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
OPFOR    RE:Indonesia buys Su-27's/30's: It had to happen. - Aussiegunner   9/5/2003 6:03:47 AM
Australia won't get any S-300 for one simple reason: its too close politically with the US. If Australia wants a system of S-300 class, it'll be expected to consider a PAC-2/3 (with some friendly arm twisting if necessary). BTW, the deal with Indonesia is primarily a market capture, not a palm oil procurement expedition. Australia's market is a US's territory.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Indonesia buys Su-27's/30's: It had to happen. - Thomas/Massive   9/5/2003 9:48:45 AM
Thomas, Vietnam wasn't considered "tank country" either, but we used our Centurions to extremely good effect there. Read about the Australian "hammer and anvil" operations, where we laid APC's and troops in ambush, then ran the tanks through a VC position. The enemy ran right into the fire of the light armoured/infantry force, and were annihalated. The power of modern man portable anti-tank weapons means that you can't do that unless you have a good MBT, so upgraded tanks are essential for us, even if we want to do high end peace enforcement work around our region. Massive, I think the bushmaster driver is intended to patrol and fight with the section. In the context that they are meant to be used, ie, low level ops on the Australian continent, patrolling would usually only be at a section level in any case, with the vehicles back at the platoon harbour with at least a section of troops to guard them. Remember also that they are not meant to be used as assault vehicles like the M-113, so it is not essential that a section be entirely in the same vehicle, as the troops would probably not deplane and assault under fire, but would drive through an ambush. In any case, you can still do a section attack with 8 troops if you have to. the man carrying the section radio is usually pretty encumbered in any case, so having the driver on the vehicle doesn't make much of a difference. The only real difference it may mean is that during a platoon attack/fighting patrol (that is not operating out of a company position), the platoon is 3 or 4 men down (ie, the ones who are left to guard the vehicles). This is really not a huge sacrifice, given that the enemy is unlikely to be above section strength, and given all the extra weapons/ammo an infantry platoon can carry when operating from vehicles(ie, automatic grenade lauchers).
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Australias defence - Massive   9/5/2003 9:52:17 AM
I think a 155 gun is the way to go, as long as it is portable by blackhawks or their replacement. We have too few Chinnoks to use them entirely for moving artillery.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/8/2003 2:05:35 AM
No offence! If you listen to an english sergeant major, the Australians win by doing everything wrong - don't spit polish their boot either. My point was not that the Aussies can use tanks in the jungle - they can. My point is: The enemy will have trouble getting the heavy equipment to the spot in time, so will you. This means there will be plenty of time to deploy light infantry and let them dig in. Once dug in the enemy - with or without tanks - will have a very difficult time digging them out!
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/8/2003 6:24:51 AM
No offence taken. I'll try not to write in an offended tone in future(lol). I do however think that MBT's can be moved into position as quickly as any other equipment, that isn't moved by chopper. In particular, they would be great for dominating the few big, important roads that cut through PNG and Timor. A modern MBT advancing up these routes would be virtually unstoppable, and is the best way to ensure a quick exit for the Indonesians.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/8/2003 6:48:44 AM
OK Aussiegunner. The respect of Aussies is so great, you tend to err on the side of caution. Why not station som MBT's at these places -and fly personel in? What I was more thinking of was that Indonesia have an awful of islands - and when you want to adjust their attitude, it's probably because they are building airfields. A batch of para's to secure the field during the lunch break, then fly in the real light infantry.
 
Quote    Reply

Massive    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/8/2003 7:44:57 AM
The other advantage in such areas is that reasonably dense cover would limit the use of ATGMs such as Kornet - which would destroy a Leopard I from the front. Against a Leopard II - not so sure? Time for an upgrade?
 
Quote    Reply

Interrested    RE:Australias defence - Aussiegunner   9/8/2003 7:49:22 AM
ehhh correct me if i'm wrong, but if you were planning to take out some airfields...why don't you just bomb it into very nasty little pieces? Add some nice anti personel bomblets, etc etc etc and it WILL take them some time to get going again. I know the f111 is getting old, but put a taurus/shalp/ etc capabillity on them and they'll get you trough to the year 2010 at which time you could possibly get your shiny new JSF's (there is a reason why Australia wanted the option to fill the bomb bay's with big fuel tank's, even just one bomb per aircraft could be enough to project some air power) Anyways, if Indonesia would attack, wouldn't why have to come over sea? because, they currectly lack a big airlift capability so they will have to use some sort of amphibious shipping (which they don't have enough). And when doing so, wouldnt they be a very nice targets for the aussie's subs, harpoon armed F-18's surface ships or even land based artilery? (assuming the would have to come to about 10/20 km out of the shore) If they were to have some sort of airlift....good target practice even for elerly hawk's it should be no problem "help" them think differently. (Yes, amraam's/ pac2/3 patriot's/etc would do an even better job) They first would have to get air dominance over australia's/ new zeeland's territory...And well a upgraded hornet force backed up with land and air based radar system's would be a tough nut to crack. I don't see how the indonesian's could get on the aussie's/new zeeland's mainland. Anyway if when the sh*t hits the fan "big brother" will not just stand by...look at those pretty carriers/ f-22's/B2 /B52 /LHA etc etc etc the list goes on and on... No if indonesia has any sence at all it won't even THINK of going down south. The worse thing that can happen is that the aussie's power projection will suffer a bit...that's not to bad as they selden do anything really dangerous solo.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Australias defence - Interested   9/8/2003 6:31:18 PM
I think I have said elsewhere that we have no reason to be worried about an Indonesian invasion, for all the reasons you have mentioned. We are more likely to get into a war in one of the islands to our north, like Papua New Guniea and East Timor, which are under Australian protection and boarder on Indonesian territories. In these places, it would be better to be able to beat the Indonesian military on the ground than to have to an interdiction and insurgency campaign. Sinking the Indonesian navy, destroying their airforce, arming the locals and waiting for their army to starve to surrender would work in perhaps 6 months. However it would also kill lots of innocent citizens of New Guinea and East Timor and, in the case of New Guinea, would leave a lot of guns in the hands of people who are essentially tribes 1 generation out of cannibalism and headhunting.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Australias defence - Interested   9/8/2003 6:33:24 PM
The other possible conflict is over the oil/gas fields in the Timor sea. A massive bombing campaign over these interests may not be justified, hence we also need fighters/AWAC's/Air warfare ships capable of consistantly defeating the Indonesian SU-27's in the air.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics