Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??
DropBear    6/13/2005 4:53:55 AM
In response to lacrobat's comment wrt "Why not cut the JSFs entirely?" I am interested to know how many of you believe the F-111, F-18 and Hawk127 are a complete waste of time, resources, money, training, funding, manpower etc etc etc... What would you spend the allocated funds on otherwise? You know my views, what are yours...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
DropBear    Southern Cross   6/15/2005 5:29:17 AM
Show me anywhere on this entire website, not just the Oz page, where I have stated that the Navy has done nothing (either now or in the last 50 years), is a waste of resources and should be abolished. I have never once said that, and you know damn well I haven't!!! I have voiced my opinion that... 1. The AWD contract seems too expensive at $6B for three ships. 2. The AWD hasn't been needed yet as our current forces have not undergone saturation anti-ship missile attack to date. 3. I have stated that if we are to buy them, they should be Arleigh Burke classed or at least bought off the shelf OS. 4. I have NOT ONCE suggested the Navy should be abolished. Although, I have read a couple of other posters here say that the RAAF air combat element should be disbanded. I await your direct quote eagerly. I won't hold my breath. :(
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    Fall out?   6/15/2005 5:34:36 AM
>>>haha, yes that's right, such as when i suggested the money saved on not buying them could be spent on more collins and anzacs...<<< collins- the boat has long since sailed ofr more of these babies Anzac's- Dear god why? I did say DECENT ships didnt I. These things would probably find it extremely difficult to defend themselves against more than one threat, let alone defend ANY other ships in a task group from anything. Do you not realise just how weak these things actually are. They could not, on any level what-so-ever protect other ships from air attack. All they have is ESSM which is pretty close range, inner layer stuff, doesnt compare on any level imaginable to AEGIS and SM-2 which provides a 150km buffer.
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    RE:Southern Cross   6/15/2005 5:44:22 AM
>>>1. The AWD contract seems too expensive at $6B for three ships. 2. The AWD hasn't been needed yet as our current forces have not undergone saturation anti-ship missile attack to date. 3. I have stated that if we are to buy them, they should be Arleigh Burke classed or at least bought off the shelf OS.<<< 1. Well you pay for what you get, build em elsehwere and they would be cheaper, but is that really a political option. 2.But if they ever do, and if dozens of bleeps appear on a CSO's radar, it will be about a dozen years too late to start building them. And its not about having them to throw back swarms of enemy missiles/jets, its also about having 99% confidence that any threat will be dealt with, and its about expanding the area which a ship can protect. Its about being positive that our people, and our assets, and our maritime interests are protected, surely you cannot argue with that. Well AEGIS buys this safety, layered defence is insurance, and is much better than playing russian roullette with anti-shipping missiles by relying on weak radar, and short range weapons. Your argument here is pretty weak and irrelevant. 3. Well off the shelf AB's are too man power heavy, kongo's are oversize, and i would think Norway's frigates are too small. only option i can see here is the Spanish ship, and its on the cards, but the ADF will (hopefully) purchase the best choice if that is the F-100 then your hope will have been realised.
 
Quote    Reply

ThePuss    RE:Fall out?   6/15/2005 5:44:24 AM
150nm if the target is coming in a 30 000 feet. 13 nm is the max distance we will be able to shoot out to if the target is a sea skimmer, which it probably would be. I'm not saying we don't need AEGIS and SM2 because we very much do. But i have been part of seven ESSM launches and I know for a fact that it is a hot missile. Just remember that while it may be a "Upgrade" i use that term very losely because it so much more. The NSSM may be for point defence but the ESSM isn't limited to that.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??   6/15/2005 5:48:56 AM
The HMAS Hobart was attacked by US fighters, funny that. Three missiles fired at widely spaced intervals is not exactly a saturation missile attack. Aegis was designed to defeat scores of sea skimmers launched by soviet bombers. The AWDs are less likely to be used to their full potential than the JSF. The AWDs shouldn't be used for NGFS either. I don't think it's worth risking a 2 billion dollar ship to shore batteries, thats something for the ANZACs to do. that has done SFA for half a century, wasting how much money that the deployable services could use? So the Korean and Vietnam wars don't count as deployments and I suppose all they did their was fly at airshows? Save a fortune on admin, strike manning, equip and training and useless 'fighter' Sqns, whilst giving the fighters to a service that will take them in harms way. Hows that going to work. I can't remember exactly, but a sortie launched from a carrier is significantly more expensive, at least twice as expensive, it may be more I'm not sure. Then you are going to need 2 reasonable size carriers, some carrier based AWACs, more frigates and destroyers to provide protection to such valuable assets, probably a 4 or 5 nuclear subs, replenishment ships etc etc etc. The army aviation will lack focus all together. It's commanders will be torn between trying to conduct an offensive air campaign without the proper resources and demands from their superiors that their aircraft be used for CAS. Also, duplication in maintenance and support structures. I'm not sure what the figures are now, but in 1999 the combat fleet of the RAAF was only around 16% of the total defence budget. Thats good value for the most flexible and most deployable force we have. I'd just like to say again I don't think airpower is the solution to all problems but you'd have to have rocks in your head to think that we don't need it.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    SC   6/15/2005 5:50:56 AM
" >>>When the Centurions were in battle, so were the Canberra bombers. You can't just pick tanks and forget about the capability of the air combat fleet<<< You were doing the exact same thing with the navy mate, dont criticise one for doing the same thing as you only on the opposite side of the fence. " Still waiting for this fabulous example of fence sitting or that I apparently want the Navy abolished......
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    RE:Fall out?   6/15/2005 5:55:25 AM
Well yes ESSM may be more capable and versatle than the previous SeaSparrow, but it still relies on a seperate fire-control radar, and its range still is far exceeded by SM-2. And even with AEGIS tracking a sea skimmer at only 13nm then it will still be much quicker to get a shot off at it. And you can be guarenteed that you can, unlike with other ships where you may have a fire-control radar tied up trying to get other threats. AEGIS and a mix of SM-2/ESSM/CIWS buys insurance that may be more expensive in money terms, but is pricless where it counts, protecting life and completing a dangerous mission.
 
Quote    Reply

ThePuss    RE:Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??   6/15/2005 5:55:46 AM
that has done SFA for half a century, wasting how much money that the deployable services could use? So the Korean and Vietnam wars don't count as deployments and I suppose all they did their was fly at airshows? I hate to let you into a little secret AussieEngineer but the RAAF did not serve in Korea at all. It was the Fleet Air Arm.
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    RE:Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??   6/15/2005 5:57:26 AM
>>>The HMAS Hobart was attacked by US fighters, funny that. Three missiles fired at widely spaced intervals is not exactly a saturation missile attack.<<< And yet she wtill got hit by them. So it seems It takes far less than a saturation missile attack to pose a serious threat.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    The Puss - HISTORY LESSON   6/15/2005 6:03:06 AM
"I hate to let you into a little secret AussieEngineer but the RAAF did not serve in Korea at all. It was the Fleet Air Arm." Since when did the RAN FAA fly Meteors out of Kempo Field??????????????? I'm sorry, but I thought Mustangs were flown by the RAAF. I shall throw away my RAAF history book as it is obviously wrong. Back to basics...
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics