interdicting the Indonesian military effort by air and sea. We would ultimately win this type of war, but it would take some time(6 months to a year). It would come at a huge financial cost to us and a huge cost to the innocents caught up in an extended conflict, so I think it would be better if we were able to land a adequately manned and technologically superior armoured/airmobile force, supported by air and sea. This would act as a real deterrant to propective agressors.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/4/2003 4:19:44 AM
I think the army is well and truly capable of fulfilling its base defence role in northern Australia. Remember of course that in the event of an armed incursion in the north, we would have a much higher tolerance for casualties than for an overseas adventure. Hence, we would probably accept that reserve troops would not recieve the workup that they would like prior to the conflict and may have to conduct some training while they are stationed near the bases they are to defend. That said the regualar army is well trained, rapidly deployable and probably just big enough to fulfill this role until the reserves arrive. On equipment, the Bushmaster is an economical way of rapidly moving light battalions from the south, with adequate protection from ambush, and the ASLAV is a good reconassaince/light fire support platform for Australian conditions. Our utility helecopter force could do with an increase, especially the Chinooks of which you can't get enough. However, it is great to see that we are getting a real gunship/armed recon chopper, in the form of the Aussie Tiger. The Leopard 1 is still a useful asset for dislodging larger forces, given that nobody is going to get a ship full of MBT's across the ocean to challenge it. However, it is vulnerable to modern light anti-armour weapons, so a replacement is needed if casualties are to be avoided. On artillery, the light gun is a reasonable compromise between range and air-mobility, given that we need to be able to deploy our forces into places like Papua New Guinea. However, a wheeled self-propelled 155mm unit would be ideal, but that isn't going to happen so there is no point worrying about it. But..... the army is not adequately equipped and manned to be confident of winning conflicts in the islands surrounding Australia. This is even the case against a well armed gurrilla force (equiped with man-portable SAM's and ATGW, mortars and automatic weapons, possibly supplied by the likes of China), let alone the Indonesian military. This is especially the case if an enemy were to land light forces in Australia, as the regular army would need to stay at home until the reserves were up to strength. In the meantime, we have lost PNG or East Timor to the Indonesians. We would have a lower casualty tolerance in this instance, so better tanks and the ability to deploy them is the key. I prefer the Merverka, because it can carry troops and is the best tank for the infantry fighting role that we would most likely take. However, everybody seems to have their heart set on the Leopard 2, which would still be a massive boost to our capabilities. In an island fighting scenario, our helecopter force would definately need a boost, as many places are only accessable by chopper. Apart from that, the main issues is the numbers of troops on the ground (completely inadequate for anything but a low to medium level peace enforcement effort, at present) and the ability to transport them, which is a problem for the airforce and navy. At the present time, to win a conflict in PNG or East Timor, we would have to resort to a campaign of arming the friendly locals and interdicting the Indonesian military effort by air and sea. We would ultimately win this type of war, but it would take some time(6 months to a year). It would come at a huge financial cost to us and a huge cost to the innocents caught up in an extended conflict, so I think it would be better if we were able to land a adequately manned and technologically superior armoured/airmobile force, supported by air and sea. This would act as a real deterrant to propective agressors.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Australias defence -    9/4/2003 4:26:03 AM
I agree that our survellance capability is fairly formidable, but you have to remember that the SU-27 has a big radar and a long range. The fighters that we use still have to be able to beat it in the air in their own right, or be supported by strong EW assets to tilt the contest in our favour. I think that a jammer aircraft like the EF-111 or the new EF-18G is the biggest hole in our defence capability at present. Given that even a squadron would give our airforce such a huge edge, I think it should be a priority for defence planners.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Australias defence -    9/4/2003 5:30:44 AM
Well I was just remembering the scenarios of the late 1970'ies where Denmark used F-104G Starfighters against F-15 Eagles. If you can vector them in from behind - not using own radar - and then get the h*** out of there. the attacker has a mission to stick to, so he won't be manoevering to much.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/4/2003 5:35:11 AM
It seem to me that your territorial defence is all right, but what should be improved is the ability to deploy light forces rapidly. As far as I've heard East Timor and NG is not exactly the best tank country. Thus i concur that helo's and transportplanes should be on the shopping list - and anybody taking issue with Aussie light troops are in for a VERY nasty surprise.
 
Quote    Reply

Massive    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/4/2003 12:17:32 PM
Thanks. Some comments. I am surprised that the bushmaster carries 1+8. As an Australian infantry squad has 9 men does this mean they drive there, laager the trucks and then operate? Or does the driver + 1 stay in the Bushmaster and operate an LMG? Point taken on the mine/ambush protection - just wondering if it shouldn't be more like 2+9. The gaffe of Sen. Hill and PM Howard re. Australia offerring an Armoured brigade for Iraq made me hope that they may think that some sort of an upgrade to Australian armoured capability would be required. A mech brigade could be put together (I don't think an Armoured brigade would be desirable). Restoring the Leopard (preferably re-equipped with Leopard II) to regimental strength (regular army) and having 2 battalions with upgraded M-113s - as would a wheeled armoured SP 155mm (preferably a regiment rather than just a battery). But, as you say, this would be dreaming. It would be relatively cheap though (compared to airforce/Navy buys). Add in the cavalry regiment and this would be a very potent force (a strong deterrant to anyone planning to visit and a capable expeditionary force). I do acknowledge that there would be a significantly higher manpower requirement but feel that if Australia wants to maintain its peacekeeping operations at the same intensity it will need to expand the Army infantry number anyway. I would see a need for 2 more battalions at least and they could be divided as follows: 4 Infantry 1 Para 2 mech infantry 1 Commando I understand that the army is talking about moving to 155mm anyway. Other than for the para battery there does not seem to be any strong reason against this.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics